Usually "ideal" H&A stones have Very High Brilliancescope readings. Some are in the VH3 range. Just take into account that brilliancescope cannot see as human eyes.

In answer to your question there is not that much of a visible differnce between a diamond that scores an H3 vs a VH1 on the BrillianceScope. Both are nice scores to get. I'm actually in the process of working out an Internal cut grade based on a diamonds light performance and optical symmetry. If you'd like to see some actual live examples of what the BrillianceScope does that I show my clients with their eyes, you may want to check out some videos I've recently posted. I'll be listing what scores they got as well on the B'scope but here's the link in the meantime. www.goodoldgold.com/advanced.htm

btw... howdy all! I know you guys don't see me much here but thought I'd stop by and see what action was going on here on the bb's.

I'm quite curious about the BrillianceScope.

Can you tell me what outside testing has been done on the instrument and by what experts and in what ways it may possibly be inaccurate? Garry has listed a number of them. I've read about some others.

I've heard that it's a scaled-down version of a much more intricate and expensive machine and that something has gotten lost in the transition.

Hi Lawmax! Leonid! It's good to be here.

Actually I caught your post of Gary's answer which I believe is what he wrote in this thread as well and answered it quite thoroughly. In my answer I point out weaknesses I have found in it and also strengths that I've found as well. The link with a graphic I use as an example can be found here ... http://www.diatalk.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=7317

When I was getting the machine I asked quite alot of questions about what the differences were between it and the other machine that Diamond Profile Laboratories had. Here were the differences.

1. DPL had a machine that did things mine didn't. Among those were color grading and analysis, which I didn't really have a use for ... well ... not at over 20-30k anyhow. But DPL's machine only observed the diamond in 1 light position. A certain super ideal cut diamond company used DPL and actually had certs from DPL on their diamonds showing the dispersion images. In that ONE light position their diamonds looked great. So ... the DPL machine showed only one light position while the machine I have is more tailored to the cut aspect than it is the color aspect and also just one light position.

That same company went and got the B'scope and wanted to publish it's images BUT ONLY WANTED TO USE THE 1 light position that showed off their diamond best. Gemex did not agree and said if you're going to use our instruementation then you must show ALL light positions, not just the one that'll flatter you're stone most. Well... that relationship dissolved but you can bet your bippy ... law... when I sent in 5 diamonds in which I knew how they already performed via FireScope ... they came back EXACTLY as I had expected. That is what confirmed to me that what I was looking at was a very serious piece of instrumentation. The bottom line for me is that I wanted it to confirm what I already knew to be true. It did and I was sold. One of the things I really like most about it Leonid, lawmax, is that it also agrees with Gary's steep/deep combo's within the Ideal cut range and the HCA. When this thing can split hairs like that ... I know this is something I want to use on a regular basis.

Peace and glad to be here. If you have any other questions please feel free to shoot em by me. In the other thread I did bring up a question of it's scintillation which you might find interesting.

All the best,
Rhino

Here is Rhino's reply in full:-

Re: Garry Holloway's take on the BS
As a regular user of the instrument let me add my .02

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few considerations on the Brilliancescope™, an instrument designed to quantitatively measure the light returned to a face up centered photo-spectrometer from a diamond resting table down on a glass stage. Illumination is projected from a ring light that moves up and down on a vertical axis below the stone, a number of readings are taken. The white light returned is considered a measure of brilliance.

A count of colored pixels compared to white pixels is said to represent dispersion or fire. (Off white and tinted diamonds have higher readings).
----------------------------------------

The only instances where I've seen tinted diamonds affect the colored light readings are perhaps in intense fancy colors. Regular tinted diamonds do not affect the dispersion readings of the B'scope. I can provide live samples of this. As much as I respect Gary's work and the man himself I don't think he has worked intimately enough with the device to make these kinds of judgments. However if anyone wants to confirm what ANYONE says about it as fact or fiction ... all they need to do ask someone who uses it frequently. Like me! You know I'll tell ya anything I can about it even it's weaknesses.

----------------------------------------
Spectra intensity and placement are not taken into account.
----------------------------------------

This is not true. If the spectra (or light source) is too intense or weak the machine will not work and must be recalibrated. From time to time this happens but what I like about it is it lets me know when this must be done. The placement/position the diamond and light source is also important and as centered as it can be on the device. There is a process for calibrating the centeredness of the lens with the diamond as well.

----------------------------------------
Scintillation is assessed as the relative intensity of the colored and white light returned to the lens. No account of distribution of contrast is made.

Actually the scintillation is assessed by it's analization of the points of light in the diamond as the light source moves from position to position. If there is not alot of movement of light as the source shifts from position to position then the stone will get a weak scintillation reading.
Here is one area of the B'scope where I feel there may be a slight weakness and here's why. When a diamond is being scanned by the B'scope and EACH LIGHT POSITION gives back an intense flood of light (which happens to be a very excellent thing) the B'scope will not detect that change in movement of light *BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH DARN LIGHT COMING FROM THE STONE IN EACH POSITION* that it doesn't see movement of light but just recording what it sees. Stones like this will often get intense strong readings of white & colored light return while seemingly taking a hit on scintillation. The graphic below is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Note that all 5 light positions are just incredible with most just being downright flooded with light yet it only got a "high2" on scintillation. The diamond in question happens to be incredibly scintillating as well as brilliant and dispersive.

There are diamonds that take hits in scintillation that I feel they rightfully should. I mean ... there are some stones that just go plain dead in quite a few of the light positions. The videos I posted show this as well.

Attempts by me to analyze data from the Brilliancescope have been rejected by the company and its associates, presumably to protect trade secrets.
The glass stage between the diamond and the light source will polarize light passing through at an oblique angle. Partial polarization of this light will result in differences in ray paths compared to non- polarized light.
An error factor of some 5% is said to arise from inaccurate centering and positioning of a stone on the stage. This error is discounted by Gemex, the marketing organization, as they maintain the method of data collection puts onus on the vendor to get the highest score possible. Gemex lease the device to diamond vendors who use it to take measurements. Once an acceptable result is obtained by the vendor the readings are emailed to the company and the data is uploaded on their website for public access and a report can be mailed to the vendor.

haha... I can definetely see how a dishonest vendor could use something like this to their advantage which in my opinion shows why it's important to have an appraiser who can indeed verify that what's being sold is honestly being presented. When I run my stones I'll actually show a client the average readings of it after running it around 2-3 times. The fact of the matter is that it is consistent. I don't get one reading one time and another reading the next. If there is any change at all is it very minor. I happened to run a stone on it yesterday that I had ran about a month ago and it's reading was identical.

About the glass between the diamond and the light source: I see that it has no effect on the readings whatsoever. The reason I say this is because when you take the diamond without any glass and put it in the countertop viewer (of which I took my video files) you see absolutely no difference with or without the glass. Unless perhaps that glass has a certain amount of "strain" in it. LOL (please... I hope somebody got that).

The device employs a single lens rather than a stereoscopic view and makes no allowance for head shadowing. Issues about human perception, and the seemingly illogical way we process visual inputs are not factored in. Instruments measure, but they can never ‘see’.

Actually the 6th light position shows the stone similarly as other devices showing optical symmetry except this is a diffused light position. While ya'll are putting this under the blade of criticism I have found it amazing how much it agrees with the cut advisor! Another feature that I greatly admire is the various positions it places the light source covering almost the entire crown of the diamond in a circular ring from the edges of the diamond all the way to center table.

Perhaps its largest attraction in this form of cut grading lies in fancy cut diamonds. The extra variables of fancy shapes make them very complex here. A digital report will doubtless have appeal to many consumers.

Absolutely. Actually this is another area that needs help and is being worked on as we speak. It is definetely a good seperator however from the beauties to the baddies.

Another interesting feature of the BS scope is it uses some very specific selections for lighting positions which can result in spurious results for dispersion and scintillation.

I've not found it spurious.

Imagine the very best position for dispersion - then move the light source up or down a few milimeters and bang - no dispersion! Reading = very low!
non symmetrical ideal cut stones will score well across all positions, where as H&A's and 8*'s will peak at a few very specific positions.

The bottom line question that needs to be asked is ... does it agree with what my trained eye knows is a beautiful diamond? I can answer that with an undoubted yes. Numerous clients of mine who even flown to us have come to see just that ... the comparison between the best BrillianceScope images vs the best FireScope images. I've had clients fall either way. Most however have picked the best B'scope images regardless of price. Arts fiance's comment to me after seeing all of this was ... even if both diamonds were the SAME price, this is the diamond I would purchase and want on my hand the rest of my life. Another client after viewing 2 superideals under all my instrumentation THEN seeing the diamonds ONLY with their eyes in various lighting conditions (halogen high beams, overhead office lighting, and direct/diffuse real sunlight chose the diamond with the best B'scope results. I am careful to remain impartial during the entire process. If I perhaps did think more selfishly I'd have tried to persuade more people to the best FireScope image as there was more profit for *me* but I truly try to remain unbiased showing the client all available options and let them make a decision for themselves.

Peace,
Rhino

The picture is generated for 55% table, 34.1 deg crown and 40.6 deg pavilion using MSU program calculating scintillation: www.cutstudy.com/cut/english/comp/scint1.htm

It shows a series of 4 evenly spaced rings of flashes of color that are the places that BS positions and makes / records / reads what it reads.

Thanks for posting that. How was your trip?

Jon

Now imagine someone shone a light at the diamond in that direction in a dark room, and you were looking from in front - you would see the same flash of colored light!

Now what if the light came from a ring light? Well you would see lots of fire. But if the ring light was moved up or down a little bit - the whole stone would go to sleep.

So if we change the pavilion or crown angles by a quarter of a degree? The brilliance scope image would come alive again

So what if a brand of super symmetrical diamonds were to cut to angles that happened to score right off the scale by hitting the 'sweet spot' - wow?

A cynical person would be asking to see the results of that stones fire along side another stone that was cut to high precision for symmetry, but at slightly different combinations of crown and pavilion angles, and then asking Randy Wagner to adjust the light reading positions ever so slightly to turn the super scoring stone off, and see what happened to brand X, Y and Z.

The LambdaSpec was far more (and still is) designed to retrieve color information.

Although DPL used the LamdaSpec for diamonds, Gemex learned that looking at a diamond in only three positions wasn't enough, so the Brilliance Scope was developed at a far lower cost, since it could be made more affordably without the advanced color spectrophotometer that could convert CIE, Munsell etc.

The Brilliance Scope has five positions in which its automatically "calibrating" light ring
adjusts based on the size of the object in the chamber.
<<<<< Cut Nut - So my question is if 3 positions was inadequate for accuracy, then has accuracy been improved by 5 positions - but not perfected? >>>>>>
So far, I have been pleased with the way the machine works, and Gemex's cooperation in improving and updating its software parameters.

If cutters can cut a better stone, based on the information reported by the B'Scope, then why do you feel this is bad?
<<<<< I feel it is bad to deliberately cut a diamond to rate well on a system that is used to sell the diamond. Or to calibrate a system to deliberately make people think one set of proportions is superior.
I also have yet to be convinced after years of study, that perfect symmetry is important. If I am correct then a lot of people are paying a lot of money for H&A's that look just as good as other well proportioned diamonds.
Imperfect symmetry will score lower on the BS because the flashes can not all turn on at the same time. Cut Nut>>>>

Also very interesting is the translucent light filtered image shown as number 6. It is very "hearts and arrows" viewer like, but is much more accurate in the production of the image than most of the H&A viewers. Item six shows small variances of the arrows image in a far more detailed manner than most of the viewers.

But what consumers need to know is that the B 'Scope is a "work in progress" that will continually be changing, particularly for the fancy shape stones. <<<< Cut Nut So the certificates or reports are variable? What rates excellent today will be high tomorrow? Amazes me that Roc has criticised HCA for being WIP, so how do you feel about charging people a lot of $'s for WIP reports?>>>>>

rockdoc

However some diamonds of lower color i.e H-K do show more dispersion than those of higher color."

rockdoc

I am using this thread as a filing system for quotes on BS - this one from Jonathon at Good old gold -
""I too use it regularly and get results that are consistent as well. The one gripe I have on it where I find it faulty *sometimes* is in the area of scintillation.......

Also, the light return is compared to a "commercial diamond". I don't remember a specific definition given by folks here on commercial diamonds, but doesn't it go something like this:

That's E-Emrldforher.

From Steve>>>>>
Gemex Says: +/- 5%

So the question is, is this an exact science and is this tool completely repeatable every time? We talk about how the Sarin differs, and how the labs round numbers and we say to take each stone on its own merits, what about these test results? What makes the BS lighting positions correct? We know the two major labs had one to experiment with and returned them, why?

Just a few questions I had, and hope someone will answer them for me.

I'm not so sure that the FireScope doesn't report on it. Definitely doesn't do it in a direct way but if you have consistent patterns and strong distinctions between dark and light regions on the Firescope you are, I think, going to have similarly strong distinctions from all angles.

If you get facet alignment which is off I think that would inevitably result in light entering the dark areas and decreasing the contrast in the FireScope.

Part of the reason why good H&A patterns are, I think, of some value. They require good facet alighment and that should tend to produce full facet or large partial facet flashes and more brilliant and firey appearance.

Cut Nut - Are you referring to Sergey of Moscow State University fame? If so - can you tell me his last name?

Images 3, 4 & 5 are kind of "dead", and I'm wondering if the pre-set height of the light is just a coincidence, or if an adjustment had been made slightly up/down, if the results would have been the same. It seems logically that the "fixed" height for measuring the white/color return is somewhat flawed, unless the camera is making continues measurements, but can only display 5 (6). What dictates the correct height for the light, and what makes this the ultimate "right" height. Also, calculating the scintillation must be made by comparing pixels of white/color light from the previous picture to the next, so the distance between the light setting (for each picture) is also important. Now is this height between picture 1 & 2 the same as between 2 & 3, etc.? And what makes these different/same heights the ultimate best heights?

I do have to admit that I think the BrillianceScope™ Analyzer is the best thing that I have heard of that measures white/color return-light as well as scintillation, however, the BrillianceScope™ Viewer (which lets the customer see all light heights without the help of a computer to measure the data) was to me a much more telling of the story (I wanted to hear). I liked (obviously very subjective) the viewer the best because it showed me very few (if any) "dead" spots...Again, not limited to 5 snapshots, put many possible light heights in a continuously mode, using the finest instrument for measure, the eyes… >>>

My question is this: Does the brilliancescope offer only round or fancy settings? Is the "fancy" setting comparing a range of diamonds that gemex has viewed in most of the "conventional" fancy shapes. My understanding of how the ratings were derived for rounds is that gemex has tested numerous diamonds and set a range based on the light return.

For rounds I think I understand the process. However, for fancies, is the machine really comparing light return for emerald shapes, marquises, octagonal diamonds, heart, pear-shaped, etc. and lumping them all together for comparative purposes? If it does, is this really a good tool for fancy shapes? For instance, if an emerald cut typically has better light return than other fancy shapes, isn't the b'scope going to typically give this shape a better "fancy" reading than other shapes? My biggest concern would be an "average" emerald cut (using this cut for example only) would get a "high" b'scope rating if it is being compared to all types of fancies. If it was instead compared only to other emerald cuts, maybe it would get a lower rating.

Anyway, I apologize again if I'm way off base in my question, I just have never really understood the calibration of the "fancy" setting.

I once wrote to Gemex asking some questions, but never received a reply.

Perhaps someone there will answer your questions.

Concerning the distribution.. Yes rounds are pretty much on a bell curve.
The peak at the Med-High border. Fancy shapes are another story though. We
are seeing kind of a reverse bell curve in fancies. the shape we are the
most advanced is the squares. What we are finding are lots of Low-Med
stones, and a few (veryfew) Very Highs. Almost nothing in between.

Setting baselines for all shapes however, is not as complicated as it seems. Our scales are simple linear relationships between the best and worst
diamond in each category. TO set the scale for white light, all we need is
two stones, the best and the worst. All others are defined in a linear
relationship to those two stones. The challenge is finding the right
diamonds. (the best performers)

We do not differentiate "architectures" . A round diamond is compared to
all other rounds, a princess is compared to all other "squares" etc. We do
not believe a consumer cares about the architecture, only the shape.

PARENTAL ADVISORY: Moms and dads, DON’T allow your kids to split hairs with the Brilliancescope: Promote it - because it provides statistics consumers can instantly appreciate. Cherish it - because it unerringly separates medium performing stones from high performing stones. But DO NOT treat it as ABSOLUTE, as the results are marginally inconsistent and are certainly FALLIBLE when comparing closely matched stones.

Human eyes must perform the tiebreaker.

+ Example: The following resulted in 3 tries on one of the superideals: (1) BScope A: VH1 VH2 VH1 (2) BScope B: VH2 VH1 H3 (3) BScope B again: VH1 VH2+ H3.

Also, the low score (scintillation) was the low score in all 3 BScope runs. But the subject diamond had incredible scintillation. It wound up as one of three finalists based on human observation of that particular quality. Jonathan believes scintillation is the most challenging element for the Brilliancescope to measure. He speculates that sometimes when it goes from position to position it records large “floods” of light but may be missing small “tinkles” that the human eye sees prominently. I agree with this assessment, especially considering all three finalist diamonds received their comparative lowest marks on the Brilliancescope in scintillation.

Even at that, I’m a gung-ho advocate of the Brilliancescope. GemEx has much to be proud of. It’s the only device of its kind which parleys ciphers into language everyone can comprehend. The feedback it provides on the grand scale is unambiguously convincing. I applaud them for continuing to scrutinize and improve the product. In 10 years it may be as standard as the Sarin analysis. "

Thanks Cupid
GH

IN almost 100% of the stones I've tested, the Brilliance Scope supports what your eyes see.
I can understand how the device can work with rounds, but with fancy shapes, it is so much more than brilliancy that makes a pleasing diamond. Maximizing brilliancy could lead to making a very poor overall selection in a fancy. When one thinks of the most brilliant pears or marquises, they are short/fat shapes. Not the nicest, best, most desired, etc, etc. How would you answer these issues.

The Brilliance Scope rating bars alone are not enough to make a conclusion. Again for fancies the Brilliance Scope provides a good back up indication, but the trained and experienced eye still has to be in "command".

Rockdoc

Observation: DON’T split hairs with the Brilliancescope: Promote it - because it provides statistics consumers can instantly appreciate. Cherish it - because it unerringly separates medium performing stones from high performing stones. But DO NOT treat it as ABSOLUTE, as the results are marginally inconsistent and are certainly FALLIBLE when comparing closely matched stones.
Cupid

There's a nice example of this effect on SuperbCert's site, where they have a picture of an EightStar that's dim at one of the viewing angles compared to a SuperbCert that you can see in another picture is cut with faces at slightly differing angles in a cross pattern and lights up at least a bit in each position. These may be unusual samples of each brand and I don't know if this is a consistent effect.

1. In 100 % of cases, consumers
viewing Superbcert's when
visiting in Jonathon's store
have corroborated a direct correlation
between what their "eyes" have seen
and the results on the Brilliancescope.
The results, in short, are all extremely
positive!

2. The consistently high scores
achieved by SuperbCert's on the
BrillianceScope on all 3 measurements
result in what many have dubbed
the "WOW" effect, i.e.; the impact of
SuperbCerts are viewed from acroos the room.

3. The scores achieved by 8* on
the BrillianceScope are due to the unique
cutting characteristics and parameters
specifically chosen by 8* to achieve
certain results irrespective of
B'Scope performance. To criticise
the B'Scope as "penalizing" precision
cutting appears to me, therefore, to be off
the mark.

4. Jonathon has scores of SuperbCert
BrillianceScope readings listed on his
web-site. The consistency of the
B'Scope results both within each
SuperbCert as well as across all SuperbCert's
is nothing short of phenomenal!
And, consumers, viewing these diamonds
absolutely concur their "visuals" with
the machine!

5. There is, currently, a growing and
consistent body of evidence, both
from professional jewelers using the
B'Scope as well as anecdotal confirmation
from consumers that the B'Scope is quite
accurate and precise in corroborating
what the "eye" sees.
As such, in this age of I-Net,
the B'Scope provides a valuable tool to aid consumers in their decision-making.

Barry www.superbcert.com

------------------
barry