moosewendy
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 68
There''s a focus on pricescope on using as much "science" as possible to compare diamonds and determine which is better. For a scientific measurement to be meaningful, you need to be gathering the correct data, and then interpreting it correctly. Does anybody know whether a diamond that "performs" better on these "scientific" tests actually looks nicer. If, for example, 100 people who knew nothing about diamonds looked at two diamonds and there was 80% agreement diamond A was nicer, it would be fair to say that, by the only standard that matters, the subjective taste of real people, diamond A is indeed nicer. Does anyone know whether any studies have been done correlating "performance" to beauty?
The Brilliancescope people (Gemex) for example, have told me that they are not even attempting to measure beauty. They are simply "providing a scientific measure of certain optical characteristics." I submit that if these "scientific" tests do not correlate to beauty, they are really just marketing gimmicks with no real substance.
Does anybody know whether, particularly with fancy shapes, any studies have been done to determine whether the "scientific" results actually correlate to beauty?
The Brilliancescope people (Gemex) for example, have told me that they are not even attempting to measure beauty. They are simply "providing a scientific measure of certain optical characteristics." I submit that if these "scientific" tests do not correlate to beauty, they are really just marketing gimmicks with no real substance.
Does anybody know whether, particularly with fancy shapes, any studies have been done to determine whether the "scientific" results actually correlate to beauty?