Brilliancescope and ACA: FAQ

[JohnQuixote]

I’d like to thank everyone for coming to the 1/31/07 “webcast,” especially Bill Lieberum for giving technical insight. Here is a promised follow-up 'for the record.'

Two FAQs about Brilliancescope and ACA

#1. How do ACA diamonds perform on BrillianceScope?

Examples are below. Several years ago we had it for a trial period. 50 diamonds were measured and we enjoyed analyzing the results. At the conclusion of the trial we made the decision that we prefer human eyes to sliding scales when helping clients with final decisions of taste among closely-matched diamonds.

The purpose of this graphic is a general impression, simply to correct the occasional misperception that ACAs ‘fall-short’ because we don’t have the machine in-use.

Notes: A few of these stones may be near-ACA which eventually wound up in Expert Selection, but all were produced on the same factory floor. Since the time of this trial we have tightened the ACA range and GemEx has updated their software.

 

[JohnQuixote]

#2.If ACA parameters consistently rate high why don’t you use it?

In the big picture, experts at both major labs and members of the science community have tested and decided against it (the science is debatable).Our primary reasons are more specific to our business model.

First:A guarantee of high performance is a function of the ACA brand.

We currently use the world’s most advanced grading laboratory and tools endorsed by science to identify top performers.Every ‘A Cut Above’ is cut on the same factory floor to a range of proven measurements. They must pass their designer’s internal evaluation and high personal demand for H&A symmetry (for whom that has appeal).Those approved go to the AGS and must earn the ‘Ideal’ grade in light performance, proportions & finish.We support them with further in-house measurements, performance images.For the purpose of identifying high performing stones another machine would be redundant and add cost to our clients’ purchases.

Second:The sliding scales are not useful for closely-matched diamonds.

New shoppers place emphasis on the 3 sliding scores because they don’t know any better.Unfortunately, diamonds of equal appeal can score differently (according to what fits the mechanical metric) and the most attractive diamond for a given person won’t necessarily return the ‘highest’ score.In this sense BrillianceScope is a beauty contest with judges who may not agree with your tastes.In ‘live’ purchasing situations the shopper’s eyes can overrule the sliding scores.But in our internet business model the sliding scales may give a false impression.We believe human experts are better equipped to interface with clients to arrive at any final decisions where taste is concerned.

We have nothing against the BrillianceScope or those who use it appropriately. We recognize its appeal and its use in live markets and applaud the makers for continuing to develop the software.Like any tool it can be used in-context.We are happy to send diamonds to independent appraisers using BrillianceScope for its live viewer option.

For now, our philosophy is to use known lab science to determine overall performance and expert human observation to assist our clients with decisions of taste.This philosophy will not surprise anyone who knows Brian Gavin and his contemporaries.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

 

[RockDoc]

Hi John

Thank you for hosting me last night, and hope people there learned about the B Scope in a more broad and informative fashion.

I am looking into equipment that would allow me to be in the pricescope live forum thingy, probably in the next few weeks.

Maybe I can also do some colored stone thingies, some lectures on the PGS software, and some good programs on insurance, valuation and appraisal subjects.

Rockdoc

 

[belle]

thanks for taking the time to put this together john, i think it answers more questions from an official standpoint as to why you don't use it.
i appreciate rockdoc coming in to explain the different light views and how he interprets images but i have to agree with kenny's observation in that 99% of consumers are only going to look at the bars. obviously this isn't always a fair representation of the results but....what can you expect, it is a sales tool not a machine for scientific anaylsis.
triple vh! it must be better than bar7 across the board

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

For the same reason GIA''s lighting environment for their 70,000 observation survey was flawed, so too is the Brilliancescope.

When light comes from a small part of the area around a diamond back to a single point (eyes or lens) the placement and size of the light has a very big bearing on the result (seen or pixel counted).

These DiamCalc ETAS maps show the probability of seeing a sparkle if a light was placed in the right spot. The B''scope light is a very thin donut and if you imagine that they are in 5 or so discreet thin donuts on each of these maps - then depending on where you put them as to what result you get. It is possible to make any of these stones as the very best by different placements.

It is also possible to cut diamonds to get the very best result. I know that this is being done. ACA could do it to if they wanted to.

ho hum