Brilliance Scope vs Optical Perfomance Profile

[mrzues]

I am looking at Diamonds from Nice Ice and GOG (that have Brilliance Scope reports) and diamonds from Blue Nile and DOW (that have Optical Perfomance Profile from GCAL)

I like the info the Brilliance Scope reports provide. Optical Perfomance Profile provides Brilliance but nothing on Dispersion and Scintillation.

All stones are under 1.5 on the cut advisor.

My question is this: do I really need to see the brillance scope report to make an informed decision?

 

[strmrdr]

No you dont need a B-scope report to make an informed decision.
If one is available it should be considered as one part of the puzzle but given no more weight than any other tool.
The B-scope like a lot of the tools isnt all that accurate or repeatable but does it tell you something about a diamond?
Yes I think it does but its not close to being the final word on diamond performance.
A diamond could score 3 vh on it and not perform well under more realistic and common conditions in my opinion.
That said I dont think you can go wrong with a diamond from either GOG or niceice and you might on one from blue nile.
The eye selected diamonds from GOG and niceice are top notch.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 2/1/2005 1:14:17 AM
Author: strmrdr
The B-scope like a lot of the tools isnt all that accurate or repeatable...

Ahem...

Regarding accuracy. The greater majority of people who compare BrillianceScope results of various diamonds with their own 2 eyes pick the diamond with the highest brilliancescope results in direct light conditions... time after time. We have been doing this with clients for over 3 years and it''s the same every time. Yes there are many instances among super ideals where results are so close that its hard to differentiate but there are also many that are easily detectable, seen and observed by the layman. We often do this before showing them any technical data or B''scope results.

Regarding repeatability... I have seen the B''scope go through 3 morphs (and more than that considering software changes). We have stones we scanned with the first model and now the latest. The results are absolutely repeatable and we have a stone or 2 that''s been here for a couple of years that get the same results which we have tested. The greatest variance we see on this technology is within 1/3 a grade (ie. if a diamond received a VH2 for a metric, the greatest variance we''ve seen is it may go to a VH1 or VH3) which is IMO phenomenal.

It is currently the best technology for assessing light performance in direct light conditions than any tool that has ever been introduced onto the market that I have seen. If its results did not correlate with human eye observation and if the greater majority of people did not pick those stones with the highest results, then of course I would have to question my own judgment.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/1/2005 12:46:57 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 2/1/2005 1:14:17 AM
Author: strmrdr
The B-scope like a lot of the tools isnt all that accurate or repeatable...

Ahem...

Regarding accuracy. The greater majority of people who compare BrillianceScope results of various diamonds with their own 2 eyes pick the diamond with the highest brilliancescope results in direct light conditions... time after time. We have been doing this with clients for over 3 years and it''s the same every time. Yes there are many instances among super ideals where results are so close that its hard to differentiate but there are also many that are easily detectable, seen and observed by the layman. We often do this before showing them any technical data or B''scope results.

Regarding repeatability... I have seen the B''scope go through 3 morphs (and more than that considering software changes). We have stones we scanned with the first model and now the latest. The results are absolutely repeatable and we have a stone or 2 that''s been here for a couple of years that get the same results which we have tested. The greatest variance we see on this technology is within 1/3 a grade (ie. if a diamond received a VH2 for a metric, the greatest variance we''ve seen is it may go to a VH1 or VH3) which is IMO phenomenal.

It is currently the best technology for assessing light performance in direct light conditions than any tool that has ever been introduced onto the market that I have seen. If its results did not correlate with human eye observation and if the greater majority of people did not pick those stones with the highest results, then of course I would have to question my own judgment.

Thanks for making my point for me my friend :}
If you pick on diamond over another because one rates triple h3 and another rates triple vh1 they might change position with more runs.
Now is a diamond that scores triple h1 not as a good performer under direct light as one that scores triple vh1 yes I think that would be the case we can agree there.
I think it works better as a tool for rejecting poor performers than a tool for selecting from a known group of great performers.
I also think you can comprimise performance in other lighting conditions by optimising for the highest b-scope scores.
Finding diamonds that keep the V-high b-scope performance and the high performance under other lighting conditions is a challenge a lot of diamonds will fail.
Im under the impression you are conducting research in that area right now.
Im looking forward to seeing the results.

My point remains dont get too hung up on one piece of the puzzle or one tool when comparing diamonds.
Look at the entire picture. :}