GEMEX Accurate Science or Smoke & Mirrors

[climber]

After spending a little time on the GemEx Web site and veiwing the stones they have measured. I left the sight with this unexplainable suspicion. It seems to me that some of the proportions I veiwed should not have recieved the V. High rating as illustrated. Check it out and let me know your thoughts and concerns if any!
http://www.gemex.com/htmdocs/consumer/gemex_network_guest.php

Brad

 

[Rhino]

Give specific examples. The link you gave takes you to a generic page on their site and not to an individual diamond with it's proportions. I have been using the technology for roughly 3 years now and find it to be amazingly accurate to human eye observation and correlation.

 

[climber]

Hello Rhino

Hit the button "search with plug in".

This is an open topic for dicussion. This topic may or may not appeal to those who have a vested interest in the technology. I am sure your experience with the technology can be very helpfull to all who read and post here. My suspicion may be based on traditional cut to light yeild thinking that has been ingrained in most of us over many years. Your explinations of why and how extremely non-traditional cut's well outside of the ideal relm perform so well. Your input may help me and consumers understand and embrace the Gemex system reports.

Thank you,

Brad

 

[jesrush]

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

That said, I doubt fraud or extreme variance is at work here. Instead, I suspect those stones truly do score well on the B-scope.

Understand that there are some unusual crown & pavillion combinations that produce very brillant diamonds. Proving that point was kind of the whole point of the HCA I think. Notice the hot red areas way outside AGS Ideal proportions.

For more information on unusual crown & pavillion combos, read this:
http://www.niceice.com/holloway_cut_advisor.htm

-JES

 

[JohnQuixote]

This is the subject of much discussion.

Quick answer:  In today’s world of strict tolerances and measurements to fractions of a percent the Brilliancescope is not consistent enough to be adopted as a measure of exact performance.  BS given error is +/- 5% which is far too high for any “precise” device.

Much BS in this thread:

https://www.pricescope.com/diamonds/x847.htm

 

[wonka27]

I buy into the BScope and have bought 4 BScope tested stones from Rhino that are absolutely fantastic!

If it is true that the tolerance is +/- 5%, I understand from a scientific point of view that is a lot. However, I think when it comes to visual perception, we cannot see a 5% difference in light return.

If you look at ideal cuts and the Bscope is bouncing off the end of the VH range, you have a top notch performing diamond...even if there is a 5% down error.

If you have the chance to look at diamonds yourself, by all means, do so, but if you are buying on the net, it is an excellent tool for getting an idea of what your buying!

 

[DiamondExpert]

Some way outside the "box" perform very well...here is an example of a stone I use to demonstrate this...it's an AGS6, 0.50ct., E, VVS1 with Med. Blue fluor and VG polish, G symmetry...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Gary I would think that will be an AGS 2 in the new system.
It scores 2.4 on HCA.

And it can be hearts and arrows.

There are going to be some changes comin folks

 

[Superidealist]

JohnQuixote wrote:
BS given error is +/- 5% which is far too high for any "precise" device.

Last I heard, their claim was (+/-)2%, though whether this refers to the pixel counts or to comparisons to diamonds in their database, I have no idea.

While we're near the subject, doesn't it seem that the bars indicating the scores on the BrillianceScope scales are too wide? They seem to indicate a range of values, but the width does not seem to relate to the claimed error. Furthermore, the width of the bars did not change when GemEx reported the (+/-)5% to (+/-)2% change. This leads me to believe that the bars do not really represent a range of values. If this is the case, from what point should one read the score? The leftmost edge of the bar, the middle, or the rightmost edge?

 

[Rhino]

Hi Climber,

Oh yes ... there are many sets of proportions that produce *ideal* type brilliance. When I first got the BrillianceScope climber I approached it with much skepticism. I have friends in the industry who were also skeptical of it and others who swore by it. Before acquiring it I was already very familiar with the red reflectors and developed my own modified version of it. What ultimately relieved my skepticism was when I was able to examine and compare it's results with what I already knew to be true with the red reflectors. I had published my study on how these 2 technologies correllate which you can find under our chapters on cut.

Thankfully there are some companies who are over the skepticism part and have started cutting diamonds to max out it's results. More to come on that.

 

[Rhino]

Excellent example GaryD of a diamond with a set of proportions that is not traditionally considered "ideal" yet have ideal brilliance. Here is a DiamCalc of that stone.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 9/27/2004 11:13:44 PM wonka27 wrote:

I buy into the BScope and have bought 4 BScope tested stones from Rhino that are absolutely fantastic!

If it is true that the tolerance is +/- 5%, I understand from a scientific point of view that is a lot. However, I think when it comes to visual perception, we cannot see a 5% difference in light return.

If you look at ideal cuts and the Bscope is bouncing off the end of the VH range, you have a top notch performing diamond...even if there is a 5% down error.

If you have the chance to look at diamonds yourself, by all means, do so, but if you are buying on the net, it is an excellent tool for getting an idea of what your buying!----------------

That's hitting the nail on the head Wonka. Truth be told *all technologies* have some degree of tolerance (Sarin, OGI, Colorimeter, etc.) and the BrillianceScope is no exception. And it's tolerances are not ridiculous. Ie. it will not rate a diamond as having great brilliance in one scan then lousy in the next. The tolerances are minor and do not misrepresent. Most importantly it correlates to human eye observation in direct light conditions.

 

[kevinng]

I have a diamond from Rhino that scored triple Very Highs on the BrillianceScope. It is just about the brightest and whitest diamond I have seen so far.

I am also confident that most vendors won't fake the results of the BrillianceScope. Why should they? They buy the diamonds based on the results anyway. If they have poor results, the diamond won't be in the inventory. (Except for a few mistakes.) Also, the vendors sell their diamonds based on these results. These results can be easily verified with another BrillianceScope (subject to reasonable error). I doubt that they would risk the reputation they built up over the years just to sell a couple more stones.

Also, the BrillianceScope is not a substitute for other forms of analysis. I firmly believe that more information is always better than less. So, I'd welcome the BrillianceScope results anyday.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Sir Super,

Gem Ex maintains the official number as +/-5% as of today, though they believe that improvements are making it closer to the 2% you cited.

RhinoKnight,

Climber’s original question was “Accurate Science or Smoke and Mirrors,” thus my opinion... +/-5% is far too much for any scientific device of accurate measure.

As for your own experience, I think it fair to say you are a - if not “the” - most experienced and gifted operator of BS. In the hands of a lesser artist I suspect the problems with repeatability, especially due to consistency of stone placement, are more exaggerated than in your case (Actually I have seen this in person with inexperienced operators).

To appease the critics, GemEx could submit the machine to NIST (the National Institute of Technology - www.nist.gov). It’s a respected independent body that measures devices for repeatability and accuracy. They are an agency of the US Commerce Department’s Technology Administration with no commercial ties. Their word would be final as to Brilliancescope as an accurate science.

 

[Rhino]

"RhinoKnight" ...

Has a nice ring to it.

Spoken like a true fellow crusader.

 

[wonka27]

----------------
On 9/28/2004 1:06:11 PM JohnQuixote wrote:



Climber’s original question was “Accurate Science or Smoke and Mirrors,” thus my opinion... +/-5% is far too much for any scientific device of accurate measure.

Here is my problem John. The naysayers seem to focus on the scientific aspect of this machine. Those ripping the scientific deviation on the machine never seem to give opinions on how the scores correlate to your visual perception of a diamond. That is the most important thing, not whether it is a 2% or 5% variation.

Bottom line, visual perception is not something you can quantify with a small error of 5%. The machine may not be "scientifically sound" because of its error, but it is an excellent accurate tool for the eye!

 

[climber]

Could be a great topic to continue. I'll post this to push it up on the thread.

 

[wonka27]

It is a great topic, but it seems to be talked about like once a month

It is one of those things we just learn to agree to disagree on...there are those who support and those who don't. You just need to find the value in the machine yourself!

 

[strmrdr]

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.
Like the rest of the tools often discussed here they have a place but to put a lot of trust in one of them is a mistake.
All of them can be abused.
I trust Jonathon’s b-scope readings but another large vendor that pushes the b-scope im a lot more skeptical of because the rest of the data doesn’t agree at times.
But when you have a bunch of imperfect devices which one do you trust?
None of them entirely in my opinion.
But add it all up and mix it with the experience of one of the few vendors I consider to be at the top of the heap and you can get the best diamond you can get for that amount of money.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Garry - it will be interesting to see just how it fares in the new AGS system, but it is not an H&A - not even close.

Rhino - thanks for the additional info on the DiamCalc.

Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Gary it could be a H&A's if the symmetry was tight and the minor facets were in the right range.
H&A's probably extend from 23 degree crown angles to near 40 degrees (with appropriate pavilion angles).

 

[JohnQuixote]

----------------
On 9/28/2004 1:35:55 PM Rhino wrote:

'RhinoKnight' ...

Has a nice ring to it.

Spoken like a true fellow crusader.

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

RK,

Well met, good sir knight!

 

[JohnQuixote]

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

Here is my problem John. The naysayers seem to focus on the scientific aspect of this machine. Those ripping the scientific deviation on the machine never seem to give opinions on how the scores correlate to your visual perception of a diamond. That is the most important thing, not whether it is a 2% or 5% variation.

Bottom line, visual perception is not something you can quantify with a small error of 5%. The machine may not be 'scientifically sound' because of its error, but it is an excellent accurate tool for the eye!----------------

Hey Wonka,

I'm just getting home and able to give this proper attention. Busy day!

Thanks for the observations. By way of explanation - Yes, I was indeed addressing the scientific aspects of BS, since Climber asked about that specifically.

Here, good sir, is my opinion on visual correlation: I have seen BS run numerous times and feel that it is good for differentiating high-performers from low-performers. Additionally, the readouts are attractive to consumers and interesting for anyone to digest. It is another way of looking at a diamond and as a supplemental, non-absolute reference I enjoy seeing the results (as Kevin noted- the more info the better).

The problem occurs when trying to make distinct comparisons between diamonds. Regardless of broad correlation to visual perception, any attempted micro-comparison is dubious with the +/-5% error per reading: That translates to a potential cumulative error of 10% when comparing 2 diamonds head to head. I would be uneasy telling a consumer the machine could make a distinction his eyes could not, knowing that this much potential for error exists.

Also, I respectfully disagree with your bottom line that "visual perception is not something you can quantify with a small error of 5%." The deck lights on my patio are on a digital dimmer and I can easily perceive a 5% difference when I play with them (if this was not your meaning, please correct my interp!).

So, my bottom line:

This thread asks "is BS scientifically accurate?" My opinion remains no, due to poor repeatability compared with other accepted scientific measuring devices.

Thoughts?

(Climber - thanks for bumping)

 

[Richard Sherwood]

RhinoKnights of the Ideal Table...

 

[JohnQuixote]

----------------
On 9/29/2004 1:24:22 AM Richard Sherwood wrote:

RhinoKnights of the Ideal Table...
----------------

...who hail from Sherwood forest.

 

[Dancing Fire]

this is nothing new about the B-scope the vendors that use one think is indispensable and the vendors that don't say they are worthless technology,for me i'll take all the information that i can gather about the stone before i decide to buy. hca,aga,isee2,IS,h&a,sarin,ogi,gia or ags cert .... never hurts to get too much information.

 

[wonka27]

----------------
On 9/29/2004 12:29:05 AM JohnQuixote wrote:

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

Thoughts?

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

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!

 

[Rhino]

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.

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.

 

[wonka27]

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

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.----------------

...and that is what is great about it. You can verify reasoning for results with another method. How can more information that ends up verifying each other be a bad thing???

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 9/29/2004 1:52:31 PM wonka27 wrote:

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

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.----------------

...and that is what is great about it. You can verify reasoning for results with another method. How can more information that ends up verifying each other be a bad thing???
----------------

Caution 2 technoligies can verify each other and both be wrong.

Now putting on my horns:
One diamond scores triple vh3 and another scores triple vh1 which is the brighter diamond?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
carefull
.
think about it
.
.
.
.
.
No way of telling is there?
And I forgot to mention ones a RB and the other a princess.
Thats my biggest beef with it is the multiple scales.