• Background
  
  
• The Inspiration for the BrillianceScope
  
  
  1. Are there any other comparable devices?
     
     
  2. Why do GemEx Light PerformanceŽ Reports have bars and images and not numbers?
     
     
  3. Are BrillianceScope results repeatable?
     
     
  4. Are there any endorsements from established grading Labs?
     
     
  5. Why GemEx BrillianceScope has not been peer reviewed.
     
     
  6. GemEx is just a small company without any controls on the quality of their optics.
     
     
  7. White Light Return is not Brilliance.
     
     
  8. Calibration of the machine is done by the operator and thus the machine may be calibrated to return higher than average results.
     
     
  9. Why Does the BrillianceScope measure light against a white background? Might this distort the Light Performance scores?
     
     
  10. You can get a diamond to give higher readings by placing it incorrectly in the BrillianceScope.
      
      
  11. Why does GemEx Light Performance Report show only six light views?
      
      
  12. Can you explain The GemEx Light Performance Analysis and Report Process that assures accuracy and repeatability of results?
      
      
  13. Why is GemEx thought to be superior to Isee2, Imagem and other competitors? How do they work and how does that compare to how GemEx works?
      
      
  14. 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?”
      
      
  15. 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?
      
      
  16. 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.
      
  
  
• Questions on BrillianceScope BIAS
  
  
  
  1. 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...
     
  
  
• Question on the BrillianceScope BUILT-IN ERROR
  
  
  
  1. 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.
     
  
  
• From the Price Scope Forums:
  
  
  
  1. What is the machine calibrated with- a mirror with 100 % wavelength return? Or is the machine calibrated to a database of previous stones or parameters? If the latter, are using different scales for different cuts portraying that b-scopes should only be used as a measure of relevance and not actual light return (otherwise the same scale should be used for all stones to remove any bias of how much is being returned- right?)
     
     
  2. How does the machine differentiate between ‘colored light’ and ‘white light’ - when I assume the machine simply measures the magnitude or intensity of each wavelength being returned? Or are ‘clusters’ of light return measured and the ratio of differing wavelengths the determiner of white light (all wavelengths) or colored light (lets say less than 50 % of all wavelengths with equal intensity for hypothetical example)? And would not the overlap of white light return on colored light unfairly boost the actual amount of lets say blue light at 500 nm and give it too high a mark for fire?
     

Background

The technology utilized in the BrillianceScope was originally developed by UGTS and LambdaSpec Instruments. UGTS was the technology development arm and LambdaSpec was the Marketing company that licensed the technology. Three employees of UGTS and LambdaSpec were awarded a patent on the Imaging Spectrophotometer in 1996-97. Randall M. Wagner, Kevin Valente and Ernest Reuter were the original developers of the technology. Soon after the patent was applied for in 1995, Mr.’s Valente and Reuter left LambdaSpec Instruments and Mr. Wagner hired two technologists to replace them. Mr. Kurt Schoeckert and Mr. Kuyan Ding.

The following is the background on these three individuals.

Randall M. Wagner
BS in Electrical Engineering Marquette University
MS in Electrical Engineering Purdue University

Randall spent 5 years developing weather satellite receiving systems for the US Navy. The system he developed is being used aboard navy ships to obtain and analyze weather satellite images. Mr. Wagner then spent 8 years developing computer interpretive electrocardiographs (EKG) and EEG's. His designs and performance earned him many awards and promotions during the years before joining UGTS and LambdaSpec.

Kurt Schoeckert
BS Mechanical Engineering Milwaukee School of Engineering.

Kurt has over 20 years of mechanical engineering experience. He spent a couple of years designing industrial gears before moving to medical electronics. Kurt spent over 15 years designing EKG and other patient monitoring equipment for the leading medical monitoring companies in the US.

Kuyan Ding
BS Physics University of Miami
PHD Physics University of Miami

Mr. Ding came to LambdaSpec from the University of Miami. His specialty was optical physics and this doctorate thesis was developing new algorithms for image processing. He was involved in the development and refinement of the optics and algorithms in satellite imaging systems.

In 1998, GemEx was formed by Randy Wagner and Kurt Schoeckert. GemEx bought all the technology rights from UGTS and LambdaSpec. Kevin Ding left the company but continued to act in a consulting role to the team after GemEx was formed.  In 1999, the principles at GemEx saw an opportunity to apply the technology already patented in its GemSpec Imaging Spectrophotometer to measure and compare the play of light in diamonds.  After a year of technological development accompanied by 2 years of consulting with diamond experts GemEx was prepared to market test what is now the BrillianceScope.

The Inspiration for the BrillianceScope

The Founders/Developers of GemEx and the BrillianceScope, having listened to the often contentious debate raging in the diamond industry regarding what is the best “Cut” for diamonds, determined the best method for resolving the issue was to develop a sound scientific instrument for “comparing” the “Light Performance™” of any specific diamond.

Are there any other comparable devices?

The BrillianceScope is a measurement device that produces results that can be compared and recreated. The IdealScope and the FireScope, for example, are not measurement devices, they are visual aides. They do not provide any results that can be analyzed, repeated, or evaluated. A “diamond expert” uses these tools to help give an opinion of the results. A consumer could only use the Ideal-Scope to compare diamonds. The FireScope was developed by a diamond company to highlight features in their diamonds only. The GemEx “Report” allows everyone from cutters to consumers to compare diamonds with results that are easy to analyze and evaluate.

Why do GemEx Light Performance® Reports have bars and images and not numbers?

The BrillianceScope does provide numbers. Both the White light and the Color light are percentages. A percentage of area returning white light is calculated and used to determine where on the scale this diamond sits compared to others of the same shape. Operators of the instrument can click and see the numbers that are arrived at.

The first prototype of the BrillianceScope had 1 to 10 scales. Within the first week a consumer was shown a diamond with a 9 in White Light, 9 in Color Light, and an 8.5 in Scintillation. (All three would be “Very High” in today’s scale.) The customer asked the Jeweler to find him a diamond with all 9’s.

The consumers became obsessed with the numbers instead of focusing on the diamond itself. Numbers can be misleading. Is an 8.5 better than and 8.3? Not in the real world. A bar graph is a much clearer way to communicate the results. Numbers insinuate stepped results or separate bins, but light performance is a continuum.it is linear. A bar graph communicates that fact better than numbers.

Are BrillianceScope results repeatable?

The BrillianceScope is repeatable within a very useful range. This range is the width of the bars on the scales. The BrillianceScope is like the Radar gun that has a range of +/- 5 miles per hour. That is another reason we chose not to incorporate numbers from the standard display as mentioned in Question #2 above. If we used numbers and they changed slightly it might appear as if the score were not repeatable. “I measure the same diamond twice and once it got 58%, and the next time it got 60%. Therefore it is not a good measurement tool.” It is important to remember that the BrillianceScope is a comparative tool to determine the “Light Performance™” of a diamond under “real world” conditions. The eye can not pick up the tiny percentages of variation.

Factors that may cause inaccurate readings that are mistakenly believed to be NON-REPEATABLE scores.

There are number factors that can result in readings that are inaccurate due to human error that can be corrected. These factors include: the diamond is not clean, glass is not clean, diamond not centered, diamond is not flat on the glass, etc. Each scan is screened for over 20 possible human errors and other technical issues by at least two different GemEx Quality Assurance managers to assure that a scan is accurate. If the scan is not accurate, the scan will be rejected and the operator will be advised to what the problem is and asked to rescan the diamond in question. Only after a GemEx diamond gets the approval of at least two Quality Assurance Managers does it get GemEx approval to be printed as an official GemEx Light Performance Report. These are the reasons the GemEx issues the reports and does not allow BrillianceScope users to issue or print reports.

GemEx obtains its revenue from the inspection and issuing of the reports. There have been users who try to avoid the charge of a Light Performance Report by not submitting the scan to GemEx for review before providing the results to customers. This is both a violation of the GemEx user agreement and an unethical practice as the customer assumes every scan is reliable and does not submit them to GemEx for verification. A bad scan can very easily result in a reading that can not be repeated. When this happens, the customer erroneously blames the BrillianceScope instead of the scanner.

In the past, a couple of the retailers who tested the instrument never submitted a single scan for review, but yet claimed it was not repeatable. Was their instrument malfunctioning? If they had submitted scans for reports, GemEx would know and be able to repair the problem. Was there operator error? GemEx Quality Assurance would see it and inform the customer who had submitted the scan.

GemEx cannot assure correct operation of the instrument if the operator does not follow correct procedures. The consumer is assured that the BrillianceScope reading is accurate only if the results are printed on an official GemEx Light Performance Report.

Are there any endorsements from established grading Labs?

Diamond labs are not in the business of endorsing instruments.  The instrument is a radical departure from anything the labs have ever offered.  Labs can be broken into two categories: 1) Labs that do not offer a cut grade; 2) Labs that presently offer a cut grade.

Labs offering a Cut grade base those grades primarily on the “Proportions” that produce a “Best” cut diamonds. Virtually every industry expert agrees... There is no “Best” cut (see GIA “Ray Tracing Research”)... and proportions are one of many factors affecting Light Performance™.

Why GemEx BrillianceScope has not been peer reviewed

The question of peer review is an issue that has been brought up by detractors (usually competitors of GemEx customers) of the BrillianceScope. No instrument currently in use in this industry or any industry for that matter goes under peer review. The designs of instruments are generally proprietary and companies in business are generally not willing to open their design to competitors.

GemEx developers have outstanding credentials (relative to educations, experienced instrument development, optical physics and engineering) and collaborated with a Ph.D. in optical physics in the development of the BrillianceScope.

Instruments in all fields, medical, automotive, laboratory etc. are generally tested and evaluated by the customers and potential customers. (Even the FDA does not guarantee medical instruments work, they just determine they are safe for use). Generally customers test the instrument before purchase and/or talk to current users of the instrument.

The BrillianceScope is being “peer” reviewed every day. There are currently over 130 BrillianceScopes in use today. BrillianceScope users include diamond retailers, diamond manufacturers, diamond wholesalers, and diamond Labs. Many of the world’s largest jewelry retailers sell diamonds with GemEx Light Performance Reports. GemEx has measured over 1 million diamonds for Reports. These evaluations have been paid for and used by GemEx customers, and ultimately by consumers.

GemEx is just a small company without any controls on the quality of their optics.

GemEx Systems and LambdaSpec Instruments were featured in several optics industry magazines. Large optics companies such as Rodenstock and CRI were using us as examples of cutting edge technology that is using their products. All of our optics are off the shelf parts, or custom designed for us by the large optics and laser companies. Click here to read the full article at Photonics magazine.

White Light Return is not Brilliance.

Everyone has his or her own interpretation of what brilliance and Fire is. GemEx does not call the BrillianceScope measurements brilliance or fire. We call it “White Light” and “Color Light” to avoid debate as to whether we are interpreting “Brilliance” or “Fire” according to “industry standards.” In our research we found Brilliance and Fire defined in several different ways by various diamond experts and authorities. To avoid endorsing one authority, and not endorsing another authority we use terms that a consumer will understand.

Calibration of the machine is done by the operator and thus the machine may be calibrated to return higher than average results.

The BrillianceScope requires calibration every week. The software does not allow operation if it has not been calibrated in a timely manner.

Embedded in every data file that is sent to GemEx are the scan date and the calibration date of the instrument. Secondly, we are not aware of a method to calibrate to improve the results, such has not been accomplished to date. If we are made aware of this highly unlikely scenario, we will update the instrument and software to prevent it.

Why Does the BrillianceScope measure light against a white background? Might this distort the Light Performance scores?

The concern about distorting the light reading by using a white lighting background refers to results that are “aliased” by the light that enters the back of the diamond. Technically a white lighting background does change the light score, but the BrillianceScope technology accounts for this in its comparative scales.

Aliasing is a scientific term for a very simple concept. Put simply, If you want to count how many eggs a child collects in an Easter egg hunt, and you place five eggs into his/her baskets before they start, the count at the end of hunt is “aliased” by the five eggs that he/she started with. If each child collects more than 100 eggs, the original five is insignificant. Now, with this knowledge, consider the BrillianceScope. First, the amount of light that enters the crown of a diamond in the B’Scope is many times the amount of light that enters the pavilion, so the aliasing is minimal. Second, since the Light Performance results are not absolute, but comparative, only, any aliasing is incorporated into the scales. If the best egg hunters’ count is 120 eggs and the worst count is six, our comparison scales go from 6 to 120. The minimal aliasing (five eggs) is already taken into account by the comparative scales, which means that there is not distortion in the Light Performance scores.

You can get a diamond to give higher readings by placing it incorrectly in the BrillianceScope.

Placement of the diamond can affect the results, but to maximize the performance you must center the diamond. If the operator does not accurately center the diamond a lower reading is obtained than should be for that diamond. This is a serendipitous discovery after the design was complete. Since the geometry is 360 degree symmetrical, the most illuminated position is in the exact center. I wish we could take credit for planning this in the design process. Only after we had the design complete did we realize that it was necessary for the diamond to be centered to get the hightest readings.

GemEx recommends people do not rely only on the instrument results, but get a hard copy LPA “Report” to validate the data. GemEx is very aware of some of the circumstances (both natural and unnatural) that can lead to incorrect results. That is one of the reasons we do not sell the instrument... only contract to allow its use.

Why does GemEx Light Performance Report show only six light views?

GemEx has done multiple tests with different lighting positions. We have run up to 12 lighting positions and discovered there was no difference from the results obtained from 5 light positions or up to 12 positions. We have changed the 5 positions to cover the light angles exactly in between our current light positions and it did not make a difference. The thing to remember is the B’Scope is not an absolute instrument; it is only a comparative tool. Each diamond is subject to the same conditions and then compared with diamonds of the same shape.

Can you explain The GemEx Light Performance Analysis and Report Process that assures accuracy and repeatability of results?

The first step in the GemEx Light Performance Analysis and Report Process is that customers scan their diamonds on the BrillianceScope. When they are happy with the results and want to utilize them in a GemEx Light Performance™ Report, the operator selects “LPA” button on the computer screen. The B’Scope program then packages the raw data and transmits it via the internet to GemEx Headquarters in Mequon, Wisconsin. (a suburb of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA). GemEx Quality Assurance managers then review submitted scans for accuracy. Each Scan is screened for over 20 possible human errors and other technical issues by a GemEx Quality Assurance manager to assure that the scan is not flawed. They look to make sure the machine calibrated; the diamond clean; the diamond is centered; the diamond has been placed table down and flat on the glass, etc. If there has been human error or technical problems, the scan will be rejected and the customer will be advised to what the problem is and asked to rescan the diamond in question.

When a diamond is approved or rejected, an e-mail is sent to the GemEx customer to inform them of the results. If it is rejected, they get a reason for rejection on each and every diamond and are asked to make the correction and rescan and resubmit the scan. If the scan is approved, it moves to the LPA generation station, and it is again reviewed as a double check for the same 20+ problems. If it passes that final check, the report is printed and mailed to the customer. If there is not hard copy Light PerformanceT Report, customers and consumer can not be assured that the scan was put through these very important checks, and therefore cannot assume that the results are accurate or repeatable. This is the reason that only GemEx can issue Light Performance Reports and does not allow BrillianceScope users communicate scan results or print their own reports.

GemEx is the only light measuring system that goes through these rigorous quality assurance screens. Each and every diamond is measured and verified by GemEx’s expert technicians to assure GemEx customers and consumers of a valid Light performance reading.

Why is GemEx thought to be superior to Isee2, Imagem and other competitors? How do they work and how does that compare too how GemEx works?

About the Isee2. GemEx actually gives credit to Oversees Diamonds and the Isee2 for at least trying to measure light return from a diamond. As opposed to the other methods out there of trying to predict light performance by using computer models and angles and table percentages, etc., Oversees Diamonds understands that predicting light performance by using angles is not at all an accurate measure when it is applied to an individual diamond as it does not take into account the quality or craftsmanship of the diamond.

While GemEx credits Oversees Diamonds for their approach, we also feel their implementation leaves much to be desired. The Isee2 provides a result in three categories: brilliance, scintillation and symmetry.

The measure of scintillation appears to be the most reasonable. It simulates holding a diamond and rotating it. GemEx simulates rocking the diamond. While rotating the diamond is a reasonable approach to evaluating scintillation we feel the GemEx approach of rocking the diamond is more useful because in real world conditions, people more often rock their hand and the diamond than rotate the hand or diamond.

The Isee2 measure of brilliance is done in a non-direct lighting environment. Determining a diamond's brilliance in a non-direct lighting environment is like testing a performance car in a gym. It is never allowed to perform. No color light or "fire" is produced in a non-direct lighting environment. We, our customers, and consumers feel that fire is a very important component of a diamond's light performance.

The measure of symmetry is a measurement that has limited value. Is symmetry of the light return important? Good or bad symmetry is in the eye of the beholder. What is pleasant to one person is objectionable to another. How do you measure personal taste? That is part of the reason GemEx provides the images of a diamond from six different lighting angles. It allows consumers to determine if the patterns of light return are appealing to them.

Overall there is another issue that concerns the GemEx engineers about the Isee2 system. GemEx engineers have been providing instruments to the diamond industry for over 10 years. In our experience, operator error can result in incorrect readings on every instrument. GemEx addresses this by having our technical experts review the results for each and every diamond before a GemEx Report is issued, assuring the customer a valid result. Overseas Diamonds has no such system in place to validate individual Isee2 readings. Was the diamond clean when the reading was taken? Was it free of oil that could influence results? Was the machine correctly calibrated?

Though we have reservations about the implementation of the Isee2, we applaud Overseas Diamonds effort to measure light return. Questioning the objectivity of an instrument designed by diamond sellers to sell their own diamonds is left up to the buyer of the diamonds.

Concerning Imagem. The system is very new and untested by anyone outside of Imagem that we are aware of. It may be a valid approach, but at this time, we can not comment. The Imagem instrument was designed to determine color and clarity of a diamond, adding some measure of Light performance is apparently an afterthought, not discussed in their patent.

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)

It is impossible to create an instrument to measure diamonds in all possible lighting scenarios. When creating a measuring instrument, you design a system to measure critical elements in an accurate and repeatable environment. If you actually measure a diamond in a cocktail party environment, you would never be able to obtain repeatable results, because recreating the critical lighting environment would be impossible.

To examine the Light Performance of a diamond you should expose it to a single point light source, and then move this point light and study the life of the diamond. To create a repeatable system, you would ether rotate the diamond making many measurements, or you could rotate the light source around the diamond. You would obtain 360 or 720 readings. (One at each degree, or ½ degree rotation). The BrillianceScope utilizes a well-known scientific principle of Superposition to do a single measurement with a ring light to obtain the same result. Then to emulate rocking the diamond, the ring light is moved vertically relative to the diamond, resulting in changing the angle the light enter the crown of the diamond (see attached graphic representation).

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?

The human vision system is obviously capable of separating color light return from white light return. The BrillianceScope likewise separates the two. Some people think diamonds with great color light return (Fire) are the most attractive, others think diamonds with great white light are more beautiful. Consumers should have the choice to decide for themselves what is more appealing. Systems that only report a single brilliance, not separating white from color light, remove this choice from consumers. Systems that measure the return of color light in a diamond would also violate the GemEx patent.

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.

The concept of “contrast brilliance” is a recently proposed idea to define scintillation. It is an academic term to define a simple concept that GemEx has talked about for years.

In order to have “scintillation” you must have areas of bright light mixed with areas of dark light. If a flashlight is pointed at you, and turned on and off, that would not be considered Scintillation. However, if 100 flashlights were pointed at you and they were all turned on and off independently (asynchronously) you would interpret that as scintillation. To evaluate scintillation, GemEx measures the number of “flashlights” on in each image, and verifies that it turns off (or flashes) in another image. The BrillianceScope also considers the size of each flashlight. The number arrived at is then compared to many thousands of diamonds to determine where the scintillation of this diamond sits relative to others.

“Contrast brilliance” is a snapshot in time of the flashlights. Basically to have contrast brilliance you must have some flashlights off surrounding others on. It is a concept derived as a result of trying to analyze scintillation from a single image off a diamond. GemEx has never tried to analyze a diamond from a single image as many others have. Contrast brilliance is obviously included in the BrillianceScope. In order to separate individual “flashlights” they must be surrounded by areas of darkness (or turned off flashlights) or it would just count as one big “flashlight”.

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...

The BrillianceScope does not “assign higher scores” to any diamond. It simply measures the return of light and compares them to other diamonds. It also does not even consider the “facet construction.” Will some people consider diamonds that do not have great light return as beautiful? Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A diamond without good light return may be beautiful; it just won’t get noticed at a cocktail party. Would it be called “understated” beauty, or beauty that only a mother could see (smile).

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.

See previous discussion on repeatability of the BrillianceScope.

What is the machine calibrated with- a mirror with 100 % wavelength return? Or is the machine calibrated to a database of previous stones or parameters? If the latter, are using different scales for different cuts portraying that b-scopes should only be used as a measure of relevance and not actual light return (otherwise the same scale should be used for all stones to remove any bias of how much is being returned- right?)

The BrillianceScope is calibrated with 4 reflectance standards. The Standards are approximately 3%, 28%, 68% and 95%. At least once a week the instrument must be calibrated using these standards provided by GemEx. The instrument steps through all wavelengths and light positions and adjusts the camera exposure, gain and bias to arrive at correct values for these standards.

How does the machine differentiate between ‘colored light’ and ‘white light’ - when I assume the machine simply measures the magnitude or intensity of each wavelength being returned? Or are ‘clusters’ of light return measured and the ratio of differing wavelengths the determiner of white light (all wavelengths) or colored light (lets say less than 50% of all wavelengths with equal intensity for hypothetical example)? And would not the overlap of white light return on colored light unfairly boost the actual amount of lets say blue light at 500 nm and give it too high a mark for fire?

The spectral response of each and every pixel on the image is obtained and permanently recorded. The magnitude of the light at each wavelength is measured for each pixel. This essentially results in a system with nearly ½ million individual spectrophotometers. As a result, there is no overlap. Since the entire spectrum response is obtained for each and every pixel independently, the color is calculated for each pixel independently.