Although this message is 10 months old it has only just come to my attention and I feel the need to correct the writer on several inaccuracies.

Any diamond can be placed in the isee2 machine for totally impartial evaluation - not just an isee2 diamond. The machine recreates real life lighting in a controlled environment. A camera takes multiple images of the diamond under various lighting positions to compute the light performance parameters brilliance, scintillation (dynamic fire and dynamic contrast) and symmetry. It does not rely on recreating a 3D model of the diamond, or on ray tracing to predict any of the performance parameters; it only uses the live observations of the diamond through the camera.

Hence there is no way for the machine to know whether a diamond is an isee2 diamond or not. The isee2 machine provides an objective way to compare any two diamonds irrespective of manufacturer.
In fact any one that has actually used the machine can confirm that any well made diamond can score highly on the isee2 beauty evaluator, and we would encourage anyone to try it for themselves. This open and transparent approach is what isee2 is all about.
The validity of our light performance based approach is vindicated by the main international laboratories as their new performance based cut grade systems now provide the same parameters as measured by isee2.
For more information about the isee2 beauty evaluator, see the website www.isee2.com or contact us at
office@overseasdiamonds.com
Tel +32.3.234.30.14
Fax +32.3.34.15.17

Chris Keersmaekers
Engineer
Overseas Diamonds Technologies

Chris,

First off, thanks very much for chiming in on this post.

I appreciate your input.

However, I will still insist that we agree to disagree.

The fact is, in your response you did not address 2 of the most crucial and important points of this posting:

1. The fact that by Dave Lapa's own indication (your boss) this machine was built to promote and sell the diamonds of your own exclusive manufacture. This is common knowledge in the industry and highlighted on your own website. You are not a scientific company concerned with putting out an OBJECTIVE evaluator for determining ANY diamonds beauty.

Your concern and focus was/is to facilitate the sales of your OWN diamonds by creating this additional niche.

Indeed, you are not in the business of creating a scientific machine to objectively evaluate diamond beauty. You have been hired to create a technology that would effectively promote, showcase, and sell, YOUR OWN DIAMONDS.

In fact, a jeweler who would would like to showcase "diamond beauty" for his clients for any diamond, cannot even get hold of your Isee2 diamond evaluator unless he purchases a huge amount of your diamond inventory for stock.

Very commendable, but hardly the framework within which the Isee2 Diamond machine should be regarded as a non-biased and objective tool for the evaluation of a diamonds optical beauty, which by definition is often totally SUBJECTIVE.

2. The fact that this machine can only be leased by a jeweler conditional upon a very significant purchase of your exclusive diamonds for stock, highlights the clear conflict of interest that exists vis a vis your assertion that the machine will objectively evaluate "any" diamond.

Thus, there is no way the Isee2 diamond machine can be compared to some of the other diamond evaluation tools that have been created by completely independent scientific technology companies who have no vested interest or other interests, outside of the evaluatiuon of diamond beauty.

As an appropriate analogy Chris, let me pose the following scenario to both you and our many readers:

How would you (or your boss, Davy Lapa) feel if you found out that GIA (Gemological Institute of America) actually created their grading reports as a supplement to their primary efforts of selling their own diamonds? They would place a stipulation on you to purchase significant inventory for stock upon which you would now have the "privilege" of having them "grade" some of your own personal diamonds as well.

How would you feel about the integrity, veracity, and accuracy of their reports under these conditions? Not too good I'm sure.

How about this scenario:

Say you are in the market for a house. We all know how important and crucial it is for a potential buyer to get a thorough and comprehensive home inspection report before making a purchase of this magnitude.

Now the seller/owner of the house tells you he/she knows how to do a complete home inspection for you. They might even offer to charge you less than the next guy!

Would you, in your right mind, actually solicit the seller for a home inspection on the same house he is trying to sell you?

I think Not.

The analogies above are entirely applicable (Iin more ways than one) to what Overseas diamonds is trying to do with their Isee2 Diamond machine.

A total and complete conflict of interest any way you look at it.

You mention that your machine has been "vindicated by the main international laboratories".

For my curiosity and edification (as well as that of our readers) I would be interested to know exactly which "main international laboratories" you are referencing and whether you could provide us with some empirical evidence or proof that would point to your own "performance based parameters" being the "same as cut grade systems" carefully developed, fully reviewed/accepted, and clearly outlined by these independent laboratories.

I will respectfully disagree with you and thank you for your contribution and point of view.

I will leave it to our many readers and subscribers to decide for themselves where they stand on the effectiveness and impartiality of your Isee2 machine to obejectively evaluate the beauty of any diamond.

Kind Regards,

Judah,

I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the machine.

My understanding is that the isee2 machine would measure the brilliance, scintillation and symmetry of a diamond LIVE. So it is not just a piece of paper, like GIA certification.

The machine does NOT distinguish between an isee2 diamond and any other diamons. You put any diamond in the machine, and it will produce the score objectively. There is no human intervention at all.

I believe it is true that a vendor has to purchase a certain amount of diamonds to get to use the machine. That's how to make money to recover their investment in the technology. If you go out and buy a Brillantscope machine, wouldn't you have to pay out a huge amount too?

but I believe that is a separate issue. It has NOTHING to do with the objectivity of the machine, because the machine does not distinguish between diamonds of different brands. Who knows? if you put your Superbcert diamons in the machine, it may score very high.

I have always enjoyed reading your blog, but recently, I have found that you are starting to brand-bashing. You are also selling diamond so wouldn't that be a conflict of interest, too?

From your post, I don't get the feeling that you have actually evaluate the machine or the isee2 diamonds. I think you need to learn more about the technology before being so negative. Perhaps you should visit a shop which sells isee2 and evaluate the diamonds in person.

Regards

Jamie

Jamie;

I'm afraid your analogies are off the mark and miss our points completely:

You mentioned that "there is no human intervention with the Isee2 machine". You use this logic to promote the assertion that the machine must be objective??

Really?

Maybe there is "no intervention" at the time that a diamond is actually placed into the Isse2 machine.

However, consider how the machine derives its final score for any stone. Based upon what "scientific" metric does the machine spit out a result?

Indeed and clearly, it is based upon a metric that was developed by Overseas Diamonds in Belgium to dovetail with, to promote, and to facilitate the sale of their OWN ISEE2 DIAMONDS. This is after all, the reason the machine was developed and created in the first place!!!

Again; here are a few facts for everyone:

1. Isee2 machine was manufactured by Overseas Diamonds to showcase and sell its Ideal Cut diamonds. In order to get the machine, the diamond retailer is contractually required to spend a great deal of money to buy Isee2 diamonds on a regular and consistent basis. This leads to an inherent bias and slant on the part of the retailer to push the sale of his Isee2 diamond stock as being the "best". This is predictable and makes perfect business sense as any businessman who invests a great deal of money in a product will do everything possible to recoup and profit from his investment.
Whether other diamonds will score as well as the Isee2 diamonds is irrelevant and moot since the entire objective and approach by Isee2 is marketing. Again, if the GIA or AGS laboratories were also in the business of selling diamonds, no matter their current vaunted reputation for integrity, you would consider their lab grading reports suspect and tainted by a conflict of interest, rightfully so.

2. Gemex Systems which manufactures the Brilliancescope machine DOES NOT SELL their machine, is not in the business of manufacturing /selling diamonds, and does not have in place onerous contractural requirements in order to get the machine. Fees are based on an easily attainable number of submitted reports per month.

3. Don't see where we are engaging in "brand-bashing". Indeed the postings we have put up are Testimonials from our very satisfied customers who have done their homework and comparison shopping. Indeed, we readily say that Tiffany diamonds, Hearts and Fire Diamonds, Solasfera diamonds, and other branded diamonds are beautiful but that they do come with inflated price tags and a paucity of analytical information relative to our SuperbCert diamonds. Consumers have noticed this.

I'm sure, Jaimie, that you as a consumer yourself, look to the get the best quality product for the best price. There is no reason to overpay. This is called savvy shopping and it is gradually making its way to diamond purchases.

I am also not at all commenting on the branded Isee2 diamonds, which is why I'm not sure why you are suggesting that "I actually go see them in person". The purpose of this posting was/is reserved to pointing out the flaws with respect to the Isee2 machine.

4. You are indeed correct when you surmise that our SuperbCert diamonds would achieve high scores on the isee2 diamond machine. We have had our stones tested on this machine and they do score in the highest range with consistency.

So what...and big deal?

Still, we do not believe in the veracity of this machine and will not use it in conjuction with the plethora of scientific data we provide, because of its inherent flaw and bias.

If the reality was the other way around..and our signature diamonds did not do well on this machine...well then maybe you'd have a case to argue for our own bias ( ;) ;) )...... even though it would not change any of these important facts regarding the Isee2 machine.

This however, is clearly not the case.

I appreciate your input and respect your point of view.

Kind Regards.

Judah,
I would like to reply on your post of Jan 22

1.
We were asked to build a machine that would be able to measure the parameters that everyone agreed contribute most to diamond beauty. At that time we were not employees of Overseas Diamonds but of a fully independent company. When this company was forced to close we finalized the project working for Overseas. The machine we built just puts a diamond in a controlled lighting environment and uses the images taken to compute brilliance, scintillation and symmetry. I can’t imagine how we could do this without being objective. Again, in no way the machine knows whose diamond it is grading.

Of course it is true that the diamonds we produce under the isee2 quality label are of such consistent high quality that having an objective tool to show it can very well be used to support selling them. It became part of Overseas Diamonds’ marketing strategy to provide this objective tool to retailers that choose to enter the isee2 program and carry the isee2 quality labeled diamond to support their own brand.

As we seem to be competitors on the market, it is not surprising that part of your marketing strategy is to try discrediting the objectivity of the isee2 machine.
I suggest for anyone, who wants to know the truth, to contact any of the existing "isee2" retailers and ask them directly whether the apparatus provides for an unbiased and correct performance evaluation.

2.
The fact we lease the machine as part of our business model doesn’t necessarily prove it is biased, but I agree it provides a convenient argument for our competitors.
I agree with Jamie’s reply that the fact we use it in our business has indeed nothing to do with its objectivity.

3.
When I referred to the main international laboratories I meant that both AGS and GIA - end 2005, begin 2006 - have chosen to modify their grading systems in such a way that they now also rely on the light performance of a diamond. The new systems take into account brilliance, scintillation, fire and contrast and so does isee2.

Best regards,

Chris

Chris,

Thanks for coming back on this thread.

I am not looking to win this arguement. Both of us contributed our perspectives and we may agree to disagree.

I will however, correct you on one observation you made, when you said;

"As we seem to be competitors on the market, it is not surprising that part of your marketing strategy is to try discrediting the objectivity of the isee2 machine."

Chris,

Why would you say this?

Clearly, you understand and recognize that we are not your "competition".

We are not in the business of manufacturing technology for measuring diamond beauty.

We are as much your competition as a shoemaker is to the pizza parlor!

While I respect your position and comments, I do find it unfortunate that you would make this kind of irresponsible statement.

Our company did not manufacture, a competing technology with the Isee2.

The fact is that we sell diamonds with a plethora of technology; including, but not limited to a technology that measures light performance.

We could just as easily have used your Isee2 machine to promote our diamonds as with the Gemex machine that we use. Indeed, our diamonds score exceptionally and EQUALLY high on both machines.

We could not use your machine, because we do not believe in it.

Kind Regards,

Judah,
Interesting thoughts about the bias of Overseas in funding the development of a tool that will make it easier for the consumer to compare 2 diamonds and have some help in determining which is better, without using phony paper certificates, many of which are produced by dishonest labs, or more phony promotions. Seems to me that as you also sell diamonds, you may have some opportunity to be as biased as you accuse Overseas of being. As a jeweler who was a customer of Overseas before, during, and after the development of the ISEE2 machine, I may be in a position to offer a few comments. All the machine did was to make it much easier to determine which of 2 diamonds was brighter. We also carried some diamonds from other cutters that cut to ideal proportions,and the machine made it easier to compare very similar products. We have always purchased diamonds from Overseas because of the exacting detail and predictability of the cut. The polish and finish of the diamonds we bought from Overseas was unmatched. The grading was always consistant and we could purchase a diamond over the phone or in their offices and know exactly what we were getting. We have purchased diamonds in the states and in Belgium and South Africa over the last 25 years so have little idea of what is out there. Just so you know, I have no bias as I am no longer in the business. Just raising horses in the "Big Sky Country" of Montana.

Steven,

I appreciate your comments.

However, if you actually bothered to read the this thread in its entirety, you will note 2 very clear distinctions between the clear conflict of interest that exists with the creators of the Isee2 diamond machine and our own business model.

1. The Isee2 machine was created to help this company sell and market THEIR OWN DIAMONDS! True, our company sells diamonds, which is precisely why we don't offer an "in-house" contrived, company machine to ostensibly showcase the beauty of our diamonds. To do so would be a joke and akin to what this company is doing. Instead, we offer a plethora of scientific data for every conceivable metric of a loose diamonds beauty and cut precision, which have all been developed by companies who DO NOT SELL OR MANUFACTURE THEIR OWN DIAMONDS.

2. I made it very clear and will say again; our signature diamonds consistently achieve the "highest scores" for "brilliancy" on this Isee2 diamond machine. Therefore, our issues with this technology has nothing to do with how our diamonds rate on the machine, or any other bias.

Indeed, if we were to use this "technology" in tandem with all the other comprehensive technology we use to showcase our diamonds, IT WOULD ONLY HELP OUR CAUSE.

The fact is, we do not use this machine, simply because we do not believe in it, plain and simple.

Judah,
It seems difficult for you to reply to a post that disagrees with your idea without throwing out a jab. Please don't infer that I am not that bright and did not get the gist of the thread.
Just a couple of observations. If you think that Isee2 has some special technology built into the Isee2 machine that makes their diamonds better than they really are, then why would you make the statement that your diamonds also score high when tested on the machine. It must make your diamonds look better than they are also. It really seems that you may have a personal issue with Overseas as you seem to be intent on making them look bad. There are plenty of causes you can champion in the industry without trying to make something bad out of this.

Steven,

No inference intended at all..and I'm sorry you took it that way.

I did preface by saying that I appreciated your comments and point of view....that still applies..;-) ;-)

I do not "think anything about the Isee2 Technology".

Heck, I don't know anything about their technology and neither does anybody else for that matter...no peer review...no acceptance/credence by any major scientific grading lab. etc...and maybe that's part of the problem....but certainly not the focus of the original posting. It is at best, merely a side point.

So to answer your question; I certainly DO NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION about how the machine works that would (of itself) make it circumspect or dubious in my mind.

I was simply (and clearly) pointing to the clear and UNETHICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST that exists vis a vis this machine having been created by this company with the expressed purpose to promote, sell and market its own diamonds.

Steven,

I'm not gonna beat a dead horse here....but there is no way around this very crucial and valid point which is at the crux of this entire posting.

You have heard the expression "the fox is guarding the hen-house". Furthermore, you would never purchase a house with a "home inspection report" created and supplied to you by the seller himself.

This is EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION..AND IT IS WRONG, UNETHICAL AND INHERENTLY BIASED EVEN BEFORE WE GET TO THE ISSUE OF "HOW EXACTLY THE MACHINE WORKS"...which, given the aforementioned circumstances, is a totally moot point.

Therefore, I don't give a "rat's pattoot" whether the machine actually makes their diamonds (or my own for that matter) "score" "better" or "worse" than what they would deserve on actual merit. That is in fact my entire point..and one which I thought and hoped was pretty clear from my posting.

The information and output to me (and many others in the diamond industry, for that matter) is inherently tainted and circumspect as a result of its expressed purpose of creation.

I made the previous statement about our diamonds scoring consistently high on this machine, simply to put to bed the implied notion that we were somehow biased against this machine as a result of how our stones "measured up on it".

Furthermore, I have no "personal issue" with this company. We try not to mix business and pleasure...;-)

Indeed, I have personally met with Overseas CEO Davy Lapa who visited with us when he was in New York and found him to be a delightful man.

My "issue" here, is and continues to be, with the clear conflict of interest that exists.

Thanks again for your input and I trust that we can agree to disagree.

Regards,

There is no conflict of interest with ISEE2 creating a machine to measure and market their diamonds.

The fact that your best diamonds score best on this machine proves the machine's objectivity.
Again, the objectivity of the machine cannot be questioned because your high quality diamonds are scoring high on this machine.

It is not unethical for a company to create an a tool to demonstrate the quality of their products, especially if the tool can be used to measure competitor diamonds side by side.

ISEE2 also provides a GIA certification with each ISEE2 diamond. So you get an independent grading which records diamond measurements and ratings.

This is a very open policy that makes the buying process even better for a consumer because any diamond can be viewed with this machine.

Your argument does not focus on the technology itself, but the fact that the machine was manufactured by a company so that they can sell more of their diamonds. Therefore, you are only debating the ethicalness of this. So here are some permutations of the debate:

1) Machine is not objective? You are not arguing the objectivity of it. If you were, then you would HAVE to know the technology used and rate that. Therefore since the objectivity is not being questioned, we can state that it is objective.

2) I do not think the Fox Guarding the Henhouse, nor the Home with an inspection report from the seller are applicable here because that would question the objectivity of the measuring method, and you are not questioning the objectivity of the method, just the motive of the manufacturer of the machine and seller of the diamonds.

3) I fail to comprehend how you can disregard a machine that you have proven to work by measuring your own top diamonds simply because it was created by a company to market that their diamonds are the best cuts.

4) The comment that you cannot use the machine simply because you do not believe in it is an uninformed opinion. Not a fact based statement. The fact that the diamond seller made their own rating machine does not make your argument. You would have to prove the technology is flippant; and you have done just the opposite by showing your top diamonds rank high on isee2. Therefore, I think you have defeated your own argument and have turned your statements about ethicalness into pure opinion.

You simply cannot say that a technology made and used by a diamond seller is unethical unless you prove a bias in the technology.

It is that simple.

Madness,

I appreciate your position.

We can argue these points until "the cows come home"....

Indeed, I have much to say regarding your points.

Suffice to say, here are just a few of my own in return:

1. It is not my job to prove the veracity and accuracy of the technology behind the Isee2 machine, it is for them to do...AND THEY HAVE NOT.

No peer review.

No credence from any of the major, established and INDEPENDENT scientific grading labs.

No SUBSTANTIVE-REAL information on their website or anywhere else regarding how the machine works or how it derives its results.

Just basically a cool and funky looking computer display, with a box that sits atop a jewelry store counter which was designed and created by a company that manufactures and sells diamonds for the sole and expressed purpose of promoting their own diamonds vs. the competition!!...and you are telling me that the burden of proof falls on my shoulders???

Insofar as the argument that "any diamond can be placed upon the machine for review".....I am sure you are aware that this diamond manufacturer only provides their Isee2 machine to jewelers and stores who "buy in" to their diamond inventory by purchasing many thousands of dollars worth of stock annually.

This stipulation and contingency is hardly the framework from which to make unfettered and unrestricted comparisons amongst different diamonds, even if/when you do subscribe to the accuracy of the machine as a viable metric for measuring a diamonds light performance.

So do you see the vested interest and conflict of interest that exists here??

Maybe you still don't.

However, being intimately involved in the diamond trade here in the diamond mecca of New York, I know that MANY people in the diamond industry share my concerns and sentiments re: the Isee2 diamond machine. My posting here is nothing new, merely an outline of legitimate concerns which have already been vocalized.

2. A clear and unethical bias DOES exist when a company produces a "scientific" machine to promote and sell their very own diamonds by MEASURING THEM ON SAME MACHINE AGAINST A DIFFERENT (COMPETING) COMPANIES STONE. This is after all the whole premise of the machine.

I should also mention here that this whole topic and posting is not relevant to the Isee2 diamonds and diamond brand. You mentioned that the Isee2 diamonds are clearly beautiful stones and that may very well be true. It is however not at all relevant to the focus of this posting. My concerns and that of many in the diamond trade have nothing to do with this companies diamonds, but rather with the proprietary "technology" they have created to promote and sell their merchandise and which they purport to be accurate, independent, unbiased, verifiable, etc... all WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIVE PROOF AND NON-WITHSTANDING THE OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT EXISTS.

The aforementioned points brings me to my 3rd point which I have already stated numerous times before:

3. Therefore, I do not care about how our diamonds score on this machine and derive no satisfaction from their excellent "ratings" on the Isee2 product.

Why?

Simply because the results cannot be proven, have not been proven-reviewed by any independent scientific and accepted authority, and are inherently biased. The fact that our best diamonds score well on this machine as does the best from the manufacturer means nothing in and of itself.

What if our diamond scores a tad higher or vis versa? Does it mean one diamond is a tad "better" or "worse"? Or, do we just say they are both equally beautiful, since both do really well??

Without any real information from the company regarding this technology and with the obvious vested interest that exists for them to make sure their own diamonds derive the "excellent scores" there are too many problems and too many unanswered questions.

Therefore, I think the statement that many well cut diamonds and the Isee2 diamonds happen to score well on the machine is more accurate than to assert that this somehow "proves" the accuracy, independence, effectiveness and veracity of the machine.

Are we splitting hairs over pure wording and conjecture? I think not, simply because within this context, a bit of a higher or lower score between two diamonds on this machine, would not / should not "prove" the superiority of one stone over the other.

4. You mentioned the fact that the Isee2 diamonds are accompanied by GIA reports. Again, the topic of this posting is not really the Isee2 diamonds per se, but rather the Isee2 machine. Still, I will address this point as well.

GIA is a grading report...and that's fine. The Isee2 machine however, ostensibly measures light performance in a loose diamond. Light performance in a diamond as a scientific metric is a far different animal than a grading report that talks to standard specs. like size/color/clarity. Your introduction of GIA grading reports for Isee2 diamonds to support your arguments of the Isee2 machine's accuracy, is therefore incorrect. You are comparing apples to oranges. Some of the crummiest looking diamonds on this planet have GIA grading reports...so what?? Until very recently, (and subsequent to the creation of the Isee2 machine) GIA didn't even issue a cut grade within the framework of their grading reports.....

Therefore, the fact that Isee2 diamonds may be quite beautiful is a side point and of itself does not "prove" the accuracy, effectiveness and certainly not the independence of the Isee2 machine. It also is most certainly not a confirmed fact by virtue of the fact that they are accompanied by GIA grading reports..

Finally, I am quite cognizant that there will be those who will come on to this thread, including yourself to argue with me.

In fact, it is quite understandable, especially when those people, are dealers of the Isee2 diamonds with an Isee2 machine in-house.

These guys are almost contractually obligated to promote, sell and move the Isee2 diamonds considering their significant (demanded) up-front investment into purchasing these diamonds for inventory.

No purchase, no machine.

Therefore, when they see this thread with the very legitimate concerns which I have enumerated here in a (hopefully) straightforward and cogent fashion, indexed on the major search engines for "Isee2", they will quickly try to quash, distort, deflect and redirect any criticism away from the machine in order to protect their own bias, investments and pocke$book!

I respect and understand this approach....it is called "Capitalism".

I will respectfully agree to disagree.

Your input is appreciated!

I may be too late in joining this thread but I think it’s worthwhile to point out why the conflict matters.

The machine measures SOMETHING. This much is clear. Different stones will produce different results and, within reasonable limits of calibration and procedures it’s even reasonably repeatable. The key questions are deciding what does it measure and is it relevant?

According to the manufacturer it measures beauty and, more specifically, brilliance, scintillation and symmetry. This is not correct. These are all conclusions, not measurements. Something has been measured (perhaps several things) and these measurements have been compared against some sort of a benchmark to produce a score reporting that one is ‘better’ than another. The details of what is measured, how it’s measured, what formula is being used to go from data to conclusion and what scales are being applied are all proprietary. It’s an insult to the scientific community to call this science.

Who cares? Diamonds that score well on the Isee2 seem to be lovely no matter who made them. How can that be bad?

The problem is that customers are encouraged to use the results to decide if one diamond is more beautiful than another. Presumably the one with the highest scores on the 3 bars will be the most beautiful. Is it? Nobody knows. Beauty is a notoriously difficult concept to pin down and the makers of Isee2 have conveniently defined it as a stone that scores well on 3 proprietary scales derived from a proprietary formula using unknown data. This leap is important because the definition of what constitutes the most beautiful diamond just became proprietary. Of course their stones do well when held up against that standard, who would expect anything different? It’s not the stones that are being criticized, it’s the standard.

It’s like observing that lots of fun cars are red, designing a tool to measure redness and a bit of software that correlates this to driving entertainment and that produces a score about which car is the best. This is obviously a silly exercise that produces useless results but how do we know it’s silly? It’s because we fundamentally know that what is being measured (color) is not related to what is being evaluated (entertainment). Garbage in, garbage out. It may very well be correctly measuring the color and the subject car may be great fun but the problem comes when they link the two together. What if we didn’t know that it was color that was being measured? What if the tool were a wand that a dealer could point at a car and that would produce a score about how much fun it would be to drive? It would still be true that lots of fun cars are red so the results may seem reasonable if they were to point it at a few cars on a lot, especially if the dealer gets to include a few ringers that are both red and likely to be seen as fun or a few dogs in a color that’s known to do poorly. If a car dealer were to offer this ‘test’ before the test drive, would it alter people’s perceptions of which car is the most fun and therefore increase the sales of red ones? It just might. This minivan scores almost as well as that Corvette on the funmeter™, it’s cheaper AND it has 3rd row seating! People are complicated animals and ‘fun’, rather like ‘beauty’ is a difficult and flexible concept. Would it matter that this tool was distributed ‘free’ to select dealers by a manufacturer of a shade of red paint that is known scores well? Scientifically no, it would be nonsense either way, but it sure is a clue that something fishy is going on inside the black box and that it deserves further investigation before it’s given any credibility.

If Isee2 really has something to measure they should say what it is and submit it to independent peer review. It’s known as the scientific method and it’s one of the cornerstones of the modern world. If it truly measures beauty and value, which is what they claim, they could do FAR better selling machines or services than they will ever do selling diamonds. Diamond grading is a billion dollar industry and a reasonable tool for measuring beauty would be the holy grail. If they believe their own press releases they should take the leap from pseudoscience to science. If they can prove their claims, that truth will make them rich.

Hello Everyone,

I am a consumer...who just bought an engagement ring today by the way. I am also an engineer working at a Fortune 50 company who graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign with a degree in Engineering Mechanics from the Theoretical and Applied Mechanics department. An engineering school in the Midwest competitive with M.I.T. on the east coast and Stanford on the west coast. And I did very well there based on my GPA for those who care. Very well. I don't mean to come off sounding wrong here, but it is simply so, that I can think of nobody who I would be afraid to NOT match my math, physics, engineering, scientific, and logic skills with on this planet. And I have also spent many many hours over the last few months researching diamond buying so that I know enough about it to be safe while agreeing that in no way would I consider myself a diamond expert. And I hope that as a consumer, nobody would doubt that I have absolutely no bias one way or the other either. If you guys are interested in my opinion, this is what it would be:

The last jewelry store I went to sold Isee2 diamonds and had the machine. The salesman used it to show me the Isee2 results for several diamonds. He also gave me a nice informational brochure giving more data comparing Isee2 vs GIA vs AGS. I picked it apart and the saleman ended up agreeing with me confessing it to be a marketing tool more for the consumer who doesn't want to think that deep into it. Isee2 did not pass my standards for openness, honesty, objectivity, and science. I believe Judah to be right. And Isee2 didn't factor into my buying decision at all. I ended up buying elsewhere. Also want to add that the analogy for not asking the homeowner to do the house inspection for you (plus not disclosing how they arrived at that inspection rating either) is completely valid. The consumer has to choose: take homeowner's word on the condition of the house for truth, learn how then do your own house inspection, or pay a trustworthy neutral independant third party to come and inspect the house for you. In the jewelry trade that independant neutral third party is places like GIA and AGS. I don't believe you need to go any further than trusting their assessment of a diamond. Doing so really is a slippery slope of madness (what's next? comparing the perfection of two diamonds on an atomic level?). Of those two organizations I place the most credibility on GIA. From what I understand so far they have done the most work of anybody on this planet to understand, first color and clarity, and then finally cut. AGS is still missing the critical component of validating their cut grading system predictions with many many independent expert observers but I do love though that AGS provides all the individual cut subratings going into their final cut grade, which GIA has decided not yet to do. Once GIA were to do that I can't think right now what else on earth a human could possibly do more than that. And until Isee2 stops becoming a "magic black box" it can never ever seriously be accepted.

Much to the dismay of many jewelers facing many an "internet informed" consumer caring about a GIA/AGC certification I'm sure. Why? Because we can finally stand a chance of comparing two diamonds apples-to-apples, look at asking price, and then finally get a fair price with no obscene profit built in. Trying to distinguish and then market a trademark cut is really all they have left to try to keep the romance/art/beauty/big profit alive.

First of all I would like to thank Diamondviews. For bringing this issue to hopefully the attention of more than a handful of viewers( which is obviously why they posted this on the internet.)I am a manager of a very long existing (70+ years) and very successful jewelry company. Although I have only 15 years experience in the diamond business, I can assure you that this has been ample time to become an expert in this field. All of the managers have GIA training and have been to the headquarters ourselves. We fully pay for all GIA training for all of our employees. Our core values are not to sell diamonds to customers, it is to educate the customer and guild them to the diamond that would best suit their needs with the utmost honesty. It is because of these values that I am impelled to respond to this site. I am very disappointed with the avocation to dismiss any diamond that is cut by overseas diamonds. Since every Isee2 diamond is a GIA (excellent) or an AGS triple"o" (ideal), this would be advising that all consumers abstain from these very labs that issued Isee2 the specific cut grade. Our company has carried " ideal" cut diamonds since the early "90's. We carry ideal diamonds from at least 4 different companies, including Isee2. Why??? Branding, partly but mostly , no. It's because we know there are drastic differences in each AGS and GIA stone. What we want is consistency. Consistency that no other diamond brand can guarantee. When we first carried ideal cut our competitors told customers "there is no such thing" Guess what, so did the GIA. There are still many jewelers that do not and can not carry ideally cut diamonds. I assume that diamondvue also carry ideal cut diamonds and it is my suggestion that any ideal cut would be an excellent choice.(assuming it is GIA excellent or AGS "OOO" I am not suggesting that you purchase Isee2 diamonds, But I do feel that consumers are not being told all the facts. First of all Isee2 is being used in hundreds of jewelers world wide. It has been evaluated by the leading laboratories.(GIA and AGS) it has been evaluated by Stephen Lussier, the director of marketing from DeBeers, as"giving the retailer a chance to become an expert and to easily discuss the art and science behind cutting. Isee2 can do this better than others in the market." I do not want to be the Isee2 warrior. I do however want to help people who are searching for the truth and to help them differentiate between diamond brands and cuts. The truth is that all " ideal" diamonds are cut differently. The biggest misconception to the consumer is that all ideal diamonds have the same quality of brilliance. They do not. The AGS produces certs that show that a diamond has been cut "within ideal proportions" No AGS diamond is perfectly cut. There is an "optimum" crown and pavilion angle. But no AGS stone has ever accomplished this pitch on all facets. This is why when you look at the brochures we give you, there are large tolerances that allow diamonds to be sold as "ideal". Further more, only 17 of the 58 facets of an ideal cut are measured because the in between facets do not reach from top to edge and culet to edge. Also the specific angle on your certs are not the actual angles. They are the average of all the angles. So even if you do find a 34.5 degree crown angle on the cert, the fact is it is entirely possible that none of the angles are this angle. Now to make it even more confusing. Polish is arguably the most important factor to how light enters a diamond. It is possible to polish a diamond to 100 times magnification. Yet, the AGS only grades the polish of a diamond to 10 times magnification. Why? Because this is a very good polish for a commercial polishing machine. But crude to a much more sophisticated polisher. It is crucial that consumers understand that diamonds are in effect "sanded" to create the flat facets on the surface. Low quality polishing leaves faint scratches on the surface that both block light from entering and, what light does enter, gets blocked from escaping. If you take most AGS or GIA diamonds outside next to a diamond that is polished better, it will have more surface glare. Surface glare can produce high brilliance scores on some machines. Glare is not a good thing to diamonds. Most measuring equipment cannot measure polish. So if a diamond has great angles and perfect polish to 10 times magnification, it will achieve high scores on angles and possibly brilliance, but low performance on an Isee2 machine. This is why Isee2 is valuable because this is what they are trying to tell you. As for the GIA "Ideal" cut. It does not exist. GIA grades diamonds as "Excellent" not "ideal' GIA has fought the Ideal cut theory up until two years ago based on the pressure from the industry. How they are fighting Ideal cut is by allowing Hugh ranges of angles, and I mean HUGE. Half of the GIA excellent grades would be completely rejected by the AGS. Laboratories are not in the consumer protection business. They get paid by jewelers in order to sell diamonds to you. It would be disastrous for labs to expose all faults of a diamond. Jewelers would stop sending them business. So the question remains. Does a diamond cut closer to the best optimal angle sparkle more? Would it be more valuable? How about one that is cut to absolute perfection. Wouldn’t you agree that at least this is better? How about a diamond that has all 58 facets cut to precise angles. This would be even more difficult to cut. Is a diamond worth more to you if it is polished well beyond the minimum standards set by the labs? Every competitor unable to attain diamonds this fine would say no. Or they would say that their diamonds are cut exactly the same way. Ask one and see. And the biggest question, how would you know if it was?!!!!! It is true that it is not fair that every jeweler is able to use an Isee2 machine. It is true that if you are chosen to be able to carry Isee2 diamonds, you also receive the evaluator. The fact is that there is a very limited supply of diamonds cut this way.(less than one percent) so thus there are limited jewelers able to carry them. Isee2 knows they cut their diamonds to much higher standards in order to absorb and reflect light better than almost any ideal cut. What they are trying to do is prove it to you. It is not fair that our jewelry store is not able to carry Rolex. We regularly lose customers looking for Rolex. What we didn’t do was post on the internet that there is no scientific proof that Rolex works better than any other watch and expose it as a scam. The Isee2 diamond is not our most expensive. But it is fantastic. It doesn't matter that Isee2 forgot to prove to its competitors exactly how it works. Consumers should take their hats off to any diamond company with the ability to show how inconsistent even so called "perfectly" cut diamonds can be. Ideal diamonds are the target. Some diamonds are the bull eye. The public deserves to know what they are buying. At least half of the diamonds we use the machine for are not Isee2. But I have never seen any diamond score as high an Isee2. True, they cut them that way. But in theory, so could everyone else. The fact is that the equipment used to polish these brands are not not accessible to their competitors, nor should they be. We regularly invite any consumer to bring in a diamond for comparison. Some Ags and Gia grade low, some are higher. Occasionally one is great. It does not surprise me that some consumers discredit the Isee2 technology. Every competitor we have does with veracity. As they do with our other diamond brands that they don't have. If I were you I would research a little further before taking the advice of two guys with a computer and a chip on their shoulder. As for the engineer, his salesperson was lame and he couldn’t afford it. My advice for anyone attempting to buy an ideal diamond out there, be afraid, be very afraid.

David,

First off, thanks for chiming in on this thread.

It would have been most helpful if you had bothered to space out your paragraphs so that it would be easier for the reader to decipher your very long dissertation on Ideal Cuts.

While I appreciate your input (non-withstanding the fact that you have made it almost impossible to read..;-), it is also quite obvious that you didn't bother to read this thread and its earlier comments in its entirety.

Had you given us all the courtesy of more than a cursory reading of this thread's title, you would have seen that NOBODY is arguing against the beauty and precision of the Overseas (isee2) diamonds. They are beautiful Ideal cut diamonds (and certified as such) by anyone's estimation.

We were/are simply pointing to the clear conflict of interest that exists with respect to the pure consideration of the Isee2 MACHINE ITSELF as a "SCIENTIFIC" AND "IMPARTIAL" ARBITER OF ANY DIAMONDS BRILLIANCE. The mere fact that it dovetails perfectly with any well cut stone, does not of itself prove its accuracy and veracity as a scientific metric for assessing brilliancy, anymore than the simple indication that all well cut stones will "score well" on the machine.

Before you dismiss these two guys "with a chip on their shoulders", it behooves you to actually read the crux of this whole exchange.

Had you bothered to do so, you may not have seen the necessity of sharing your dissertation on branded diamonds and ideal cuts.

Regards,

Ummm...Yeah. Does anybody know where I can buy my wife a really nice round cut diamond? A 1.75-2c will do...

Hey Gus,

I hope I am not too late to answer your question. There is a Jeweler in Pittsburgh, PA who deals with many diamonds. My family has used her many times for many years. I quite recently have used her for an engagement ring. Her name is Maureen. Her phone number is (1)412-854-5443. She is an AGS member and a Certified AGS Gemologist Appraiser.

I went with the 1.071 carat isee2 diamond that was certified AGS000. I am quite pleased with it and so is my fiancée. I've checked many different rocks and this just caught my eyes. I am no diamond expert, but I know a sparkly object when I see one.

As for the technical side of it, Maureen told me to sacrifice the clarity for the cut, which lead me to an isee2/AGS000 rock. It was cut by OD Antwerp is that means anything to you.

As David mentioned about the optimal angles, the rock I purchased were all less than 0.3 degrees off from the optimal cut angles. For example the Pavilion optimal angle is 40.7 degrees, mine happens to be 40.8 degrees, the Crown optimal angle 34.5 degrees, mine 34.2 degrees. All this information is provided in the isee2 and AGS Document you get with the rock.

I guess in theory if the angles are cut at optimal angles, then it should sparkle a lot. I am sold on the sparkle and so was my fiancée.

Just ask a lot of questions and she can be very helpful. I paid upfront and she gave me a discount. As for the discount, I’m not sure if it was a great one, but other jewelers seemed to think I got a great bargain. Good Luck!

--Brown

I just came across this interesting discussion. As a customer who recently purchased an engagement ring, I can share my views. After countless hours and days of research (mostly during work..(winkz), I had decided that I wanted to buy an AGS000 diamond. I also had made up my mind to buy it on line. But of course, I just wanted to browse some of the major jewelry stores in my area. The first store carried Hearts on fire diamonds and the sales person tried his absolute best to convince me that it was the best diamond. I said, show me an AGS000 and if I can see a difference, I will believe you. So i compared a hearts on fire diamond to an AGS000 and found NO difference. Any guess on the price difference? $ 8000 for the same color, clarity and carat weight. he wanted me to pay 8000 more for a name that when she wears no body would even know and cabn't tell the difference?? I am sorry. No wallets on fire for me. Thank you very much. Browsed a few more stores and then landed on one that actually sells isee2 diamonds. I heard the same argument that isee2 was the best. I said show me another ags000 diamond and let me compare the two. I was amazed at the technology and the way it compared the two diamonds and there was indeed a difference in the scores and also some visual differences. Of course, i paid a little bit more than the ags000 i saw on-line. BUT i was convinced that i did pay more for something that was PROVED as a better diamond. This is my story. I am a happy camper!

My vote: isee2 diamonds! hands down! Obama 08!

Mark

Thank you for the dialog on the isee2 machine. I've found it very enlightening. Here is our experience with the isee2 machine.

We had an isee2 machine compare our enhanced moissanite to the store's best 1 ct diamond ($12k). The isee2 machine rated the symmetry of the cut on the moissanite at the same level as their diamond. However, the isee2 scored the moissanite much worse for the other two lighting factors. Visually, the two stones were the same color and both looked incredibly beautiful. The most noticeable difference between the two was that the diamond had brighter flashes of color and the moissanite had more flashes of color. Additionally, the diamond was just slightly brighter overall. We left the store feeling really good about our stone.