Is leakage the

[HopeDream]

I think this second image is a fairer comparison of the effects of light leakage because it shows two stones of similar facet structures.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 4/9/2010 7:53:35 PM
Author: phildominator

Date: 4/9/2010 7:00:08 PM

Author: elle_chris

Remember, they bought the stone because they thought it was pretty when we haven''t even seen it.

What a convoluted situation. How do you tell someone that it''s not pretty, when they think it''s pretty? Secondly, if someone thinks they bought a pretty diamond, then why are they asking others if it''s pretty?


How do PSers know the ''credibility'' of someone''s opinion of ''pretty''? A diamond purchaser could say their diamond is gorgeous, but they''ve been influenced by the salesperson''s talk, the store''s special lighting conditions, etc...


I cleaned my room; it was immaculate. I was so proud of how clean my room was. I then bragged to my dad and wanted to show him how clean my room was. He puts on his white glove, lifts up my radio and wipes up the dust under the radio. ''No, son, it''s not clean.''


Who''s right? Is the room clean? Was my dad a jerk for telling me it wasn''t clean?

To me, this is at the heart of this discussion. What is "pretty"?
Stone Cold and I are going back and forth about the use of formulas.
Stone, who is has good knowledge of geometry, can use the given ( Crown angle/pavilion angle) to estimate what a given diamond "should" weigh.
We''re butting heads as I feel that such formulas totally miss the point.
They are hypothetical.
If we were "designing" a diamond, these formulas may be very useful- however using the formulas to critique existing diamonds can be quite deceptive.

Part of what I feel needs to be addressed is exactly this question- "What is pretty in a diamond?"

 

[oldminer]

Rockdiamond;

Defining "pretty" really works against all that you seem to stand for. The widest possible choice should be able to be seen as "pretty" by an individual and I doubt the trade ought to define it. We all know what makes us think something is pretty when we see it, but we surely do not agree about it in some hard and fast way, an objective way, so as to define it. I think it is best to leave pretty and beautiful in the category of "An appearance which pleases YOU, the individual". Gemologists and appraisers should stick to objective measurements and let sales people shout and advertised most beautiful, finest light return, most symmetric, most higly polished, most bang for the buck and let consumers decide what they wish to buy. I really think this has been your contention the entire time and I happen to agree with this line of reasoning. Vendors will say whatever they want in regards to their opinion of beauty, but each consumer must choose what they prefer unless they just want to blindly follow advice given by a seller.

The hope to objectively define pretty or beautiful has proven to be impossible and we will not change this no matter how long we beat the drums. We can readily pick attributes which generally are present in things a majority of folks consider beautiful, but if someone wished to add some of these attributes and intentionally still make something unattractive, I am certain they could do it just to disprove that objective results are always possible from certain attributes being present. Of course, there is value in a rule being correct 90% of the time, but it is never going to be a 100% of the time rule.

 

[kenny]

Pretty = HCA under 2 with good Idealscope pics.

Resistance is futile.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you for the photos Hopedream!

I had hoped we''d get some sort of a resolution- or at least photos of leakage in rounds before the conversation turned to fancy shapes.
I agree that photos documenting light patterns that might be termed leakage in fancy shapes are possible to find.

In a sense , fancy shaped leakage photos will be very helpful in that we can see such a difference from rounds.

I honestly believe that we won''t be seeing any photos of GIA ex cut grade stones depicting the "boogeyman"
David Atlas- I''d also like to see photo of the stone you''re referring to, if that''s at all possible.

If we lower the bar to VG cut grade, maybe someone will come up with a photo.

As implications have been made, let me clarify my motivation in keeping this conversation at the forefront here: Transparent representation of diamonds.
On the one side, we have many sellers are using deceptive representation methodology. Specifically, I''m referring to sellers who grade the cut of their own diamonds, using terminology which is used by legitimate labs. There''s no "patent" on the term "ideal cut" - Joe Shmoe seller can call any diamond "Ideal Cut"

The tools used here on PS seem to be a natural "defense" against such sellers.
If people could actually could say a diamond had very bad visual traits through the use of formulas, that might be extremely helpful. However real world experience show that it''s not a practical method.

My motivation is not "defending the rights of badly cut diamonds"- it''s especially NOT defending sellers trying to sell badly cut diamonds.
It''s an elemental difference in how to assess beauty in a diamond.

In a sense, the misuse of the word "leakage" is every but as deceptive as Joe Shmoe calling his 65% table RBC "Ideal"

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 4/11/2010 1:13:04 PM
Author: oldminer
Rockdiamond;


Defining ''pretty'' really works against all that you seem to stand for. The widest possible choice should be able to be seen as ''pretty'' by an individual and I doubt the trade ought to define it. We all know what makes us think something is pretty when we see it, but we surely do not agree about it in some hard and fast way, an objective way, so as to define it. I think it is best to leave pretty and beautiful in the category of ''An appearance which pleases YOU, the individual''. Gemologists and appraisers should stick to objective measurements and let sales people shout and advertised most beautiful, finest light return, most symmetric, most higly polished, most bang for the buck and let consumers decide what they wish to buy. I really think this has been your contention the entire time and I happen to agree with this line of reasoning. Vendors will say whatever they want in regards to their opinion of beauty, but each consumer must choose what they prefer unless they just want to blindly follow advice given by a seller.


The hope to objectively define pretty or beautiful has proven to be impossible and we will not change this no matter how long we beat the drums. We can readily pick attributes which generally are present in things a majority of folks consider beautiful, but if someone wished to add some of these attributes and intentionally still make something unattractive, I am certain they could do it just to disprove that objective results are always possible from certain attributes being present. Of course, there is value in a rule being correct 90% of the time, but it is never going to be a 100% of the time rule.

David- we agree on most things.
"Pretty" is impossible to define numerically.
Of course if we state that a stone has leakage under the table, based on measurement, or other non visual tools, we''re doing exactly that, in reverse.