Is leakage bad?

[Rockdiamond]

HI everyone!

Along with the infamous "Steep Deep" and "obstruction issues" many people asking about diamonds here on PS are warned about "leakage".
When I first heard the term, something about it bothered me.
Leaky roofs are clearly a problem
I drive a convertible- again, leakage is clearly a horrible thing.

How about in a diamond?

If a diamond reflected all the light back to our eyes, it would simply look like a mirror.
There''s dark areas that contrast with the light areas which gives the sparkle we love so much.
Here''s a photo that I highlighted with arrows to show areas of "leakage"
Since a photo is "static" and can''t move, we can photograph some facets that are reflecting light away from our eyes.
In person, you can''t hold a diamond perfectly still so the dark areas will flash as the diamond moves.
As an example, consider an emerald cut.
A step cut will exhibit a lot of "leakage" which is part of it''s charm.
My feeling is that telling someone asking about a stone to look at the diamond, and to take notice if there are any dark areas is sound advice.

Warnings of "leakage" are simply throwing a pejorative term at a characteristic some find very pleasing. Advising someone about "leakage" while never explaining , in plain terms, what to look for may needlessly scare consumers.


Thoughts?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 12/4/2009 3:12:55 PM
Author:Rockdiamond


Warnings of ''leakage'' are simply throwing a pejorative term at a characteristic some find very pleasing. Advising someone about ''leakage'' while never explaining , in plain terms, what to look for may needlessly scare consumers.


Thoughts?

RD
you are only person that loves "leaky diamonds" sooo...i guess there ain''t much to talk about.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI DF,
It''s true that I do love a lot of diamonds that exhibit characteristics known here as "leakage"
for example the stone below.

I do believe that showing examples of stones that exhibit leakage, so that people can see what leakage means can''t be a bad thing.

 

[Serg]

RD,

Is weight bad for sport car?

Is it right question ?

May be better ask?:Is heavy weight body bad for sport car?
Which car will win? ( with heavy body or light weight body )?
Is it right question ? May be better ask about combination car weight and motor power? Driver and road?

But forever you can ask: Why do engineers spend a lot of efforts to reduce car body weight ? why do they try use new design and materials to reduce weight again and again?

Same for diamond. Leakage can not be zero same as car weight can not be zero.
But if you want win race( sell more diamonds) you need improve your cuts, you need find best combination between power and weight for your road and driver.
Otherwise your cuts can not win more modern sport races . Even best driver can not win on old design car with to heavy car body . ( of course old car with nice esthetic design can win on exhibition for old cars)

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Am I right in thinking that''s a Daussi cushion in your last pic, Rockdiamond? It''s a very distinctive look and I think folks either love it or hate it. I love it. I don''t totally understand what is meant by leakage, but I do like that stone a lot.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/4/2009 7:44:42 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI DF,
It''s true that I do love a lot of diamonds that exhibit characteristics known here as ''leakage''
for example the stone below.

I do believe that showing examples of stones that exhibit leakage, so that people can see what leakage means can''t be a bad thing.

RD you are a very very slow learner.
After hundreds of posts from people explaining features you still have no idea that the dak zone problem with thats stone is not leakage.
None so blind!
Just please give up - it is not worth the wasted time.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 12/4/2009 7:44:42 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI DF,
It''s true that I do love a lot of diamonds that exhibit characteristics known here as ''leakage''
for example the stone below.

I do believe that showing examples of stones that exhibit leakage, so that people can see what leakage means can''t be a bad thing.

That''s one ugly diamond. However, I''m sure for every pot there is a lid.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yes Ms M- the cushion in the photo is a Daussi Cushion.
I agree, some will love it, some will hate it- and some won''t care if the stone belongs to a reader who loves it. With no regard for the feelings of others, they''ll say it''s ugly, rather than it''s not their taste.
Ah, variety the spice of life.

Serg, you know I''m a car lover right?
THe analogy IS a useful one.
If you wanted the lighest sportiest car, it won;t have a body, windows, a radio or many of the other things many people want in their cars.
Then, you need to consider that there are people who love older cars that are heavier.
It might make them slower, but give them better road feel
Or, it''s possible to make the motor stonger and gain speed without reducing weight.
It''s not accurate to say that a stone with less "leakage'' is better.
I''d like to show what we''re tallking about when using the term.

I know for a fact that what some percieve as "leakage" others will find attractive contrast.

Garry, if 100 people are shouting as loud as they can- and what they are saying is just plain wrong, standing up to show the other side seems even more important, and in no way a waste of time. None so blind, as you say.

the dak zone problem with thats stone is not leakage

Garry, you have said the stone posseses a "dark zone problem"
If someone likes the way it looks, what eactly is the problem?
If this is not leakage, what is?
How about the first photo I posted with the arrows, is that leakage?

 

[stone-cold11]

That is contrast due to obstruction.

 

[glitterata]

Even *I* can tell that darkness isn''t leakage, it''s obstruction.

Why do we have to have this thread AGAIN? It''s like the fifty-zillionth thread on the same subject. As soon as the last one dies down, David starts a new one.

I suggest just ignoring these threads.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 12/5/2009 12:31:39 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Yes Ms M- the cushion in the photo is a Daussi Cushion.
I agree, some will love it, some will hate it- and some won''t care if the stone belongs to a reader who loves it. With no regard for the feelings of others, they''ll say it''s ugly, rather than it''s not their taste.
Ah, variety the spice of life.

Serg, you know I''m a car lover right?
THe analogy IS a useful one.
If you wanted the lighest sportiest car, it won;t have a body, windows, a radio or many of the other things many people want in their cars.
Then, you need to consider that there are people who love older cars that are heavier.
It might make them slower, but give them better road feel
Or, it''s possible to make the motor stonger and gain speed without reducing weight.
It''s not accurate to say that a stone with less ''leakage'' is better.
I''d like to show what we''re tallking about when using the term.

I know for a fact that what some percieve as ''leakage'' others will find attractive contrast.

Garry, if 100 people are shouting as loud as they can- and what they are saying is just plain wrong, standing up to show the other side seems even more important, and in no way a waste of time. None so blind, as you say.

the dak zone problem with thats stone is not leakage

Garry, you have said the stone posseses a ''dark zone problem''
If someone likes the way it looks, what eactly is the problem?
If this is not leakage, what is?
How about the first photo I posted with the arrows, is that leakage?

Daussi cushions are SHALLOW, you know this already based on your comments on other Daussi Cushions.

"due to the way the cutter was able to coax such beauty out of a shallower piece of rough diamond."

SHALLOW = POTENTIALLY MORE PROBLEMS WITH OBSTRUCTION (IE a cushion with 54% Depth!)
DEEP = POTENTIALLY MORE PROBLEMS WITH LEAKAGE (IE a round brilliant with 64% Depth!)

If you remember those two oversimplified concepts you will probably stop confusing obstruction with leakage.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Not especially relevant to this thread, but can I just say that I want a Daussi cushion so bad it hurts.

 

[coda72]

Date: 12/5/2009 12:31:39 PM
Author: Rockdiamond



Garry, if 100 people are shouting as loud as they can- and what they are saying is just plain wrong, standing up to show the other side seems even more important, and in no way a waste of time. None so blind, as you say.

So, as usual, you are telling the many of us that love our AGS0 stones we are wrong. I guess this is yet another ploy to get us to buy your stones instead. It''s getting old, and the evidence is in how few replies you get to your posts.

 

[LD]

I am very far removed from being an expert on diamonds as my forte is more coloured gemstones however, when I look at a gemstone, regardless of what it is, I don''t want to see through it - in any way, shape or form. I want the colour or fire to be reflected back to my eye. For example, and I have no idea if this is correct, but a bow tie on a diamond drives me nuts (presumably that is a form of leakage caused by cut????). In coloured gemstones, you get windows due to poor cutting/faceting placement and so, one of the first things I look for, is an even distribution of colour with no darker areas or parts I can see through.

I''m not sure that answers your question .......... if leakage = being able to see through the stone, then it''s a no-no for me because performance is affected.

 

[kenny]

Date: 12/5/2009 5:55:57 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 12/4/2009 7:44:42 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI DF,
It's true that I do love a lot of diamonds that exhibit characteristics known here as 'leakage'
for example the stone below.
I do believe that showing examples of stones that exhibit leakage, so that people can see what leakage means can't be a bad thing.

RD you are a very very slow learner.
After hundreds of posts from people explaining features you still have no idea that the dak zone problem with thats stone is not leakage.
None so blind!
Just please give up - it is not worth the wasted time.

PS cut education results in buyers recognizing and avoiding poorly cut diamonds, even when they are photographed with lighting that cleverly conceals the poor cut.

Introducing confusion, planting doubt in the name of respecting "diversity of cut" and demoting facts to opinion can help salvage sales of such diamonds if customers fall for it, and is certainly not a waste of time.

If I was selling diamonds in this Internet age I'd carry well cut ones and support cut education instead of fight it.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 12/5/2009 4:24:09 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
I am very far removed from being an expert on diamonds as my forte is more coloured gemstones however, when I look at a gemstone, regardless of what it is, I don''t want to see through it - in any way, shape or form. I want the colour or fire to be reflected back to my eye. For example, and I have no idea if this is correct, but a bow tie on a diamond drives me nuts (presumably that is a form of leakage caused by cut????). In coloured gemstones, you get windows due to poor cutting/faceting placement and so, one of the first things I look for, is an even distribution of colour with no darker areas or parts I can see through.

I''m not sure that answers your question .......... if leakage = being able to see through the stone, then it''s a no-no for me because performance is affected.

Bow tie is obstruction, similar to the effect of seeing the arrows in a well cut stone close up. Leakage is similar to windows in a polish gem stone.

 

[LD]

Date: 12/5/2009 5:02:05 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 12/5/2009 4:24:09 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
I am very far removed from being an expert on diamonds as my forte is more coloured gemstones however, when I look at a gemstone, regardless of what it is, I don''t want to see through it - in any way, shape or form. I want the colour or fire to be reflected back to my eye. For example, and I have no idea if this is correct, but a bow tie on a diamond drives me nuts (presumably that is a form of leakage caused by cut????). In coloured gemstones, you get windows due to poor cutting/faceting placement and so, one of the first things I look for, is an even distribution of colour with no darker areas or parts I can see through.

I''m not sure that answers your question .......... if leakage = being able to see through the stone, then it''s a no-no for me because performance is affected.

Bow tie is obstruction, similar to the effect of seeing the arrows in a well cut stone close up. Leakage is similar to windows in a polish gem stone.

Thanks for the clarification StoneCold. In that case leakage is NOT good!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/5/2009 5:09:31 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds

Date: 12/5/2009 5:02:05 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 12/5/2009 4:24:09 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
I am very far removed from being an expert on diamonds as my forte is more coloured gemstones however, when I look at a gemstone, regardless of what it is, I don''t want to see through it - in any way, shape or form. I want the colour or fire to be reflected back to my eye. For example, and I have no idea if this is correct, but a bow tie on a diamond drives me nuts (presumably that is a form of leakage caused by cut????). In coloured gemstones, you get windows due to poor cutting/faceting placement and so, one of the first things I look for, is an even distribution of colour with no darker areas or parts I can see through.

I''m not sure that answers your question .......... if leakage = being able to see through the stone, then it''s a no-no for me because performance is affected.

Bow tie is obstruction, similar to the effect of seeing the arrows in a well cut stone close up. Leakage is similar to windows in a polish gem stone.

Thanks for the clarification StoneCold. In that case leakage is NOT good!

Thx StoneCold.
LD if you poke a small hole in a piece of copy paper and peek thru it at a stone with a bowtie like that picture -you will see the bow tie disapears. This can happen because a stones facets are too deep (common) or too shallow (more common).

In coloured gems this obstruction and obscuration of light sources is often called ''extinction''.
Bruce Harding discovered this phenonamon in 1981 and wrote Faceting Limits It is a simple read with step by step very simple pictures. Bruce observed and wrote the paper based on an experiance polishing an aqua in his attic one night.
He posts here from time to time - and I must remind Drena to send him a Xmas card.

RD if you wanted to save hundreds of hours of time you could devote 20 minutes and read it.

 

[Lestat]

Sorry to be so blunt, but if leakage is so great I''d just save myself a few thousand dollars and put a piece of glass into the ring instead of a leaky diamond. I guess in some ways it''s like the difference between a mirror and a piece of glass.

 

[LD]

Garry thank you so much! I hadn''t realised that extinction and obstruction were one and the same! I now understand the terminology and what causes the issue much better. Great information!

 

[Karl_K]

*sigh*
For the millionth time leakage can be bad or good.
It depends on how much and where it is and if it starts returning light when tilted.
When leakage causes a dark table in a RB it is bad.
When small amounts of leakage in a diamond provide contrast it can be good.
For an example the leakage in this RB is the good kind.

In some of my designs I intentionally add leakage in others I go out of the way to avoid it.
It is all about what balances the design.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/5/2009 10:39:46 PM
Author: Karl_K
*sigh*
For the millionth time leakage can be bad or good.
It depends on how much and where it is and if it starts returning light when tilted.
When leakage causes a dark table in a RB it is bad.
When small amounts of leakage in a diamond provide contrast it can be good.
For an example the leakage in this RB is the good kind.

In some of my designs I intentionally add leakage in others I go out of the way to avoid it.
It is all about what balances the design.

It is very old and the terms have become better defined - but what you mean is summed up here Karl
http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.light_return_and_shadow.asp

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 12/5/2009 1:58:56 PM
Author: glitterata
Even *I* can tell that darkness isn''t leakage, it''s obstruction.

Why do we have to have this thread AGAIN? It''s like the fifty-zillionth thread on the same subject. As soon as the last one dies down, David starts a new one.

I suggest just ignoring these threads.

Yup!!

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 12/5/2009 12:31:39 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Yes Ms M- the cushion in the photo is a Daussi Cushion.
I agree, some will love it, some will hate it- and some won''t care if the stone belongs to a reader who loves it. With no regard for the feelings of others, they''ll say it''s ugly, rather than it''s not their taste.

If you were tacky enough to post a picture of a diamond that you already sold to someone that you KNOW posts here and solicit opinions on it, then shame on you

Seriously, you are beyond the pale.

I know of no other vendor who would be so crass.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

I don't think this stone belongs to a PSer. David may be referring to the time someone described his stock (all of it) as funky junk, just about the time I posted a photo of my new maternity gift, a 5 stone asscher band from DBL in another thread.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Everyone!
First off, I apologize to those who don;t want to look at this thread, but somehow seem to be forced to.
I honestly believe that Kenny''s signature is a good one.
Keep asking questions.
That''s exactly what I did with this thread.
That the question is an interesting one is clear.
I agree wholeheartedly with what Karl wrote.
Leakage can be good or bad.
Which calls into question, what is good leakage?
Of course that further calls into question, what is BAD leakage?

I have used a few photos to illustrate what I perceive to be referred to here as leakage.
I chose the first one after Kenny posted it in an earlier thread.
To chose the second one, I went to our sold items pages, an located a stone that seemed to show dark areas- and be pretty at the same time. Pretty to me, at least. I did not check who had bought it, only that it was sold. The fact whoever did buy it might read this is actually irrelevant. Other people who did not buy it might think it''s beautiful.

When someone calls something "ugly" and we expect that person to say such things, it''s ...well, it''s expected.
But the term "leakage" sounds like an insult- a fact which has also been made clear here in this thread.

It always seems that when simple questions get 10 page theories thrown at them, the question is never properly answered.

Garry, I''ve read the article.
Bruce Harding''s study may have relevance, when taken in context, which it generally is not where the term "obstruction" is thrown around here.
If I''m the buyer, what difference does it make if a stone is dark due to angles, or the fact a person looking at it has a head?
If there''s an unpleasant darkness, I don''t want it regardless if that has anything to do with my head obstructing light. If its a pleasant contrast, I may be mesmerized, and in love with the stone.

LD brought up a good point. Does leakage mean being able to see through a diamond?


I''m still waiting for an answer about the first photo I posted.
Do the arrows show leakage?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

David without knowing your lighting set up (which clearly you wish to keep secret) we can never know.
Also most leakage is not on the first pavilion intersection - and in radiants it is often on the 3rd or 4th. If you took the same photo with an ASET or ideal-scope then we can answer your question.
Did you look at my ideal-scope example showing beneficial contrast adding leakage in well cut rounds?

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Garry,
I did just take a look at the page, thank you.

I don't have a photo set up as such.
I take my photos freehand in natural room lighting. High ( about 12 foot) ceiling mounted daylight fluorescents- desk grading lamps and natural sunlight.
Regardless of how I took it, the image still seems to me to be a fair enough representation that we can agree there's a darker area shown in the photo
Still, I understand what you're saying about photos. Just like computer simulations they have certain variables and limitations that can't be "fixed"
Hence the usage of IS.
I get that.
Taken as such, the device is pure genius.

You know there's a but somewhere...
and in this case, I think that what is commonly knocked as leakage in round diamonds, may be overstated. In fact, what some perceive as leakage, others perceive as pleasant contrast.
Therefore the IS is a great tool if a person has seen leakage firsthand, and wants to avoid it.
If, however, a person has either not looked at both, or prefers the type of stone that may exhibit what is known here as leakage, the IS might need to be read backwards. But it's hard to know as "leakage" sounds bad, so it's naturally you'd want to avoid it. If I can see my finger through the diamond, in almost all cases, I'd avoid that.
The photo I posted shows another Daussi with "extreme contrast" both off, and on the finger. You can't see a finger through the stone. Nor can you see the ring shank through the table in the shot off the finger.

My point is that there might be cases that are far better seen naked eye, or in "normal" photos.

My experience is that photos will show dark areas in the diamond. Sometimes they show dark areas that I did not notice with my naked eye.
I've also looked at many photos of diamonds taken by others. I've noticed depictions of darkness I found to be very reminiscent of real life.
To that extent, I think it's possible to show a range of contrast from an interesting slight darkness, to a broad chunky facet look of contrasting dark areas, to an unpleasant darkness in photos.
A stone like the Daussi is one that really polarizes as some love what others dislike- and it's evident in the photos what drives both.
I saw the diamond. I liked the diamond a lot.

Photos used in conjunction with IS might also be a great way to illiustrate what different types of contrast look ilike.
I'm sure such studies- if so I'd love to see them.

Personally, I think contrast is a far better term than leakage.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 12/6/2009 6:08:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
The photo I posted shows another Daussi with 'extreme contrast' both off, and on the finger. You can't see a finger through the stone. Nor can you see the ring shank through the table in the shot off the finger.

Personally, I think contrast is a far better term than leakage.

What are you talking about? That daussi has obstruction issue not leakage, they are not the same thing, stop talking like they are the same thing and muddying the waters. Of course you will not be able to see you finger through the stone when a stone has obstruction issue. Sigh...

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 12/6/2009 6:30:24 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
What are you talking about? That daussi has obstruction issue not leakage, of course you won't see the finger... Sigh...

He is talking about advertising his stock of diamonds. Lets see 4 images about Daussi cushions from his website.
I wonder who else online besides RD sells those diamonds with big obstructed glass like windows? Noonelse on PS that is for sure.

So lets use the following strategy for a new thread:

1) Make some rediculous theory and some conflicting statements
2) Misue terms like leakage and scare posters and make them question the education they have read here and elsewhere.
3) Pretend pictures can explain the optics in the diamonds once again, and use that as an excuse to sell your inventory here indirectly and by posting pictures of your stock in this thread
4) Ignore any expert or trademembers comments or superficially agree and then dismiss them as being over his head.

What does eduction and PS get out of ? 0
What does RD get out of it? 2000 views and a weeklong thread where people draw attention to his website and his rediculous stock of

diamonds.

Pretty neat cycle and we will have one of these threads every week a fantastic form of free advertising.
A total disrespect for Pricescope and its goal of education but yes an ingenious way to get free advertising.