The first screen shot has the stone depth and known weight (and polish) entered into the scanner manually. This I believe is done to increase the scan accuracy; but Prof A is insistent that it is one of many fail safe processes to ensure the system accuracy. The slide is out of focus, but the two red bits of data are the manually entered depth and the weight. The data I gave was a guess as the 2 stones we ran, they are the good and bad CZ's we sell on the www.Ideal-scope.com (I ran the same 2 stones in Vegas and this caused some 'anomalous' results because the bad stone scored extremely well on the measure of 'intensity'. Prof A assured me the machine had not been properly adjusted before it left for Vegas).

The depth of the stone shows a tiny red warning flag you will see on later clearer slides. This is set with a tolerance from the measured difference – 0.002mm I think. Note the bar in the upper left indicates the machine is working. I am told the processing time is a few minutes and one machine can process 2,500 stones a month, with 1 operator operating 4 machines. I assume booking in staff, gemologist for polish analysis, report printing and laminating and clarity plotting are in addition.

You can also see in the fuzzy photo above there is a little image in the upper left of the diamonds table shown in reflected light. Many little images flashed on the screen while the machine made little whirring noises; the image is out of focus because I only had a second to take the photo. Prof A told me the system measures the position of each corner of the table from this reflected light image (there are little red X's on the corner positions). This gives them the ability to measure more accurately.

Now we can see the completed screen. Firstly note the little red warning flag beside the depth.

But the results for this poorly cut, but symmetrical nail head CZ were perhaps also like that in Vegas.

	Poor - Range - Excellent		Bad CZ	Good CZ
Brilliance	<80	>150	134.71	149.21
Sparkle	<5	>70	75.38	82.89
Intensity	100-105	>160	173.44	110.22

Explanations were offered, but I did not want to waste a lot of time. There were little warnings that this stone may have been outside the 'normal range' as it had little red flags on crown and pavilion angles. We moved on.

Below is the scan for the good CZ stone. In fairness I should say that both ISee2 and the BrillianceScope give similar undifferentiated and excellent scores for these 2 stones.

The light reading is said to be done from different zones or regions. http://www.imageminc.com/products/VerigemInstrument.html

Prof A would not describe the lighting environment, but both he a Dave maintain it is a very reasonable environment. They claim however that the light will not favor symmetrical stones the way ISEE2 and BrillianceScope do with their respective rotating bar light and circular ring light.

I was impressed that axial symmetry, which is the average of all axes, has been included as per this article.

Prof A said the gauging or scanning system has a high level of accuracy. I asked if they can produce .stl files as part of the grading service so users could have more accurate 3D files for use with say the AGS grading system. He said they had no plans and could not imagine why they should and implied they would not help another lab. The scan is said to be + - 5 microns gauging accuracy.