In my opinion, this kind of junk science is a disservice to the consumer.
0
See the Difference
Started by jan, Jul 20 2003 02:43 AM
28 replies to this topic
#22
-
- Moderator
-
- 322 posts
Cut Diamond
- Gender:Male
- Location:Seattle, WA
- Interests:diamonds, economics, technology, music, travel
Posted 23 July 2003 - 05:54 AM
[indent]Moreover, it is being promoted as sort of the "final word" on cut quality (like all the other gadgets before it) with absolutely no proof.[/indent]
First of all, it is not being promoted as the "final word" on anything. It is just another tool.
Second, it sounds like you think all gadgets/tools (including certificates) are junk and a disservice to the customer. Sorry, I just don't buy that. In what way is an additional data point a disservice to the customer?
HC
First of all, it is not being promoted as the "final word" on anything. It is just another tool.
Second, it sounds like you think all gadgets/tools (including certificates) are junk and a disservice to the customer. Sorry, I just don't buy that. In what way is an additional data point a disservice to the customer?
HC
Hermann
Moderator
Moderator
#23
-
- Member
-
- 10 posts
Silver
Posted 23 July 2003 - 07:37 AM
It is being promoted as the final word because it claims to accurately measure brilliance, scintillation and symmetry. There isn't even general agreement on what at least two of these three even are! And this thing tells consumers it's measuring them?!?
This thing and some other gadgets are a disservice to the consumer because they give the false impression that they are measuring things that haven't even been adequately defined! Don't you think jewelers are going to charge a premium for diamonds that have Isee-2 scores? Just wait and see.
"Junk science" is the use of the scientific method (or just outright pseudoscience) to further a special agenda. The "science" here is questionable, and the agenda is obvious.
This thing and some other gadgets are a disservice to the consumer because they give the false impression that they are measuring things that haven't even been adequately defined! Don't you think jewelers are going to charge a premium for diamonds that have Isee-2 scores? Just wait and see.
"Junk science" is the use of the scientific method (or just outright pseudoscience) to further a special agenda. The "science" here is questionable, and the agenda is obvious.
#24
-
- Member
-
- 10 posts
Silver
Posted 23 July 2003 - 07:44 AM
That should have said "higher Isee-2 scores".
[indent]Sorry, I just don't buy that. In what way is an additional data point a disservice to the customer?[/indent]
We're talking about suspect data here that will probably be used to the seller's advantage. That hurts the consumer.
[indent]Sorry, I just don't buy that. In what way is an additional data point a disservice to the customer?[/indent]
We're talking about suspect data here that will probably be used to the seller's advantage. That hurts the consumer.
#25
-
- Moderator
-
- 322 posts
Cut Diamond
- Gender:Male
- Location:Seattle, WA
- Interests:diamonds, economics, technology, music, travel
Posted 23 July 2003 - 09:16 AM
[indent]We're talking about suspect data here that will probably be used to the seller's advantage.[/indent]
A dishonest jeweler will always be able to use any data to his/her advantage. This includes data on any of the other gadgets, or from any certificate even GIA or AGS. Wouldn't you agree with that?
A dishonest jeweler will always be able to use any data to his/her advantage. This includes data on any of the other gadgets, or from any certificate even GIA or AGS. Wouldn't you agree with that?
Hermann
Moderator
Moderator
#26
-
- Member
-
- 10 posts
Silver
Posted 23 July 2003 - 09:38 AM
You're missing the point. This data pretends to be authoritative but is completely unproven.
Even honest jewelers (if there is such a thing) can use this to screw consumers. Jan, for example, has her own "branded" diamond. One of the things a diamond has to do to qualify for this "honor" is to get high marks on the brilliancescope. She charges more for these than for her "unbranded" diamonds. The brilliancescope is being pointed to and she's saying, "See how rare and special this diamond is?" So naturally she charges more. The same thing will happen with the Isee-2.
Even honest jewelers (if there is such a thing) can use this to screw consumers. Jan, for example, has her own "branded" diamond. One of the things a diamond has to do to qualify for this "honor" is to get high marks on the brilliancescope. She charges more for these than for her "unbranded" diamonds. The brilliancescope is being pointed to and she's saying, "See how rare and special this diamond is?" So naturally she charges more. The same thing will happen with the Isee-2.
#27
-
- Moderator
-
- 322 posts
Cut Diamond
- Gender:Male
- Location:Seattle, WA
- Interests:diamonds, economics, technology, music, travel
Posted 23 July 2003 - 07:35 PM
[indent]You're missing the point. This data pretends to be authoritative but is completely unproven[/indent]
Unproven by whom?
This gadget, like other gadgets, tools, certificates, experts, resources (including this site), etc... they are all additional data points for the consumer.
Ultimately, the consumer's decision is based on an aggregate of data points. And the way I see it -- the more data points, the better... because when it comes to diamonds, the experts agree that there is no such thing as "ideal", or "perfect", or some other idealistic definition.
HC
Unproven by whom?
This gadget, like other gadgets, tools, certificates, experts, resources (including this site), etc... they are all additional data points for the consumer.
Ultimately, the consumer's decision is based on an aggregate of data points. And the way I see it -- the more data points, the better... because when it comes to diamonds, the experts agree that there is no such thing as "ideal", or "perfect", or some other idealistic definition.
HC
Hermann
Moderator
Moderator
#28
-
- Member
-
- 10 posts
Silver
Posted 24 July 2003 - 03:40 AM
Unproven by everyone. Proven by whom? That's the question.
[indent]And the way I see it -- the more data points, the better... because when it comes to diamonds, the experts agree that there is no such thing as "ideal", or "perfect", or some other idealistic definition.[/indent]
All right. I've generated the following data for the diamond Jan posted with an Isee-2 score of 9.8.
[indent]Brilliance: 9.5
Scintillation: 9.4
Symmetry: 9.3
Overall: 9.4[/indent]
This is an additional data point. Should it be included? You may say no because you don't know how these numbers were generated. Well, from what you've said above you don't know how the Isee-2 scores are generated either.
[indent]And the way I see it -- the more data points, the better... because when it comes to diamonds, the experts agree that there is no such thing as "ideal", or "perfect", or some other idealistic definition.[/indent]
All right. I've generated the following data for the diamond Jan posted with an Isee-2 score of 9.8.
[indent]Brilliance: 9.5
Scintillation: 9.4
Symmetry: 9.3
Overall: 9.4[/indent]
This is an additional data point. Should it be included? You may say no because you don't know how these numbers were generated. Well, from what you've said above you don't know how the Isee-2 scores are generated either.
#29
-
- Member
-
- 1 posts
Newbie
Posted 15 November 2003 - 11:19 AM
hello everyone...
I've just noticed... (a few months later) some postings regarding the Isee2 "brilliance" scanner.. in particular those by a fairly sceptical "annonomouscoward"... while I understand his concerns.. let me see if I can explain my understanding of the workings... the basic workings of the unit involve a light that emits a pure white medium strength light, this light hits the diamond from numerous angles and produce a reflection pattern that is captured by a real time camera. These images are transferred to an iMac computer which analyses approximately 180 of these captures to produce the final grades for brilliance, scintilation and symmetry... before a stone is "tested" the machine needs to be "calibrated". This involves placing a high quality mirror over the opening that the stone would usually be placed. When the mac analyses the light that returns from the mirror, a base line is created. This baseline is a measurement of the total light that is emmitted from the light and returned to the camera... theoretically, as it is a very high quality mirror, it is an accurate representation. Now, using this as the standard, when we place a stone on the viewer, and subject it to the same light, we want to see the same amount and quality of light coming back as the high quality mirror. The "Brilliance" measurement is a measurement of the "quantity" of white light that is returned to the camera in comparison to the calibration mirror. Realistically, this is a effected by the angles or proportions of the stone.. the "scintilation" is a measurement of the "quality" of white light, or how close to the standard white light, the mirror returned to the camera. This is effected by two things, the colour (how much light is absorbed by the stone) and by the "Polish" (the ability of the cutter to achieve perfect polish), but basically, the machine measures how close to the original light returned by the mirror resembles the light returned by the stone.. and the Symmetry is simply the comparison of opposing facets in all the 180 images, using perfect symmetry as the base.... as all things, the units of measure are what we arbitrarily assign to them... in this case the Isee2 scanner should be concidered more of a "comparitor" than a measuring device.... Hope I cleared some things up... but probably muddied the waters.. if you have questions, email me at ralphbv@aol.com and I'll try to explain it better....
I've just noticed... (a few months later) some postings regarding the Isee2 "brilliance" scanner.. in particular those by a fairly sceptical "annonomouscoward"... while I understand his concerns.. let me see if I can explain my understanding of the workings... the basic workings of the unit involve a light that emits a pure white medium strength light, this light hits the diamond from numerous angles and produce a reflection pattern that is captured by a real time camera. These images are transferred to an iMac computer which analyses approximately 180 of these captures to produce the final grades for brilliance, scintilation and symmetry... before a stone is "tested" the machine needs to be "calibrated". This involves placing a high quality mirror over the opening that the stone would usually be placed. When the mac analyses the light that returns from the mirror, a base line is created. This baseline is a measurement of the total light that is emmitted from the light and returned to the camera... theoretically, as it is a very high quality mirror, it is an accurate representation. Now, using this as the standard, when we place a stone on the viewer, and subject it to the same light, we want to see the same amount and quality of light coming back as the high quality mirror. The "Brilliance" measurement is a measurement of the "quantity" of white light that is returned to the camera in comparison to the calibration mirror. Realistically, this is a effected by the angles or proportions of the stone.. the "scintilation" is a measurement of the "quality" of white light, or how close to the standard white light, the mirror returned to the camera. This is effected by two things, the colour (how much light is absorbed by the stone) and by the "Polish" (the ability of the cutter to achieve perfect polish), but basically, the machine measures how close to the original light returned by the mirror resembles the light returned by the stone.. and the Symmetry is simply the comparison of opposing facets in all the 180 images, using perfect symmetry as the base.... as all things, the units of measure are what we arbitrarily assign to them... in this case the Isee2 scanner should be concidered more of a "comparitor" than a measuring device.... Hope I cleared some things up... but probably muddied the waters.. if you have questions, email me at ralphbv@aol.com and I'll try to explain it better....
