Is this what leakage looks like?

[TitanCi]

Does this picture depict leakage as indicated by the arrows? I'm still trying to learn about stones, or is it because it's laying on it's sides, reflecting the material in front of it, etc.?

 

[Rhino]

It it likely due to the tilt. I would add this ... general photography is not very good for judging leakage or a diamonds overall optics. It is great for judging facet structure but when it comes to optics judging brightness, contrast, fire & sparkle, no way. I've seen many diamonds that photograph beautifully but IRL are ...

 

[TitanCi]

Wow! I feel honored to have Rhino respond to my post! You don't know the countless hours I've spent reading your articles online! I read each page on your website, very informative for those who haven't read it yet! Thanks for the reply!

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Titan,
I'd also LOVE to see photos showing leakage.
Fact is, a lot is made of it on PS- but if it's something we can't see, should it be?
I must use different cameras than Jon because ugly stones look ugly when I take pictures of them.....

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am going to wager that no, that is not "leakage" as we use to term here on PS. If it was I would expect it to be more apparent around the circumphrence of the diamond. That diamond looks fairly well cut to me.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Ever aiming to please, your wish is my command RD.

These are two of my OECs. Both show leakage under the table. On the left, the leakage appears yellow/gold, which is the yellow gold mount showing through. On the right, the leakage is black because the inside of the mount has scorched dirt lining its basket These photos show the leakage at its worst. In person, moving your hand, with both stones you cannot really see it. But it is apparent, particularly when looking at the stones from certain angles. It is the most common "issue" I see with old cuts (my sample size is 12). ETA: These are both very beautiful true old cuts, excellent examples of their type IMO.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Ever aiming to please, your wish is my command RD.

These are two of my OECs. Both show leakage under the table. On the left, the leakage appears yellow/gold, which is the yellow gold mount showing through. On the right, the leakage is black because the inside of the mount has scorched dirt lining its basket These photos show the leakage at its worst. In person, moving your hand, with both stones you cannot really see it. But it is apparent, particularly when looking at the stones from certain angles. It is the most common "issue" I see with old cuts (my sample size is 12). ETA: These are both very beautiful true old cuts, excellent examples of their type IMO.

Thank you!!!

Those do demonstrate the phenomenon - and well!
I also find your commentary on the effect in real life to be spot on as well.
The name - "leakage" sounds so bad....but leakage is a part of the cut of many beautiful older stones- and some modern fancy shapes- have leakage as well. Actually EVERY diamond has some leakage.....in many cases it's no problem at all.


In terms of the photos...
how about a photo showing leakage in a GIA triple EX?

 

[Dreamer_D]

I can easily provide such photos. Just send me about 4-5 GIA XXX stones and I'll get right on it. I actually have a good example I will try to dig up.

Old cuts do not all show leakage, of course. I have had the pleasure of owning two that do not show any leakage or obstruction, they are very lively and special stones. Pity for me they are both smaller guys If I had my pick, I would choose the stones that do not show any leakage at all, and my hunt for the perfect old cuts continues! But I am very perfectionistic about my diamonds So for me, leakage is a bad thing. Something I am willing to tolerate in an old cut because you *can* overlook it, and you cannot exactly order up true old cuts to your desired specifications. You only see it if you look for it. In a modern RB, though, since you can pick and choose from a wide pool, I would prefer no leakage at all.

I think the term leakage is very appropriate for the phenomenon. That it seems scary and to you does not necessarily mean it is a poor term to use. We could say "the central facets are not reflecting light back to your eye as well as the more peripheral facets, meaning you can see the background reflected through the stone, resulting in darkenss or "dead" areas in the centreal region." But I think "leakage" flows off the tongue more readily.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think I've seen hundreds of cases where consumers are warned of leakage, that will either never be visible in real life, or the leakage patterns in questions add a lot of charm to the stone.
0 leakage= a mirror
The best cut triple X- or AGS 0 diamond in the world has leakage.
If we tilt the most ideal ideal ideal rbc triple EX AGS000 it's going to show optical properties different than it does head on- this may include the ability to see through some of the facets. (leakage)

There are certain cases of fancy shapes where this phenomenon is a distraction- or takes away from the basic aspects we love because large facets leaking light are in spots that take away from the overall appearance.
But many stones have small areas of leakage visible that are an integral part of the look.

I've never seen a GIA triple EX or AGS0 cut grade where leakage was any sort of problem- so I'd very much love to see photos!

 

[ChrisES]

Let me offer another picture I'd be curious about. It's my fancee's stone, taken in a homemade lightbox (and posted on PS before). Insofar as the slight transparency is visible all the way around the stone, I think it's leakage rather than tilt, but I think it's less leakage than is seen in the photos Dreamer_D posted. What do you think?

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think the concept is flawed- there's no workable calibration other than reflectors- and this highlights a big weakness in reflector methodology regarding leakage detection.
If we have a tire, inflated to 50psi, then we let out some air, we can measure it at 40psi ( or whatever)
The elusive nature of light, and the way it moves makes such accurate prognosis impossible regarding "leakage:

Chris- no, I don;t see any negative pattern indicated in that photo

 

[Karl_K]

Let me offer another picture I'd be curious about. It's my fancee's stone, taken in a homemade lightbox (and posted on PS before). Insofar as the slight transparency is visible all the way around the stone, I think it's leakage rather than tilt, but I think it's less leakage than is seen in the photos Dreamer_D posted. What do you think?

The black and some of the grey(arrow heads) is clearly obstruction from the camera lens.
The less bright areas are likely a mix of obstruction and a reflection of the environment along with some weaker white light return. Maybe just maybe partial leakage in some spots.
I don't see any major leakage areas that I am 100% sure about.
Repeat your test using a bright red background to see any leakage that may be present.

 

[TitanCi]

I would love to see examples of leakage. I know this subject is like beating a dead horse, but it's interesting.
The stone in the first picture has a CA of 35.0, PA 41.2, table 56, depth 62.8. Based on the specs, now, does the stone still fair well?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Me too Titan!!

I've seen people warned about leakage here for years, and I believe needlessly in so many cases.
Lets see photos!!

 

[Karl_K]

I would love to see examples of leakage. I know this subject is like beating a dead horse, but it's interesting.
The stone in the first picture has a CA of 35.0, PA 41.2, table 56, depth 62.8. Based on the specs, now, does the stone still fair well?

Slightly deep pavilion, not likely to be a large amount of eye visible leakage but the reflectors would likely show some.
Resting the diamond on its side is not a good way to show cut quality in an image.
Putting it in a spring fake ring stone holder and taking a picture on your finger is good.
Taking a picture of the stone level with a bight red or blue background is one of the best ways to show real world one eyed leakage. But using 2 eyes may cover some of it.
The stone in the V of your fingers is ok and better than on the side but not as good as the others above.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl, if reflectors show leakage the eye can't see, is it an important concern?
If so, why?

 

[TitanCi]

Karl, if reflectors show leakage the eye can't see, is it an important concern?
If so, why?

+1. Please leak some light on this subject!

Btw, how do you "take a picture level on a red background?" As in the diamond has to be standing on it's cutlet?u

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, if reflectors show leakage the eye can't see, is it an important concern?
If so, why?

Some people want the best they can get.
Simple as that.

 

[Laila619]

Here is a great example of major leakage that even a novice would be able to see:

You can see skin right through the diamond. David, you can't argue with this one, lol.

Stats: 64% table, 62.5% depth, 36.5° crown, 41.8° pav

 

[TitanCi]

Here is a great example of major leakage that even a novice would be able to see:

You can see skin right through the diamond. David, you can't argue with this one, lol.

Stats: 64% table, 62.5% depth, 36.5° crown, 41.8° pav

Wow. That's really bad!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here is a great example of major leakage that even a novice would be able to see:

You can see skin right through the diamond. David, you can't argue with this one, lol.

Stats: 64% table, 62.5% depth, 36.5° crown, 41.8° pav

Good photo of a badly cut RBC Laila- it's definately displaying an unattractive leakage pattern!!

But my request was for a GIA Triple EX, of AGS0 cut grade stone showing detrimental leakage.

Karl, if reflectors show leakage the eye can't see, is it an important concern?
If so, why?

Some people want the best they can get.
Simple as that.

Interesting Karl- you're suggesting that "invisible leakage" somehow detracts from a stone- or that such a property removes the possibility of it being considered "the best".

OR- the way I read it- innocent consumers asking a question are led to believe they should spend more for something they can't ever see......simple as that.

 

[slg47]

Here is a great example of major leakage that even a novice would be able to see:

You can see skin right through the diamond. David, you can't argue with this one, lol.

Stats: 64% table, 62.5% depth, 36.5° crown, 41.8° pav

Good photo of a badly cut RBC Laila- it's definately displaying an unattractive leakage pattern!!

But my request was for a GIA Triple EX, of AGS0 cut grade stone showing detrimental leakage.

Karl, if reflectors show leakage the eye can't see, is it an important concern?
If so, why?

Some people want the best they can get.
Simple as that.

Interesting Karl- you're suggesting that "invisible leakage" somehow detracts from a stone- or that such a property removes the possibility of it being considered "the best".

OR- the way I read it- innocent consumers asking a question are led to believe they should spend more for something they can't ever see......simple as that.

many consumers also want VVS or D stones even if they are spending more for something they can never see.

I have seen consumers advised that minor leakage in reflector images should not be visible with stereovision.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Here is a great example of major leakage that even a novice would be able to see:

You can see skin right through the diamond. David, you can't argue with this one, lol.

Stats: 64% table, 62.5% depth, 36.5° crown, 41.8° pav

LOL That is the one I was thinking of!

Lest anyone feel concern about the owner, this was an example where a poster came for help after buying their diamond, and with some guidance was able to exchage it for a better cut.

 

[ChrisES]

The black and some of the grey(arrow heads) is clearly obstruction from the camera lens.
The less bright areas are likely a mix of obstruction and a reflection of the environment along with some weaker white light return. Maybe just maybe partial leakage in some spots.
I don't see any major leakage areas that I am 100% sure about.
Repeat your test using a bright red background to see any leakage that may be present.

The picture was taken by placing the stone in a black ring box, surrounding the box with a cylinder of white paper, mounting a point-and-shoot camera over it, and then shining a bright fluorescent light down on the entire thing, with the light going through the paper and also around the camera into the "box." So yes, the camera is obstructing light, but there is basically no color present other than white light and a black background. That's why the yellow gold band looks so washed-out. I don't know what a red background would add to the setup - is the idea that since we're used to red idealscope images we could more easily compare this photo to them if the background were red?

Karl, if reflectors show leakage the eye can't see, is it an important concern?
If so, why?

Some people want the best they can get.
Simple as that.

Interesting Karl- you're suggesting that "invisible leakage" somehow detracts from a stone- or that such a property removes the possibility of it being considered "the best".

OR- the way I read it- innocent consumers asking a question are led to believe they should spend more for something they can't ever see......simple as that.

It's basically the same thing we see when talking about "mind cleanness" relating to clarity, right? The difference being that in the case of clarity we collectively know that higher than eye clean standards are just for mental satisfaction, whereas in leakage we're discriminating based on the higher standard.

Is it a case of technology for analyzing light return being too sophisticated? Or not sophisticated enough? Should there be a stereo-vision idealscope?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here is a great example of major leakage that even a novice would be able to see:

You can see skin right through the diamond. David, you can't argue with this one, lol.

Stats: 64% table, 62.5% depth, 36.5° crown, 41.8° pav

Good photo of a badly cut RBC Laila- it's definately displaying an unattractive leakage pattern!!

But my request was for a GIA Triple EX, of AGS0 cut grade stone showing detrimental leakage.

Karl, if reflectors show leakage the eye can't see, is it an important concern?
If so, why?

Some people want the best they can get.
Simple as that.

Interesting Karl- you're suggesting that "invisible leakage" somehow detracts from a stone- or that such a property removes the possibility of it being considered "the best".

OR- the way I read it- innocent consumers asking a question are led to believe they should spend more for something they can't ever see......simple as that.

many consumers also want VVS or D stones even if they are spending more for something they can never see.

I have seen consumers advised that minor leakage in reflector images should not be visible with stereovision.

Great point slg- I need to add something to my statement above.- consumers are led to believe they should pay more for something they can't see- and that does not affect the market price


I also agree that in a vast majority of instances, consumers asking are given balanced information- you're a great example SLG

But based on the OP's question, there's still consumers who are getting the wrong impression

 

[TitanCi]

Ok, so I punched a little hole in a red folder, and seated the cutlet in the hole, so the diamond is standing on it's on 100% (+/-). Is this demonstrating leakage?



And I don't know how dead on from being at 0 degrees from the table I was either...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Obviously a grainy photo- but all I see is a nice looking diamond.....there are some red reflections- but that's to be expected given the way the photo was taken

 

[TitanCi]

Obviously a grainy photo- but all I see is a nice looking diamond.....there are some red reflections- but that's to be expected given the way the photo was taken

That was the best I could do, RD! Thanks for your input. So if what I'm seeing is red reflections under the table there, then I'm still a little confused as to what *true* leakage looks like (besides that horrible little diamond above that someone posted)? Diamonds are so interesting. I've never spent so much time reading up on them up until now. Makes me want one for myself... Why should the future fiance have all the fun? LOL.

 

[Laila619]

Titan, I think your diamond looks great, personally! It has very nice contrast and sparkle.

 

[Laila619]

Here is a great example of major leakage that even a novice would be able to see:

You can see skin right through the diamond. David, you can't argue with this one, lol.

Stats: 64% table, 62.5% depth, 36.5° crown, 41.8° pav

Good photo of a badly cut RBC Laila- it's definately displaying an unattractive leakage pattern!!

But my request was for a GIA Triple EX, of AGS0 cut grade stone showing detrimental leakage.

Oh, sorry. I don't think I could find any detrimental leakage with an AGS0 or GIA 3Ex. Minor leakage, sure, but detrimental? Probably not. My old upgrade stone showed a teensy bit of leakage on the Idealscope, but in person it was very sparkly and not noticeable.