Leakage?

[skittlep20]

Hello
We bought my engagement ring and have not even had it appraised post purchase. I have done some research (mainly on this site) by reading articles and plugging in my numbers into the pricescope tool. I do not have any other tools purchased, is there a way to know if your diamond has leakage just by reviewing the numbers or does it have to be physically examined under special lighting and lens? I am also a little bit confused on proportion as it relates to size. I have read comments about the mm needing to be 6.5 in order for the diamond to look like a true carat. Isn''t a carat a carat, regardless of the cut?
Thanks

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 3/25/2007 12:46:44 AM
Author:skittlep20
Hello
We bought my engagement ring and have not even had it appraised post purchase. I have done some research (mainly on this site) by reading articles and plugging in my numbers into the pricescope tool. I do not have any other tools purchased, is there a way to know if your diamond has leakage just by reviewing the numbers or does it have to be physically examined under special lighting and lens? I am also a little bit confused on proportion as it relates to size. I have read comments about the mm needing to be 6.5 in order for the diamond to look like a true carat. Isn''t a carat a carat, regardless of the cut?
Thanks

Carat is a weight. There are shallow stones that weigh 1.00 carat that will have slightly larger diameters.
The opposite is also true... if the stone is proportion excessively deep it will have a diamter that measures less.

The stone can have a high or steep crown, and a shallow or deep pavilion, or the opposite which is more common... a shallow crown, large table and a deep pavilion. Add to this girdle thickness which affects the "mix" too.

So to summarize carat isn''t a size, it is a weight. Although the two do have a relationship to each other.

What is commonly referred to as leakage, I don''t believe is. I believe it is a non performing area of the diamond, that shows as small "white" areas in an ideal scope or firescope, and white or black in an ASET. I think it would be better termed as a "void". Buying an full size ASET or Firescope is too expensive for the average person that is a consumer. The idealscope is priced a lot more affordably, at least for consumer use.

If the diamond refracts light ( leaks ?) through the top of the stone, that should be what you want. Leakage from the bottom of the stone is more properly called "leakage" in my opinion.

Actually, if you hold a diamond in tweezers so you can see the bottom of the stone, and shine a penlight through the table of it, the stone the stone should appear black or dark. If it doesn''t and you can see light coming through the pavilion of th stone, that is what I would more "properly" call leakage.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

this page should help you understand the issues
http://ideal-scope.com/newsletters_issue003.asp

All diamond leak light - it is only a problem if the leakage or Void area as Roc calls it - is large enough to see with your naked eye and therefore makes a bad looking dark pattern in the set diamond.

Ideal-scopes show this well. If it is round then you dont need an ASET - but ASET is better for fancies and i sell them on that site for $50.

 

[skittlep20]

Thank you for your response. It is very informative. If my diamond specs are:

Weight: 1.03
Table: 55
Crown: 34.5 (degrees)
Pav: 41.0 (degrees)
Depth: 62.6

Is the depth of 62.6 too deep, making the diamond weight 1.03 when in fact it might look more like a 1.00 or even less?
When I plugged in the numbers into the Halloway Cuy Advisor it came out to a 1.9 within TIC range.
I realize that I already own the diamond, I just want to make sure that we did not get taken advantage of since we plan to go back to buy our wedding bands from the same place.

skittle