Brilliance Scope Question.....

[calisurf]

I have a question about the output of the results given by the brilliance scope.

Are there different parameters depending on the trype of stone being analyzed.
For example?

Is a "very high" light return on a emerald cut stone equivalent to a "very high" light on a round?

It seems to me that each type of cut has their own set of parameters, because when you compare the animations of the emerald and round, the round blows the emerald away, even thought they have similar results from the brilliace scope.

My girlfriend is obsessed with the brilliance scope images on GOG. Is this a good way to compare and choose a diamond?

Thanks in advance...

 

[Rhino]

Hi Cali,

In answer to your questions...

a. Yes the BrillianceScope does have different scales for the various shapes. If you did want to see a comparison of how any particular fancy shape (regardless of it's B'scope results within that shape) compares to any particular round (or how it does on the round scale) I can show that to ya if you want.

b. The practical results of BrillianceScope testing is how the diamond will appear in direct or strong light conditions (not necessarily ambient or diffuse light conditions). So when a stone performs well under the BrillianceScope (ie. "very high" colored light return) that is a stone that under direct light conditions will have EXCELLENT optics and strong fire ... H&A or not.

c. Although not asked the new technology we recently acquired, the Isee2 gives an excellent assessment of the diamond not only how it will appear in direct light but also ambient/diffuse light as this equipment looks at the overall brightness/brilliance of the diamond and equally as important (if not moreso) it looks at all the points of contrast within a diamond assessing brilliance and scintillation with regards to contrast which affect how the diamond will appear when it's not always in those direct light conditions. It is also the first machine to digitally look at "make" or craftsmanship analyzing the optical symmetry within a stone on the 3 dimensional scale.

So far they don't measure fancies, only rounds although squares are being worked on.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[calisurf]

Thanks Rhino...

You are a huge source of knowledge!
I appreciate all the info.

 

[sylvesterii]

interesting info on the new device...any chance we can get some comparisons regarding some of the top diamonds out there????

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A couple of questions Jonathon:

1. Would a top performing fancy square cut be about 80% of the light return of a top round?
And an emerald cut be 60% ?

2. I have never seen any bad stone results lower than medium?
Is the callibration set for "marketing purposes" ?
i.e. from medium to very high rather than low to very high?

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 8/17/2003 2:36:25 PM sylvesterii wrote:

interesting info on the new device...any chance we can get some comparisons regarding some of the top diamonds out there????
----------------

Hi S.

I'd post you some links but I'm not allowed. Certain people give Leonid a hard time if I do that and I really like Leonid and don't want to cause any headaches. I've posted up results of various stones on our site. What is most interesting sylvesterii (and not suprising to me) is that there are ...

a. diamonds that score great on the BrillianceScope but not as good on the Isee2
b. diamonds that score great on the Isee2 but not as good on the BrillianceScope
c. diamonds that score terrible on both the BrillianceScope and the Isee2
d. diamonds that score great on both the BrillianceScope and the Isee2

The Isee2 is doing a completely different optical analysis. As this device is fairly new to me I'm still learning more each day but I've learned quite a bit already. At my earliest convenience I plan on updating our tutorial on the subject with graphics demonstrating diamonds with the above features and the factors contributing to those features. I'd tell you to email me and I'd send links with the results of various stones I've learned from but then I'd get an influx of email asking me to teach when I'm already flooded with email.

When I update the tutorial with more stones and more examples of the things I've been learning with this new technology I'll perhaps put a copy of that tutorial with the graphics here on PriceScope too.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Hey Gary,

My responses will be between yours.

----------------
On 8/17/2003 7:41:32 PM Cut Nut wrote:

A couple of questions Jonathon:

1. Would a top performing fancy square cut be about 80% of the light return of a top round?
And an emerald cut be 60% ?

I'll have to answer this one for ya back at the store. I have access to numerical data which may be of help and can add up the values.

2. I have never seen any bad stone results lower than medium?
Is the callibration set for "marketing purposes" ?
i.e. from medium to very high rather than low to very high?

No. I have tested stones that scored low and even 3 lows due to very sucky cut especially in way of fancies. I may even have one in stock I can show ya as an example but I can't post links here even if for educational reasons. My hands are tied by a minority of whiners.

Peace,
Rhino----------------

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino - Jonathon I think there would be no problem posting pure education links when the goods are lousy and no one would dream of buying them

I think the links that are of the potential promotion of goods nature are the ones that are a concern.

Personally I never had a problem with the new squarish cuts because they are new and the thread built awareness.

 

[pricescope]

Found this shot I made at ISEE2 stand in Vegas.

Interestingly enough, ISEE2 guy (left in the picture) told me that he's against of using the tool for diamond grading. He only sees it helpful in the jewelry store to help consumers to pick up a diamond when they cannot decide for themselves.