Is BrillianceScope Reliable?

[Rhino]

Hi Al,

Scroll on down.

----------------
On 1/15/2004 2:05:07 PM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 1/15/2004 12:14:34 PM Rhino wrote:



Aldejay... the repeatability of it is as excellent as any other technology for measuring diamonds----------------

But, Jonathan, that's precisely my point. It's may be as good as any other fancy 'technological tool', but that doesn't make any of them reliable enough to substitute for a hands-on (or more accurately, eyes-on) evaluation.

Yes but you are forgetting something. It's results correlate with human eye observation. I would agree there are some stones whose results it would be impossible to *see* but time and time again, when given the pepsi challenge the greater majority of our clients, when shown 2 H&A side by side with differing BrillianceScope results can and do see the difference. If it did not correlate with human eye observation it would be good for the trash as far as I'm concerned.

I noted that the same diamond can be scanned in the b/scope three separate times and yield three separate (and varying) results.

Oh really? Then either their machine was bogus or you have been given faulty information. I have ran the same diamond multiple times and get the same exact results every time. Even on a stone that was ran 6 months after I had ran it initially. If we were to break down the readings into L1, L2, L3, M1, M2, M3, H1, H2, H3, VH1, VH2, VH3 (Low = low, M = med, H = High, and VH = Very High) the greatest variance I have seen may be from H1 to H2 or H3 to VH1. Never and I repeat NEVER do they vary so much as to misrepresent the diamond being tested.

If you're telling me that the B/scope is as reliable as any other technology, then you're essentially saying that none of the technologies can produce repeatable results. There's a difference between something being 'good' and something being 'as good as anything else'.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the BrillianceScope's repeatability is as better if not moreso than a Sarin or OGI machine. When you run the same exact diamond on a Sarin or OGI it is likely to get slightly different readings each time. Everyone who owns one knows this. However the slight differences from reading to reading do not misrepresent the diamond being tested. It is exactly the same with the BrillianceScope. Whoever told you this makes it sound like it gives wacky variances and different results each time and is a technology that is not to be trusted. This couldn't be further from the truth. I know because I use it daily and before I even commited to keeping the technology in our store I had tested many stones whose light return and brilliance I was already familiar with. If the technology couldn't be relied upon Aldejay I'd be the first to expose it's bogusness. Having had prior experience with the FireScope and then LightScope I was not walking into the learning of B'scope technology with no knowledge and the two explain each other.

Put another way: Assume I'm one of ten students taking an exam. I and the other nine students score 70 out of a possible 100 on the exam. The fact that I scored as well as any other student taking the test doesn't mean I did well on exam. Doing well on the exam would be scoring a 90 or better. Same thing with the B/Scope.

Not so. A diamond can not score well on the BrillianceScope if it is not displaying the proper optical properties. If light is not being returned through the crown at stronger or weaker intensities the diamond will not score appropriately. I have written a tutorial on this very subject and can show you diamond after diamond after diamond which score such and such on the BrillianceScope and more importantly show you why it scored as it did with LightScope.

Again, I'm not saying that information from the b/scope cannot be useful. I'm saying that a consumer should take this (and any other techie toy) with a grain of salt and look at the total picture when trying to select a diamond. If every indicator points to a diamond being a GREAT performer, but the b/scope shows 3 highs instead of 3 VHs......I think it would be a mistake to discard that diamond from consideration JUST because the b/scope results weren't VH.

Who said 3 Highs were bad? There are certain minimums we look for when we are performing an analysis and we do let our clients know what those minimums are via our tutorial on the B'scope. We show our clients any stones they want to see side by side and let them choose for themself. However many people can not come to our store and if they want a representation of how brilliant, how fiery, how scintillating a diamond is going to look in direct light conditions there is no better technology on the market to represent the beauty of the stone in those light conditions than the BrillianceScope. Multitudes of people have witnessed this for themselves who have come to see for themselves.

Aldejay ... have you actually compared 2 diamonds (or H&A's side by side) that did have varying BrillianceScope results to make the judgment for yourself?

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 1/15/2004 8:37:12 PM niceice wrote:





I still want to see a well cut yellow diamond run on the Brilliance Scope... Since several of the dealers here on PS have a Brilliance Scope on the premises, this should be easy enough to do... Is anybody besides us wondering why nobody wants to do it?

----------------

I currently do not have any fancy or fancy intense yellows in my inventory. When I do I'd be more than happy to show you the results. When I get up to the store I'll see if I have any saved from the past.

Rhino

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 1/15/2004 11:36:41 PM pqcollectibles wrote:





When I was buying last spring, I can't count the number of BS light pic motion loops I watched. This diamond. That diamond. I wondered how close the loop came to what you would see in real life.

Brilliance Scope pics are taken of the diamond laying its table on a glass plate with the the light source in motion. Glass has optical properties of its own. The table of the diamond gets blasted with light much like a flash bulb taking a photograph.

Diamonds don't spend life sitting on their tables in box of flashbulbs going off like a red carpet at a movie premier. Diamonds rock and roll on the motion of people with all types of light entering from many angles.

The Brilliance Scope is simply a screening tool for buying without seeing in person. Rolling a diamond and watching it play with light with your own set of eyes cannot be replaced by any means. Personal interaction is the ultimate test.

----------------

This is absolutely correct PQ. The light conditions that the B'scope examines diamonds under are not what we would typically view diamonds under. Nobody walks around with a circular ring of white light attached to their nose.

What is key however is the results of the testing and how it correlates with human eye observation. Please do not miss this point. As I've said before if it did not correlate with human eye observation it'd be good for the trash! Anyone here who doubts me is invited to come to my store and take the pepsi challenge for themselves. Of people who I've shown it to greater than 90% have been able to see the difference for themselves. I don't push it, I teach, show, and let people make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions.

Peace
Rhino

 

[caratgirl]

I must say, I agree with Rhino. When I was looking for my diamond, the GIA specs and HCA score (1.2) got me interested enough to drive to DBOF to take a look. Then, I compared it to other stones. The clincher was the BS results and how they correlated to what I thought I was seeing. When it is your own purchase instead of a theoretical one, it is very nice to have your 'seeing' opinion verified by the BS results.

By the way, Rhino, how well does the Idealscope image correlate to what the BS shows, in your opinion?

 

[pqcollectibles]

We are discussing an issue that is abstract. How people perceive the performance of diamonds. And how to quantify that abstract perception in some scientific way. I have not commented on the reproducibility of the Brilliance Scope. I have commented on the use of a scientific application where the ultimate choice is based on human perception. Human perception and preferences lead people to choose one diamond over another. IMHO, science cannot quantify that choice.

Jonathan has talked about showing customers diamonds that do not score equally. In the Pepsi Challenge, Jonathan says customers can see the difference between the diamond that scores well on the Brilliance Scope and one that does not. What happens when diamonds that score relatively the same on the Brilliance Scope are presented to customers? Don't they ultimately choose ONE above the others? ONE diamond called to them. ONE diamond spoke to them.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 1/16/2004 8:51:16 PM Rhino wrote:

when given the pepsi challenge the greater majority of our clients, when shown 2 H&A side by side with differing BrillianceScope results can and do see the difference.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that a customer can readily see a difference between an H3 diamond and a VH1 diamond?

Oh really? Then either their machine was bogus or you have been given faulty information. I have ran the same diamond multiple times and get the same exact results every time

I'm not challenging your experience, Jonathan......but this feedback was not from *one* vendor. It came from *several* of your esteemed peers as well as a non-vendor or two. The skeptic in me finds it highly improbable that ALL of them had bogus machines or that ALL of them were using it incorrectly. I respect all the differing expert opinions here, but there is not a significant enough percentage on either side to make me consider this a slam-dunk, must-have item.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the BrillianceScope's repeatability is as better if not moreso than a Sarin or OGI machine.

EXACTLY, but this isn't a comparison of gizmos, as much as you seem to want to make it one. No one ever said the Sarin or OGI was the be-all, end all either. It's a tool to help weed out poor performers, but it falls short of DEFINITELY assuring a strong performer. I'm suggesting that the same disclaimer that gets applied to "the numbers" should also be applied to the b/scope: "It's a great tool, but it's not a guarantee......so the final determinant should be a set of trained eyes."

I know all the technology is what really lights your tree, Jonathan, but it still isn't a solid substitute for the human eye. I'm an avid photographer, and there have been great technological advances in cameras, but they still cannot capture the nuances and spectrum range and depth of field that the human eye perceives.

Who said 3 Highs were bad

Not me.....and in fact, that's exactly my point. Once folks go down the road of "quantifiable" tools, they tend to want "the best". Anything less than the best may still be good, even great.....but it isn't "the best". As humans, we get brainwashed into thinking that if a machine tells us this one's better, then it MUST be. We want the ULTIMATE.

Remember our friend who came here recently wanting a 1.5 D, IF stone that scored all EX on the HCA? Do you think that he should have discarded YOUR D, IF stone from consideration because it scored EX-EX-EX-VG? I don't......and I said so. Just because it didn't score the last EX doesn't mean it wasn't a KNOCKOUT stone.....and that's my point on the b/scope. I've watched a bunch of people come here saying they want "this" stone because they have to have ALL VH3. My point is that folks shouldn't discard a stone from consideration just because it scores an H3 if all other indicators suggest the stone should perform well.
----------------

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 1/17/2004 1:28:40 AM aljdewey wrote:



Do you think that he should have discarded YOUR D, IF stone from consideration because it scored EX-EX-EX-VG? I don't......and I said so. Just because it didn't score the last EX doesn't mean it wasn't a KNOCKOUT stone.....and that's my point on the b/scope. I've watched a bunch of people come here saying they want 'this' stone because they have to have ALL VH3. My point is that folks shouldn't discard a stone from consideration just because it scores an H3 if all other indicators suggest the stone should perform well.
----------------

Al, this is a good point, but I am afraid that the underlying issue is even worse. One cannot measure "perfection" with an imperfect tool. In this case, for example, if two stones were rate at, say, half interval from each other (say one mind H, one mid VH) it does not mean that the better scoring one does reflect more light, or is in any way DIFFRENT than the other. The stones could be pronounced different according to B-scope only if repeated measurements produced results far apart by more than the error interval of the scale. Since no one bothered to measure what these errors are and casual repeated measurements of the same stone produced results half an interval apart, than the precision of Bscope is at most of half an interval - enough to make the difference between adjacent slots immaterial, irrelevant, not fitted as a basis for decision.

I might have read you comment wrongly, but to me the quoted lines mean that there is no perceptible quality difference between Vh and Ex levels and both reflect the best quality available. True: in theory, this particular tool is not capable to discern among these stones.

My Conclusion: salt brings out the best flavor in fish and diamonds.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 1/17/2004 7:48:42 AM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
On 1/17/2004 1:28:40 AM aljdewey wrote:







Do you think that he should have discarded YOUR D, IF stone from consideration because it scored EX-EX-EX-VG? I don't......and I said so. Just because it didn't score the last EX doesn't mean it wasn't a KNOCKOUT stone.....and that's my point on the b/scope. I've watched a bunch of people come here saying they want 'this' stone because they have to have ALL VH3. My point is that folks shouldn't discard a stone from consideration just because it scores an H3 if all other indicators suggest the stone should perform well.
----------------

I might have read you comment wrongly, but to me the quoted lines mean that there is no perceptible quality difference between Vh and Ex levels and both reflect the best quality available. True: in theory, this particular tool is not capable to discern among these stones.

----------------

You did read my comment wrongly. There are several gadgets and gizmos available today to help folks narrow down the field of consideration from hundreds of diamonds to a few strong candidates. Those tools are wonderful for THAT purpose.

They cannot, however, definitely tell you that a stone will DEFINITELY perform well....the final test is the eyes.

You're absolutely right....one cannot measure perfection with an imperfect tool. My point was that all of these tools may be helpful, but they aren't PERFECT.....so the information gleaned from them should be considered accordingly.

 

[fire&ice]

I find it fascinating that diamond dealers don't run all these test *prior* to them shelling out their money. My 2cents on this subject - they don't need it - I don't need it.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 1/16/2004 1:11:23 AM niceice wrote:





The point of discussion is not whether the Brilliance Scope has the capability of measuring different levels of light return, but rather whether it is accurate... A watch might have half second marks, but that doesn't mean that it is running on time. There is a reason why the major gemological laboratories decided not to use it after extensive testing.
----------------

Hi folks,

Sorry for popping in and out but I'm doing so as time allows me to catch up on this thread.

R/T, I'm don't think you're aware of this but the reason major gemological laboratories are not using it isn't becuase of inaccuracy. The major reason is because Gemex has copywrite over all the images and reports generated with the technoloogy and $$$ must be paid for each report or online gif that is generated. One of the heads of research at GIA told us at one of our Alumni chapter meetings (here in Long Island) that if Gemex didn't have strings attached to their images they would indeed be using it. Dr. Eileen Reinitz and I had a discussion about our findings on the minor facets and the fact that extending the stars and lower girdles increases fire within the diamond and we were both amazed how we had both come to the same conclusions using different methods. GIA with ray trace software, me with the BrillianceScope & Sarin. If our research had collided that would have given me reason to doubt but every person scientist in this industry and any other technologies used do nothing but confirm the accuracy of the instrument.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Valeria,




You hit the nail square on the head regarding your assessment.




Rhino




I would also add that it would be virtually impossible to tell the difference between 2 stones that got these results.




/idealbb/files/bscompare.gif

 

[valeria101]

Thanks! It is reassuring to know that I would not be spreading errors around PS... after all I handle numbers all day, not diamonds (darn!).

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Hi Caratgirl,




Good question.




The IS and the FireScope are good indicators but not as exacting as our LightScope. In IS/FS all the reds appear to be of the same saturation and it's difficult to differentiate between the dark and lighter reds. Dark reds are indicative of light being returned at a greater intensity while lighter or more pale reds light being returned at a weaker intensity. Amazingly the BrillianceScope shows the results of this as well.




Below is an excellent example that demonstrates my point. Here are 2 stones that have identical crown angles, pavilion angles and table size. 34.3 crown, 40.9 pavilion and 56 table. Very cherry numbers. However their optical results are different (although both are very beautiful stones).




Here is a test for our PS readers. Guess which diamond has the more intense light return? Which diamond would you think gets the higher BrillianceScope results? The diamond on the left or the diamond on the right?

 

[Rhino]

...

 

[Hodne]

I would think the one on the left!?
Whats the prize?

 

[Rhino]

A D IF!

hehe

 

[Rhino]

Hello again Aljdewey,

I love conversation like this as it stimulates deeper thought and helps us strive to dig deeper to get the answers we're looking for. My response will be in bold and in red.

----------------
On 1/17/2004 1:28:40 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 1/16/2004 8:51:16 PM Rhino wrote:

when given the pepsi challenge the greater majority of our clients, when shown 2 H&A side by side with differing BrillianceScope results can and do see the difference.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that a customer can readily see a difference between an H3 diamond and a VH1 diamond?

No. Not when the differences are this minute. I had also stated this earlier in response to Valeria's point.

Oh really? Then either their machine was bogus or you have been given faulty information. I have ran the same diamond multiple times and get the same exact results every time

I'm not challenging your experience, Jonathan......but this feedback was not from *one* vendor. It came from *several* of your esteemed peers as well as a non-vendor or two. The skeptic in me finds it highly improbable that ALL of them had bogus machines or that ALL of them were using it incorrectly.

Or perhaps that things didn't test as expected? I can't speak for others but I can speak from my own experience. Before having the Brilliancescope I was persuaded by others in this industry with a bias against it. However my curiosity got the best of me and after testing and examining multitudes of diamonds under the Firescope I was very familiar (as much as that experience would allow) of certain diamonds optical characteristics. So I sent 5 diamonds to GemEx ... diamonds whose optical results I was familiar with and ranked them accordingly from most to least brilliant. EACH DIAMOND CAME BACK EXACTLY AS EXPECTED. This eliminated any doubts I had about the technology and had one immediately sent to our store. Since working with the technology along with our LightScope and Sarin DiaVision (which measures every single facet, it's angles and %'s) this has expanded my knowledge of diamonds, the individual facets and their affect on light return by leapyears. The BrillianceScope is so sensitive to light return and the intensity of it Aljdewey that it can differentiate between 2 stones that have identical Sarin results yet vary in the intensity of their light return. The graphic I posted above is an excellent example of how this can be both proven and demonstrated via both LightScope & BrillianceScope. I can understand however another person getting frustrated that what they thought should get 2 or 3 VH's only turn up 1 VH and discard the B'scope as bogus technology. If they have delved deeper and studied more carefully the differneces that affect light output perhaps their opinions would change.

I respect all the differing expert opinions here, but there is not a significant enough percentage on either side to make me consider this a slam-dunk, must-have item.

To me this is slam dunk. When you consider...

• GIA's research on fire & the minor facets coincide with BrillianceScope results.
  
• My conversations with GIA & AGS scientist also coincide with it's results.
  
• LightScope (modified red reflector) technology explains BrillianceScope results.
  
• MSU via DiamCalc also agree via diamonds I have scanned and tested.

The facts all point to the same positive conclusion Aljdewey. The BrillianceScope works. If I have to choose between the facts and heresay I side with the facts. This does not mean I am not open minded to hearing an argument. I always try to maintain a humble, teachable spirit but if the argument is based on a faulty foundation I take it where it's coming from. In the over 3 years I've been using it I have not seen or heard one valid arguement disproving it. I've only been finding evidence to support it.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the BrillianceScope's repeatability is as better if not moreso than a Sarin or OGI machine.

EXACTLY, but this isn't a comparison of gizmos, as much as you seem to want to make it one. No one ever said the Sarin or OGI was the be-all, end all either. It's a tool to help weed out poor performers, but it falls short of DEFINITELY assuring a strong performer. I'm suggesting that the same disclaimer that gets applied to 'the numbers' should also be applied to the b/scope: 'It's a great tool, but it's not a guarantee......so the final determinant should be a set of trained eyes.'

I have to disagree. When a diamond scores excellent on the BrillianceScope (I generally recommend scores no less than high/very high/high) it is a guarantee that the stone will be one of the most fiery diamonds a person will ever see. We personally guarantee this especially to our clients purchasing via the net who can not come to our store to see it live. In my professional opinion, seeing the BrillianceScope results guarantees that you can expect to see one of the most beautiful diamonds in direct light conditions. I would say the same of the Isee2 except with regards to diffuse or soft light conditions.

I know all the technology is what really lights your tree, Jonathan, but it still isn't a solid substitute for the human eye. I'm an avid photographer, and there have been great technological advances in cameras, but they still cannot capture the nuances and spectrum range and depth of field that the human eye perceives.

This is true but it doesn't not mean we do not use and take advantage of the latest technologies to show how beautiful an item is whether someone is shooting with a Canon 10D, Nikon D100 or using a BrillianceScope to demonstrate the optical quality of a diamond. In 10 years from now technologies should be even more advanced but if we take the approach you are suggesting then there would be no moving forward because of it not being as good as we'd like it to be at the present time. Bottom line ... it either works or it doesn't work. I know for a fact it does and that it's results correlate with human eye observation.

Who said 3 Highs were bad

Not me.....and in fact, that's exactly my point. Once folks go down the road of 'quantifiable' tools, they tend to want 'the best'. Anything less than the best may still be good, even great.....but it isn't 'the best'. As humans, we get brainwashed into thinking that if a machine tells us this one's better, then it MUST be. We want the ULTIMATE.

And there is nothing wrong with that! If the tools and technologies can help us pick the best and get it for a fair price why not??? While a stone with 3 highs is good, any person who compares that to a stone with 1/3, 2/3 or 3/3 very highs will definetely see the difference and know that is best. If best is within reach or a sacrifice has to be made in clarity or color to get the best or ultimate brilliance, I say give the client the option and let them choose. I would however agree that people can get fanatical about differences that can't be seen though as in the example I give above between the 2/3 vs 3/3 vh's. If a diamond meets the criteria a person is looking for and it has 2/3 vh's instead of 3/3 that would be ridiculous to pass up as the differences would be undetectable to the eye.

Remember our friend who came here recently wanting a 1.5 D, IF stone that scored all EX on the HCA? Do you think that he should have discarded YOUR D, IF stone from consideration because it scored EX-EX-EX-VG? I don't......and I said so. Just because it didn't score the last EX doesn't mean it wasn't a KNOCKOUT stone.....and that's my point on the b/scope. I've watched a bunch of people come here saying they want 'this' stone because they have to have ALL VH3. My point is that folks shouldn't discard a stone from consideration just because it scores an H3 if all other indicators suggest the stone should perform well.

And I would agree with that 100% too! My suggestion is to look at all options, get as much data as possible and make your decision.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 1/17/2004 9:43:44 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 1/17/2004 7:48:42 AM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
On 1/17/2004 1:28:40 AM aljdewey wrote:







Do you think that he should have discarded YOUR D, IF stone from consideration because it scored EX-EX-EX-VG? I don't......and I said so. Just because it didn't score the last EX doesn't mean it wasn't a KNOCKOUT stone.....and that's my point on the b/scope. I've watched a bunch of people come here saying they want 'this' stone because they have to have ALL VH3. My point is that folks shouldn't discard a stone from consideration just because it scores an H3 if all other indicators suggest the stone should perform well.
----------------

I might have read you comment wrongly, but to me the quoted lines mean that there is no perceptible quality difference between Vh and Ex levels and both reflect the best quality available. True: in theory, this particular tool is not capable to discern among these stones.

----------------

You did read my comment wrongly. There are several gadgets and gizmos available today to help folks narrow down the field of consideration from hundreds of diamonds to a few strong candidates. Those tools are wonderful for THAT purpose.

They cannot, however, definitely tell you that a stone will DEFINITELY perform well....the final test is the eyes.

Me wub Aljdewey but I take very strong difference here especially with regards to our own personal optical analysis.

Let me go on record as saying that when a diamond excels on our tools & technologies (hi rez H&A photographs, LightScope analysis, Isee2 analysis, BrillianceScope results, tight precision on the variances via Sarin, etc.) this will DEFINITELY not only perform well but be one of the most beautiful and most rare diamonds they will ever see in this lifetime. We leave absolutely no room for doubt when we do the picking Aljdewey. When the stone scores excellent via our optical analysis you can BANK on it that it'll perform tops and I mean tops. Every one of our clients can verify this who have made the hard comparisons and I've had guys from all over the globe bring my stones personally to Tiffany, VanCleef, Cartier, HoF dealers not to mention the top appraisers around the country... you name it. The reason why is because the technologies correlate with human eye observation! It doesn't have to be what we may perceive as "perfect" technology. They all have their weakness'. The bottom line is does it correlate to human eye(s) observation or not. If yes then bring on the info, if not then it's good for the dump.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[niceice]

----------------
On 1/17/2004 10:52:43 AM Rhino wrote:

----------------

R/T, I'm don't think you're aware of this but the reason major gemological laboratories are not using it isn't becuase of inaccuracy. The major reason is because Gemex has copywrite over all the images and reports generated with the technoloogy and $$$ must be paid for each report or online gif that is generated. One of the heads of research at GIA told us at one of our Alumni chapter meetings (here in Long Island) that if Gemex didn't have strings attached to their images they would indeed be using it. Dr. Eileen Reinitz and I had a discussion about our findings on the minor facets and the fact that extending the stars and lower girdles increases fire within the diamond and we were both amazed how we had both come to the same conclusions using different methods. GIA with ray trace software, me with the BrillianceScope & Sarin. If our research had collided that would have given me reason to doubt but every person scientist in this industry and any other technologies used do nothing but confirm the accuracy of the instrument.

Peace,
Rhino
----------------

We've heard differently which may be due to speaking to different ends of the horse so to speak... Perhaps the GIA would consider publishing their findings on the Brilliance Scope as they have published their findings on various other pieces of gemological equipment as it has emerged on to the market over the years... However, this too must be taken with a grain of salt because they have published findings in the past which were inconclusive and even erroneous... For instance, their article on diamond proportions a few years ago which was [summarizing](1) correct in indicating that there were a variety of proportions that would yield similar levels of light return from a round brilliant cut diamond; yet (2) confusing for the public because it indicated specific ranges for crown and pavilion angles but left the ranges wide open for table diameters, etc. as we recall...

As we've heard it, they weren't impressed, but maybe some people at the GIA were and others weren't... It seems like they would offer it as an option as they do laser inscription if they thought that the equipment was accurate... Some people pay extra for laser inscription and others do not... Some would pay extra for a BS scan and others would not... But the accuracy and consistency of the scans might be easier to accept if the service was being provided by an independent gemological laboratory like the GIA or AGS than it is to accept when being provided by 'some' of the vendors who offer the service and Jonathan we are in NO WAY referring to you in this statement rest assured! We all know that you have NOT been one of the problem children to this regard.

Look, we don't mind the concept of the BS, we think that it has purpose and that it has the potential to add value to the diamond community - but we think that it is overrated from the perpective of trust that consumers blindly place upon it... We don't object to it's use as 'another indicator' of potential, just as we don't object to the use of the HCA, Firescope, LightScope, SymmetriScope, etc. as 'another indicator' of potential... But when people make their buying decision solely based or so heavily based upon the use of such things we have to question it's use because we know that it is not conclusive and thus improperly used and explained it can be misleading.

 

[Hodne]

But when people make their buying decision solely based or so heavily based upon the use of such things we have to question it's use because we know that it is not conclusive and thus improperly used and explained it can be misleading.
------------------------------------------------

Remember, a lot of the buyers are sitting on the other side of the globe and have to base their decision on the information avalible. Even if the equpiment is not 100% accurate, I would think it is at least a good indicator of the stones performance and qualities.

 

[aljdewey]

Rhino, I wub you too....you know that.




SOOOO.......you're saying the B/scope is dead-on accurate. Right? All the time?




If you 100% believe in that machine, then I can only assume you must also believe that most SuperbCert stones consistent outperform the stones you carry. I ran a quick check on 10-12 consecutive diamonds tonight on the SC website. ALL of them.....every single one of them..... show white light and color readings off the charts as high as they can go, and scintillation either typically in the highest position in "High" or the lowest position in VH.




Your stones tend to vary a bit more, and often show the white light and the scintillation in the H2 or H3 position. Frankly, I tend to find your results much more credible, but that's beside the point.




You're telling us this is the be-all, end-all, *high PRECISION* instrument. Sooooo......how can this happen? Why do SC stones consistently rank quantifiably higher?




(Disclaimer: Please, PLEASE don't take this question to be stirring the pot or instigation....it's TOTALLY not. I just cannot understand this. I have seen several GOG stones posted on here with AMAZING pictures, and it's hard for me to understand how your stones----which I can see are GORGEOUS----don't rank as well. That baffles me.)

 

[strmrdr]

Al,
Part of the reason is that it appears that Rhino has moved to the isee2 over the b-scope.
The isee2 scores have been going up on average and the b-scope readings have on average been going down on his diamonds.
Most of his diamonds used to rank 3vh and now more and more 2h 1vh are showing up with high isee2 scores.
This indicates to me that getting real high scores on both is harder than scoring high on one or the other.

What he will say about my observations I dont know but it is a definate trend noticed by someone who roams all over his website atleast a couple times a day.

 

[Rank Amateur]

I say send the same stone to 10 different BS vendors and then GemEx and compare results. We'll see who the skilled BS users are.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 1/17/2004 11:41:24 PM strmrdr wrote:





Al,
Part of the reason is that it appears that Rhino has moved to the isee2 over the b-scope.
The isee2 scores have been going up on average and the b-scope readings have on average been going down on his diamonds.
----------------

That just doesn't make sense, storm. Why would Jonathan (or any other person) be moving AWAY from technology he adamantly swears is precise and accurate?

And subsequently, if it's accurate, then why have the readings been tailing down (if they have)?

 

[Rank Amateur]

How does GemEx "certify" a score without having the stone sent to them? Why not just send them the stone?

 

[niceice]

Now we're getting into the previous discussion that I posted about a year ago regarding Impartial Brilliance Scope Results... Essentially the post pertained to the concept that if a retail customer really wanted to base their decision on the results of a Brilliance Scope scan that they should have the diamond scanned by either Gem Ex or an impartial party such as independent gemologist Bill Lieberman who has a Brilliance Scope and who has nothing to gain or lose by providing the customer with an accurate, untampered version of the Brilliance Scope report... This is what we suggest when a customer wants to know how the diamond would score on the Brilliance Scope even though most of our diamonds come to us from our suppliers with BS reports... In other words, we often know how they scored on the BS machine used by the cutter, but that doesn't mean that the report is accurate so we don't disclose the information to our clients. We truly believe that the BS is flawed and we don't want our clients basing their buying decision upon that premise but if they insist on doing so, they will be doing so based on information provided by a neutral source that they hired to evaluate the diamond on their behalf outside of our realm.

Hey Jonathan, would you do me a favor and post a BS scan of an 8* here when you get back to the store on Monday if you happen to have one stored in your system from the days when you used to sell 8*. I kind of got the impression from talking to Richard awhile ago that he wasn't impressed with the way that his diamonds scanned on the machine and I'd kind of like to see what he was talking about...

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 1/18/2004 12:08:57 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------

On 1/17/2004 11:41:24 PM strmrdr wrote:





Al,

Part of the reason is that it appears that Rhino has moved to the isee2 over the b-scope.

The isee2 scores have been going up on average and the b-scope readings have on average been going down on his diamonds.

----------------

That just doesn't make sense, storm. Why would Jonathan (or any other person) be moving AWAY from technology he adamantly swears is precise and accurate?

And subsequently, if it's accurate, then why have the readings been tailing down (if they have)?

----------------

They are suposed to measure different light conditions.
b-scope - direct lighting/sunlight
isee2 - indirect light
I may have them switched but i think thats right.

They indicate how the diamond will preform in the different light conditions.
It looks to me like finding one that is tops in both seems less likely to happen than one that preforms high in one condition or the other.
When that happens it appears like he goes with the higher isee2 ones or maybe the diamonds he is getting just tend to go that way.
Again thats just how it appears to me from looking at the data on his website.
Also on an earlier isee2 thread he picked the isee2 over the b-scope if he could just have one.

I dont think that his opinion of the b-scope has changed just his criteria for selecting the diamonds has shifted to isee2 and its light conditions from the b-scope and its light conditions.

Again thats just my observation and it wouldnt be the first time if im wrong.

 

[Rhino]

Hey R/T,

Great to hear from ya. I'm always interested in hearing what comes from the various ends of the horse and I both appreciate and respect any input you have to offer. Please scroll down for my thoughts.

We've heard differently which may be due to speaking to different ends of the horse so to speak... Perhaps the GIA would consider publishing their findings on the Brilliance Scope as they have published their findings on various other pieces of gemological equipment as it has emerged on to the market over the years...

That would be a great idea. When I spoke with one of the research scientists at our local GIA Alumni meeting they were speaking with me as though their knowledge was not that of "hands on" but "second hand" info. Ie. she kept saying "we heard" that the machine does this or that etc. Not "this is what we found using the machine"...

I also happen to know that we share a common acquaintance as well. The acquaintance that had influenced me negatively towards the technology so there does exist the possibility that they've been negatively influenced by others within the industry with whom I happen to know are biased towards the technology because their particular stones didn't score as well on it as they had hoped. Do you know for a fact that GIA did indeed have the technology in their possession?

However, this too must be taken with a grain of salt because they have published findings in the past which were inconclusive and even erroneous... For instance, their article on diamond proportions a few years ago which was [summarizing](1) correct in indicating that there were a variety of proportions that would yield similar levels of light return from a round brilliant cut diamond; yet (2) confusing for the public because it indicated specific ranges for crown and pavilion angles but left the ranges wide open for table diameters, etc. as we recall...

Did they actually give ranges? I don't recall them giving actual ranges but if they did I'd be curious to see what they were. I do know that in their latest research on "fire" they stated that stars cut to a certain length (mid 60's) when used with 34.5 crown angles will yield higher DCLR (dispersed colored light return) and the fact that lengthening the lower girdles had the most dramatic change on the DCLR (something which we had also discovered with BrillianceScope). Reference to that article can be found here.
http://www.professionaljeweler.com/archives/articles/2002/jan02/0102dg.html

As we've heard it, they weren't impressed, but maybe some people at the GIA were and others weren't... It seems like they would offer it as an option as they do laser inscription if they thought that the equipment was accurate... Some people pay extra for laser inscription and others do not... Some would pay extra for a BS scan and others would not...

Yes but as long as GemEx has the strings attached to their images (and if I were CEO of GemEx I think I would want the same) they will not offer this option. It's not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of where the money is flowing.

But the accuracy and consistency of the scans might be easier to accept if the service was being provided by an independent gemological laboratory like the GIA or AGS than it is to accept when being provided by 'some' of the vendors who offer the service and Jonathan we are in NO WAY referring to you in this statement rest assured! We all know that you have NOT been one of the problem children to this regard.

I know the technology can be manipulated and I do know it has been done in the past. I've seen scans that were questionable myself and this is why honesty and integrity are and always will be important in selecting who a person chooses to do business with. While I have the chance let me also go on record as saying that NiceIce.com practices these high standards in this business and I would not hesitate to recommend them for anyone considering a diamond purchase. Integrity, honest and trust are the virtues they have demonstrated over the course of years we have come to know both Robin and Todd. I remember when I was first getting started on the net, you guys were a friend to me and offered sound advice when noone else was willing to give it and for that I am grateful.

Look, we don't mind the concept of the BS, we think that it has purpose and that it has the potential to add value to the diamond community - but we think that it is overrated from the perpective of trust that consumers blindly place upon it... We don't object to it's use as 'another indicator' of potential, just as we don't object to the use of the HCA, Firescope, LightScope, SymmetriScope, etc. as 'another indicator' of potential... But when people make their buying decision solely based or so heavily based upon the use of such things we have to question it's use because we know that it is not conclusive and thus improperly used and explained it can be misleading.

I would agree with that R/T. There are people who place such heavy emphasis on it that it does get ridiculous and there are times I have to councel people that even if a stone does not get the *highest* scores does not mean it's not an incredibly beautiful & rare stone. When I am teaching about something or making comments I try to be careful to give or share both sides of the story however. So while I am quick to point out the technology's strengths I am not gunshy about sharing it's weakness' as well. Those being...

• It does not analyze or grade optical symmetry which has bearing upon the beauty of the diamond.
  
• It does not look at issues of contrast with directly relate to the brilliance and appearance of diamond in softer light conditions.
  
• It does not reflect the precision or accuracy to which the facets have been cut regarding variances (or facet by facet precision) numerically speaking.
  
• It does not assess lab graded polish.
  
• It does not assess lab graded symmetry.

A "perfect" cut grading machine would cover all these bases. However what the machine was built to do it does excellently and that is assess light return and the strength/intensity of it. It does it so accurately that it is the only other technology (besides LightScope) that can differentiate between two diamonds cut to the same Sarin proportions yet have different intensities of light output and THAT is impressive.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

I'm off today so today is catchup day for me.

----------------
On 1/17/2004 11:25:15 PM aljdewey wrote:







Rhino, I wub you too....you know that.

SOOOO.......you're saying the B/scope is dead-on accurate. Right? All the time?






Here's what I'm saying so there's no confusion. The BrillianceScope is accurate regarding the appearance of a diamond in direct light conditions. There are results that may vary slightly in which a person will not see the differences (ie. comparing 2 stones and the difference is 1/3 of a grade or bar) yet there are differences in which a person will certainly see the difference. We will never steer or guide a person into a diamond that has poor or mediocre optics. Great BrillianceScope results will guarantee them a great looking diamond in direct light conditions or light conditions that emphasize fire & scintillation.




If you 100% believe in that machine, then I can only assume you must also believe that most SuperbCert stones consistent outperform the stones you carry. I ran a quick check on 10-12 consecutive diamonds tonight on the SC website. ALL of them.....every single one of them..... show white light and color readings off the charts as high as they can go, and scintillation either typically in the highest position in 'High' or the lowest position in VH.




Your stones tend to vary a bit more, and often show the white light and the scintillation in the H2 or H3 position. Frankly, I tend to find your results much more credible, but that's beside the point.






That is because I realize that some of the most beautiful diamonds do not have to score the highest on the machine. In my last post to R/T there are many other factors we look at that are not covered via B'scope technology. That is nice that sc has stones that score great on it but that is only one piece of the puzzle regarding the appearance, quality & value of the diamond.




You're telling us this is the be-all, end-all, *high PRECISION* instrument.




Hehe... no I'm not.

I am just stating that what it was designed to do it does accurately. In it's simplest form we're looking at a highly accurate photospectrometer.




Sooooo......how can this happen? Why do SC stones consistently rank quantifiably higher?




(Disclaimer: Please, PLEASE don't take this question to be stirring the pot or instigation....it's TOTALLY not. I just cannot understand this. I have seen several GOG stones posted on here with AMAZING pictures, and it's hard for me to understand how your stones----which I can see are GORGEOUS----don't rank as well. That baffles me.)



Now you know.

Key point to remember... A diamond does not have to get 3 VH's to be *beautiful*. We often purchase incredible, beautifully cut diamonds that score high/very high/high. There are the other factors we take into acccount which we deem equally as important as great B'scope results.

• Isee2 results =>9.0 (sometimes high 8's depending upon how it tests in other factors)
  
• H&A optical symmetry
  
• polish
  
• symmetry
  
• variances
  
• minor facet cutting

My latest studies are on what would be termed the "twist" which is the rotational alignment between corresponding crown bezels and pavilion mains. In the 2 stones I posted LS images on above (which have same crown/pavilion/table data) that is one of the primary differences. Twist (from what I can see thus far) can affect the intensity of light output through the table.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Just a correction strmrdr,

----------------
On 1/17/2004 11:41:24 PM strmrdr wrote:











Al,
Part of the reason is that it appears that Rhino has moved to the isee2 over the b-scope.

No No! I deem them equally as important.

The isee2 scores have been going up on average and the b-scope readings have on average been going down on his diamonds.

Not that they've been going down it's just that when I run into a beautiful rare stone that excels in other optical characteristics we will still purchase and encourage it. What we purchase and recommend via B'scope results is a min of high/very high/high and of course we purchase all other stones that do score higher on it. Of equal importance are Isee2 results (since diamonds are more commonly viewed in soft light conditions), H&A optical symmetry, and the other characteristics we test diamonds for in our optical analysis.

Most of his diamonds used to rank 3vh and now more and more 2h 1vh are showing up with high isee2 scores.
This indicates to me that getting real high scores on both is harder than scoring high on one or the other.

This is true. The rarest H&A's are those that score the highest in all our tests including the ones demonstrated with photographs. If we ever start a brand it will be those with Isee2 scores => 9.5, min 2/3 VH's on B'scope, picture perfect H&A and signature LightScope image.

What he will say about my observations I dont know but it is a definate trend noticed by someone who roams all over his website at least a couple times a day.

Peace,
Rhino