Brilliance Scope vs. HCA

[nerdbot]

I currently have a stone right now that I''m thinking about returning for a larger one. Both stones are F, VS2.

The HCA scores are as follows:

Current stone:
60.8% depth, 54% table, 34.6° crown angle, 40.7° pavilion angle
Light Return - Excellent
Fire - Excellent
Scintillation - Excellent
Spread - Very Good
HCA Score: 1

Larger stone:
59.9% depth, 57% table, 34.8° crown angle, 40.8° pavilion angle
Light Return - Excellent
Fire - Excellent
Scintillation - Excellent
Spread - Excellent
HCA Score: 1.3

The Brilliance scope scores, however are:

Current stone:

Larger stone:

I personally like the way my current stone''s brilliance scope looks, but the larger stone got HCA ''excellents'' across the board. The larger stone just doesn''t seem to have as much light in those pictures as my current stone. Which should I trust more for a better estimation of visual "performance"?

I''m also a little confused by the HCA results, because I thought the lower score the better, yet the larger stone with all ''excellents'' has a higher score?

 

[pricescope]

Once you got HCA below 2, you shouldn''t split hairs anymore (see comments at HCA page). Both diamonds look great

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 4/27/2005 1:24

1 PM
Author:nerdbot

I''m also a little confused by the HCA results, because I thought the lower score the better, yet the larger stone with all ''excellents'' has a higher score?

That''s an incorrect assumption. An HCA score of 0.6 isn''t necessarily "better" than a score of 1.3.

Please read the instructions with the HCA very carefully. It says as long as the diamond scores under 2.0, you will have eliminated 95% of known poor performers. It also says that you may visually prefer a 1.5 over a 0.6 or vice versa.

You are trying to split hairs that shouldn''t be split. Either HCA score is fine.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 4/27/2005 2:37:50 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 4/27/2005 1:24

1 PM
Author:nerdbot

I''m also a little confused by the HCA results, because I thought the lower score the better, yet the larger stone with all ''excellents'' has a higher score?

That''s an incorrect assumption. An HCA score of 0.6 isn''t necessarily ''better'' than a score of 1.3.

Please read the instructions with the HCA very carefully. It says as long as the diamond scores under 2.0, you will have eliminated 95% of known poor performers. It also says that you may visually prefer a 1.5 over a 0.6 or vice versa.

You are trying to split hairs that shouldn''t be split. Either HCA score is fine.

Yeah, yeah. Just to parse this example correctly, though...even though the lower score isn''t better, in this example, the one with the more "excellents" is experienced as better. If Leonid and Garry say this shouldn''t matter, I suppose I should believe them. Still, when my son brings home a report card, it''s hard to not make the ordinary translation, where I can understand that Excellent trumps Very good, vs the other way around.

 

[nerdbot]

Date: 4/27/2005 2:37:50 PM
Author: aljdewey
You are trying to split hairs that shouldn''t be split. Either HCA score is fine.

Agreed. I don''t think I was clear in my original question. I wasn''t too concerned about the slight difference in the HCA scores. I''m very happy with my current stone, and I''m sure that the larger stone will be of equal quality. I was just wondering about the large (in my inexperienced opinion) difference in the light views of the brilliance scope images, when the numbers for both are equally as good (equally ''good'' being based off the HCA score and that the only major difference between these stones is weight). Not being able to see the larger stone, the brilliance scope is all I really have to judge it''s fire, brilliance, and scintillation.

I guess what I''m asking is, is it just me, or does the brilliance scope of the larger stone not look nearly as "lively" as the first stone? Is it correct for me to assume that brilliance scope report is much more qualitative than quantitative? I''m inclined to take those brilliance scope images and results with a grain of salt...

 

[strmrdr]

What the b-scope images tell you is that the first stone is well balanced for producing both fire and brilliance.

The second stone is tuned to slightly emphasise fire over brilliance.

In the same direct light conditions the first would have slightly more white light return and the second slightly more fire to the eye.
The first might have just as much fire but its masked more by the white light return.

This is a matter of personality more than quality they are both top performers.

 

[Regular Guy]

Storm,

Not sure...can you help me again with the translation. What are you seeing, exactly, that is telling you that?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/27/2005 3:46:49 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Storm,


Not sure...can you help me again with the translation. What are you seeing, exactly, that is telling you that?

I can try... image by image my thought process.


light view 1 - its a wash they are near twins.
......
light view 2

The first diamond:
strong white light return - strong colored light return.
The white light return is masking the colored light.
overall more light return than the second.

Second diamond:
strong colored light return - slightly less white light return than 1

The fire would be more obvious in the second diamond because its hidden in the first by the white light return.

......
light view 3 - its a wash they are near twins.
......
light view 4
The first has slightly stronger white light return
......
Light view 5
diamond 2 has stronger colored light return and overall more return.
......
Light view 6
its a wash they are near twins.
......

Light view 2 and 4 shows more white light return for the first and light view 5 shows stronger colored light return for the second.
......

All of the images show excellent return in my opinion and the differences are a matter of personality.
Id expect the first to be slightly brighter overall in direct light and the second to show more fire overall.

How much of the different will be eye visible to the average person?
Not much but it might be enough to make one person prefer one over the other.
Like I said personality :}

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 4/27/2005 2:57:26 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Yeah, yeah. Just to parse this example correctly, though...even though the lower score isn't better, in this example, the one with the more 'excellents' is experienced as better. If Leonid and Garry say this shouldn't matter, I suppose I should believe them. Still, when my son brings home a report card, it's hard to not make the ordinary translation, where I can understand that Excellent trumps Very good, vs the other way around.

No, it's not *experienced* as better....it's mentally perceived to be better (even if it is NO different VISUALLY) because we are conditioned to believe that "excellent" is better than "very good". These are simply qualitative labels which can be MISLEADING and should be taken with a grain of salt......because who in their right mind would want good or better when they could have best? Who ever says "no, I don't want the best, I want the slightly above average" or "I prefer mediocre"? The danger is that everyone wants BEST.....even when they don't really appreciate what "best" might mean!

A diamond is like an entree.....all of its ingredients (crown angle, pav angle, star facets, table, girdle, etc. etc.) combine together to produce a given flavor in the finished dish. Altering the ingredients to your *preference* doesn't make the dish any less spectacular....it just modifies it to please YOUR pallette the most.

When I cook Chicken Piccata, I prefer a certain balance between the wine and lemon and the chicken broth. If you weren't a big lemon fan, then you'd likely prefer a version with little less lemon in it, right? If my dish rated "VH" on wine and "VH" on lemon, that doesn't mean you'd want "VH" for wine and "VH" for lemon. Further, your version wouldn't be "inferior" to mine just because it has less lemon....maybe only "H" on lemon. It would simply be *different*....but not better or worse. Better or worse depends on who the diner is.

 

[nerdbot]

RegularGuy, thanks for asking the question I was just about to ask myself!

Strmrdr, thanks for your description. It''s funny because I looked at those bscope images for a good 10-15 minutes each, and I liked the first set better (mostly off of gut feeling). But after reading your thought process, I looked again, and I started to see what you were saying... the differences weren''t as glaring as I had thought. I guess for me, I was looking for those really bright white flashes, because that''s what I''ve always thought of when I think "sparkle". Not really sure what my girlfriend prefers though..,

Keeping the diamond a surprise and making sure you get it right (i.e., she loves it) at the same time is tough!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Between the cracks:

If your son gets 89% and his friend gets 90%, one gets a better verbal grade. If you read the scaling system at www.diamond-cut.com.au you will see that this is the case for these stones.

Storm you are interpreting far too much into the Bscope images. 1. it favours perfectly symmetrical stones. stones that are very slightly asymetric can not score as well - but you do not see any difference unless you look at the diamond with one (super strong) eye and a ring ligth source.
2. it favours stones with the best proportions that line up with preset light positions bac to camera positions.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/27/2005 582 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Between the cracks:

If your son gets 89% and his friend gets 90%, one gets a better verbal grade.

Once those gardes are converted in percentiles of class performance... I''d bet these guys fall in the same slot.

Given the class is large enough. Taking scores for standardized tests (say, GRE or GMAT) it is easy to see what makes a significant difference of scores and what does not. For example, the top grade (800) can be top 95% or so. There must be many more diamonds than GRE candidates out there

 

[strmrdr]

Garry,
The same could be said for any of the tools.
The hca makes a lot of assumptions about the diamond.
The ideal-scope just tells you light return that falls within the angles it can cover and tells you nothing about the potential for fire.
Diamcalc uses just as unreal world light conditions as everything else and is less than precise without the full high end sarin or helium scan.
Garbage in garbage out.

We have been over the one eyed thing a million times, gia, and the experts they consulted agree with me.
Its a non-issue the dominant eye does most of the work.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sergey has glases that screen off either /or eye and disprove that theory when it comes to fire and bright spots Storm.
and surely by now you understand that simple Bscope flaw?

 

[hoorray]

Nerdbot,

If you can practically do it, you might want to order the larger stone and compare it side by side with the stone you have. Both are going to be good stones. Your eyes might prefer one over the other. That said, if both are good stones, go for the larger one if the price difference is nominal. There is a lot of very specific analysis going on here, but I bet they are both beautiful stones. Given that... most women would pick the larger one.

 

[RockDoc]

Dear Nerdbot


The images you posted are static.

Go to http://www.gemex.com and click on live report.

Since the B Scope was done with 6.10v they should be there, providing the supplier has ordered the laminated reports from Gemex.

This way you can view the animated shots of Fire, Color Light, White Light and Scintillation.

The interpretation of the graphical photos should be done by someone who has well based experience with the B Scope.

The seller should be able to comment on the differences.

Rockdoc
.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/27/2005 7:59:29 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Sergey has glases that screen off either /or eye and disprove that theory when it comes to fire and bright spots Storm.

and surely by now you understand that simple Bscope flaw?

Im well aware of it.
Like the rest of the tools available it has flaws the multuple scales being a huge one.
The pictures are comparable one diamond to another and can give an insight into the personality of a diamond.
The scales I have far less confidence in.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/27/2005 8:53:57 PM
Author: RockDoc

The interpretation of the graphical photos should be done by someone who has well based experience with the B Scope.

.

Then go for it.
Provide one, then tell me where mine is wrong.

 

[Rank Amateur]

It seems to me that when you are splitting hairs this fine a measley (sp?) 5 pirate-style light views won''t tell the story.

Are the "animated" views just the 5 views pasted one on top of another? If so, that doesn''t tell you much either.

 

[nerdbot]

Date: 4/27/2005 8:19:29 PM
Author: lop
Nerdbot,


If you can practically do it, you might want to order the larger stone and compare it side by side with the stone you have. Both are going to be good stones. Your eyes might prefer one over the other. That said, if both are good stones, go for the larger one if the price difference is nominal. There is a lot of very specific analysis going on here, but I bet they are both beautiful stones. Given that... most women would pick the larger one.

I think I will actually do that. Although I''ll probably be a nervous, paranoid wreck until I send one back. The current 1 ct stone I have is the single most expensive thing I''ve ever had in my possession, and now I''m about to buy another stone.

Thanks for all the great information everyone. I didn''t mean to start a fight...

I think I understand the general consensus: While everyone has their own interpretation of the reports, both stones are excellent, and I''ll need to see both to truly decide.

 

[belle]

While everyone has their own interpretation of the reports, both stones are excellent, and I''ll need to see both to truly decide.

and the winner is....nerdbot!!!

best of luck with your decision!!

 

[Dancing Fire]

if you''re a believer in the b-scope tech, then you should look for a report with 5 different looking pictures (photo #1-5) those are the ones that scores VH,VH,VH

http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_03ct_h_vs1_h&a1.htm


the link below see how the photos #1-3 look the same

http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_005ct_e_vs2_ags_0.htm

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/28/2005 12

8:30 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
if you''re a believer in the b-scope tech, then you should look for a report with 5 different looking pictures (photo #1-5) those are the ones that scores VH,VH,VH


http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_03ct_h_vs1_h&a1.htm



the link below see how the photos #1-3 look the same


http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_005ct_e_vs2_ags_0.htm

Those both were taken using the older software and hardware and are not directly comparable to the new ones as far as how the images/diamonds look.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/27/2005 11:55

2 PM
Author: nerdbot

Date: 4/27/2005 8:19:29 PM

Author: lop

Nerdbot,



If you can practically do it, you might want to order the larger stone and compare it side by side with the stone you have. Both are going to be good stones. Your eyes might prefer one over the other. That said, if both are good stones, go for the larger one if the price difference is nominal. There is a lot of very specific analysis going on here, but I bet they are both beautiful stones. Given that... most women would pick the larger one.

I think I will actually do that. Although I''ll probably be a nervous, paranoid wreck until I send one back. The current 1 ct stone I have is the single most expensive thing I''ve ever had in my possession, and now I''m about to buy another stone.

Thanks for all the great information everyone. I didn''t mean to start a fight...

I think I understand the general consensus: While everyone has their own interpretation of the reports, both stones are excellent, and I''ll need to see both to truly decide.

We aren''t fighting :}
We just disagree in some areas.
There are others here who will argue that the b-scope has too many flaws to be relevant and should be ignored.
My own conclusion is that flawed or not it can tell you a lot about a diamond.
The thing to keep in mind is that just because a diamond scores triple vh doesnt mean you will like it better than one with a score of h vh h.

How the diamond is tuned by the cutter, most common light conditions, and its personality play a huge part in it.

I agree with your conclusion :}
Good Luck!

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 4/27/2005 10:47:48 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
It seems to me that when you are splitting hairs this fine a measley (sp?) 5 pirate-style light views won''t tell the story.

Are the ''animated'' views just the 5 views pasted one on top of another? If so, that doesn''t tell you much either.

Rank

The animations are not just the 5 photos pasted on each other.

There are multiple images for each characteristic. White Light / Color Light/ Fire / Scintiallation

In addition, the stone(s) also need comparing by eye in the B Scope Viewer. In that in the view the angles of light are manually controlled and can be adjust to any angle, and the appearance of what angles differ from other checked by human eye I find is an intergral part of the analysis.

A while ago GOG had done some photos using a video camera, as a still camera won''t do the images well in the viewer. However, doing this is a time consuming job, and I find it is easier to report these results verbally to the client. In addition, the resolution from a video camera left a lot to be desired.

Rockdoc

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 4/27/2005 9:55:27 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/27/2005 8:53:57 PM
Author: RockDoc

The interpretation of the graphical photos should be done by someone who has well based experience with the B Scope.

.

Then go for it.
Provide one, then tell me where mine is wrong.

Storm

I am not saying that your wrong. I am just saying that the analysis to be totally complete should be interpreted by someone, who has an independent stance, that isn''t using it as a sales tool.

In addition, as an expert in this, I am liable if I say something that isn''t correct. As I have been writing, one needs to use both results from the analyzer unit, and compare it with the results observed in the B Scope Viewer unit.

In that only the results from the analyzer are posted, before rendering an opinion I would want to do all the things I do to feel totally confident in issuing an analysis.

In addition, this is what I do for a living, and if I would provide information on this for free for one person, I''d feel guilty if I didn''t provide it to everyone else who asked. I have a lot of time and study invested in understanding and interpretation that is checked by eye, and by other testing I do. Not to mention the monetary investment in this.

Although using limited information about the two stones 1) only the analyzer 2) static image I do have a preference. But I would want to reconcile the images seen by eye in the BScope viewer and personally using other methods I have to make sure that the results agree with what my eyes see. This elevates the analysis to an experience rather than a prediction.

I do totally agree with the positions you''ve stated about the system being flawed. But I don''t think it is. My experience is that it is highly repeatedable. What people seem to ignore that the comparisons are made using a extremely similar conditions, and under those conditions the results can be accurately compared. Is their potentially better ways to do this? There may be, but this technology is an ongoing developing one, that is subject to change and be improved as more and more stones are imaged. Gemex is extremely dedicated in this area.

More than the software has been changed. The processing board and the camera were vastly improved just a few months ago.

Rockdoc

 

[strmrdr]

Its kewl, RockDoc I understand your position.

My main point about the flaws is that even a flawed system can give usefull information and that there is no such thing as a flawless system.
I find the B-scope reports useful thats my bottom line on it.
Id buy a diamond without one but if its avaialable Id want to see it.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 4/28/2005 12

8:49 PM
Author: strmrdr
Its kewl, RockDoc I understand your position.

My main point about the flaws is that even a flawed system can give usefull information and that there is no such thing as a flawless system.
I find the B-scope reports useful thats my bottom line on it.
Id buy a diamond without one but if its avaialable Id want to see it.

Interesting that you feel this way.... I guess the B Scope report only has some value to you if its provided free.

I am in a very different situation than a seller. I am not using it to make revenue from selling. I am using it as an analysis tool, as part of the work I do.

It is expensive and time consuming to use it for just for analysis. But I believe the information it provides is valuable enough to make the financial committment to have it, and provide this information, where others are not willing to do this.

When someone is about to invest thousands, or even tens of thousands to purchase a diamond, the cost per report is very nominal in exchange for the information it provides.


Rockdoc

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/28/2005 12:36:31 PM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 4/28/2005 12

8:49 PM

Author: strmrdr

Its kewl, RockDoc I understand your position.


My main point about the flaws is that even a flawed system can give usefull information and that there is no such thing as a flawless system.

I find the B-scope reports useful thats my bottom line on it.

Id buy a diamond without one but if its avaialable Id want to see it.

Interesting that you feel this way.... I guess the B Scope report only has some value to you if its provided free.


I am in a very different situation than a seller. I am not using it to make revenue from selling. I am using it as an analysis tool, as part of the work I do.


It is expensive and time consuming to use it for just for analysis. But I believe the information it provides is valuable enough to make the financial committment to have it, and provide this information, where others are not willing to do this.


When someone is about to invest thousands, or even tens of thousands to purchase a diamond, the cost per report is very nominal in exchange for the information it provides.



Rockdoc

Its never free if it provided by the seller its just included in the price I pay for the diamond. Without it I could get a slightly better price but Id rather have it.
Would I send a diamond that the seller didnt provide one with to you to have one ran?

If everything else checked out on the diamond no I wouldnt I think.
If I did it would be out of curiosity more than anything.

If its avaialble from the seller id get the results and pay the higher price but I dont think Id go out of my way to have a third party do it.
I dont think its that critical to making a selection.

I consider having someone like yourself look over the diamond much more important than running a b-scope report.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/28/2005 4:48:21 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/28/2005 12

8:30 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
if you''re a believer in the b-scope tech, then you should look for a report with 5 different looking pictures (photo #1-5) those are the ones that scores VH,VH,VH


http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_03ct_h_vs1_h&a1.htm



the link below see how the photos #1-3 look the same


http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_005ct_e_vs2_ags_0.htm

Those both were taken using the older software and hardware and are not directly comparable to the new ones as far as how the images/diamonds look.

i know they''re older software but, i''m still comparing apples to apples,am i right?