Brilliancescope and ACA diamond

[pinktiger]

I have been looking around this website and whiteflash for a while now, and heard a lot of great things about ACA diamond, and thinking about buying one from WF as a Vday gift. However, they don''t provide Brilliance scope result for their ACA diamonds, and even when I called and asked for one, they said no

I am just curious, how''s ACA diamond performing on Brilliance scope? Can any people have done BS on their ACA diamonds share the result with me? I know BS result doesn''t means 100%, but it at least give me 80% in the right direction.

Thanks

 

[kenny]

Interesting topic.
Even here on PS the vendors don't agree about this or that tool.

Good Old Gold likes the BrilliantScope, Whiteflash doesn't.
Do a search for it here, there are lots of strong opinions.
There are even allegations that diamond cuts are specifically *designed* to perform well on one of the tools, which of course that vendor will use.

That said, I have a WF ACA and it is superb!
I don't need the BrilliantScope to tell me that.

I also have a Solasfera that maxes out all three BrilliantScope parameters.
Sure, I like the fact that it did that, but I'm not sure how much it matters.

You can pick a superb diamond without that one tool.

 

[Ellen]

Hi!

IMO you don''t need one with an ACA, they give you an IS and Aset image, that''s enough.

I own a very well cut non ACA and a pair of ACA studs, they''re both stunning. No worries.

 

[strmrdr]

3 options...

1: buy from someone who provides b-scope scores.
2: have the stone sent to RockDoc for an appraisal and have him run it.
3: get one with lower girdles over 77% and it will do well enough on the b-scope not to worry about running it.

b-scope dont care for short lower girdles in the 75-76 range which gives some people fits.

 

[belle]

kenny, i don't think there are 'allegations'

i would think that if you have a device that rates diamonds and you sell diamonds, that you will intentionally pick stones that will score well on it.

that does not mean that diamonds that don't score well on it aren't beautiful, it just means they don't fit the metric that the machine was designed for.
for example, if i design a machine that grades chocolate

you're probably going to notice that dark chocolate doesn't score as well because to me, milk chocolate tastes better. since i designed the machine according to my tastes, the preference is going to be towards that. milk chocolate vendors will absolutely LOVE my new device because, man...milk chocolate looks like the best stuff ever! triple vh on the milk chocolate!

dark chocolate lovers don't need my machine to tell them it's good or even better than milk chocolate

aca lovers don't need brilliancescope

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/27/2007 11:55:22 AM
Author: strmrdr
3 options...

1: buy from someone who provides b-scope scores.
2: have the stone sent to RockDoc for an appraisal and have him run it.
3: get one with lower girdles over 77% and it will do well enough on the b-scope not to worry about running it.

b-scope dont care for short lower girdles in the 75-76 range which gives some people fits.

Not all. I looked mine up, 75.7. 3 VH''s.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/27/2007 12:13:23 PM
Author: belle

aca lovers don''t need brilliancescope

Agreed.

 

[Skippy123]

Belle,
Perfect analogy!!!
Thanks!

 

[strmrdr]

There is a perfectly logical explanation why the design of the b-scope favors certain stones.
Its no conspiracy to favor any one brand either.
Anyone care to take a shot at what it is?

edit: it has nothing to do with milk or chocolate.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/27/2007 12:16:22 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 1/27/2007 11:55:22 AM
Author: strmrdr
3 options...

1: buy from someone who provides b-scope scores.
2: have the stone sent to RockDoc for an appraisal and have him run it.
3: get one with lower girdles over 77% and it will do well enough on the b-scope not to worry about running it.

b-scope dont care for short lower girdles in the 75-76 range which gives some people fits.

Not all. I looked mine up, 75.7. 3 VH''s.

there are exceptions but in general it dont like em.
What are the crown and pavilion angles?

 

[RockDoc]

Hey Storm....

I think the latest version of the B Scope software is a little more forgiving in this area, than in the past. But generally each version gets a little "tighter" yet also is written to correct or adjust areas where its dealers have voiced critical comment.

Of all the equipment manufacturers...... Gemex''s tech support and constant improvement and updating is the best.

Gemex does constantly update and improve the software we have. Gemex does listen and respond to its dealer network comments. Two to four updates per year on average.

Over the past year or so, the software is much better now. Last year they upraded all the internal cameras in the machines.

Rockdoc

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/27/2007 12:24:02 PM
Author: strmrdr
there are exceptions but in general it dont like em.
What are the crown and pavilion angles?

34.05/41

 

[strmrdr]

That could be RockDoc.
Would be interesting to see how they did that without throwing the other scores off because it is a fundamental design issue.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/27/2007 12:37:09 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 1/27/2007 12:24:02 PM
Author: strmrdr
there are exceptions but in general it dont like em.
What are the crown and pavilion angles?

34.05/41

thought so...
When someone attempts to answer my above question or this evening if my arms up too it I will tell you why and explain it. Might be tomorrow before I get too it because its going to take a lot of typing and some photoshop.

 

[Ellen]

OK, curious to hear what you think...

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 1/27/2007 12:37:16 PM
Author: strmrdr
That could be RockDoc.
Would be interesting to see how they did that without throwing the other scores off because it is a fundamental design issue.

Their software people evidently figured out a way. Being a "compu-grape", it is beyond me with all the mathematical formulas for software, but I know in many ACA''s the results are more accurate than they were previously. Maybe it''s the software, the new camera or both?

I do use the B Scope Viewer which lets my eyes do the analysis, and over time I''ve developed the ability to even accurately predict the result from the analyzer. It is absolutely wonderful at separating the "best" from the "very best". However, I guess the training and experience of the operator''s eyes play a huge part in this when looking at stones that appear so close in light return performance.

This week I had two stone submitted - one which had a B Scope and one that didn''t. The one with the B Scope was a "tad" better than the one that didn''t have the report. But they were very close. However, even then I could tell in the viewer that one had a slight "edge" over the other. When I did do the B Scope scan on the one that didn''t have it, the results turned out as I saw with my eyes. The other stone while still in the 3 VH range, was a tad lower than the other on the analyzer result.

So whatever they''ve done ..... it works... and works better than with older versions of the software and the older camera in it.

Rockdoc

 

[pinktiger]

Hi strmrdr,

Thanks a lot for the information..
I am new to the terms. where can I find the data of the lower girdles %? On AGS report?

 

[JulieN]

yeah, it''s that number in the 70s and 80s on the pavilion.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Pinktiger, seriously, we have a tendency on here to overanalyze sometimes, but I wouldn''t get too wrapped up in lower girdle facet numbers! ACA''s are going to be beautiful diamonds. The standards are high so there aren''t any duds in the ACA category. Like Ellen, I also have a diamond with a Brillancescope report and I have two ACA''s. They all have about the same measurements and are beautiful stones. I didn''t need the Brillancescope to feel secure about the ACA''s because the lower performing stones just don''t make it into the ACA category. So choosing an ACA really requires little effort once you know your budget and have an idea of the color and clarity you like.

 

[pinktiger]

So, my impression is that, BS favors some brands like Solasfera, and in general doesn''t favor the ACA. If someone who can provide a list of brand that are favored or not favored by BS, it would be very interesting, or it is too politically incorrect to ask?

I figure that ACA cutting should be very consistent among all ACA stones (which is one of reasons I wanna purchase a branded stone like ACA), if one did or didn''t do well on BS, others might have the same consitent result, am I right? That''s why I am curious if someone already had their ACA rated on BS and can share with us.

Also, what is the price difference btw a Solasfera and a ACA branded stone, given that everything is similiar? I noticed on GOG, there is no price listed for their Solasfera stones.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Good Old Gold has hearts and arrows stones that would be eqiuvalent to ACA. Solasfera is a different cut. It is not that ACA''s won''t score well on a brillancescope. I would think most of them would. I mean, they are graded AGS0 for light performance, so to me, I don''t need further confirmation than that.

 

[strmrdr]

my arm isnt up to doing tonight but I will give my opinion on the question about which stones the B-scope favors and why.
I think it will answer some questions.

This is it for tonight.....
The longer lgf% ACA''s score very well on the b-scope in general.
2 vh to 3vh. vh/vh/vh vh/vh/h the scint reading isn''t worth even considering so both readings are equal.
The shorter lgf% ones will tend to score h/vh/h with the older setup and may have been moved up a bit in the new setup.
Its not just the ACA any stone with those crown/pavilion/lgf will take a similar hit.
Does it mean anyting... thats for you to decide.

I will also explain in my opinion why the Solasfera maxes out the b-scope and why its useless on asschers.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/27/2007 6:38:12 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Good Old Gold has hearts and arrows stones that would be eqiuvalent to ACA. Solasfera is a different cut. It is not that ACA''s won''t score well on a brillancescope. I would think most of them would. I mean, they are graded AGS0 for light performance, so to me, I don''t need further confirmation than that.

AGS0 does not directly correlate to b-scope readings.
But I will agree the b-sope isn''t a requirement.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/27/2007 6:21:06 PM
Author: pinktiger
So, my impression is that, BS favors some brands like Solasfera, and in general doesn't favor the ACA. If someone who can provide a list of brand that are favored or not favored by BS, it would be very interesting, or it is too politically incorrect to ask?

I figure that ACA cutting should be very consistent among all ACA stones (which is one of reasons I wanna purchase a branded stone like ACA), if one did or didn't do well on BS, others might have the same consitent result, am I right? That's why I am curious if someone already had their ACA rated on BS and can share with us.

Also, what is the price difference btw a Solasfera and a ACA branded stone, given that everything is similiar? I noticed on GOG, there is no price listed for their Solasfera stones.

Solasfera is a totally different cut than an ACA.
ACA are round brilliant cuts with 8 fold symmetry == 8 arrows/8 hearts
The Solasfera is 10 fold symmetry == 10 arrows/10 hearts
They have totally different personalities and performance.

There are actualy 3 types of ACA's: new line, classic and in between cuts.
The first is painted, second isnt, 3rd is lightly painted.
Within each class are varies lgf% that provides a slightly different personality.

What do you consider as being consistent?

 

[Shay37]

Date: 1/27/2007 6:21:06 PM
Author: pinktiger
So, my impression is that, BS favors some brands like Solasfera, and in general doesn't favor the ACA. If someone who can provide a list of brand that are favored or not favored by BS, it would be very interesting, or it is too politically incorrect to ask?

I figure that ACA cutting should be very consistent among all ACA stones (which is one of reasons I wanna purchase a branded stone like ACA), if one did or didn't do well on BS, others might have the same consitent result, am I right? That's why I am curious if someone already had their ACA rated on BS and can share with us.

Also, what is the price difference btw a Solasfera and a ACA branded stone, given that everything is similiar? I noticed on GOG, there is no price listed for their Solasfera stones.

No, I don't. However, I have an SC .76ct I, VS1 that is triple VH on the B-scope. Very balanced (by the light views) and gorgeous. I have had the opportunity to study (intensely) side by side with it in all lighting environments you can think of a .74 ct F, SI1 (eyeclean) ACA newline with shorter lgf than the SC and crown only painting. My DH could not see a dif between the two. The only thing that he and everyone else agreed on was that they did not believe that the ACA was not the bigger stone. It did not weigh more and it's mm was smaller and yet it looked bigger, and everyone could see that at a glance.

I could, but it was slight nuances in the way they performed. My ACA had bigger bolder flashes of color when the lighting was good for seeing dispersion. My SC has great dispersion but it's smaller flashes more frequently. HTH

shay

Edited to add: so even though my ACA was not B-scoped, my SC was and the ACA was every bit as stellar a stone and then some.

 

[avlis]

it seems to me, from reading these boards over the last half year, that the Whiteflash people (JohnQ) and the GoG people(Rhino) have slightly differnet opinions on what an ideal cut diamond should be cut to. whiteflash seem to like thier stones a little more shallow than GoG, OR GoG seems to like thier stones a little more deep than WF. as far as i can tell they both offer beautiful stones, although i should mention i purchased a GoG stone.

the stone i purchased has great broad flash fire, whitelight return, and overall great ambiant light return. too bad i only get to see it at night when the fiance comes over. it was a 2xVH on the BS and 1 split VH/H on scintillation. it is the most beuatiful diamond i have seen outside of tiffany''s. i suspect that is because of thier light engineering.

 

[loudway]

Hi strmrdr
, could you or someone tell me what''s the LGF % is on this stone?
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179762.htm#.

It seems only have 75%, correct? I thought most ACA should have lgf iover 76%?


Thanks a lot in advance.

 

[starryeyed]

Date: 1/28/2007 9:58:22 AM
Author: loudway
could you or someone tell me what''s the LGF % is on this stone?
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179762.htm#.
It seems only have 75%, correct? I thought most ACA should have lgf iover 76%?
Thanks a lot in advance.

Hi Loudway. John Pollard from WF did a Webinar yesterday and talked about LGF''s. He also posted some info on this THREAD.

From some of the comments on this thread and others, I was under the impression that 75% is a very short LGF, This couldn''t be further from the truth. The GIA LGF range for Excellent cut candidates is 67.5% to 87.5%. The midpoint is 77.5%. If I recall from the webinar, ACA''s are around 75-80%, plus or minus.

I believe the stone you referenced has an LGF of 74.4%. One thing should be made clear - this LGF is FINE. The stone is ideal and certainly beautiful. LGF''s are a matter of personal taste.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/28/2007 9:58:22 AM
Author: loudway
Hi strmrdr
, could you or someone tell me what's the LGF % is on this stone?
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179762.htm#.

It seems only have 75%, correct? I thought most ACA should have lgf iover 76%?


Thanks a lot in advance.

ACA's range from around 75 to 80....
75 is short but extremely short or very short .. nah...
too short in my opinion... yep.. but some people like em.
And others its an ACA so it can do no wrong.
Where I could care less where the diamond came from and each is evaluated on its merits.

 

[loudway]

so what is the negative side of the "too short"? can''t be sparkling enught?