how rare is 3 "VH" on the Brilliancescope?

[drkewl]

Assuming an Ideal Cut diamond, how rare is a diamond that can consistantly (over more than one try) score 3 "very highs" on the Brilliancescope? 1 in 10? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? I remember Jonathon from GOG stating at some point "2 VH and 1 H is rare, 3 VH are exceptionally rare"... but i guess i''m wondering how rare exactly?

Just a curiousity question.

 

[strmrdr]

storm pulls some numbers out of the air :}
Out of just an old ideal cut more like one in 10000
out of super-ideals 1 in 500

But there is really more to it than that.
There are super-ideals that by design will never score 3vh.
They will score h, vh ,h range across the entire line.

There are certain characteristics the B-scope rewards and a diamonds can be cut to meet those.
While some cutters feel that a better balance is achieved with other characteristics than what the B-scope rewards so none of there diamonds will achieve 3 vh.

 

[drkewl]

Ty for your air numbers storm

And I agree that some cuts prohibit a triple VH score from being obtained

Anyone else with a differing opinion??


do i hear one in eleventybillion?

 

[Maxine]

Date: 8/7/2005 1:10:44 PM
Author: strmrdr
storm pulls some numbers out of the air :}
Out of just an old ideal cut more like one in 10000
out of super-ideals 1 in 500

But there is really more to it than that.
There are super-ideals that by design will never score 3vh.
They will score h, vh ,h range across the entire line.

There are certain characteristics the B-scope rewards and a diamonds can be cut to meet those.
While some cutters feel that a better balance is achieved with other characteristics than what the B-scope rewards so none of there diamonds will achieve 3 vh.

Please elaborate, Storm........is ist good for a stone to score 3 VH....or NOT???

 

[JD_MD]

I bought a RB diamond 2 weeks ago that scored a triple VH and it was the first triple VH diamond that I ever saw anywhere (of course i was looking at a specific of carat weight range).

A good test would be GOG''s site. Jonathan has well over 200 H&A diamonds listed and each one has a BrillianceScope report posted. I''d be curious to see how many score a triple VH. I''m guessing less than 5 - and he already screens out all but the "best of the best".

Very rare....

 

[Bagpuss]

Storm said
''There are certain characteristics the B-scope rewards and a diamonds can be cut to meet those.
While some cutters feel that a better balance is achieved with other characteristics than what the B-scope rewards so none of there diamonds will achieve 3 vh.''

Please expand.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/7/2005 5:56:51 PM
Author: Maxine

Date: 8/7/2005 1:10:44 PM

Author: strmrdr

storm pulls some numbers out of the air :}

Out of just an old ideal cut more like one in 10000

out of super-ideals 1 in 500


But there is really more to it than that.

There are super-ideals that by design will never score 3vh.

They will score h, vh ,h range across the entire line.


There are certain characteristics the B-scope rewards and a diamonds can be cut to meet those.

While some cutters feel that a better balance is achieved with other characteristics than what the B-scope rewards so none of there diamonds will achieve 3 vh.

Please elaborate, Storm........is ist good for a stone to score 3 VH....or NOT???

I consider vh vh h the same as vh vh vh for all practical purposes so when I say 3 vh it also applies to vh vh h.
The explanation of why is way to long for this post.


Yes I think its a good thing for a diamond to score 3vh but it isnt always a bad thing for a diamond to score h,vh,h.
When a diamond scores h,vh,h then one needs to look into it and see if it was cut to perform that way or if there is something off in the cut kicking it down.
Looking at the b-scope pictures is the fast way to tell that.
otherwise the star length and the lgf size have to be looked at.
If it scores h,vh,h and the stars are over 50% and the lgf is 80% then something is wrong with the cut. Usually not having optimal angles.

If the lgf is in the 77-78 range and the stars are in the under 60% range then h,vh,h is what I expect from it.
Which is the range that a highly respected PS vendors brand falls and why they dont like the b-scope.
It is a little misleading in there case to downgrade the diamond for a h,vh,h score in most cases.
Everything is a trade off when it comes to the best cut and they place the trade off in a different area.

All that said a 3 vh+ diamond that also manages to pull a 9.8 on the isee2 is the rarest of them all and an awesome all around performer.
By themselves the b-scope and isee2 dont mean much to me but I consider them very nice pieces of the puzzle when comparing diamonds.
they should never be the sole criteria for choosing a diamond
In other words its not a deal breaker not to have them but when they are available they should be considered.

 

[drkewl]

What is the ISEE2? Is that light perfromance in non-direct lighting situations? I faintly remember seeing this here and there but can''t place it...

 

[ame]

Mine''s all in the Very High Range. Most of the stones we were shown in this cut were in the Very High range as well.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/7/2005 6:44:21 PM
Author: drkewl
What is the ISEE2? Is that light perfromance in non-direct lighting situations? I faintly remember seeing this here and there but can''t place it...

Yep measures contrast and light return in indirect lighting as well as optical symmetry with varying degrees of success.
It doesnt have the history nor as much available information as the b-scope so I consider it even less important to have but interesting.


http://www.goodoldgold.com/the_isee2_project.htm

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/7/2005 6:51:11 PM
Author: ame
Mine''s all in the Very High Range. Most of the stones we were shown in this cut were in the Very High range as well.

The star 129''s iv seen in the larger sizes were very nice diamonds.
In the under 2ct size range I didnt care for them but it was a preference issue nothing else :}

 

[ame]

Maybe when Im older I will get over my "modesty" and "practicality" issues and consider larger stones...till then I still say my max is 1.25. He went bigger than I really was thinking but I love it anyway. And of course, now we can go over a carat a little. hehe. Luckily for me they look just as great bigger than .86.

We weren''t even considering many rounds till we laid eyes on this cut. Just looks great. When big-name jewelers comment on the quality of it, that''s a big deal to me. And as much as it annoys me when strangers grab at my hand and freak out, it''s still a thrill.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/7/2005 7:01:00 PM
Author: ame
Maybe when Im older I will get over my ''modesty'' and ''practicality'' issues and consider larger stones...till then I still say my max is 1.25. He went bigger than I really was thinking but I love it anyway. And of course, now we can go over a carat a little. hehe. Luckily for me they look just as great bigger than .86.


We weren''t even considering many rounds till we laid eyes on this cut. Just looks great. When big-name jewelers comment on the quality of it, that''s a big deal to me. And as much as it annoys me when strangers grab at my hand and freak out, it''s still a thrill.

Kewl im happy for you :}
They have a look all there own and if that look speaks to you and you love it then that is what is most important :}

 

[ame]

Oh I love the extra facets. I wish there were other shapes in this cuts, specifically pears. Id love some pear shaped sides!

 

[Dancing Fire]

if you''re looking for 3 VH on the b-scope.you will need to look for stones with 80% LGF,skinnier arrows with tiny hot spots (not big) along the arrow shafts.the beautifully cut fatter arrow stones with 77-78% LGF will most likely to score H VH H.both type are beautiful,wouldn''t mind owning either type.

 

[drkewl]

80% LGF versus 77-78% LGF... visually, what does this difference mean? As storm pointed out, certain cutters may perfer going with a smaller % LGF, thereby sacrificing a bit on the 'brilliancescope' but instead gaining... what exactly?

I know i'm splitting hairs. But I remember a number of people in older posts saying there is just something in a WF ACA diamond that looks different than a normal 'super ideal' diamond. What exactly is the difference, in words if possible?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/7/2005 8:26:19 PM
Author: drkewl
80% LGF versus 77-78% LGF... visually, what does this difference mean? As storm pointed out, certain cutters may perfer going with a smaller % LGF, thereby sacrificing a bit on the ''brilliancescope'' but instead gaining... what exactly?

the fatter arrows supposely do better in dim lights.

the skinner arrows supposely do better in direct lights.

if both stones are well cut...i probably can''t tell the difference if my life depended on it.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/7/2005 8:26:19 PM
Author: drkewl
80% LGF versus 77-78% LGF... visually, what does this difference mean? As storm pointed out, certain cutters may perfer going with a smaller % LGF, thereby sacrificing a bit on the 'brilliancescope' but instead gaining... what exactly?

I know i'm splitting hairs. But I remember a number of people in older posts saying there is just something in a WF ACA diamond that looks different than a normal 'super ideal' diamond. What exactly is the difference, in words if possible?

Hmm. This may be the most objectively balanced Brilliancescope thread I've ever seen here. Very good input. Or maybe I'm getting soft.


DrKewl,

It is possible to get very particular with all of this, but you're in good company. There is an ongoing thread with some discussion occuring that is exactly along these lines. Here is a post with our philosophy about minors, LGF in particular as it relates to your question (when you click you may have to scroll down to "Lower girdle lengths and balance").

 

[strmrdr]

Unless you want to get confused ignore the thread John pointed out.
Way too much personal opinion stated as fact going on in that thread.

 

[drkewl]

LOL. Yes that thread, while informative, takes a hair, splits it, then splits it again and again

While i''m sure its a nice debate on performance, i''m not sure that my virgin diamond eyes would be able to pick out the differences they are talking about, but hey i can''t help but to be curious.

 

[Bagpuss]

Everything is a trade off when it comes to the best cut and they place the trade off in a different area


I assume that the trade offs you''re talking about relate to how differently cut diamonds ''look'' and perform in different lighting situations - like an OEC has broad flashes of light and a lot of rainbow colours and it does well sparkling in low light conditions like candle-light?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2005 2:28:06 PM
Author: Bagpuss
Everything is a trade off when it comes to the best cut and they place the trade off in a different area



I assume that the trade offs you''re talking about relate to how differently cut diamonds ''look'' and perform in different lighting situations - like an OEC has broad flashes of light and a lot of rainbow colours and it does well sparkling in low light conditions like candle-light?

You got it :}

 

[Patty]

My .95c, I, I-1 stone has 3 VHs. I didn''t realize that it was that rare.

 

[drkewl]

man i don''t know why i can''t make this pic bigger, but then its over the ''100kb'' limit. oy

anyways mine got great results, just the brilliance in the ''low VH area'' so possible if the test was run more than once it may move down to a high ''high'' etc. Whatever, doubt my eyes could tell the difference.

 

[RockDoc]

To analyze a B Scope properly it takes more than just seeing the report.

I believe the stone needs to be seen in the B Scope Viewer as well. I have found the B Scope viewer to provide a interesting comparison to the B Scope Analyzeer as the position of the light entry angle can be infinitely adjusted and the result is being judged by human eye, which of course factors in the attractiveness of the stone that the analyzer does not provide.

Generally speaking, the more light return, the more attractive a stone will be, but if the light return is great but not in all areas of the stone equally, the B Scope sees it, but it is light return pixel counter in the final bar ratings it has.

Additionally, WHEN the stone was imaged has some significant bearing on it too. With the advent of the B Scope, many cutters are cutting better looking diamonds ( both to the machine, and by eye). As better "scoring" diamonds are imaged the software''s rating system is adjusted.

Recently we had a stone come in that was rated on the older system. It got all three VH + ratings. But with the new camera, the special laser alignment and software updates, the same stone scored markedly less. But to be fair it was a fancy shape diamond where the B Scope database doesn''t have a lot of data. There is a reasonable amount for this shape, but rounds and princess stones have been imaged with enough samplings that the rating software is darn accurate.

THE BSCOPE DOES NOT PRIMARILLY MEASURE ATTRACTIVENESS TO THE EYE. That is the job of the eyeball and the B Scope analyzer information coupled with the B Scope Viewer results is far more complete.

It does provide some rather advanced detail. Whiteflash might not like this, but I have seen a significant improvement with the B Scope in their stones in the last two years. I can see when and what they do to improve the cutting they do. Again this is sort of hair splitting, but I can see when a cutter changes something for the better.


Rockdoc

 

[drkewl]

RockDoc, just curious... when a stone is graded AGS000 (the new one where light performance is graded), how strict are they in weeding our weaker performers? The stone whose BS image i posted was graded by AGS on July 21, 2005 (so i''m assuming it was cut recently).

 

[hlmr]

Date: 8/8/2005 2:43:56 PM
Author: Patty

My .95c, I, I-1 stone has 3 VHs. I didn''t realize that it was that rare.

My stone has 3 VH''s too. Is it really that rare?

Heather

 

[drkewl]

Well right now it looks to me like its ''rare'' as in the majority of diamonds you see people wearing will not score 3 VH or even 2 VHs for that matter. Among people in this forum who know what they are looking for, it is more common but still wonderful nevertheless.

 

[JROC]

Date: 8/8/2005 4:12:09 PM
Author: RockDoc

"Recently we had a stone come in that was rated on the older system. It got all three VH + ratings. But with the new camera, the special laser alignment and software updates, the same stone scored markedly less."

Rockdoc

RocDoc,
What is the "older" B Scope system you are referring to and when was it changed? I am curious because mine has a Bscope test that was done this past June, was it the new version or older?

Thanks!

 

[drkewl]

I'm curious about this to JROC. On my BS analysis I noticed the version was 6.1 and was done recently... but rockdoc makes it sound like they have updated some hardware as well in it? Or maybe replaced it with a new version of the BS from an older version and continuously updated the software?

confused....