Brilliance Scope Question...

[Rhino]

Yo J-dawg!

Yes that''s YOU Sir John.

Dam, woudln''t you know I type out a response only to time out and get the whole dam thing erased. I''ll copy this before I hit send.

Date: 5/23/2005 9:24:32 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Spear,

Diamond is practically transparent. The lustre of a well made diamond is described as adamantine. It is distinctive. This factor was considered long before Brilliancescope. The polish grade represents the quality of lustre. Well made diamonds typically have polish that is vg or above. Those with substandard polish will be identified as so on the grading report.

Between 2 diamonds with vg polish (or better) luster – and external reflection – are non-factors in typical light conditions:

''In a diamond, the amount of light reflected from the surface is much smaller than that penetrating into the stone; moreover, a diamond is practically perfectly transparent, so that all the light that passes into the stone has to pass out again. This is why lustre may be ignored in the working out of the correct shape for a diamond, and why any variation in the amount of light reflected from the exposed surface due to a change in that surface may be considered as negligible in the calculations. The brilliancy or, as it is sometimes termed, the '' fire '' or the '' life '' of a gem thus depends entirely upon the play of light in the gem, upon the path of rays of light in the gem. If a gem is so cut or designed that every ray of light passing into it follows the best path possible for producing pleasing effects upon the eye, then the gem is perfectly cut. The whole art of the lapidary consists in proportioning his stone and disposing his facets so as to ensure this result.'' - Marcel Tolkowsky

I''m sure T-dawg did not envision technology like the Brilliancescope that bombards diamond with artificial light and counts pixels to acquire a score. This kind of assessment has been questioned since it was developed. It’s treating the diamond to conditions it will never see in nature. It is why the science community has leaned toward Ideal-scope & ASET assessment devices that can rely on natural light conditions, and not atypical/uber-lighting. Even so, we are still working to arrive at a natural standard for reflector assessment.
Who exactly is the "science community"???

Firstly .. we are exactly on the same page regarding lustre and its direct relation to polish. Even the DiamCalc numerically shows just how little external reflections account for total light return. As you point out T-dawg sums it up perfectly.

Now ... concerning this comment.

hehe

"It’s treating the diamond to conditions it will never see in nature. It is why the science community has leaned toward Ideal-scope & ASET assessment devices that can rely on natural light conditions, and not atypical/uber-lighting."

Riddle me this Batman.

When will a consumer ever see a diamond encased in solid red in normal everyday conditions?

When wiill a consumer ever see a diamond encased in blue, red and green, evenly spaced from one another?

Both GIA and Isee anlayze a diamond under a white dome with evenly spaced black reflectors on the inside to determine brightness. When will a consumer ever stand in a white dome with evenly spaced black reflectors?

I''m sure you get my point. What I would like to emphasize John is that while critical anlaysis is being performed under these controlled environments (and NONE of them are typical of normal everyday viewing) THE FACTOR THAT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE is that the results of these exams correllate with human eye observation. The truth is that each of these do precisely that BUT IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT that one understand the limitations of the technologies they are consulting as well. Once an understanding is obtained of the strengths/weakness'' of each device ONLY THEN can the educated consumer put all the pieces togehter to make an informed decision. Any ONE technology by itself is insufficient and I would not only say this about B''scope but also the IdealScope, LightScope, etc.

I’ve never understood the BS attempt to separate white light and colored light. Why try to quantify in numbers what the eyes will always see together?

Because if higher numbers = more pleasure to the eyes then give me higher numbers baby!

White and colored light work in harmony to create the ‘life’ of a diamond. Even if it this measure was accurate it seems irrelevant to the average consumer. To me it’s like trying to sell a Krispy Kreme by mechanically separating smells in an attempt to tell you how much milk versus how much flour is in it.

LOL! Hey ... there are MANY consumers who do look at the ingredients of what they are about to eat (INCLUDING ME!). I don''t stress out with clients over minor differences in the results. Yes there are certain minimums we recommend and stick to and there are results between 2 stones that are so close there are no differences that could be detected with the human eye. Ie. we are very picky when it comes to purchasing but at the same time we''re not ridiculous. There are clients who do sometimes nit pick to no end and focus so intently on B''scope results they almost forget all of the other important features of the stone. I stress BALANCE.

The thing I do enjoy about BS is looking at the photos. In the hands of someone skilled this machine can tell some of the story about a diamond through analysis of photos and light behavior - but I worry about consumers who rely on BS scores to guide them, especially in a sales/marketing capacity where the operator or interpreter has limited experience or knowledge.

We''re totally on the same page here bro. There is a lot of info to garner from the technology but there are people who sometimes get tunnel vision and focus so intently on the results that THEY MUST ONLY have a stone with such and such results. When people do this they are losing sight of the *whole* picture as there are many other attributes they should be concerned about as well which could contribute to the diamonds appearance in many other lighting conditions. From this Gman''s perspective it is but one piece of the puzzle. To place stock in ANY ONE TECHNOLOGY by itself is a big mistake and neglects all of the other components that make for a beautiful diamond. As I have studied to a certain extent the new GIA system and the metrics it will be involving in its grade I love the well rounded approach they have taken, not just with optical performance but also the issues of durability, weight ratio etc. and the fact that Grade 1 diamonds involve stones with super light return that cover a spectrum of individual tastes and NOT one inparticular (even though I have my pet measurements that I prefer and believe give the best balance of all metrics).

I have the highest respect for Jon’s experience on this device and am confident he and Bill are the best spokesmen available for it. I’m looking forward to continued discussion.

I appreciate that man and I look forward to friendly dialogue with you as well. It is always a pleasure to exchange ideas/thoughts with people who share our passion.

Warm regards,

 

[Rhino]

Good thing I copied/pasted or I would have lost that too! All the formatting and all my little

''s like this were erased so you''ll miss a couple of chuckles.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 5/25/2005 11:51:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Ana here is a quick answer

a cold temperature, ... is colder in Fall / Autum and warmer in winter because we are not used to it in Autum.

So we need more than one measure, and things get more and more complex

There might be an upper bound to complexity here: intuitive understanding and reality check. In my opinion, the ''scopes have the first (the catchy one word metrics) but not the second - it takes allot of patience to track down their make.

Celsius has it all: the message is crystal clear and takes under 10 minutes to track the fundamentals down to a dictionary.

I would not deny that reaching such parsimonious message might take some turns... there''s that global weather forecasting network and an army of meteorologists that deal with allot of one spectacularly complex science. None of it is concerned with the meaning of "hot" or "cold" though. There''s no complexity there - just subjectivity.

Perhaps it wasn''t a good idea to bring Celsius to the table after all

Information pricing and search costs need no analogy artifice. Oh well... please, bear with me guys. I will refrain from abusing your time further.

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/22/2005 9:34:34 PM
Author: sjr
Gary- I found your link to be rather interesting. Especially the comment by Sergey, 'If value adding decreases, there is an increasing risk of instability' in relation to, 'Now the general public attempts to use this technical and specialized language and knowledge. Is this appropriate for consumers?' by Tolkowsky.

I think it is inevitable that the consumer will become increasingly educated because of the internet. I join forums now for anything from a digicam to even an electric shaver simply and only to gain knowledge into what product is the best. These are things I am able to do in five minutes over a lunch period. I think I am not in the minority with such research as most all of my peers (mid 20s) do the same when purchasing almost everything.

My question is ,then, if there will be a trend of more educated consumers- could this fact co-exist and not clash with 'value adding'? I feel my biggest focus now is slicing through the creative marketing to get to the real product (related to my qualm with b-scopes). Perhaps you could expand the view of your colleagues that there would be increasing instability and how this would truly hurt the overall market? Or is he saying that these ideas of 'value adding' should instead be replaced with a more uniform grading (to start) that will tailor to the educated consumer? Sorry that I am asking question based on excerpts from a whole discussion--> and might be totally out of context not to mention a year old...

The longer I wait to get my first stone- my b-scope report might only have a few quantas of photons. So it goes- ha! sjr

Re: Especially the comment by Sergey, 'If value adding decreases, there is an increasing risk of instability'


Explanation:

Let us consider a case when a manufacturer buys a rough diamond at $500/ct (it may be $100, $3000). The cost (expences + profit) of cutting of 1ct is $50 per carat (It can be two times less for small rough or much more for expensive rough diamonds).

In situation when rough prices are increasing faster than polished prices, the cutting industry has to decrease its expenses.

One possible solution is to make business bigger (because small business can't survive having small margins). Usually manufacturers find a solution with help of the banking credits, in the proportion 25%(own)/75%(bank). They can not stop buying of raw material because if their turnover became lesser they should to return 75 % difference to the bank. Therefore the existing practice lead to following results:

1) Manufacturers try to sell a polished diamond at any cost, and it does not allow polished prices to rise. And moreover, it even can lead polished prices to fall during rough prices rise.

2) Rough stocks are growing at the manufacturer¡¦s side. When rough prices grow, it would be better sell a part of stocks than to sell polished diamonds. But I assume that the majority of the cutters have no infrastructures for rough sales and besides a few can dare to do it during rough prices growth and because of political risks. If cutters begin a bulk rough selling, only the very first can win. After that rough prices begin to fall and many will have a problem with return of bank credits which are actually covered only by rough diamonds. For some manufacturers it will be very difficult to repair this hole in balance after the future rough prices fall as the return in relation of rough material cost is small for expensive rough ( above 700 $ per carat). If one large manufacturer became a bankrupt than a credit policy will become tougher. This will increase chances of bankruptcy of other companies. It is a classical negative spiral which then will strike on mining companies as well.

If the margins were bigger then small factories would be more and situation would be more stable.

It is possible to avoid risk without big losses just due to increasing of industry's margins. The growth of polished diamond prices is needed but it is practically impossible to do until diamonds again obtain its primary properties: uniqness and individuality, the core diamond's properties that have been lost because of commoditization.

I am trying to explain what I mean talking that the polished diamond commoditization decreases the manufacturer's margins and increases the market risks. Accordingly to decrease risks it is necessary to create market segment of unique diamonds for middle class (mass market). At the present time only expensive diamonds are unique (big diamonds or Fancy color diamonds) and this fact will not save market.

Another solution is to increase efficiency of rough diamonds cutting process. It is possible but mining companies will take away this additional value from cutters quickly (within 1-3 years).

Rough diamonds sellers can't take away an additional value which can be made from uniqness and individuality of polished diamonds.

In general a policy on decrease a share arrived in each particular stage from rough diamond to jewellery piece, should have reasonable limits. The solution of problems of profitability of extraction due to alienation the profit from the subsequent parts of a chain, can be only temporal and most likely then will strengthen crisis in the whole industry.

Note: This is my personal opinion about processes in which I am not a big specialist). So I simply write about my concerns and not going to prove these assumptions.

 

[sjr]

Wow! Thanks all for the very informative and intriguing suggestions. I see that I have missed many friendly arguements over the problematic intricacies of light return metrics (I think evaluating the face only is plenty enough for me- more variables just means more indecision- ha!). I think I have been able to focus my own opinion on the matter (b-scope that is), but I think the issue''s ''circular'' nature will keep me from adding anything more beneficial from a consumer''s viewpoint. John-sorry.

Also thanks Sergey for insight into this complicated industry. These types of additions for us consumers, well for me, makes the purchase of a stone that much more unique with such knowledge. Perhaps I can even one day get over my personal desires that it even can lead polished prices to fall during rough prices rise- for the stability of the industry as a whole (for future purchases that is

)

Is it odd that I am becoming less interested about the physicality of having a stone but rather the mathematics and parameters of its composition? Such an expensive new hobby! sjr

 

[valeria101]

Date: 5/26/2005 6:01:16 PM
Author: sjr

Is it odd that I am becoming less interested about the physicality of having a stone but rather the mathematics and parameters of its composition?

No

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/26/2005 6:01:16 PM
Author: sjr
Wow! Thanks all for the very informative and intriguing suggestions. I see that I have missed many friendly arguements over the problematic intricacies of light return metrics (I think evaluating the face only is plenty enough for me- more variables just means more indecision- ha!). I think I have been able to focus my own opinion on the matter (b-scope that is), but I think the issue's 'circular' nature will keep me from adding anything more beneficial from a consumer's viewpoint. John-sorry.

Also thanks Sergey for insight into this complicated industry. These types of additions for us consumers, well for me, makes the purchase of a stone that much more unique with such knowledge. Perhaps I can even one day get over my personal desires that it even can lead polished prices to fall during rough prices rise- for the stability of the industry as a whole (for future purchases that is

)

Is it odd that I am becoming less interested about the physicality of having a stone but rather the mathematics and parameters of its composition? Such an expensive new hobby! sjr

Sjr - no apologies. You've brought relevant conversation to the table, and a Brilliancescope question or two that's not already a Pricescope chew-toy. That is rare.

As for you becoming distracted by numbers and measures, that is not odd at all in this venue. You're among friends.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/22/2005 2:34:04 PM
Author: Rhino

Riddle me this Batman. When will a consumer ever see a diamond encased in solid red in normal everyday conditions? When wiill a consumer ever see a diamond encased in blue, red and green, evenly spaced from one another? Both GIA and Isee anlayze a diamond under a white dome with evenly spaced black reflectors on the inside to determine brightness. When will a consumer ever stand in a white dome with evenly spaced black reflectors?

I'm sure you get my point. What I would like to emphasize John is that while critical anlaysis is being performed under these controlled environments (and NONE of them are typical of normal everyday viewing) THE FACTOR THAT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE is that the results of these exams correllate with human eye observation. The truth is that each of these do precisely that BUT IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT that one understand the limitations of the technologies they are consulting as well. Once an understanding is obtained of the strengths/weakness' of each device ONLY THEN can the educated consumer put all the pieces togehter to make an informed decision. Any ONE technology by itself is insufficient and I would not only say this about B'scope but also the IdealScope, LightScope, etc.

Ok, Joker

(there isn't yet a Batman character named 'Rhino' is there? Hmm. Maybe in Batman Begins).

While BrillianceScope bombards the diamond with artificial light and counts pixels, ideal-scope and ASET use neutral lighting that is elegantly simple. With normal lighting the simple reflector allows elements of facet construction and how light is returned to be visible – no ‘uberlighting,’ just a realistic, stationary situation. To make it even more real the lighting source can be correlated to natural daylight.

That is the key environmental difference: If you tweeze a diamond and use the hand held ideal-scope with natural daylight as a background you can make your analysis right there. It is a simple, realistic and repeatable baseline that can be standardized for any diamond. That is why the reflector approach has been embraced scientifically, whereas BS has not. The logical next step is a standardized lighting platform for ASET.

I’ve never understood the BS attempt to separate white light and colored light. Why try to quantify in numbers what the eyes will always see together? Because if higher numbers = more pleasure to the eyes then give me higher numbers baby!
White and colored light work in harmony to create the ‘life’ of a diamond. Even if it this measure was accurate it seems irrelevant to the average consumer. To me it’s like trying to sell a Krispy Kreme by mechanically separating smells in an attempt to tell you how much milk versus how much flour is in it.

LOL! Hey ... there are MANY consumers who do look at the ingredients of what they are about to eat (INCLUDING ME!). I don't stress out with clients over minor differences in the results. Yes there are certain minimums we recommend and stick to and there are results between 2 stones that are so close there are no differences that could be detected with the human eye. Ie. we are very picky when it comes to purchasing but at the same time we're not ridiculous. There are clients who do sometimes nit pick to no end and focus so intently on B'scope results they almost forget all of the other important features of the stone. I stress BALANCE.

I could buy into everything you said if not for the 3 summary ‘measurements’ – the cornerstone of the BS report – that judge the diamond with the attempt to split ingredients. This is 2/3 of what it is telling consumers. As for the other third, I’m not going there right now, but if we get started on this whole measuring ‘scintillation’ thing Leonid better purchase some more storage!

That's the hard line. However, returning to your observations, I would trust you/R&T or Bill to show customers results and interpret them meaningfully. I further believe that I’ve seen you tell people not to split hairs with what the bar graphs say, and that is why I believe – in your hands – there is much potential for good Jonathan. However - I *do not* trust the new kid at XXX chain store with a printout in hand to do this interpretation. That is my main beef. It is a tool that, in the wrong hands, can be misleadingly represented as absolute when it is not.

The thing I do enjoy about BS is looking at the photos. In the hands of someone skilled this machine can tell some of the story about a diamond through analysis of photos and light behavior - but I worry about consumers who rely on BS scores to guide them, especially in a sales/marketing capacity where the operator or interpreter has limited experience or knowledge.


We're totally on the same page here bro. There is a lot of info to garner from the technology but there are people who sometimes get tunnel vision and focus so intently on the results that THEY MUST ONLY have a stone with such and such results. When people do this they are losing sight of the *whole* picture as there are many other attributes they should be concerned about as well which could contribute to the diamonds appearance in many other lighting conditions. From this Gman's perspective it is but one piece of the puzzle. To place stock in ANY ONE TECHNOLOGY by itself is a big mistake and neglects all of the other components that make for a beautiful diamond. As I have studied to a certain extent the new GIA system and the metrics it will be involving in its grade I love the well rounded approach they have taken, not just with optical performance but also the issues of durability, weight ratio etc. and the fact that Grade 1 diamonds involve stones with super light return that cover a spectrum of individual tastes and NOT one inparticular (even though I have my pet measurements that I prefer and believe give the best balance of all metrics).

I appreciate that man and I look forward to friendly dialogue with you as well. It is always a pleasure to exchange ideas/thoughts with people who share our passion.

Ditto!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/27/2005 2:44:19 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/22/2005 2:34:04 PM

That's the hard line. However, returning to your observations, I would trust you/R&T or Bill to show customers results and interpret them meaningfully. I further believe that I’ve seen you tell people not to split hairs with what the bar graphs say, and that is why I believe – in your hands – there is much potential for good Jonathan. However - I *do not* trust the new kid at XXX chain store with a printout in hand to do this interpretation. That is my main beef. It is a tool that, in the wrong hands, can be misleadingly represented as absolute when it is not.

I agree with a lot of what was said by both you and rhino.
However I wanted to comment.

Any tool can be abused including the IS.
The lighting can be tweaked and if your dealing with images they can be changed 10 ways to Sunday so they don’t even resemble the original image.
The nice thing about IS is that consumers if they wish can at a low cost buy one and see for themselves.

I believe that the B-scope is one of the better tools for seeing the personality of a diamond under direct light conditions.
But to assume that one will like a triple VH better over one that scores VH,VH,H or over one that scores H,VH,H is a huge mistake.
Myself I find them very useful and can usually separate out who cut the diamond using the images.
But I don’t consider it essential if its available from the seller its a nice addition to the information puzzle.

 

[Rhino]

Howdy folks,

Good responses from all. A question Ana rose in this thread draws our attention to the most important factor which I’d like to address. Ana states…

The confusion started from this puzzle: why are the lighting conditions used by various measuring devices; procedures criticized for lack of realism instead of their results being criticized?

I''m hearing where you''re coming from Ana.

What is funny about your questions is when I had obtained a B''scope I had, at that time (going back to 2000) diamonds whose scores I *thought* should have been off the boards (no blatant leakage) as observed under first generation red reflectors. I''m talking SOLID reds & blacks. Until I developed the device I am now using did I begin to understand how to properly interpret what it was I was analyzing. Imagine my reaction when all the pieces came together for me! Here I had 2 technologies, developed by entirely different companies (and whats funny is back then there were 2 different camps who would often argue over which was more accurate or not) and I had discovered the perfect correlation between the 2 (LightScope & BrillianceScope) and how their results interpret each other.

That is why I understand where you''re coming from. The results *can''t* be criticized because they correlate (for the most part) with every major study that''s been released on the subject and I can point you to a few. However an experienced user CAN INDEED criticize the results if they know and understand what it is they are analyzing, as I criticize scintillation scores from time to time on certain stones and when I do I can point to valid reasons *why* I am offering that criticism. Back when I wrote our tutorial on the subject (correlation between LightScope and B''scope) a scientist from AGS called and told me that what they had once seriously questioned I had demonstrated the science of by using a totally different technology. To prove the science of one technology with another was a first in this industry with regards to these optical grading tools (and I''m a little proud of it too!).

For the skeptics. Do you think it is a coincidence that …

a. LightScope images explain BrillianceScope results. 2 separate technologies whose results explain each other. What are the chances of this?
b. Before we even called the device in to our store we sent Gemex 5 diamonds whose light performance we were already familiar with and have analyzed via FireScope™. Each stone came back exactly as expected as we had sent over 5 diamonds with varying light leakage/return. Only 1 out of the 5 confused a little but after LightScope was developed the answer was obvious to us.
c. The results of my study with the B''scope on the minor facets made me conclude that lengthening the lower girdles increases fire and scintillation in a properly cut diamond ... and that GIA released this same information in their article on DCLR (dispersed colored light return). (http://www.professionaljeweler.com/archives/articles/2002/jan02/0102dg.html)
d. As we observe more leakage in red reflectors, the BrillianceScope gives worse and worse scores.
e. GIA has stated (as well as AGS) that the most important light being refracted to the eye is that which is taking place at 45 degrees and higher (45-90). The BrilianceScope correlates to this perfectly as the more dark reds and blacks (under LightScope) there are (and the even distribution of them), the higher the results are on the B''scope. (http://www.gia.edu/research/1383/10135/article_detail.cfm) I don’t expect anything different with ASET except for further confirmation.
f. The Bscope demonstrates that the 2 most predominant colors refracted within diamond are yellow and blue. Before I learned this Garry and other Gmen were teaching this same thing as they have learned this through other means.
g. AGS has finally released their parameters for what they consider to be an "ideal" princess cut. Does the B’scope concur or contradict? A recent thread demonstrates once again.
h. MOST IMPORTANTLY, layman who come to our store or who we’ve sent out 2 diamonds to *see* the difference confirmed with their own 2 eyes. Back in 2000 when we began featuring H&A’s that consisted of short lower girdle/stars next to H&A with long lower girdle/stars (which have different B’scope results) the consumers could see the differences for themselves. When we saw the same thing happening over and over again, hearing the same comments from consumers who had the opportunity to visualize what they were seeing online their commentary only confirmed one truth to me. BrillianceScope results correlated BEST with human eye observation OVER red reflector images (which at that time we were posting FireScope images).

What Ana is saying is that people are focusing and criticizing so intently on the “hows” of the B’scope that they are neglecting the most important factor of all. THE RESULTS and how they correlate with human eye observation.

I can demonstrate all day long why it works and point to studies conducted by me, consumers, GIA, AGS, where Bscope results correlate each and every time but the saying holds true “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”. That’s why I’m not here to argue. I know I will not change the opinion of some who are set in their ways. All I say is consider the facts. Stop criticizing the “how’s” and consider the possibility that it actually works!

Peace,

 

[valeria101]

Date: 5/28/2005 3:41:12 PM
Author: Rhino

What Ana is saying is that people are focusing and criticizing so intently on the “hows” of the B’scope that they are neglecting the most important factor of all. THE RESULTS and how they correlate with human eye observation.

Yes Sir! Thank you !

I would substitute "B''scope" in the sentence quoted above with just any ''scope name as well.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/28/2005 3:41:12 PM
Author: Rhino
All I say is consider the facts. Stop criticizing the “how’s” and consider the possibility that it actually works!


Peace,

It works but the question is really what it tells you about a diamond and how to interprete those results.
The more I learn about it the more im convinced that its a good rejection tool but once diamonds start scoring at a certain level its a matter of personatily that seperate them.
Will a triple h1 diamond be less likely to be great looking than one that scores h3,vh2,h3 yes I think so.
Will a diamond that scores 3 vh2 be liked by more people than one that scores h3,vh2,h3 I dont think so.
Once you hit that level its a matter of what personality in a diamond the person viewing the diamond likes accross a wide range of lighting/viewing conditions.