bscope unreliable?

[faie]

I found out that whiteflash doesn''t provide bscope information. Apparently, they have gotten rid of their bscope machine because they''ve found that the results have been inconsistent/unreliable.

Is the bscope not a good instrument? Can one make an informed decision based on sarin/idealscope/cert/H&A photos, without the bscope?

thx!

 

[StevL]

I understand that they did get rid of it because they did find it inconsistent, so have others.

In my opinion it can be useful when buying over the net, but certainly doesn't replace the human eye or other instruments that many jewelers use.

The pretty pictures are where the story is many believe, not the bar graph. Many also believe this is where the sales pitch lays too.

Nothing beats looking at diamonds and comparing them side by side and this is one of the faults the internet has over your local stores.

Shop around, gain an education, compare, and seperate the BS from the truths and you will decide what you like best.

Best of luck...........

 

[Spyder]

Conspiracy Theory: they got rid of their bscope because their stones where not showing impressive results.

 

[Rank Amateur]

My theory: The BS and the FS don't necessarily align and WF was shooting for a "perfect" red-and-black return on the FS with their new improved cut.

They WERE able to attain the FS image, but didn't want to answer questions like, "Why isn't my stone getting three VHs on the BS? What's wrong with it?" In addition, I'm guessing that GemEx gets some $$ for every BS reading they "certify" and WF sees no compelling reason to use the BS. Not using the BS also sets them apart from SC and other sellers who tout 3 VH stones. They might fancy themselves to be marketing to a slightly different crowd.

Just guesses from an Amateur.

 

[StevL]

RA,

Whiteflash had the Bscope way before they tried their new cut or their light scope. I think A Cut Above had the Bscope before SuperbCert had theirs. Brian didn't like it then either, he and I chatted about it more than once well over a year ago. GIA and AGS returned theirs.

Leonid was able to change results by putting a black cap over the pavilion of the diamond. I have seen results change using black tissue paper in the dome. We all have read if the diamond is the slightest bit dirty, the machine not calibrated, or the diamond not centered properly that results can vary. The results are not exactly the same from machine to machine. The manufacturer states a +/- tolerance and many just accept that as being okay, some do not accept that at all. How would you like to buy a 1.00 carat that other scales weighed as a .98?

I take what Whiteflash said at face value, no more and no less. There isn't always an angle for what one does, many times it is what they truly believe in or have proven to themselves.

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 4/15/2003 4:41:28 PM Rank Amateur wrote:


My theory: The BS and the FS don't necessarily align and WF was shooting for a "perfect" red-and-black return on the FS with their new improved cut.

The WERE able to attain the FS image, but didn't want to answer questions like, "Why isn't my stone getting three VHs on the BS? What's wrong with it?" In addition, I'm guessing that GemEx gets some $$ for every BS reading they "certify" and WF sees no compelling reason to use the BS. Not using the BS also sets them apart from SC and other sellers who tout 3 VH stones. They might fancy themselves to be marketing to a slightly different crowd.

Just guesses from an Amateur.

----------------

There is some truth to this RA. While the B'scope does not align to FS results it does align perfectly to LS results which is true 2nd gen FS technology. The LS is like an x-ray machine for diamonds showing not just quantity of light return but quality of light return as well.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

----------------
On 4/15/2003 3:47:53 PM Spyder wrote:

Conspiracy Theory: they got rid of their bscope because their stones where not showing impressive results.

----------------

Spyder I would like to direct your attention to an interesting thread on Diamondtalk authored by Richard Von Sternberg concerning a experiment he did by placing an unfinished diamond in the machine and he discusses in detail the results he got with the unfinished stone and why he is not an advocate of it. Richard gets to the point of outlining that the machine is used more of a marketing tool and refers to it as "bogus science". The thread is in bold below....

Look, Mom, the foundation is missing

Personally I like the data that the bscope presents, but reading through the forums there have been numerous dealers that have found many inadequacies as far as the machine showing consistent results especially in the category of scintillation. Bringing up a good point. When evaluating diamonds go with what you see with your eyes. I too have gotten caught up in just looking at the bscope results to evaluate diamonds. I am not saying it is useless, but take into account it does have it's inadequacies.

Interesting thread though...Whatever your take on the b-scope might be...

-Josh In Sitka Alaska

 

[Rhino]

Interesting note Scorpion ...

Gary Roskin (gemologist) commenting on GIA article on brilliancy points out that diamonds with blocked crowns but finished pavilions have excellent brilliancy when cut to the proper angles.

The BrillianceScope is impartial to what you put on it. It could care less whether it's looking at diamonds, australian crystal or plain old glass. It's job is NOT to identify the material it is testing. It's job is to test the light output, reflectivity or intensity of that reflectivity within the object it is analyzing.

In another thread I have pointed out what I consider to be the flaws with the machine but the positives far outweigh the negatives. If a reading is questionable on scintillation one need to simply look at the 5 images to tell whether it's off a bit or not in that category.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

I agree Jonathan-When I am looking at stones and comparing them I like to cut and paste all the individual light views of each stone into a custom jpeg or gif image. Then I place them side by side to notice the subtle differences between each view presented between 2 stones I am looking at.

I was just simply bringing into account another persons perspective..That being Richard's from eightstar...It is interesting to view the light views of his stones. I have only seen 3 or 4 of them. Those which are posted on your site and 2-3 images seem to be extremely active why there are 1-2 light views which look really dead. Which brings up another question for Richards objective outlook on the machine all together...

-Josh In Sitka Alaska

 

[Rhino]

It is always good to get more than one side to every story Scorpion.

That article by Richard was the first review I had ever read on the BrillianceScope. Needless to say I was a hard skeptic of the machine before testing it personally, much less ordering one for my store.

 

[Rank Amateur]

----------------
On 4/15/2003 8:26:22 PM StevL wrote:

RA,

Whiteflash had the Bscope way before they tried their new cut or their light scope. I think A Cut Above had the Bscope before SuperbCert had theirs. Brian didn't like it then either, he and I chatted about it more than once well over a year ago. GIA and AGS returned theirs.

I take what Whiteflash said at face value, no more and no less. There isn't always an angle for what one does, many times it is what they truly believe in or have proven to themselves.

----------------

Steve L.

You posses a great mix of candor and professionalism.

I on the other hand will remain a mix of amateurism, pretentious bastardness, and egomaniacalisity.

R/A

p.s. I hope you made it over to AN last week and kept in the dry!

 

[pqcollectibles]

Faie~

The BS is a refined, and sensitive instrument. As pointed out in previous comments in this thread, results are dependent on proper use.

You can go to the Good Old Gold website, and see diamond reports with comments about the diamond "taking a hit" on readings from the BS when the diamond actually performs well, live and in person. The GOG website mentions, in particular, diamonds around .75 carat weight and below with the lower BS performance in one area.

One thread on PS discussed why BS pics look great on some diamonds and terrible on others. That issue was explained.

Another PS thread posted a link to the BS website where the manufacturer addresses reproduceablity of results. The manufacturer has posted a +/- % error factor in writing on their site. Having a degree in Chemistry, I find the BS error factor to be outside the acceptable range when repeating testing in a scientific experiment. But, this is not rocket science. Diamond vendors are not producing drugs, the brake pads you rely on to stop your car, or some other life dependent product.

BS is just a tool to provide more information in the decision making process. Just about everyone says the BS is not a replacement for your own eyes and personal tastes. And, you will also find PS threads where PS competitors praise White Flash for having beautiful, well cut, quality diamonds.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[Rhino]

Hi PQ,

Are you aware that it's repeatability is equal or better than that of a Sarin or OGI machine? If we are to trash it for that basis then by the same token should we also trash Sarin and OGI machines too? Ask any vendor here including appraisers if they put the same exact diamond on a Sarin or OGI are they going to get the exact reading every single time? The answer to that is no. Even from Sarin to Sarin there are and can be differences. The +/- tolerances on the B'scope are never drastically different as I've ran diamonds from over a month or even months after and have received the same results.

Even when a stone is sent to an appraiser with one (ie RockDoc) his readings never vary (if they do) so drastically from my own. One will not test as a dud on one machine and great on another. I'm not saying your trashing it but it should be known that it's repeatability is as competent as any other gemological tool on the market.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[niceice]

But the really funny part to all of this is that it appears that the machine won't even be available to dealers by October of this year... According to a recent conversation we had with the people over at GemEx they intend (at this point in time) to take the machines away from the dealers when their on-line database of cutter generated BS scans reaches 10,000 and it's just below 4K right now... We were told that we could have a BS machine if we wanted one during the interum but we didn't see the point of doing so because it would be time to give the machine back by the time we got all the diamonds scanned... There's nothing we like more than building a product up just to have the dealer take it away and go direct with it... Um, that's "extreme" sarcasm...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A few quick comments on this done to death topic.

1. How do we know the error factor to compare to Sarin / Ogi since Gemex have never published or shared any numerical data.

2. How do you know that the best and worst stone settings on the bars are accurate? I never quite like the idea that someone says "trust me, I have everyones best interest at heart". There is a lot of money, and a lot of consumer trust on the veracity and integrity of those settings. I believe the I-See2 system actually gives a digital score.

3. Finally yet again. Com'on Randy - publish the whole story. Be open or you could loose the whole shootin match.
If you do not have time to do it yourself then pay an independant person (not me) to write a full an open account. You are already Patent protected, (it seems strange that ISee2 can exist?). Publish it in Gems & Gemology, or do as i did with HCA and simply make it all available on the web.

 

[pqcollectibles]

Hey Rhino~

I wasn't trashing the BS and certainly didn't mean it to sound that way. I was just trying to compile different PS threads and bits of information I've read about the BS into one place. All the issues I referred to were addressed as I noted in my previous statement.

I seem to remember reading the BS has a reproduciblity factor of +/- 2%. Having worked in Research and Development for years, that level of error is not acceptable in the industries I've worked in. Tightly Federally regulated industries whose products most people consume/use/rely on to live safely each day. Therefore, the tolerances are MUCH tighter as there can be little to no room for error. Like I said, this isn't drugs (pharmaceuticals), the brake pads you rely on to stop your car, or many other products that can potentially impose dire consequences on human life.

My point was that the BS is a tool for vendors and purchasers to use to determine beauty/cut quality of diamonds. One more piece of information to use when considering a purchase for potential buyers. But, ultimately, beauty comes down to the eye of the beholder.

I apologize if my comments were interpreted as a slam on the instrument.

 

[dimonbob]

pqcollectibles
I wish all of our gem instruments were dead on accurate but almost none of them are, including such things as ring mandrels which have no moving parts. One of these days, I hope!

Don't worry about the Rhino. He has a tough hide.

Whiteflash returned the BS for the same reason that AGS did. I cannot speak for GIA but I would guess they had the same reason. What that reason is has to do with the BS itself. I won't say anything more. What SteveL said was very good.

You can also expect those out there that still use them to defend them to the hilt because they have a lot of time, money and energy invested in them.

The idea of the BS is great but it is still a good idea.

Have a nice day!

 

[scotch]

Rhino,

I was aware of the fact that FS and BS often don't align, Eightstars and ACA being prominent examples: They are all supposed to have perfect FS images, while they often score H/VH/H on the BS. Then how can it be that Lightscope (LS) and BS do align? I thought the LS is basically a refined Firescope. Could you explain this a little more, maybe even with examples, or a reference? Thanks,

Scotch