gem ex brilliance scope, diamond choice help

[turismo]

Hi,

I was wondering what the professional''s opinion of the GemEx BrillianceScope is? How seriously should I take the results? What is the amount of light return difference between a rating of high and very high (white light). (Is this possible to quantify?)

I''m trying to decide between two stones that are very similar. Price is close. The two main differences is that one rates Very High on the white light return and the other rates High. Can I take this as an indication of the cut quality? Both are AGS0. The other main difference is that the one that rates "only" high on the white light return has a Medium Blue Flourescence, while the other has None.

Actually, here are the basics. What does everyone think?

Diamond #1:

1.52ct, D, VVS2
Depth 61.1
Table 57
Girdle Thin to Med, Faceted
Culet None
Polish EX
Sym EX
Flourescence NONE
(BrillianceScope White Return HIGH)

Diamond #2:

1.50ct, D, VVS2
Depth 60.9
Table 58
Girdle Thin to Medium
Culet None
Polish EX
Sym EX
Flourescence MEDIUM BLUE
(BrillianceScope White Return VERY HIGH)

As you can see, the diamonds appear very similar. Price difference is about $400 more for the slightly larger one.

Thanks so much for the expert advice. Really love this site and will be recommending to friends as the time comes...Thanks!

 

[ame]

I think we really need more information quite frankly, having the crown and pavilion will help running it through the HCA

 

[JohnQuixote]

As Ame mentioned, it will be helpful if you can provide crown and pavilion angles.

If you do a search on BrillianceScope or Gemex you will find lively discussion on both sides of the issue. Pundits claim that the machine is useful and agrees with their own opinions. Critics claim that assessment of a diamond cannot be meaningful in a tiny chamber using artificial lighting never seen in the real world.

Generally, those who use it in their businesses promote it. Others are skeptical about what it purports to measure. It an interesting piece of the overall puzzle, but view its results as a supplemental, non-absolute reference.

 

[ame]

My stone came with one and while it was sure nice seeing that high reading I don''t hold it as an end all be all of the stone''s great sparkle and return, I can see that with my bare eyes. When I had it "re-done" at a jeweler near here that uses it, it got even better readings, though I don''t know how accurate that was Then again I never bought from them so who knows.

I think if you get a decent HCA score and it shows reasonable return in the BrillianceScope, it might perform well, but the ultimate decisionmaker is in person, and in a variety of light if possible.

 

[RockDoc]

I have the Brilliance Scope....

If I thought it was poor, didh't do the right job, I would return it. Instead I've had it three years and I find it to be fairly accurate and reports what my eyes see 99% of the time.

It is interesting. Those that have it, do support the information provided, but it does have some considerations that a client should know. Gemex is a very consumer oriented company. They are always looking for ways to improve the way the machine works. Recently, the owner of gemex was here and provided me with very improved camera and a PCI board and another upgrade of the software.

Most of the people that support the system are naturally owners of it. Those who don't curiously are usually those who don't have it. Many of those who criticise it don't have it, and further they haven't worked with Gemex, and haven't been exposed to its recent improvements.

Where the gemex brilliance scope excels is comparing two diamonds under the same conditions. My service with it is two fold, as there are two different units. The brilliance scope viewer and the Brilliance Scope analyzer. Critics of the source of its lighting, claim it only reports lighting based on 5 limited positions. However the Brilliance Scope Viewer has a manually operated light source ( the same halogen ring light) so one can view all the positions with it. The difference is that the viewer doesn't prepare a written report of the light return, but one of its advantages is that you can put more than one diamond at a time in it, to view what angles of the light one of the diamonds may excel in. So the results of my testing with it, are explained verbally in a telephone conversation. With the Brilliance Scope Analyzer, it does make reports, but for only one stone at a time, although you can compare the analysis reports side by side so two stones can be compared under the exact same conditions.

Gemex doesn't sell the machine. It is leased and there is a charge per report. No one who isnt pleased with its performance has to get stuck with it.

Another new requirement is that each image has to be submitted to Gemex before a report is allowed to be distributed to consumers. The images are checked by Gemex, and either rejected and have to be re-imaged, or if approved and they issue a special .gif file.

Gemex has imaged about 700,000 stones as of about three weeks ago. Gemex very carefully analyzes the results of these reports, and is frequently sending updates that are done to improve the system and analysis. It is a constant work in progress.

Of all the instruments I have, Gemex's cooperation with their dealers with information and support far exceeds anyone else. When necessary, they will come to wherever they have to in person to fix, improve or check on the people that do have the machine. Gemex is in Wisconsin... I'm in Florida and they have flown here last minute when they need to. NO other company I know in the gemological equipment world does this. I can't say enough nice things about the way they handle things.

It however, in my opinion it is an additional useful piece of information about a diamond which no other machine so far has proven itself to be better than it is.

As to the visual difference betwee High and Very high ratings, to a consumer's eye, they are really close. Sometimes a difference can be seen by a consumer, but stones that perform poorly don't get those ratings.

The latest camera used in the machine and the new software upgrade is a lot more accurate than the previous versions. The new camera is a lot more sensitive, and as such, it takes a little getting used to. Is is a lot more sensitive to seeing "dust" on the stone, and picking up any interference from static electricity.

Rockdoc ( I suppose you can call me a pundit- but I am one by my own choice. )

 

[strmrdr]

imho,
The report is worth considering if its available.

Does it tell you something about the diamond?
Yes.

Will it separate out the real bad ones?
Yes

Is it well suited for separating 2 super-ideal cut diamonds that pass the other tests.
Not in my opinion.

First diamonds can be tuned to different light conditions by the angles the facets are cut too and the size of the facets in relation to one another.
Some people can and do find diamonds tuned to other light conditions than the B-scope measures to be the most beautiful to them.
These diamonds will take a hit on the b-scope scores.
Some diamonds can be tuned so far to B-scope measured light conditions that they don''t perform well in other conditions.
Just where that point is makes for a lot of arguments.
What really separates the various preferred super-ideal diamonds from different places is where the person selecting them or cutting them places the best compromise point at.

Very very few cut proportions will excel in all light conditions so almost always some compromise has to be made.



I hope this makes sence.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 2/18/2005 11:43:36 PM
Author: strmrdr
imho,
The report is worth considering if its available.

Does it tell you something about the diamond?
Yes.

Will it separate out the real bad ones?
Yes

Is it well suited for separating 2 super-ideal cut diamonds that pass the other tests.
Not in my opinion.

First diamonds can be tuned to different light conditions by the angles the facets are cut too and the size of the facets in relation to one another.
Some people can and do find diamonds tuned to other light conditions than the B-scope measures to be the most beautiful to them.
These diamonds will take a hit on the b-scope scores.
Some diamonds can be tuned so far to B-scope measured light conditions that they don''t perform well in other conditions.
Just where that point is makes for a lot of arguments.
What really separates the various preferred super-ideal diamonds from different places is where the person selecting them or cutting them places the best compromise point at.

Very very few cut proportions will excel in all light conditions so almost always some compromise has to be made.



I hope this makes sence.

Hey Storm....

Your comment about not being able to separate the really super ideal cuts, I really dont agree with.

There is a lot of information in the 5 images it produces. The interpretation of these images are important to understand the workings of the machine and its resultant data.

I will agree that depending on the light entry angle and enivronment there are many stones that may perform differently than in the B Scope, however understanding what the images show is an important part of the analysis. Many diamonds show different characteristics in the four different analysis and the three different comparison it makes. Too many people only consider the "blue bar" ratings. There is a lot more to know and to interpret in its analysis. A lot of the interpretation comes from WHY the person uses it. If they are a seller, then the interpretation provided to consumers, may or may not be a complete reporting of all that the B Scope is capable of.

Even in the old model of B Scope it would readilly show extreme differences between even the branded stones. Eightstar images were far different than those of other H&A super ideal cutters. But the information really needs to come from an impartial source to have all the details of it explained correctly.

I do agree that it is not the answer all solution for every situation... but it is very informative when interpreted properly.

Rockdoc

 

[strmrdr]

RockDoc,
I agree that the images can be as informative as the scores.
What is kinda neat is comparing the images of 2 different diamonds that score the same rarely will they look the same.
This brings me back to my point that the scores arent a great way to decide between 2 high performance diamonds.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Bill knows I hold him in high esteem, but we do depart somewhat on this BrillianceScope issue. Since he has elaborated on the pundits’ side, I feel it is my civic duty to put forward the skeptics’ side

The Brilliance Scope tries to evaluate what your eyes can already see. However, no machine can perceive diamond beauty as well as the human eye. Since its beginnings there are several issues that have, can and will continue to be discussed, despite advertised improvements.

RELEVANCY

1. BrillianceScope uses unnatural lighting in a small, enclosed chamber, but diamonds are never viewed in such conditions. Quoting Marty Haske: “The BS scope tests diamonds "for light return" in a lighting environment the diamond will never see again, and doesn't see in nature, so what is it telling the consumer?” (quote from this thread)

2. BrillianceScope tries to divide what the eyes see together. But it is recognized that the marriage of brilliance and fire is what creates the life of a diamond’s beauty. It is erroneous to separate them, since they work in harmony to create visual balance. So again, what is it telling the consumer?

3. BrillianceScope does not account for the contrast quality of brilliance in its measurements, nor can it use numerous small or distant light sources, so it cannot possibly evaluate scintillation in relevant or accurate terms. Sergey & Garry's elaborations on ETAS are pertinent to this. (discussion in this thread)

BIAS

BrillianceScope tends to assign higher scores to a certain type of facet construction. In our experience this arrangement does not necessarily result in a character of beauty with optimum visual balance. It has been widely observed that BS overlooks or punishes combinations of facet construction that some people consider equally or more beautiful than the arrangements it has a bias for. Further, a cut can be designed to max out BS’ returned “performance” metric...

BUILT-IN ERROR

Even without the issues above, the maker admits a built-in error which has been given as +/-5% per reading: That translates to a potential cumulative error of 10% when comparing 2 diamonds head to head, especially between different shops.

PEER REVIEW

If BS actually measures what it purports to, why won't GemEx submit it for peer review or to the NIST? (www.nist.gov) People have been calling for this for years.

OTHER ISSUES

Consistency issues due to difficulties in static stone placement…
BS uses a single lens, but the typical human has stereoscopic view…
Glass exists between light sources and diamond…
Aberrations due to unskilled versus skilled operators…

AND SO

Unless technology changes considerably and somehow manages to take into account the numerous variables in a diamond’s daily panorama of illumination such as uncontrived lighting, obscuration/contrast brilliance, multiple (some distant) light sources and a reasonable range of tilt through hundreds of illumination scenarios it will be hard for any of the direct assessment devices like GemEx’s to be considered meaningful.

It's appealing that BS provides a type of quantification on paper in a way the casual shopper can easily comprehend. However, the majority of consumers are not steeped in the minutiae and ramifications of the arguments above, and I believe they may easily be misled.

For the record, we do have experience with Brilliance Scope but do not feel our customers are well served with Brilliance Scope data for these reasons.

That said – to each his own! There are respected folks who choose to endorse BS... There are plenty of opinions, and discussions like these are how we all learn from each other.

 

[strmrdr]

Thanks John.
I emailed Rhino a link to this thread so he can weigh in with his side of this issue.
I think we are best served by a frank and open discussion from all sides on this issue then drawing ones own conclusions.
After long discussions with both Rhino and John that is what I have done.

 

[Rhino]

Thanks for the email strm. My comments will be between yours and hopefully clear up a lil confusion. I didn't read past this post yet so if my answer is redundant please forgive.

Date: 2/18/2005 11:43:36 PM
Author: strmrdr
imho,
The report is worth considering if its available.

Does it tell you something about the diamond?
Yes.

Will it separate out the real bad ones?
Yes

Is it well suited for separating 2 super-ideal cut diamonds that pass the other tests.
Not in my opinion.

First diamonds can be tuned to different light conditions by the angles the facets are cut too and the size of the facets in relation to one another.
Some people can and do find diamonds tuned to other light conditions than the B-scope measures to be the most beautiful to them.
These diamonds will take a hit on the b-scope scores.

Yes but one thing that needs to be clarified here my friend. You are talking about the appearance of a diamond in light conditions that the B'scope is not testing for. Sure a person may prefer the looks of certain minor facet cutting in one light condition and another set completely in another (kinda whre I'm at right now) but what the B'scope does demonstrate strm... consistently, time after time, is the appearance of diamond in direct light conditions. I perform this simple test with many people every time we give a presentation. Yes, there are combinations of B'scope grades that are harder to distinguish than others but in those H&A stones that reach 2 certain ends of the spectrum, people can see the difference with their eyes. This, to me, is the most important feature of the product. If it did not correlate with human eye observation under those light conditions strmrdr, it'd be good for the trash heap.

What cracks me up is something Bill has touched upon. It's worst critics are those who either...

a. Do not have one.
b. Have not used one.
c. At most have maybe spent a little time with it.
d. Companies that perhaps have had one but returned it because their stones were not performing well on it.

Is it a coincidence that studies performed with the B'scope (by moi, thank you) correlate exactly to the findings of other gemological institutions?

Some diamonds can be tuned so far to B-scope measured light conditions that they don't perform well in other conditions.

This is true. There are diamonds on the market that have a better appearance in direct light conditions than they do in diffuse or ambient light conditions. I would not and do not market the B'scope as the *ultimate* end all be all in cut grading. Not by a long shot. However, as Bill has also stated, it is the best tool on the market for doing what it is it does. Are there discrepancies? Absolutely. If a person is strictly focusing on the bar graphs alone and not looking at the images themselves they're missing half the story. Contrary to your statement that it can't seperate certain H&A's from others, I would beg to differ.

It's light patterns demonstrate

a. If the key facets within the diamond are angled properly to produce the most intense light return to the eye.
b. It demonstrates the precision to which a diamond has been cut. When a certain set of facets all light up at equal time and intensity, this is testament to the level of precion the cutter has taken to cut his product.
c. It also demonstates which sets of minor facet cutting produce the most scintillating stone even if the bar graph indicates otherwise.
d. A study I am currently undertaking is it's correlation of light view 6 with Isee2 results. Nothing conclusive yet but one thing about light view 6 I've been noticing is if there is an imbalance of contrast (lights/darks) with the pendulum swinging towards more darks than lights, you can see this in light view 6 and the diamond will also take a hit on the Isee2 as well on shallow/shallow combo's for the very same reason.

So... there is quite a bit of gemological information that can be garnered from the BrillianceScope. More than meets the eye so to speak. Of course if one never used the equipment at all they would not even begin to think of looking for these kinds of things, and if they did not have access to the diamonds I get to examine on a daily basis may never even discover the things we have. I'm the type of nut who, when gets new technologies, try to approach it from as many angles as I can think of. As I see new results, I make it my business to try to study and understand what caused those results, then compare that with human eye observation in direct light conditions.

Some diamonds can be tuned so far to B-scope measured light conditions that they don't perform well in other conditions.
Just where that point is makes for a lot of arguments.
What really separates the various preferred super-ideal diamonds from different places is where the person selecting them or cutting them places the best compromise point at.

Very very few cut proportions will excel in all light conditions so almost always some compromise has to be made.



I hope this makes sence.

Makes total sense.

strm, one thing that needs to be made clear is that the users of the B'scope ... it's proponents... do not advertise it as the end all be all for cut grading. I'll be the first to point out...

a. The bar graph for scintillation can be a little misleading in some circumstances. A cursory review of the images clears the confusion however.
b. It is not measuring for *brightness* in diffuse light conditions.
c. It does not analyse and grade optical symmetry (although it will show you that feature via light view 6).
d. It is not analyzing or grading the issues of contrast.

For what it does do however ... currently there is only one other technology attempting to do what it does. I have tested a series of diamonds on this other new device but I certainly have not spent any quality time with it to form an very educated opinion but from what I've seen, the B'scope is considerably more advanced in the metric it is measuring. Which, I would simply state is "the appearance of diamond in direct light conditions". Hope this clears some things up for ya'll.

Peace,

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Rhino

Good posting.....


Another amazing facts about the skeptics, is they make their primary criticisms about what the B Scope doesn't do.. (yet)

Why don't they comment on the valuable things the B Scope does do? I am open minded.. on this and if someone can criticize about what it does provide in the accurate aspects of the report, I'd sure like to hear them.

The only criticism of the machine as its designed currently, is that it isn't stereoscopic and operates using a single lens...
I guess everyone should throw away their loupes, since they don't make two eyed ones... and maybe dual eyepiece refractometers and polariscopes too.

Some people just expect too much.... the testing equipment is what it is. All of them have their limitations. Understanding the limitations is essential. Why do people insist on trying to compare the analysis to the human eye ( or two of them as the case maybe )? These machines are not made to replace gemologists but to compliment and add to providing the information to others, primarilly consumers.

But I do think I need to emphasize the importance of not only seeing the results from the B Scope Analyzer - but also the viewer.

The comments of tilt, light entry angle can all be judged in the B Scope Viewer... maybe one should say it takes TWO to Tango....which means both the Bscope Analyzer and the B Scope Viewer.

Oh well......


Rockdoc

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/20/2005 1:18:29 AM
Author: RockDoc
All of them have their limitations. Understanding the limitations is essential.

Bingo, and thats what im doing and pointed out a few of them as I see them.
Reading what Rhino wrote it doesn''t come across so much as we are in disagreement but more so that we are looking at it from different angles and clarifying some things.

I think the b-scope can be used as a great tool to communicate to consumers what the expert already knows.


but
We as consumers if we want too get that far into it need to consider what the device is doing, how its doing it and what it is telling us.
That is what Iv been trying to do and Rhino has been a great teacher in that area and John has provided a great counterpoint that forces me to look into it and study it for myself as much as I can.

 

[niceice]

Why are you only referencing the Bscope results for Brilliance? What were the results for Dispersion and Scintillation? It is important to consider all three factors.

Regarding the Bscope... It''s not perfect, no piece of equipment is. However it does provide a little more information for consumers to consider... Better to have it than not. As a dealer, it makes sense for us to provide our clients with as much information as we can. This does not mean that the results of any equipment should be taken as absolute, we rely on our eyes first and foremost... If we switch places with our customers for a moment, we would definitely prefer to have access to all of the detail provided by the various machines as opposed to trying to make a decsion off of a lab report alone. This especially holds true for the Sarin DiaMension which provides the facet-by-facet measurements that the average crown and pavilion angle measurements are based upon...

Regarding the artificial light source... It doesn''t seem to matter... We''ve run enough diamonds through the machine now to be able to definitely say that it is capable of making a distinction between diamonds which are cut well and diamonds which are not... Diamonds cut with a large variance between the high and low range that determined the average crown angle score poorly on the machine and those cut tighter score higher... Pretty simple and just the kind of thing that a consumer needs to know.

This issue can be debated until we''re all blue in the face, a lot of people know that we''ve done it in the past... But really, what''s the big deal? The information is there for people who want it and people who don''t want it don''t have to pay attention to it.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I think that I am also beginning to see the light here.

To start, we all seem to agree that the BrillianceScope should be regarded as one of the tools to judge cut-quality, and not as the end-all. I think that nobody can disagree with that.

Then, I see that one should be careful with the results of the line-bar on its own, because these results could be contradicted by the 6 views, which contain more information. I think that this is very interesting, but very difficult for the average consumer to digest.

Personally, I have a theoretical problem with the machine. I am sure that it measures something, but I cannot see how it can translate the measurement into these three scores.

I can understand that it can put a measurement on ''white light return''. It seems a pretty straightforward measurement, and it does not seem to difficult to construct a machine to measure it.

With the measurement of ''colored light return'', I have two problems. First, we all know that there is a technical difficulty for digital cameras to exactly pick up colours. I wonder how this is in the Brilliancescope. Second, and more important, fire (coloured light return) depends highly on the light environment, and in direct light, it is very important that brilliance can overshadow fire. I wonder whether that is correctly measured in the Brilliancescope.

Finally, there is the measurement of ''scintillation''. Scintillation is a result of moving and rocking your stone, and can possibly be mimicked by moving your light source. I suspect that the light source of the machine moves in a straight direction. First, I wonder whether this is sufficient to judge scintillation. Finally, scintillation is also a result of the contrast-pattern, exhibited by the diamond, and I wonder how this is taken into account.

Having said all this, I am happy to see that Rhino and Rockdoc now indicate that one should be careful in basing himself on the line-bar-graphs. I think that it is possible to see both fire and scintillation (through pattern) better in the different light views.

Does this sound somewhat logical?

Live long,

 

[valeria101]

What those scores do it''s more or less interesting: if anything, the Bscope scale does not seem to be a hair splitting instrument - it deals with ranges of values already and the bar design just tells me even the makers of this tool admit there is significat degree of approximation in those measurements.

The six pictures are quite useful, I think. If those were the only output of the Bscope 90% of it''s task would still be accomplished, IMO. Not to mention those photos might be the only "realistic" ones provided.

If I understand this right, the scores are derived from some numerical analysis of pictures taken in the same conditions as those presented on the interface, if not the very same (BTW: is this right ?

) Since those are also shown, the ''scope is less of a "black box" after all.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 2/20/2005 1:18:29 AM
Author: RockDoc
Hi Rhino

Good posting.....


Another amazing facts about the skeptics, is they make their primary criticisms about what the B Scope doesn''t do.. (yet)

Hey Rock. You know something though ... "the skeptics" here are not, by any means attacking or are slanderous in their criticisms. Strmrdr (short for Storm Rider) is an excellent and inquisitive mind as well as Sir John Quixote. I do not get the impression that they are against the B''scope, but rather there are elements about it that they do not understand (hey ... we were there too) and perhaps some elements regarding light return that it does not cover which puzzles them (as it did me in the beginning as well). IMO it is the job of us who use it daily to make clear what it does and doesn''t do and it''s strengths and weaknesses.

In the past on the other forum it always felt like an "us vs them" situation. The critics vs the proponents. I do not feel that way here nor am I made to feel defensive about it. People have questions, skepticism is natural (as we were when first introduced to it). As long as we do our job answering the questions honestly and accurately people will (and they certainly have) seen the benefits of the technology. You and I have touched upon some of those elements in this thread and now peeps know from those of us who use it daily. I have no financial interest in the technology and as stated earlier the primary factor WHY I consult it''s results and offer this to our clients is because it correlates with human eye observation in the light conditions it is testing under. IMO it is the BEST way for a consumer to *see* the optical results in these conditions without having to see the diamond personally.

Why don''t they comment on the valuable things the B Scope does do? I am open minded.. on this and if someone can criticize about what it does provide in the accurate aspects of the report, I''d sure like to hear them.

The only criticism of the machine as its designed currently, is that it isn''t stereoscopic and operates using a single lens...
I guess everyone should throw away their loupes, since they don''t make two eyed ones... and maybe dual eyepiece refractometers and polariscopes too.

Some people just expect too much.... the testing equipment is what it is. All of them have their limitations. Understanding the limitations is essential. Why do people insist on trying to compare the analysis to the human eye ( or two of them as the case maybe )? These machines are not made to replace gemologists but to compliment and add to providing the information to others, primarilly consumers.

Amen to that. I would ditto strmrdr''s statement too ... it is important to know its limitations as well as its strengths. What is excellent is that we can discuss these things openly without having to worry about a "big brother" who''ll pull it from us if we don''t say anything favorable.

But I do think I need to emphasize the importance of not only seeing the results from the B Scope Analyzer - but also the viewer.

The comments of tilt, light entry angle can all be judged in the B Scope Viewer... maybe one should say it takes TWO to Tango....which means both the Bscope Analyzer and the B Scope Viewer.

LOL... uh oh... I can just see it ... videos under the viewer!!!

 

[Rhino]

Reading what Rhino wrote it doesn''t come across so much as we are in disagreement but more so that we are looking at it from different angles and clarifying some things.

I think the b-scope can be used as a great tool to communicate to consumers what the expert already knows.

Excellently put.

 

[strmrdr]

Rhino in a lot of ways I understand the B-scope too well, trained as a electronics engineer and a computer programmer I know about the ton of pitfalls in the electronics and the programing it uses.
Not to mention the optics.
A lot of people could make a box and connect it to the computer and make it show what they want it to show.
I could :}

Call me a cynic but:
My default opinion is that these devices until convinced otherwise is:
A computer program that using unspecified parameters determines the diamond is purdy whatever that is, when it is in a box under unspecified light conditions with unknown to you intensity and wavelength, using unspecified video systems with unknown to you capabilities, using unknown to you computer analyzing techniques.

In other words snake oil.

So you have done a pretty good job convincing me its good for something but there are a ton of technical questions that I have about it that will never get answered.
So I will never be 100% sure about it.

 

[JohnQuixote]

What cracks me up is something Bill has touched upon. It's worst critics are those who either...





a. Do not have one.
b. Have not used one.
c. At most have maybe spent a little time with it.
d. Companies that perhaps have had one but returned it because their stones were not performing well on it.

Is it a coincidence that studies performed with the B'scope (by moi, thank you) correlate exactly to the findings of other gemological institutions?>>

O’tay…I’m not sure if the knightly Rhino is including us as “worst” critics, but in case someone were to infer that from ye auld comments I want to make clear that Whiteflash did indeed have BrillianceScope and used it for a year to objectively determine what it's saying about diamonds. For the record, our stones got top scores.

After 12 months it became evident that the machine had a preference for a certain type of facet construction - namely diamonds overbalanced to perform well in direct lighting. No surprise - this is in-line with what others have observed. Also no problem for those who wish to use it to enhance the information they bring to their customers.

At WF we feel our customers are not well served with a report biased towards one type of performance since our focus in on evolving and putting forward diamonds having great visual balance through a vast range of lighting conditions. We’ve never claimed or wanted to produce the most “brilliant” diamonds...We strive to develop and provide the most visually balanced ones that perform well in all conditions. I hope that makes sense when one considers our context.

I would remind that we are a company working with an almost exclusively-internet clientele. We would like any information we put out to be instantly quantifiable with no disclaimers or explanation about bias.

Rhino and Bill work in a store where a customer can come in and spend as much as 6 hours with them

hearing all of the pros as well as cons. I don’t have problems with veterans using it appropriately, especially to assess cut quality and not to label a “winner” or a “loser.” What scares the pajamas off of me is the guy at a mall shop running it and representing it as the holy grail of performance assessment.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/21/2005 5:33:24 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I think that I am also beginning to see the light here.

To start, we all seem to agree that the BrillianceScope should be regarded as one of the tools to judge cut-quality, and not as the end-all. I think that nobody can disagree with that.

Then, I see that one should be careful with the results of the line-bar on its own, because these results could be contradicted by the 6 views, which contain more information. I think that this is very interesting, but very difficult for the average consumer to digest.

Agreed.

Personally, I have a theoretical problem with the machine. I am sure that it measures something, but I cannot see how it can translate the measurement into these three scores.

I can understand that it can put a measurement on 'white light return'. It seems a pretty straightforward measurement, and it does not seem to difficult to construct a machine to measure it.>>

Agreed on both counts.

With the measurement of 'colored light return', I have two problems. First, we all know that there is a technical difficulty for digital cameras to exactly pick up colours. I wonder how this is in the Brilliancescope. Second, and more important, fire (coloured light return) depends highly on the light environment, and in direct light, it is very important that brilliance can overshadow fire. I wonder whether that is correctly measured in the Brilliancescope.>>

Exactly, and this is why I also feel there is a relevancy issue in trying to “divide” components of white from colored light.

Finally, there is the measurement of 'scintillation'. Scintillation is a result of moving and rocking your stone, and can possibly be mimicked by moving your light source. I suspect that the light source of the machine moves in a straight direction. First, I wonder whether this is sufficient to judge scintillation. Finally, scintillation is also a result of the contrast-pattern, exhibited by the diamond, and I wonder how this is taken into account.>>

I think there is even more to this, Paul:

A measurement of contrast brilliance can be thought of as 1 frame in the moving picture of scintillation. Even if the BS took contrast into account, a meaningful measurement of total scintillation would entail measuring white light and colored flashes coming through the crown facets over an accepted range of tilt (typically 30 degrees). This would require separate measurement coefficients for the table, 16 star and bezel facets and 16 upper girdle facets. These coefficients would then need to be multiplied by degrees of tilt. Of course this would be a very simple starting point, as it does not take into account indexing, range of light sources, range of viewer, intensity of light and especially variations in contrast.

Perhaps I am overstating this? Anyone?

Having said all this, I am happy to see that Rhino and Rockdoc now indicate that one should be careful in basing himself on the line-bar-graphs. I think that it is possible to see both fire and scintillation (through pattern) better in the different light views.

Does this sound somewhat logical?>>

It sounds logical for one with a trained eye and the ability to assess cut quality using the photos and practical experience. I have often said Rhino is the master of this device – and I trust him and Bill to tell me something about cut quality using it, but I don’t trust the guy at the corner jewelers who is running it for his second day on the job!

Remember - the original post in this thread was a consumer wanting to know how seriously to take the results and whether “high” versus “very high” was meaningful in the white light bar graph. Without an interpreter like these guys who have a black-belt in BS

(haha) and are honest about it, I think its results can easily be used to mislead consumers.

Now watch me swerve around in the lane I’m traveling in and tell you I have an open mind regarding advancements in technology. As a matter of fact the new Imagem does seem to assess some measure of contrast brilliance (Rhino?) I have been watching Dave Atlas' posts with interest - and will continue to watch these BS posts with interest.

Still...It is the basic fundamental issues and the definite bias which will vex many of us until they can be proven immaterial. Once accepted by studied peers such as Marty Haske, Michael Cowing, Sergey Sivovolenko and such science gurus I am sure others will fall neatly in line.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 2/21/2005 5:14:12 PM
Author: Rhino

Hey Rock. You know something though ... ''the skeptics'' here are not, by any means attacking or are slanderous in their criticisms. Strmrdr (short for Storm Rider) is an excellent and inquisitive mind as well as Sir John Quixote...

...In the past on the other forum it always felt like an ''us vs them'' situation. The critics vs the proponents. I do not feel that way here nor am I made to feel defensive about it. People have questions, skepticism is natural (as we were when first introduced to it).

Amen, brother.