shape
carat
color
clarity

BrillianceScope Results

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by alex, Mar 10, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
  1. alex
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    by alex » Mar 10, 2001
    I am going to have the opportunity to see BrillianceScope results on a few diamonds. How valid should I consider these results? Is there a real difference between H3 and VH1, or VH1 and VH3? Which of the three light results is most important, white, color, or scint?
     
    


    


  2. Rhino
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    6,225
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    by Rhino » Mar 10, 2001
    Greetings friends!Hi Lawmax! [​IMG] Leonid! [​IMG] 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. [​IMG] 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. [​IMG]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------------------
    To see and learn the most critical information you can before the purchase visit "The Ultimate Diamond Information Site" at www.goodoldgold.com
     
  3. Rhino
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    6,225
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    by Rhino » Mar 10, 2001
    Greetings Alex,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.Peace,
    Rhino
     
  4. lawmax
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,317
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    by lawmax » Mar 11, 2001
    Rhino,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.
     
    


    


  5. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Mar 11, 2001
    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). Spectra intensity and placement are not taken into account. 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.
    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.
    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’.
    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.
     
  6. alexw
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    by alexw » Mar 11, 2001
    Cut Nut, Thanks for the overview on the BrillanceScope. Can you speak specifically to the various grades, ie. H vs VH. I understand that they are subdivided into 1,2, and 3 as well. My question is, Is there a discernible difference between say, H3 and VH1 when considering an ideal cut? Or, VH1 and VH3? Which light characteristic has the most significance in representing a very brilliant diamond; White, Color, or Scint?
     
  7. pricescope
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,266
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    by pricescope » Mar 11, 2001
    Hi Jonathan. Welcome! [​IMG]
     
  8. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Mar 11, 2001
    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.
    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.
    Garry H
     
  9. pricescope
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,266
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    by pricescope » Mar 11, 2001
    Hi Alex,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.Well cut stones normaly have good balance of brilliance fire and scintillation but you also can find diamonds returning more color or white light. It is all depends on your own taste...
     
  10. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Mar 31, 2001
    Here is Jonathons post at the other forum,
    I am just back from a weekend away and lots to do, so let me only respond to one comment now please.
    BS shoots light from consistant and 5 specific lighting directions and measures what it measures and averages the results (fresh communications with Randy - the boss at Gemex/BS).
    Now Rhino a symmetrical diamond will flash fire from very specific lighting positions, and as you caan see from you movies, even on the best of your beauties there are places where there is nothing and places where there is absolutely zero. This is great for scintilation as you have stated, but what if a stone has the proportions that happen to be measured in the dead spot?
    Now what if a cutter was really smart (say the smartest one around [​IMG] - if he knew (because I told him 2 years ago) about the relationship between crwon and pavilion angles - and all his stones just happened to max out on fire on the particular sets of proportions that the BS lighting hits the stone. If the readings were taken in the spaces these stones would dip out big time.
    Now I have tried and failed to make a picture that shows what I `mean, so hopefully poor overworked Leonid will do it 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 PS. Over the course of this year I've come to respect Gary's work even more and more. As a matter of fact after all my analysis and some real hard thinking I've come to the conclusion that the whole "internal physiology of the diamond crystal" thing is a load of bunk. While I know that strain exists in diamonds to some degree I do not believe that it affects the diamonds refractive index or bend the light to the point that it'll cause light to leak. I believe in the science of the firescope but at the same time I also believe there is an external formula which I am not privy to share.
     
    


    


  11. pricescope
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,266
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    by pricescope » Apr 1, 2001
    Here is the illustrationThe 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. [​IMG]
     
  12. Rhino
    Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    6,225
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    by Rhino » Apr 1, 2001
    Greetings mate,Thanks for posting that. [​IMG] How was your trip?Jon------------------
    To see and learn the most critical information you can before the purchase visit "The Ultimate Diamond Information Site" at www.goodoldgold.com
     
  13. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 2, 2001
    Thanks Leonid,
    Now folks do you get the picture?
    It involves some mental gymnastics. The diamond in the center has a ray of light flooding the diamond from directly above. The bursts of color are rays of light dispersed from the virtual stone that are hitting an imaginary screen between you and the diamond. They are you would see as fire if you looked from one eye in that direction toward the diamond.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 [​IMG]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.So does is the BrillianceScope infalliable?
    Garry Holloway
     
  14. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 10, 2001
    This was posted by 'Rankametuer' on DT
    <<I received some similar answers from GemEx when I asked them some questions about three weeks ago:
    quote:
    ---------------------------------------------

    The instrument measures fancy shapes the same as rounds. The only
    difference is that fancy shapes do not perform as well as rounds, so a
    different comparative scale is required. We are presently working on those
    scales right now. Square diamonds are pretty much finished. We are the
    closest on Marquise next. Thanks for the interest. By the way, another
    nation wide retailer began selling "BScope'd diamonds last week. The ZALE
    diamond from zales comes with Light Performance Reports, in addition to the
    Leo diamond being sold by Jared's. (www.zale.com and http://www.diamondaires.com) 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. ---------------------------------------------
     
  15. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 10, 2001
    Post from gecvk00 on DT
    p]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…>>>
     
    


    


  16. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 10, 2001
    Another quote - NDNewbie<<<<<<
    8* is very precisely cut and my fiance was able to pick it out of the bunch b/c of that. with 8* you will find that it usually returns more colored light than white light. it also really shines in certain positions and almost seems to fade out in others. this was seen not only seen in the Bscope but also when i tilted it back and forth in the tweezers. this was also the case in the manual brilliance scope that jonathan has in his shop where you can see the stone at every point and not just at the five of the Bscope we see more often. check out http://www.goodoldgold.com and i think he has some videos that show this but it takes a little time to download.
    NDnewbe newbie for life
     
  17. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 11, 2001
    I agree James, but remeber light return is not brilliance, and while I am the staunchest supporter of the Firescope(tm) or Ideal-Scope as I prefer to call it, we should remember it is not a 100% cure all.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....... Peace,
    Rhino
    over and out
    garry h
     
  18. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 11, 2001
    This one about Zales new octillion cut from 'Emerald forever' ---
    "Couple other thoughts. Anyone wonder what kind of marketing arrangement Zales has struck with Gemex? Seems like they have taken the Gemex report and thrown in "average round" data on it for comparative purposes. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen another b'scope report show that. I've got to believe that Zales had to get the permission of Gemex to market that. 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: commercial diamond = FMC
    _________________
    E
     
  19. lawmax
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,317
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    by lawmax » Apr 11, 2001
    Hi Garry,That's E-Emrldforher. [​IMG]
     
  20. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 11, 2001
    Some theory about vision.
    1. BS has one eye, we have two. Big deal you say?
    Look at a diamond with one eye closed and get a firey flash in view. Close that eye and open the other - the fire has gone and is either replaced by another flash or none at all. Sometimes the place where that the first flash came from is dull and sometimes it is very bright white.
    When you open both eyes the bright firey flash almost always appears a little duller, but there may then be more of them. But if the dull patch turned bright white through the other eye then the originally firey flash appears duller when both are open.2. What is more important - fire or brilliant flashes of white?
    My freinds partner Marie-France is VERY French and a bright and bubbly person. She is an accomplished artist and loves color - naturally she loves fire in a diamond.
    Philippe on the other hand is Swiss and is an audio-phile. He sees in black and white (bottom line guy).
    If we could wire them up and print a BS output from their brains, I suspect MF will see mainly VH3 fire and Philippe will see lots of brilliance or scintillation.
     
  21. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 11, 2001
    I presume BS uses a constant light source. If this is the case then we have a reproduction of the "igloo" lighting in the GIA Brilliance article from 1998.
    In the real world light does not come at a diamond with increased intensity from a side (eg 360 degree windows) supply and a somewhat dimmed (squared function) as the light gets further away from a position where it might be coming from the ceiling.This is quite the opposite to a normal illumination environment.
     
  22. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 11, 2001
    Sivovolenko, he and wife Olga visited last week.
     
  23. Emrldforher
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2000
    by Emrldforher » Apr 11, 2001
    Yeah, Garry, that's me! [​IMG] Hi everyone. Interesting thread. Haven't been around for a while, so I thought I'd poke my head in!E
     
  24. Emrldforher
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2000
    by Emrldforher » Apr 11, 2001
    Thought I'd save CutNut from having to cut and paste this. Here is a post that I made on another forum:I apologize in advance if this question has been answered. I haven't been around too much of late and I may have missed it. My question is related to the Fancy setting on the brilliancescope. I have seen several B'scope readings of various fancy shapes (ie. emerald, radiant, etc) that are almost off the chart. 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. ------------------
    E
     
  25. lawmax
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,317
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    by lawmax » Apr 11, 2001
    Hi E,I once wrote to Gemex asking some questions, but never received a reply.Perhaps someone there will answer your questions. [​IMG]
     
  26. lawmax
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,317
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    by lawmax » Apr 11, 2001
    Hi E [​IMG]
     
  27. lawmax
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,317
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    by lawmax » Apr 11, 2001
    Hi James [​IMG]
     
  28. jamesd
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2001
    by jamesd » Apr 11, 2001
    (waving back to Lawmax)Garry, could you expand on "light return is not brilliance" a bit? I'm not sure what you meant by it in the context of the Firescope.
     
  29. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 11, 2001
    I have had ongoing discussions with Sergey about this James.
    He talks about chess boards, you might remeber.
    Short version - scintillation is mixed up with both fire and brill.
    Think about the difference between black and white opal, both with the same amount of fire if you measured it on a BS - yet the black looks 10 times better.
    The same eg works with brilliance. Does that help?
     
  30. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    14,537
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Apr 11, 2001
    You guys really must stop meeting like this;(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. __________________
    StevL
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Share This Page