HCA vs. BrillianceScope

[VampireX02]

I just saw something else that I thought was interest. The BrillianceScope report. Which looks like little sliders from a computer program (probably a screen shot). It included everything the HCA has except spread.

How does the HCA compare to the BrillianceScope. Is it the same basic idea?

What I most liked about the BrillianceScope is that it was a graphic representation of where in the "very good" range the dispersion fell for instance.

When you run the HCA..you might get "Good", "Very Good", "Excellent", etc as a result for each of the 4 elements and then a final numberical rating for the overall stone.

Is there a way to get the breakdown of that number? Like where each of the 4 element rate individually as numerical data instead of words?

Would be really awesome.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Vamp,
Good question – we decided not to do this because people (some) get a bit a-retentive with data and really they should be using HCA as a preselector and then relying on their eyes and / or those of an expert independent appraiser.
Garry

 

[oldminer]

The BScope show "results" from putting a stone in it. The HCA is way more portable as it is a "Predictor" of the light performance. You don't have to have the stone physically to use the HCA for the result.

Likely as not, they both would give similar end products. One is a large device and costs a lot of money. One is a program and can be run for no cost, not even shipping expense.

I suppose one might develop a preference for one of these over the other. I could understand why.