Idealscope or Brilliancescope?

[badger.packer.fan]

I realize these two tools measure different properties of the diamond, but I'm sure there must be a correlation somewhere. My question is in the absence of both reports, which gives more information about a particular diamond's light performance? Whiteflash typically only gives an Idealscope reading on their site. Is this sufficient enough to extrapolate a 'good enough' guess of what the Brilliancescope reading might be?

Here's an ACA from Whiteflash (it hit the 1 carat mark so out of my price range, but otherwise the rest of the Cs are the same)

1.0 F-VS2

This only has an Idealscope.

I'm considering this one here from Superbcert:

.89 F-VS2

What do you guys think? I ask because typically Excel provides the Idealscope report as well, but this one for whatever reason doesn't have one. I'm a little hesitant because the brilliance reading is only 'High'. Will I notice a difference between a 'high' as opposed to 'very high'?

Which would you choose (assume they were about the same size so the price difference is negligible)? On the HCA, the ACA scores .6 while the Superbcert gets a .9

 

[JohnQuixote]

Our preference is ideal-scope at this time.

As a FYI - ACAs have been through BrillianceScope before.  We had one onsite to evaluate the technology but decided against its continued use (others use it and that is fine). ACAs typically received the top end of H/VH, but a diamond run several times can acquire slightly different results. We also hesitate to use a machine that tests diamonds in a lighting condition they will never actually be viewed in.

Ideal-scope is repeatable and we carefully use light correlating to color and intensity of natural daylight for our IS images, so that’s our ‘natural’ path at this time.

I do want to be clear - that we have no problem with those who use BrillianceScope.  In the hands of a skilled operator it can be used to provide interesting pieces of a puzzle.  We consider its results a supplemental reference. We may begin using such technology one day when it can be proven repeatable and applicable to real-world conditions.

 

[badger.packer.fan]

Hi John,

You have some amazing stones from what I can tell!!!! Too bad you don''t have any ACA''s that are around .9

Given an Idealscope picture that indicates a very well cut diamond (with great symmetry, dark arrows, and dark spots between arrow heads and arrow base with lots of dark red, such as yours), would you say that gives a fairly accurate assessment of how it will perform in everyday lighting conditions?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hi BPF,

Are you looking for something around .9 ct in size or a HCA score of .9 (since you alluded to that above)?

A high quality ideal-scope image is a reliable predictor of high quality performance. The IS images you're seeing with anything in the ACA line (and top diamonds from other vendors) will be as you described above. It indicates that the vast majority of light is being returned to the viewer's eye.

Here is a chart showing excellent return on the left to poor return on the right.

As for 'everyday lighting conditions,' the amount of light returned in soft or diffuse versus direct lighting may vary depending on facet construction. The arrangement of minor facets (lower girdles particularly) within proven sets of major proportions will determine the balance of WLR, DCLR, contrast and scintillation that occurs from direct light conditions - to those inside an office building - to those in candlelight.

Those who focus on such things are particular not only with the major proportions, but the the minor facet construction as well. Those particulars, though extremely minute, are why some 'superideal' diamonds command a premium.

 

[strmrdr]

My opinion is that the ideal-scope images show most people if the diamond has good light return but little or nothing about the personality of the diamond.
If you know what to look for in the smallest details you can get more information out of them but its not easy to pick up.

The b-scope tells me a lot about a diamonds personality in direct light.
The scales are nice but I find the photos more interesting.

Both in the end are nothing more than tools to show you the buyer what a very skilled vendor will know without the tools.
I view them more as communication tools.

 

[badger.packer.fan]

Date: 4/19/2005 2

3

7 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
Hi BPF,


Are you looking for something around .9 ct in size or a HCA score of .9 (since you alluded to that above)?

Sorry John, I was looking for a ACA stone in the .9 ct range

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 4/19/2005 11:57

8 AM
Author: badger.packer.fan

Sorry John, I was looking for a ACA stone in the .9 ct range

It''s hard to find .9 goods. We currently have one at .9 and a few in the .8 range, but you likely saw that.

The 1.0 mark is a prized weight, so with rough of appropriate size cutters will try not to dip below it if the brillianteering goes as planned. Of course, now and then one will appear, whether by design or because they had to polish away a little extra to get it tweaked just right.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 4/19/2005 12:18:21 PM
Author: JohnQuixote



....so with rough of appropriate size cutters will try not to dip below it if the brillianteering goes as planned....

yeah...so what if the cutters were mice!

 

[badger.packer.fan]

Barry just posted the rest of the pictures!!! What do you guys think of this little gem

Bscope

ImageScope

The IScope looks bright red as opposed to a darker red, but is it just the lighting conditions?

Thanks for all your opinioins.

 

[RockDoc]

I don''t know if this has occured with that IS image, but it COULD be enhanced. Photos can appear differently on different monitiors and not necessarily as the view made with the human eye.

As for the B Scope.... try logging the report number into the Live Report section of www.gemex.com, and you may be able to see more about it.

Rockdoc

 

[JohnQuixote]

Photos can  appear differently on different monitiors and not necessarily as the view made with the human eye.

Bill - That is why we carefully correlate our light source to daylight for ideal-scope images. The photos look like what we see with our eyes using natural backlighting. These differences and resultant consumer consternation are why we are calling for standardization of red-reflector imagery.

BPF, Barry's ImageScope photo is a brighter overall hue, but that's ok. It looks like a very nice diamond.

You can read this thread for discussion on different lighting used with red reflector type photos.