Whiteflash''s "A Cut Above" under the BrillianceScope

[esqknight]

Hi Folks,

In contemplating my upcoming diamond purchase, one of the venders and products I am considering was Whiteflash''s "cut above" line and after looking at some of the BrillianceScope images for "hearts and arrows" rounds posted by Good Old Gold on their site, another vender and product I''m considering, I was wondering how "A Cut Above" diamonds from Whiteflash fair under the BrillianceScope. Has anyone put them under the BrillianceScope? If so, is there a standard range since ACA stones are cut by the same source?

I apologize if this was already discussed. After searching, I couldn''t find a prior thread. If there is one, feel free to direct me there.

Later,
Eric

 

[DiamondExpert]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! Nothing like the smell of a freshly opened can of worms!

Good Luck!

 

[pricescope]

Esqknight, here is a couple of previous threads on this subject:

Importance of BrillianceScope Images?

ACA & Brilliancescope


Gary, what''s with you and worms?

 

[esqknight]

I just reviwed the past dicussions and I it doesn't seem that anyone has ever posted results obtained with ACA stone under a BrillianceScope. While it seems like there is substantial debate regarding the value of this technology, it does seem like it can be a selection tool to be considered along side others, i.e. idealscope, HCA, etc. If I'm comparing "hearts and arrows" at Good Old Gold to ACA at Whiteflash, if the idealscope images are similar, the ability to look at and compare BrillianceScope results could be a valuable addition.

I'm not trying to open up any worm cans (I just ate lunch!), but am curious whether an answer can be had on this point. While not everyone agrees on what a BrillianceScope shows, everyone seems to agree that it shows something.

Later,
Eric

 

[Mara]

I think the previous discussions have established that there are no known postings of any ACA BrillianceScope results. So while your point is valid...I don''t think there are any data points to assist you. Good luck!

 

[esqknight]

While this may be a fruitless exercise, just because no one, to date, has posted ACA BrillianceScope results doesn''t mean that no one has ever put a ACA under a BrillianceScope that can post the results or that some who with access to both a ACA and a BrillianceScope can not go ahead and do so.

Comments so far are appreciated...

Eric

 

[Mara]

There was just a thread about 2-3 weeks ago on this same topic in which someone who was asking this very same question as you, in which it was basically noted that there weren't any known postings of any scores or results...nor did anyone step fwd to show any, if they had a report. WF also chimed in to explain why they do not have BS reports/scores on their stones.

Lastly, there are not that many vendors/appraisers who even have BS machines, so I doubt some random person would pop in to show an ACA and a BS report. Good luck!

 

[DiamondExpert]

esqknight, your point is actually a good one...I too would like to see B''Scopes of ALL the brands (e.g., ACA, 8*, Infinity) side-by-side simply because it might settle the "mystery" once and for all as to just what it is, OR IS NOT, that the B''Scope can tell us.

We know these are all beautiful stones and beautiful in different ways, so the question in my mind is...can the B''Scope demonstrate anything in its output which will allow us to predict how a stone will perform TO OUR UNAIDED EYE under different lighting conditions, and thus be a predictor of how appealing a stone might be.

Also, and this applies to many instruments, what is the delta (difference in readings, patterns, etc.) at which our unaided eyes can actually SEE a difference in the light performance between two diamonds??

Up to now all the rage with these instruments is to MAX OUT THE READINGS! Well, maybe you really don''t want that in a stone which may have the greatest appeal to your eye.

Bring ''em on and let''s catalogue the lot! I think we will find that maxing readings and maxing beauty are not necessarily the same thing.

There is some considerable danger in folks mis-/over-interpreting the technology, and all technology has its limitations. Useful bits of info from each source, yes, but no Holy Grail.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 4/7/2005 6:44:46 PM
Author: DiamondExpert

I too would like to see B''Scopes of ALL the brands (e.g., ACA, 8*, Infinity) side-by-side simply because it might settle the ''mystery'' once and for all as to just what it is, OR IS NOT, that the B''Scope can tell us

In theory, that would be a great idea......but there''s one problem. In order for that to be any meaningful comparison, you''d have to be able to achieve the same B-scope reading on a given stone every time you run it......and that''s been the problem some folks have run into.


Some have found B-scope readings aren''t consistently repeatable. If may give a reading of x, x, x, x on my stone today, and reading of x, x, y, y tomorrow on my same stone tomorrow, and yet another result when taken a third time.

As such, comparing b-scopes wouldn''t really be comparing the stones. It would comparing what the b-scope said those stones were ON THAT SCAN. That''s hardly meaningful.

 

[DiamondExpert]

aljdewey - So, are you are saying - and I don''t want to put words in your mouth here - that the B''Scope is not repeatable to the level of being useful in comparing diamonds?

Well, that would be OK too, because that''s useful info - very useful! Personally, I don''t care what the results are, I''m just interested in how useful it is. Either it is or it isn''t, or perhaps it is useful in ways that haven''t yet been established. Consumers need to know what the limitations are because some are hanging on every minute difference in readings they can see to help them distinguish between stones.

Let''s put it to the test and see!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Rhino..... where are you?
how consistent is the B-Scope ? what about the new version software vs the old?

i don''t know about the B-scope but,i witness a Isee2 machine scan the same stone (a HOF) 3 times and the results were the same,all 3 times.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 4/7/2005 7:55:51 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
Rhino..... where are you?
how consistent is the B-Scope ? what about the new version software vs the old?

i don''t know about the B-scope but,i witness a Isee2 machine scan the same stone (a HOF) 3 times and the results were the same,all 3 times.

BUT .....NO ONE is talking about the Isee 2 machine, right?

The comments were strictly limited to the B-scope. They ARE different machines, just like apples and oranges ARE fruit, but they taste completely different.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 4/7/2005 7:25:19 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
aljdewey - So, are you are saying - and I don't want to put words in your mouth here - that the B'Scope is not repeatable to the level of being useful in comparing diamonds?

Well, that would be OK too, because that's useful info - very useful! Personally, I don't care what the results are, I'm just interested in how useful it is. Either it is or it isn't, or perhaps it is useful in ways that haven't yet been established. Consumers need to know what the limitations are because some are hanging on every minute difference in readings they can see to help them distinguish between stones.

Let's put it to the test and see!

Close - but not quite.

I'm not saying what it's capable of or what it isn't. What I'm saying is, if it ISN'T repeatable, then comparisons are useless.

When Rich and I were shopping for my e-ring stone, I spoke with almost every well-known vendor at the time. When asked why they didn't use the B/S, I got the same answer from a few of them (and an appraiser as well). Their experience was they couldn't get a consistent reading on a stone. They could take 3 different scans and get 3 differing results.

How can that be meaningful? Imagine if you were using a digital tape measure to measure my height. The first time, you measure me at 5'4" high. The second time is 5'6" high. the third time is 5'2.5' high.

How can you meaningfully compare my height to that of someone else? Especially if their height was taken with the same measuring device that came up with 3 diff readings for me?

Pretty much all you know from it is that I'm likely not more than 6' tall! Similarly, IF this is the experience some have had with the b-scope, then about all you can do is say "well, it looks to be a reasonably beautiful diamond." But making any performance comparisons for *minute* distinctions or nuances between stones would be moot.

 

[belle]

Close - but not quite.

I''m not saying what it''s capable of or what it isn''t. What I''m saying is, if it ISN''T repeatable, then comparisons are useless.

When Rich and I were shopping for my e-ring stone, I spoke with almost every well-known vendor at the time. When asked why they didn''t use the B/S, I got the same answer from a few of them (and an appraiser as well). Their experience was they couldn''t get a consistent reading on a stone. They could take 3 different scans and get 3 differing results.

How can that be meaningful? Imagine if you were using a digital tape measure to measure my height. The first time, you measure me at 5''4" high. The second time is 5''6" high. the third time is 5''2.5'' high.

How can you meaningfully compare my height to that of someone else? Especially if their height was taken with the same measuring device that came up with 3 diff readings for me?

Pretty much all you know from it is that I''m likely not more than 6'' tall! Similarly, IF this is the experience some have had with the b-scope, then about all you can do is say "well, it looks to be a reasonably beautiful diamond." But making any performance comparisons for *minute* distinctions or nuances between stones would be moot.

well said alj, well said.

 

[JohnQuixote]

If you do a search on BrillianceScope or Gemex you will find lively discussion on both sides of the issue!

The reason Rhino may not enter this thread is because we are familiar with each others’ positions on BrillianceScope and it would be redundant to re-hash the techno-babble here. It’s for this reason - and respect for his approach - that I do not enter GOG threads to criticize BS.


To your question:

ACAs have been through BrillianceScope before. We brought in a BrillianceScope to see what we thought of the technology. ACAs typically received the highest and near-highest marks, but one of the issues we had when testing it was that a diamond run several times acquired slightly different results.

GemEx admits this built-in error, and the level of non-repeatability is not acceptable for our purposes. We’re also against endorsing a machine that tests diamonds in a lighting condition they will never actually be viewed in.

In 2001 I saw a number of ideal & superideal diamonds (including ACA and other brands) run side by side with the world’s greatest operator at the helm. They scored similarly; all at the top end of H/VH. The viewers’ eyes and the B-scope results agreed on which of the collection were the most beautiful diamonds, but did not rank them in the same order. To its credit the machine does identify best overall performers – it just can’t be used to split hairs between them.

Our choice for now:

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. This is not to say we will not embrace a technology one day when it can be proven repeatable and applicable to real-world conditions.

Let it be said that we have no problem with the vendors 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, non-absolute reference.

 

[Dancing Fire]

what about the sarin machine ,are they consistent?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/7/2005 6:44:46 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
esqknight, your point is actually a good one...I too would like to see B''Scopes of ALL the brands (e.g., ACA, 8*, Infinity) side-by-side simply because it might settle the ''mystery'' once and for all as to just what it is, OR IS NOT, that the B''Scope can tell us.

Gary
that would be interesting, the vendor sends couple of their best cut to an appraiser who runs the test and post the results here.i know,i know.... no vendor would do it.

 

[DiamondExpert]

I''m not suggesting a rehash of the related discussions which have been on-going over the past 6 months and more.

I''m suggesting some ACTION - actual scientifically designed experiments.

BUT- I''m also a realist and aware that when there are proprietary patents to be protected, the scientific method can''t really be invoked to solve real problems. It is, after all, business...such is life!

I''m just a bit concerned that the instrumentally generated data may be honestly mis-/over-used and/or mis-/over-interpreted by buyers, and may not be fully worth the implicit value being put on it.

After a moments reflection however, perhaps my fears are unfounded, because surely a person would not buy a diamond if they did not like the way it looked to their eye

! I hope not!

 

[esqknight]

Thanks everyone for the comments and interesting dicussion.

So it seems that there is little dispute that BrillianceScope has some value, it is just open for discussion and debate as to how much value that it has. There seems to be a concensus that a BrillianceScope is able to tell a badly cut diamond from a good cut from an excellent/ideal cut. It just seems that it may not be able to determine which ideal cuts are the best of the best. And it seems possible or even likely that there is no tool that can do that which is not subject to interpretation or debate.

I''m curious as to what John means by "slightly different" results for the same diamond from test to test. Depending on the amount of deviation between results, some number of repeated tests run on the same stone might yield a useful average result.

Good night,

Eric

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/7/2005 9:49:43 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
what about the sarin machine ,are they consistent?

Not very.
Different models, different software, different patches to the software, skill of the operator, cleaness of the diamond and the machine all add in variations.

 

[Mara]

Depending on the amount of deviation between results, some number of repeated tests run on the same stone might yield a useful average result.

Unfortunately this would not be useful for any customer as anal as a Pricescope visitor. In fact, to have an 'average' result would just result in more discussion on why the BS is not accurate and should be used etc etc.

Would you want to use an average of 4 inconsisten Sarins? An average IdealScope image? How about the average of a few H&A tries--but pay for the real thing?

Unfortunately in the world of diamonds related to the detail oriented customers on Pricescope, averages have no real place. People come on here (I am one of them!) and nitpick stones down to the last tenth of a mm. Why is the Sarin different than this other Sarin (so no--Sarins are not consistent but rather from different machines, not the same machine which is a problem with the BS), what does this mean? Why is the HCA score .1 different when I use this crown angle vs this one?

These are questions we see on here everyday. Even your original question, EK, was to want to see an ACA against something like a GOG stone for comparison. Tell me, if you were WF and you kick excellent almost H&A stones out into the ES selection on a daily basis because they don't meet the stringent criteria for the ACA branding, would you want to put an 'average' result out there for the customer to stew over? No way!

Speaking back to the nuances of diamond buying, esp with anal Pscopers, even Rhino himself has come on here and chimed in on BScope threads in the past telling consumers to not be quite SOOO intense about BS results. Why is this VHH3+ and this is VH1+? What does that MEAN? Tiny tiny differences. That's the truth. Will your eye even pick it up? Maybe not. Same with branded H&A vs unbranded. Your eye can only see so much. However, this does not stop detailed Pscopers with $$ to spend from asking these Q's.

I think the BS is a helpful tool for those vendors who use it. I do not base my diamond buying on a BS...that is just one tool of many. If a BS is required for one to purchase, then you have vendors to choose from. But as Gary seems to be alluding to in terms of nuances, and others have said in the past...do not base your purchases on any ONE tool's results and if you do...know it's plusses and minuses. For me there is a sweet spot of numbers, images, IS, inclusions, etc.

I would love to see a side-by-side comparison of all the vendor's excellent diamonds in terms of performance, but unfortunately 'average' scores from 10 tries on a BS are not going to make anyone's day nor make anyone happy IMO.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/7/2005 11:17:21 PM
Author: esqknight

Thanks everyone for the comments and interesting dicussion.

So it seems that there is little dispute that BrillianceScope has some value, it is just open for discussion and debate as to how much value that it has. There seems to be a concensus that a BrillianceScope is able to tell a badly cut diamond from a good cut from an excellent/ideal cut. It just seems that it may not be able to determine which ideal cuts are the best of the best. And it seems possible or even likely that there is no tool that can do that which is not subject to interpretation or debate.

Your right there isnt a tool that there isnt debate about its usefullness.
Myself I find the b-scope results interesting and worth considering.
I like the pictures of the diamonds because you can tell a lot about the personality of the diamond under direct light from them.

Part of the problem is that some experts differ in opinion from gemex about what is the best comprimise for overall performance in a diamond.
All the machines and the companies behind them have a bias towards certain styles of cut that score better than some others that might while looking different look just as good if not better to most people.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/7/2005 11:29:14 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/7/2005 9:49:43 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
what about the sarin machine ,are they consistent?

Not very.
Different models, different software, different patches to the software, skill of the operator, cleaness of the diamond and the machine all add in variations.

i know,i got 6 different results from 6 different machines.HCA scores from 1.1-1.8.i guess my question is ,why trust the sarin to measure the proportions and not trust the B-scope for light return ?since they both have variance for different reasons as you stated above.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/8/2005 12:25:20 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 4/7/2005 11:29:14 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/7/2005 9:49:43 PM

Author: Dancing Fire

what about the sarin machine ,are they consistent?

Not very.

Different models, different software, different patches to the software, skill of the operator, cleaness of the diamond and the machine all add in variations.

i know,i got 6 different results from 6 different machines.HCA scores from 1.1-1.8.i guess my question is ,why trust the sarin to measure the proportions and not trust the B-scope for light return ?since they both have variance for different reasons as you stated above.

I accept the sarin because its what is available and critical.
The b-scope is a nice extra if its available.
To be honest it does on some level make me feel better about a diamond if it does have a v-high b-scope score.
I know its short comings and its strengths but having that piece to put in my puzzle makes me feel better.

But Id buy without it and understand why whiteflash doesnt like it.
The biggest reason being that they dont agree with gemex on how a top diamond should perform.
Brian likes a slightly different compromise point than gemex does.
Which is right?
both? neither? one or the other?
I dunno :}

I do want to point out that Paul, Jon*, and Brian all prefer different compromise points when it comes to cut giving there favorite formula diamonds different personalities.
Which is best? The one that looks the best to you :}


*Jon sells diamonds with a wide range of personalities but he does have his favorites.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 4/8/2005 12:25:20 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

...i guess my question is ,why trust the sarin to measure the proportions and not trust the B-scope for light return ?since they both have variance for different reasons as you stated above.

It is not an apt comparison. Sarin measures angles which are exacting and can be substantiated by similar devices. What it measures (unlike BS data) is necessary to evaluate proportions. Angles are non-subjective and may be verified.

We don''t even know what BS is trying to measure.

But...For purposes of the thread let''s pretend the technologies are comparable (and both are meaningful). Technically speaking Sarin is over 20 times more accurate than BS. GemEx has a given error of ±5.0%. Sarin claims accuracy of 20 microns or ±0.2 degree.

Using Aljdewey''s analogy, if the Sarin was telling you your height was 5''0, 5''3" and 4''9" on different tries, Sarin would be within 1/4 of an inch each time.

And - we''re still working to find better accuracy than Sarin (Helium, Imagem, etc). By comparison, the ''accepted'' BS error is staggering.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/8/2005 1:27:43 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 4/8/2005 12:25:20 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

...i guess my question is ,why trust the sarin to measure the proportions and not trust the B-scope for light return ?since they both have variance for different reasons as you stated above.

It is not an apt comparison. Sarin measures angles which are exacting and can be substantiated by similar devices. What it measures (unlike BS data) is necessary to evaluate proportions. Angles are non-subjective and may be verified.

We don''t even know what BS is trying to measure.

But...For purposes of the thread let''s pretend the technologies are comparable (and both are meaningful). Technically speaking Sarin is over 20 times more accurate than BS. GemEx has a given error of ±5.0%. Sarin claims accuracy of 20 microns or ±0.2 degree.

Using Aljdewey''s analogy, if the Sarin was telling you your height was 5''0, 5''3'' and 4''9'' on different tries, Sarin would be within 1/4 of an inch each time.

And - we''re still working to find better accuracy than Sarin (Helium, Imagem, etc). By comparison, the ''accepted'' BS error is staggering.

John
how do you feel about the OGI systems?

 

[Mara]

Not to mention that while it is not unusual for 4 Sarin machines to all show different but close numbers...as someone else noted, 4 tries on the SAME BSCOPE MACHINE may have different results. It''s not even a matter of a different machine, the same machine cannot even be consistent.

I agree that a Sarin is a must have to measure angles, and the BS is a nice to have for how a diamond ''may'' perform.

 

[esqknight]

Good morning.

Is a 5% difference high when you're talking about measuring light return with a BrillianceScope? I know it would be a high rate of error if I was an engineer building a bridge (oops, well the measurement for the support beam was only 5% off!). I'll admit I don't know enough of the science to say how useful a measurement light return is with a 5% rate of error. Again, it seems undisputed that a BrillianceScope can determine the great diamonds cuts, but probably can't distinguish between degrees of greatness (or idealness). Mara, I agree with you that I wouldn't buy a diamond based upon a BrillianceScope. I wouldn't buy a diamond based only on an idealscope. I'd like to see the certificate, sarin report, idealscope, hearts and arrows image and maybe the BrillianceScope (the usefulness of which is currently on the table).

Later,
Eric

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/8/2005 8:36:44 AM
Author: esqknight
Good morning.

Is a 5% difference high when you''re talking about measuring light return with a BrillianceScope? I know it would be a high rate of error if I was an engineer building a bridge (oops, well the measurement for the support beam was only 5% off

Take a look at how the scale is built: the makers of the ''Scope only admit to split "perfomence" in four classes (there are four slots on each scale). That means that they admit about 87% confidence anyway. And the markers are rather wide, so on that scale the position of the exact measure is further "blurred" a bit... Combining the two "approximations", confidence might get to 80%-85%. Which is not too bad for an aestetic judgement... This is no matter of life and death as the support beam is

 

[Regular Guy]

.... What it measures (unlike BS data) is necessary to evaluate proportions. ....

We don't even know what BS is trying to measure..

....By comparison, the 'accepted' BS error is staggering.

Unfortunate letters...

Maybe it shouldbe called the BrillianceMeter...

Uh, no.