GEMEX Accurate Science or Smoke & Mirrors

[DiamondExpert]

I'm getting a bit confused by the terminology being used here, so let me make a couple of obsevations...let me know if you think these are off base.

A scientific measurement is one obtained using the Scientific Method. So to say that an instrument is "not scientific" does not make sense to me.

In my mind the number of Significant Figures to which any measurement can be made is not related to the scientific validity of that measurement. The fact that one set of observations can only be measured accurately to 5% does not make it any less scientific/valid an observation than another type of observation which can be measured to 0.000000005%.

Here are some definitions as I understand them...again let me know if I'm wrong here.

Reproducibility refers to the ability to duplicate experiments between machines and individuals.

Accuracy is the difference between measured and true/standard values.

Precision is a check of variability, which can be within a given machine or operator, or between machines and operators.

So applying these to the BS, the question I have always had is this...concerning the output (both photographic, and qualitative/semi-quantitative) of these instruments - at what point can I (personally) see with my naked eye differences in a diamond which coincide with differences in output from this machine.

ALSO, and perhaps more importantly, can I therefore make predictions from the BS output about how the diamond will appear to my eye and visa versa - can I look at a diamond and accurately predict what the BS output will be.

I don't know that anyone has answered these questions yet.

 

[JohnQuixote]

----------------
John -

I certainly can buy into 5% error not being very scientific. And from the perspective of someone in the industry with exacting standards, and those consumers who are scientifically inclined, it sheds much skepticism.

In my experience, however, being a consumer unable to see a diamond before purchasing, I found it to be extremely helpful. Given I bought from Rhino, a very highly respected merchant, I took good faith in his BScope reports. When a consumer is shopping online, it is nice to have a BScope report to have something visual to quantify the light return of a diamond. It may not be exact, but as you said, it can weed the awesome from the good and the bad.

I concede to the point that the machine may not be accurate enough to be scientific. I stand firm on it being an excellent tool to determine what your getting. Many times the ideal scope is pushed as an excellent tool, and it is for those who know how to use it with experience, however, it does not visually interpret light return like the BScope. That was the turn-on to me. The BScope gave me information I could readily understand!----------------

Wonka,

Thanks. As a knowledgable consumer (and you are tops) I don't need to advise you on how to split hairs on selecting a diamond. You is edu-makated!

My crusade here relates more to John Q Public, rather than Sir Wonka the Wise (more below)

Appreciate the thoughts.

 

[JohnQuixote]

----------------
On 9/29/2004 11:44:16 AM Rhino wrote:

While we can all respectfully agree to disagree I would argue in favor for it's scientific accuracy. I was equally if not more skeptical than anyone when introduced to the technology. I only became a user/supporter of it after testing multiple diamonds whose light performance (and more specifically, their FireScope results) I was very familiar with. My initial testing was done with 5 stones whose results I was completely familiar with and each diamond came back from Gemex with results from best to worst exactly as I had labeled them (unknown to Gemex).

What's funny is Gemex thought I was going to say to them what many others say to them... ALL MY DIAMONDS DIDN'T TEST EXCELLENTLY, THEREFORE THE TECHNOLOGY MUST BE BOGUS! However I purposely sent them a mix of both excellent stones and also mediocre and also dogs. Each stone came back as predicted and I was sold.----------------

Hey RhinoKnight! Thanks for the response.

I readily accept your own experience on your own machine with your own self as the operator. I have the highest respect for your ability to reduce error which pedestrian operators experience. My fretting & frowning is focused on the masses who are not as active or adept. To wax metaphoric: They swim sans-lifeguard in the quagmire of established error, whereas you safely sail on your RhinoRaft of expertise

Let me know if we diverge on this count:

An inexperienced operator in Oregon gets a BS reading that is 5% low. An operator in Florida gets a reading that is 5% high. Even if they had run the same diamond the readings are seriously off from each other. I would be uneasy allowing a consumer to think he/she could actually compare those coast-to-coast readings from different machines and different operators to split hairs. Do we disagree?

The developers at GemEx have a reason for advertising the error. Perhaps if human operation were more consistent it would help... I would assume you are involved in research & supplying feedback to them (?)

----------------One of it's greatest strengths is it is a near perfect interpreter of red reflector images. I see many people asking for interpretations of their IS images here on the forum and how that translates to actual light performance. Nothing I've seen does this like the BrillianceScope.

My strongest reason for arguing it's scientific accuracy ... a completely different and unrelated technology confirms it's results. If a diamond takes a hit on the BrillianceScope, 99% of the time I can point to the reason why in LightScope results. These 2 technologies do not contradict each other. Rather they explain each other. Most people do not grasp this simple fact.----------------

Hmm, can you elaborate on this, particularly with regard to EightStar diamonds? By and large, they rarely get the highest BS readings but they are considered one of the best cut, most beautiful stones in the world...

I thank thee.

 

[JohnQuixote]

----------------
On 9/29/2004 4:03:22 PM DiamondExpert wrote:

I'm getting a bit confused by the terminology being used here, so let me make a couple of obsevations...let me know if you think these are off base.

A scientific measurement is one obtained using the Scientific Method. So to say that an instrument is 'not scientific' does not make sense to me.

In my mind the number of Significant Figures to which any measurement can be made is not related to the scientific validity of that measurement. The fact that one set of observations can only be measured accurately to 5% does not make it any less scientific/valid an observation than another type of observation which can be measured to 0.000000005%.

Here are some definitions as I understand them...again let me know if I'm wrong here.

Reproducibility refers to the ability to duplicate experiments between machines and individuals.

Accuracy is the difference between measured and true/standard values.

Precision is a check of variability, which can be within a given machine or operator, or between machines and operators.

So applying these to the BS, the question I have always had is this...concerning the output (both photographic, and qualitative/semi-quantitative) of these instruments - at what point can I (personally) see with my naked eye differences in a diamond which coincide with differences in output from this machine.

ALSO, and perhaps more importantly, can I therefore make predictions from the BS output about how the diamond will appear to my eye and visa versa - can I look at a diamond and accurately predict what the BS output will be.

I don't know that anyone has answered these questions yet.----------------

Hello Gary,

Most devices considered "scientific" have some margin of error. There are agencies set up to determine what constitutes reasonable parameters for a given device. My understanding is that precision (accuracy) and repeatability (you said reproducability) are indeed key ingredients.

It would be illuminating (forgive the pun) for GemEx to submit Brilliancescope to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (www.nist.gov). They are an agency of the US Commerce Department's Technology Administration that measures devices for repeatability and accuracy.

Either way, an official verdict on credibility would make these threads a lot shorter!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

My lonely voice in the wilderness has been repeatedly calling for Gemex to submit to industry peer review.
I have even offered to assist in editing etc

it would sort out a lot of issues

 

[DiamondExpert]

I agree, peer review is of utmost importance. However, I can see how proprietary/financial issues might get in the way, but hopefully, not be insurmountable.

 

[mdx]

----------------
On 9/30/2004 11:21:19 AM DiamondExpert wrote:

I agree, peer review is of utmost importance. However, I can see how proprietary/financial issues might get in the way, but hopefully, not be insurmountable.

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

I suppose one can understand these considerations, however I believe constructive criticism and suggestions from members of the industry would quickly find solutions to any shortcomings.

Gary’s kind offer to assist with editing would be just the beginning of the assistance they could get from the industry if they only asked.

If the industry trusts the technology so will the public.

Johan

 

[Blueman33]

----------------
On 9/27/2004 2:31:41 PM jesrush wrote:

Supposedly its possible to fake Bscope results and some vendors claim the Bscope gives different results each time its run on the same stone!



-JES----------------

One does wonder why it's not a more exact science. Ever looked at a cert and Sarin and seen different numbers? I have, more often than not. So one would think since an angle is a specific measurement, that it would be extremely rare that the cert and Sarin give differing numbers......but they often do. go figure, we can discover new planets billions of miles away but not accurately measure an angle.

 

[Blueman33]

SORTS OFF TOPIC, BUT

Are there any appraisers that use a Brilliance Scope?

Thanks.

 

[Rhino]

True strmrdr,

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]> /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

I know you'd prefer to see all diamonds measured on the same linear scale (I favor this too).Truth is I can do this and do it for clients upon request if they'd like to compare the results of any stone with that of a round.

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]> /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

Wonka... you have to be careful with strmrdr... he likes to sneak in those tricky questions (he knows full well that a triple VH round is not the same as a triple VH princess

)

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]> /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

However to expound on strmrdr's statement let me go on record as saying that even if 2 rounds score triple VH's, this does not mean that they will face up the same.

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]> /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

Ie. if you have 2 round brilliant cuts that both score triple VH's and they are of the 57 facet round brilliant cut (certain extreme cherries in H&A rounds score this) you will not be able to distinguish between two triple VH's and most 2/3 VH's as well.HOWEVER ... change the facet structure and there is a DRAMATIC difference in appearance between 2 rounds that score triple VH.Take these 2 stones for example.The first is a traditional H&A round brilliant cut to eek out some of the best and most intense light return possible within an H&A round...

Now take this other round brilliant cut. It too scores triple VH's yet look at the individual images it produced when put under the same light conditions.

Although strmrdr's question was a bit of a curve from left field there is real validity to his statement. 2 diamonds can have the same results (even within the same shape) and be 2 completely different looking diamonds. The difference is how the light is displayed back to the viewer and not necessarily the scientific results. Here is where human perception plays a role that is more prominent than science can report. The science however is correct in reporting that each of these stones are visually stunning rocks and do an excellent job in what they were cut out to do.

The subjective element of preference and beauty is where science is out and the human element enters.

 

[Blueman33]

Rhino,

is it my computer? I don't see any illustration on your post, just a blank spot.

Also, for fun, why don't you run a CZ through the BS and see what happens?

 

[Rhino]

Hey Gary,

Good to cya round. Scroll on down for the answers to your questions. My response will be bold.

----------------
On 9/29/2004 4:03:22 PM DiamondExpert wrote:











I'm getting a bit confused by the terminology being used here, so let me make a couple of obsevations...let me know if you think these are off base.

A scientific measurement is one obtained using the Scientific Method. So to say that an instrument is 'not scientific' does not make sense to me.

Me neither.

In my mind the number of Significant Figures to which any measurement can be made is not related to the scientific validity of that measurement. The fact that one set of observations can only be measured accurately to 5% does not make it any less scientific/valid an observation than another type of observation which can be measured to 0.000000005%.

Exactly. Which is the reason for strmrdr's funny comments about him rejecting the Sarin because it's tolerances are within X%. I got a kick out of that.

Here are some definitions as I understand them...again let me know if I'm wrong here.

Reproducibility refers to the ability to duplicate experiments between machines and individuals.

Yep.

Accuracy is the difference between measured and true/standard values.

Yep.

Precision is a check of variability, which can be within a given machine or operator, or between machines and operators.

We're on the same frequency here.

So applying these to the BS, the question I have always had is this...concerning the output (both photographic, and qualitative/semi-quantitative) of these instruments - at what point can I (personally) see with my naked eye differences in a diamond which coincide with differences in output from this machine.

Excellent question. I've probably answered this in another thread somewhere but let me go down as stating....

If a diamond scores 3 very highs on the BrillianceScope you will get serious eye candy. HOWEVER if a diamond scores 2/3 very highs and the one factor that scored "high" is on the upper end of the scale for High this would be very very difficult (if not impossible) to differentiate with the human eye. If the "high" is bordering on medium this is where I begin to see differences with the eye particularly with regards to scintillation. A hit in "white light return" is generally the result of too much leakage (or weak light return) caused by white or light reds in LightScope images.

ALSO, and perhaps more importantly, can I therefore make predictions from the BS output about how the diamond will appear to my eye and visa versa - can I look at a diamond and accurately predict what the BS output will be.

When you're working with the technology as long as I have, the answer to your question is yes. I would emphasize however that B'scope results reflect diamond appearance in direct light conditions and not diffuse light condtions. There are diamonds that perform excellently in direct light conditions but can outright suck in diffuse light conditions.

I'm about to add some additional information on this subject on our tutorial. Not sure to add it under the Isee2 project where we discuss brilliance in diffuse light conditions or perhaps to add it to our B'scope tutorial covering what the BS does not tell us regarding diamond appearance.

I don't know that anyone has answered these questions yet.
----------------

Now you know. If you have any other questions shoot em my way friend.

 

[wonka27]

----------------
On 9/30/2004 5:33:33 PM Rhino wrote:

Wonka... you have to be careful with strmrdr... he likes to sneak in those tricky questions (he knows full well that a triple VH round is not the same as a triple VH princess

)

I know that my man

I sort of bowed out of this discussion to let the heavyweights have it out. I like to bring to the table the somewhat above average educated customer's point of view to the table.

The BScope, while maybe "flawed" by questions of margin of error or as you showed how two diamonds have similar scores, but different "looks" can help give people a visual idea of what is going on with their diamond. If someone wants more analysis as to what they are seeing, I'm sure a reputable dealer, like yourself, Rhino, would be happy to explain what their BScope is showing them and how another diamond with similar scores may be different. For me, it goes to adding comfort to a "blind" purchase. This tool gave me the best idea of what light return would be that I could comprehend. I know the Idealscope or Lightscope can let you know how a diamond will perform in general, but I seriously have to believe to be an effective user of it and really see the color differences and understand what the mean, you need to look at a bunch of diamonds and their scope readings to become comfortable. BScope breaks it down into simple characteristics that are easier to understand. Might not be perfect, but with the right vendor, it is an incredibly useful tool.

Sorry if I am bantering like a skipping record, but once again I'm trying to shed light from the average consumer's point of view. I can certainly understand the debate between industry experts and highly educated consumers.

 

[Rhino]

Wazzup Don! woops... I mean John.

Scroll on down friend.

----------------
On 9/30/2004 1:00:19 AM JohnQuixote wrote:











Let me know if we diverge on this count:

An inexperienced operator in Oregon gets a BS reading that is 5% low. An operator in Florida gets a reading that is 5% high. Even if they had run the same diamond the readings are seriously off from each other. I would be uneasy allowing a consumer to think he/she could actually compare those coast-to-coast readings from different machines and different operators to split hairs. Do we disagree?

I understand that some people who acquired the technology are not having similar experiences that I am having. For the most part however all the machines, at least those which I have been able to see results on have all correllated fine. Bill down in Boca Raton has one and we have sent many diamonds there to be appraised and ran on his BrillianceScope. Never has a client pulled out of a deal because our results were so different. We recently acquired diamonds from 2 different supplier who use the BrillianceScope and as I compare their results to my own I am finding them to either be *exact* or dam close to it. I will say however that I've seen results before that looked questionable. This is why I prefer to use both LightScope and B'scope in my analysis of light return in direct lights before I make a financial decision.

The developers at GemEx have a reason for advertising the error. Perhaps if human operation were more consistent it would help... I would assume you are involved in research & supplying feedback to them (?)

Yep.

----------------One of it's greatest strengths is it is a near perfect interpreter of red reflector images. I see many people asking for interpretations of their IS images here on the forum and how that translates to actual light performance. Nothing I've seen does this like the BrillianceScope.

My strongest reason for arguing it's scientific accuracy ... a completely different and unrelated technology confirms it's results. If a diamond takes a hit on the BrillianceScope, 99% of the time I can point to the reason why in LightScope results. These 2 technologies do not contradict each other. Rather they explain each other. Most people do not grasp this simple fact.----------------

Hmm, can you elaborate on this, particularly with regard to EightStar diamonds? By and large, they rarely get the highest BS readings but they are considered one of the best cut, most beautiful stones in the world...

I thank thee.
----------------

Funny you should ask this John. In case you don't know I was a distributor of Eightstar diamonds. The biggest question that festered me was "Why didn't an Eightstar peg the meters on everything?" This led to a very deep study of mine which was not quenched until around a year after I began the study. While the answer would require a short book, the simple answer to this question lies in what I would term "the positioning of mirrors".

As briefly as I know how ...

A diamonds facets will function in one of two roles. They will either function as mirrors or windows. Mirrors obviously reflect back what is being transmitted into them while windows let light pass through. I will go on record as saying that Eightstar has *perfected* getting a diamonds facets to function as mirrors. The original FireScope(tm) did (and does) an excellent job of showing a laymen/gemologist light return/leakage within a diamond. So, while most red reflectors do a fine job of showing whether the facets are functioning as mirrors or windows, none of them show me (at least to the detail that I enjoy) *what position those mirrors are directing light through the crown and at what intensity*.

Say you are sitting across from me and you point the beam of light from a flashlight at me. Now lets say I'm holding a mirror in my hands. I can, with my mirror redirect your beam of light wherever I want to. If I direct that beam of light right back in your face (the most intense flash of light back to the eyes) OR if I rediret that beam of light a little to the left and to the right of your eyes, we know that the flashes of light that get noticed across the room are those beams that get reflected back at the high angles. If the facets are functioning as mirrors but the light is being directed at angles that are further away from the viewers field of view, these are the least effective mirrors while those that are directing a majority of light into or near the viewers face, THESE account for the most attractive diamonds on the market.

So you see ... a solid red/black IS image, while nice, is not ultimately what I'm looking for. I want to know what position those mirrors are directing the light. If there are *too many* mirrors pointing in the same direction this decreases contrast. On the flip side if the facets are not functioning as mirrors at all then we have too much leakage. Therein lies the happy balance.

It might interest you to know that I have personally made recommendations to certain companies to help them increase the amount of light that is being directed at those high angles, thus making for a more brilliant, more scintillating diamond. Most factories don't want to listen as they are set in their ways. However there are some companies who are heeding the call. We are about to introduce such a stone in the upcoming month. It has no light leakage and has been tweaked to the extent that it also maximizes all light return within the stone to cause the majority of light to exit at the high angles. The result?

I'll have to get permission before I post em.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 9/30/2004 5:26:35 PM Blueman33 wrote:

----------------
On 9/27/2004 2:31:41 PM jesrush wrote:





Supposedly its possible to fake Bscope results and some vendors claim the Bscope gives different results each time its run on the same stone!



-JES----------------

One does wonder why it's not a more exact science. Ever looked at a cert and Sarin and seen different numbers? I have, more often than not. So one would think since an angle is a specific measurement, that it would be extremely rare that the cert and Sarin give differing numbers......but they often do. go figure, we can discover new planets billions of miles away but not accurately measure an angle.

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

LOL... perhaps we should toss out our Sarin's because they don't always agree with the labs too.

You're correct though Blueman. Not always do Sarin's agree with each other and the same diamond can be ran on a Sarin and produce different results (although this happens less often with Sarin's most sophisticated model). Just as we should not toss out our Sarin's because of these minor differences, neither should the B'scope be blasted for it's minor differences. If it misrepresented the product, now that's a different story.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 9/30/2004 5:33:03 PM Blueman33 wrote:





SORTS OFF TOPIC, BUT

Are there any appraisers that use a Brilliance Scope?

Thanks.
----------------

www.consumersgemlab.com I think Bill is very ill though.

 

[Rhino]

BTW ... please do not miscontrue my statements as being "anti-Eightstar". I happen to think very highly of the product, the company that cuts them and also their distributors. Especially Wink.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 9/30/2004 5:33:33 PM Rhino wrote:

I know you'd prefer to see all diamonds measured on the same linear scale (I favor this too)

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

The Gem Adviser does this, right ? Although it's scores are based on a virtual model rather than direct measurement, those are good to have.

Does the GemAdviser score take into account the difference between direct and diffuse light conditions mentioned (yet again) on this thread ?

 

[Superidealist]

strmrdr wrote:
Thats my biggest beef with it is the multiple scales.

Multiple scales are there for a reason. The BrillianceScope is first and foremost a sales tool. If all diamonds were compared on the same scale, certain cuts would be harder to sell. It's the same reason there is a "Very High" score but no "Very Low" score.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Thanks for your reply Rhino!

I guess that things can get "murky" when trying to translate the BS output into an individual's perception of just how "beautiful" a stone looks to one's eye.

For example, the higher a BS reading does not necessarily translate into a better, more beautiful looking diamond. I gather this from the fact the 8* and some other super-ideal cuts may not peg out on the BS compared to some which do. So an individual may select the lesser performing stone (i.e., 8* or other super-ideal cut) over a pegged out stone due to personal preference.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 9/30/2004 7:10:54 PM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
On 9/30/2004 5:33:33 PM Rhino wrote:

I know you'd prefer to see all diamonds measured on the same linear scale (I favor this too)

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

The Gem Adviser does this, right ? Although it's scores are based on a virtual model rather than direct measurement, those are good to have.

Yes and yes.

Does the GemAdviser score take into account the difference between direct and diffuse light conditions mentioned (yet again) on this thread ?

No.

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

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 9/30/2004 8:22:41 PM Superidealist wrote:

strmrdr wrote:




Thats my biggest beef with it is the multiple scales.

Multiple scales are there for a reason. The BrillianceScope is first and foremost a sales tool. If all diamonds were compared on the same scale, certain cuts would be harder to sell. It's the same reason there is a 'Very High' score but no 'Very Low' score.
----------------

There are some misconceptions here. First and foremost the BrillianceScope IS NOT a sales tool. The BrillianceScope did not even have it's start in the diamond trade. It was initially used in the medical field as a photospectrometer for measuring light.

The various scales used for the different shapes is not some money making hoax created by Gemex to sell more diamonds as SuperIdealist is implying. Those scales were created so the shape being measured can be compared to other like shapes. Plain and simple. It is common knowledge that rounds are among the most brilliant diamonds in the world and the people at Gemex are not trying to create an illusion that all the other shapes are just as brilliant, just showing how that particular diamond fares amongst other stones of the same shape.

 

[Rhino]

Hey bossman,

You've basically hit the nail on the head but I'd just add a few comments.

----------------
On 9/30/2004 8:40:12 PM DiamondExpert wrote:











Thanks for your reply Rhino!

I guess that things can get 'murky' when trying to translate the BS output into an individual's perception of just how 'beautiful' a stone looks to one's eye.

I wouldn't use the term "murky" because a person comparing 2 diamonds with excellent Brilliancescope results will be deciding between 2 beautiful diamonds. Not one with bad leakage vs one with hardly any.

For example, the higher a BS reading does not necessarily translate into a better, more beautiful looking diamond. I gather this from the fact the 8* and some other super-ideal cuts may not peg out on the BS compared to some which do. So an individual may select the lesser performing stone (i.e., 8* or other super-ideal cut) over a pegged out stone due to personal preference.
----------------

Correct. This is a point I was trying to drive home with SI in another thread. Beauty *is* in the eye of the beholder and is subjective. Light return within a diamond and the intensity of it is not.

Peace,

 

[Superidealist]

Rhino wrote:
First and foremost the BrillianceScope IS NOT a sales tool.

GemEx wrote (capitalization is theirs, not mine):
GemEx Systems, Inc. provides the gem and Jewelry industry with the tools to SELL and evaluate diamonds and gemstones.

 

[strmrdr]

Some clarifications and observations from way out in left field.
Which btw needs some watering the grass is getting a little brown.

This is what I said "scientific? with a 5% error not hardly in this day and age of .000001 accuracy I consider the sarin/ogi at .2 degree accuracy unacceptable as well.
But they are what’s available and better than some of the other snake oil pushed on consumers"

not
"Which is the reason for strmrdr's funny comments about him rejecting the Sarin because it's tolerances are within X%."

My point was and is that with modern tech. much better is possible and that good enough is well not good enough. Im pushing for better.
Better info
Better tools
Better vendors - there is always room for improvement not a slam on anyone here.
Better diamonds
Better world :}

I dont see a disclaimer on the sarin and b-scope info that the vendors post that the accuracy is .2 degrees on one and 5% on the other.
You can bet that when the machine arrives that is accurate to .000001 they will brag about it. Why dont they brag now? because they know in this age that that level is not acceptable in most fields.
Would you want your cars engine built with 5% tolerences?
I think not.

5% is toy level accuracy not scientific level accuracy for the simple reason that the sample size at that error level would have to be huge to draw any meaningfull conclusions.
Political polls run in that range with small samples. hmmmm I guess Ronney didnt serve 2 terms did he? Not if you believed the pre-election polls he wouldnt have anyway.

Im all for information and would rather have b-scope data on a diamond im considering than not have it but it has to just be one factor in many.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 10/1/2004 12:46:39 AM Superidealist wrote:

Rhino wrote:




First and foremost the BrillianceScope IS NOT a sales tool.

GemEx wrote (capitalization is theirs, not mine):




GemEx Systems, Inc. provides the gem and Jewelry industry with the tools to SELL and evaluate diamonds and gemstones.

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

Of course it is used to sell high quality diamonds. The gist of your initial post made it sound like the scales for the different shapes were developed by Gemex to somehow dupe people into believing a diamond was more brilliant than it actually is when that is plainly not the reason.

 

[Superidealist]

Rhino wrote:
I know you'd prefer to see all diamonds measured on the same linear scale (I favor this too).

Rhino also wrote:
Those scales were created so the shape being measured can be compared to other like shapes.

Couldn't diamonds of the same shape be compared on the one linear scale you favor? If not, why do you favor it?

 

[Blueman33]

Whether perfect or not, it is an actual light performance measurement on an individual stone, so that's cool.

The HCA is a very very cool tool, but it's based on diminsions, not the actual stone.

So, just for sake of an extreme argument, if you looked at a stone from the Sarin or from the HCA that showed well.......BUT it was an "I55 totally black with super strong brown florescence competing with the black" then the BS would report different results.

I know, I know, I know.......this is extreme and off the wall, but my point is that if this is a very consumer oriented, easy to read, Very High, high, low, type of rating on an individual stone that is easy to understand. So i think it's good, and the short comings will be addressed as time goes by.

Cheers, to all PScopers

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 10/1/2004 1:23:29 AM Superidealist wrote:

Rhino wrote:




I know you'd prefer to see all diamonds measured on the same linear scale (I favor this too).

Rhino also wrote:




Those scales were created so the shape being measured can be compared to other like shapes.

Couldn't diamonds of the same shape be compared on the one linear scale you favor? If not, why do you favor it?
----------------

Hi SI,

Sure all the shapes could be compared on one linear scale. We get requests for this often and I am happy to oblige. Putting a marquise or pear on the round scale, IMO really gives a perspective of where these shapes fall in the grand scheme of things and there is much to be learned from this. At the same token it is very revealing to put Jubilee's and the new Square Cushion H&A's on same scale to demonstrate where they fall as well. When clients ask SI, I am very quick to point out that most fancies do not have the same light return as rounds. That is where shape and the look of a particular cut takes personal preference over facts of light return/leakage. Marquise diamonds leak like sieves but if a person loves the look of a nicely shaped/proportioned marquise that's what we'll help them find. We will show them where that marquise falls within the realm of other marquises and if they'd like to see how it fares on the round scale we'll show them that too.

SI... you are a natural born skeptic just as I am. I do still believe in innocent until proven guilty though.

Have a good evening bro. This Rhino is tuckered.

 

[JohnQuixote]

RhinoKnight LOL. Hey, just don't call me "The" Don.
(in growly voice) "Or I haf'ta make yous a deal yous can't refuse."

Okay.
Lots to digest in this thread. I am trying to keep topics concise.

To the original question: Is BS Accurate (scientifically or otherwise)

John (JohnQuixote): "An inexperienced operator in Oregon gets a BS reading that is 5% low. An operator in Florida gets a reading that is 5% high. Even if they had run the same diamond the readings are seriously off from each other. I would be uneasy allowing a consumer to think he/she could actually compare those coast-to-coast readings from different machines and different operators to split hairs. Do we disagree?"

Jonathan (Rhino): "I understand that some people who acquired the technology are not having similar experiences that I am having. For the most part however all the machines, at least those which I have been able to see results on have all correllated fine. Bill down in Boca Raton has one and we have sent many diamonds there to be appraised and ran on his BrillianceScope. Never has a client pulled out of a deal because our results were so different. We recently acquired diamonds from 2 different supplier who use the BrillianceScope and as I compare their results to my own I am finding them to either be *exact* or dam close to it. I will say however that I've seen results before that looked questionable. This is why I prefer to use both LightScope and B'scope in my analysis of light return in direct lights before I make a financial decision.

Jonathan (Rhino): "2 diamonds can have the same results (even within the same shape) and be 2 completely different looking diamonds. The difference is how the light is displayed back to the viewer and not necessarily the scientific results. Here is where human perception plays a role that is more prominent than science can report."

THUSLY: My answer even more strongly leans towards no. Particularly considering operator experience coupled with that built-in error. I suggest the answer is supported further by the Eightstar discussion (below). Stay tuned! Go get another beverage but don't touch that dial!