Does anyone have an SI3 diamond?

[Dancing Fire]

if there's sucha grade as SI3 then there should also be VVS3 and VS3 grades.IMO... SI3 is a B.S. grade just to make the consumers feel better about their stone.

 

[Todd Gray]

Dear Valchira,
Yes that is true. (I did grading in IGI Antwerp.) Apologies for the phrasing.
...It's not common practice to send a SI3/P1 to GIA or HRD for example. It would go to EGL or IGI, in later case hoping it will make it into the SI2 bracket. Hence generally a good discount is available on an 'SI3' IGI which indeed on the report shows up as SI2 because no distinction is made.
Regards

It is no secret that many diamond dealers play the "paper game" by sending different segments of their production to different laboratories for grading, especially with lower clarity and warmer color goods because it is possible to obtain better paper grades from second and third tier laboratories. However it should be noted that this is not "common practice" with all diamond dealers, there are quite a few firms which send all of their production to either the GIA or AGS laboratories regardless of the clarity or color because they work with trade members who prefer the grading practices of those laboratories. I work with several firms who send everything to the AGS Laboratory and others who send everything to the GIA Laboratory; there are other firms who send everything to EGL or IGI, I think it largely depends on which laboratory the vendor is most comfortable with and/or has the best working relationship. I really liked the way Tom Tashey ran things, I don't like the other lab at all - but that's just me and my preferences

There is nothing wrong with a diamond graded as I-1 (or SI-3 for that matter) or a diamond which is warmer in tone, such as an L/M/N and so on... It just happens to be the natural state of the crystal as formed by nature. The only factor that we truly have any control over is the diamond cut quality and performance and even that is largely dictated by the crystal. So the one thing I want to share with Happy New Life is regardless of our banter "within the trade" about the difference in clarity grades and grading practices between the laboratories (of OUR preference) I hope that the diamond is beautiful and that it meets your expectations! Congratulations in advance, keep us posted regarding your engagement!

 

[WinkHPD]

if there's sucha grade as SI3 then there should also be VVS3 and VS3 grades.IMO... SI3 is a B.S. grade just to make the consumers feel better about their stone.

There is such a grade, just not one used by either of the top tier labs. There was a need for it in the lower clarity quality diamonds and EGL chose to fill that need.

Whether or not you or I choose to accept it or use it does not negate its existance. Since it exits, perhaps we should understand where it came from and why.

We here at Pricescope represent an incredibly small part of the market, it is our task to gradually improve the quality of information that is availabel to any who choose to avail themselves of it. To do this we must understand much more than what we think is the cream.

Wink

 

[davi_el_mejor]

This is a .25ct SI3 yellowish orange diamond I purchased from Leibish & Co. It was graded in house. The vendor picture showed more inclusions than I can see with the naked eye. In fact it's pretty clean when it's not magnified. I have studied it under 10x 15x 60x and 100x. If you didn't know where to look, you'd never guess. 10x you get a better picture of the major inclusions. 15x even more, tiny inclusions are more apparent, so on and so on with 60x and 100x. I probably got lucky with the grade of SI3, saved me a good amount of money.

 

[HappyNewLife]

that's beautiful David, thanks for sharing!

Thanks again for all your input!

I spent some time on the GIA site yesterday and it looks like regular people like me who don't have a jewelry business can send in stones to be graded for about $100. Is that correct? I don't mind if the stone comes back as I1, I'd just like to have papers with it. Unless it looks like absolute dogpoo I'll probably keep it for a pendant.

 

[kenny]

Yes, you do not have to be in the industry to send stones to GIA.

I wish more people would use this option.
(Yes I realize GIA does not appraise and appraisers may offer many services GIA does not.)
Still, GIA paper holds more weight than any appraisal.

 

[Lula]

Congratulations on winning the diamond! I second the idea of getting it graded. You can't really make any decisions about it until you know what you've got. I own an ideal cut I1 clarity stone with crystal inclusions. They are easily visible under a 10x loupe, but I cannot see them with my naked eye. My stone is a 1 carat round brilliant. Inclusions may be more visible in a larger stone.

So an I1 grade (which is how I would think of an SI3 grade) is not automatically the kiss of death. But a lot depends on how well the stone is cut -- a well-planned and well-cut stone can reduce the impact of the inclusions. A poorly cut stone, not so much. And a lot depends on the number and type of inclusions and where they are located within the stone.

Obviously, if you receive the stone and it's got black carbon boo-boos in it that are visible to the naked eye and/or the stone appears dull and cloudy and opaque rather than crystalline, you can reject it outright and there's no need to send it in for grading. But grading is the way to go if it looks good to your eye and you want to know the cut, color and clarity specs per GIA. No matter what you decide to do with the stone, having a reliable certification from a well-respected lab will benefit you. I see lots of diamonds on my local Craigslist, and the vast majority of them are not graded at all; some have EGL certs; and a minority have GIA.

 

[Rockdiamond]

if there's sucha grade as SI3 then there should also be VVS3 and VS3 grades.IMO... SI3 is a B.S. grade just to make the consumers feel better about their stone.

There is such a grade, just not one used by either of the top tier labs. There was a need for it in the lower clarity quality diamonds and EGL chose to fill that need.

Whether or not you or I choose to accept it or use it does not negate its existence. Since it exits, perhaps we should understand where it came from and why.

We here at Pricescope represent an incredibly small part of the market, it is our task to gradually improve the quality of information that is availabel to any who choose to avail themselves of it. To do this we must understand much more than what we think is the cream.

Wink

+1 to Wink's excellent point

I remember the grading system used by Harry Winston- back in the '70's.
They did not use GIA terminology ( at the time GIA was nowhere near as important as it is today)
Winston's grades did correspond to GIA
6-2-3-4-9-5-7-8
IF-VVS1-VVS2-VS1-VS2-SI1-SI2- I1 was an 8.
But 8 was subdivided into at least 4 subcategories.
The reason is that Winston's categories related to prices.
An I1 that almost made SI2 is worth considerably mare than a borderline I2.
In terms of grading- the most experienced people were needed to assort "8" quality.
It's a lot easier being able to identify how far a VS2 goes before it becomes Si1 than it is figuring out where the "end" of SI2 is.
So, yes, there is a definite need for the use of SI3 as a grade.

Having said that: GIA has not embraced this idea, and from what I see, the use of the terminology is frequently associated with misgrading.
Therefore, be very careful of sellers advertising the SI3 grade.
it's a long slippery slope.....

 

[ClaesDiamonds]

SI3 is a grade term like any other. A term that has been given meaning and is widely accepted amongst industry members. Granted not all laboratories use it but then again, not all labs differentiate between IF and FL.

Regards.

 

[ClaesDiamonds]

Dear Todd,

I agree with you. When I said it is not common practice, I meant in general in the market, however I didn't necessarily mean the opposite either.

Regards.

 

[ClaesDiamonds]

SI3 was implemented because of one reason only..., to soften up the value discrepancy between SI2 & I1. (which is no where near the realistic difference between VS2 & SI1).
Rapaport, instead of correcting/adjusting his price drop (sometimes as much as 50% from the down side, eg..., SI2 = 50%+ than I1) between these two grades chose the shortcut of adding the SI3 grade (to his list) which practically means SI3 value = approx 1/2 way between SI2 & I1.

<Snip>

Actually the grade was conceived of and used originally by Tom Tashey when he was with the LA branch of EGL. He felt that there was far too great a discrepancy between the SI2 grade and the I1 grade in terms of price, especially in I1 stones that looked like SI2 stones as opposed to I1 stones that looked like borderline I2 stones.

Many cutters were happy to jump on board with this as they could now get more reasonable pricing for their high I1 goods. I suspect that many stones sent to GIA and failing to get the coveted SI2 grade were re papered at EGL for the SI3 grade as this would salvage a great deal of the value for the stone that did not quite make it to SI2. As stated above, the price difference was brutal, often of inclusions very hard to detect with the unaided eye. This was long before the days of H&A and cut grades on diamond grading reports.

Wink

Thanks Wink, your comments and welcome are much appreciated.
Regards.

 

[Rockdiamond]

SI3 is a grade term like any other. A term that has been given meaning and is widely accepted amongst industry members. Granted not all laboratories use it but then again, not all labs differentiate between IF and FL.

Regards.

HI ClaesDiamonds,
I must disagree that SI3 is "widely accepted" amongst industry members - as a concept, maybe but not in practice.
The ONLY labs consumers should trust is GIA and AGSL
There is NO lab that the industry takes seriously using the SI3 grade.

In Wink's example- of how stones that get "the wrong" grade are sent to the substandard labs for "re papering", I believe stones getting I1 from GIA might very well get Si2 from the lesser labs- or SI1. Or I1. Or SI3.
For those using the non GIA labs, it's a crap shoot

 

[ClaesDiamonds]

Hi Rockdiamond,

Naturally I agree with your lab preferences. Although, I would add HRD to the list. I believe the concept is widely accepted; Given the acceptance of Rapaport in the 90's it would be hard to suggest otherwise. In practice, Eg trading of diamonds, I personally have never looked at an SI uncertified stone without considering rapaport information on SI3. Calling it a bad SI or great P1 or an SI3, we all know what is meant regardless. My own experience in practice is, at presentation of a poor SI2, someone is likely going to have a quick look at SI3 on the sheet.

Kind regards.

 

[oldminer]

[/quote]

Actually the grade was conceived of and used originally by Tom Tashey when he was with the LA branch of EGL. He felt that there was far too great a discrepancy between the SI2 grade and the I1 grade in terms of price, especially in I1 stones that looked like SI2 stones as opposed to I1 stones that looked like borderline I2 stones.

Many cutters were happy to jump on board with this as they could now get more reasonable pricing for their high I1 goods. I suspect that many stones sent to GIA and failing to get the coveted SI2 grade were re papered at EGL for the SI3 grade as this would salvage a great deal of the value for the stone that did not quite make it to SI2. As stated above, the price difference was brutal, often of inclusions very hard to detect with the unaided eye. This was long before the days of H&A and cut grades on diamond grading reports.

Wink[/quote]


A few months before Tom Tashey adopted SI3, I wrote a published article in the Accredited Gemologists Assoc newsletter calling for consideration of clarity grade revisions including adoption the suggestion to create an SI3 clarity grade. It was not a call to liberlize the system, but to make it better. Tom Tashey made an effort to use SI3 in a correct manner, but that's where it stopped. I jus want to set the record straight in the time line of where SI3 came about. Its current use is just a euphemism for a good I1 clarity and serves toi trick naive buyers. What mht have been beneficial was commercialized before it became meaningful.

 

[oldminer]

[/quote]

Actually the grade was conceived of and used originally by Tom Tashey when he was with the LA branch of EGL. He felt that there was far too great a discrepancy between the SI2 grade and the I1 grade in terms of price, especially in I1 stones that looked like SI2 stones as opposed to I1 stones that looked like borderline I2 stones.

Many cutters were happy to jump on board with this as they could now get more reasonable pricing for their high I1 goods. I suspect that many stones sent to GIA and failing to get the coveted SI2 grade were re papered at EGL for the SI3 grade as this would salvage a great deal of the value for the stone that did not quite make it to SI2. As stated above, the price difference was brutal, often of inclusions very hard to detect with the unaided eye. This was long before the days of H&A and cut grades on diamond grading reports.

Wink[/quote]


A few months before Tom Tashey adopted SI3, I wrote a published article in the Accredited Gemologists Assoc newsletter calling for consideration of clarity grade revisions including adoption the suggestion to create an SI3 clarity grade. It was not a call to liberlize the system, but to make it better. Tom Tashey made an effort to use SI3 in a correct manner, but that's where it stopped. I jus want to set the record straight in the time line of where SI3 came about. Its current use is just a euphemism for a good I1 clarity and serves toi trick naive buyers. What mht have been beneficial was commercialized before it became meaningful.

 

[Todd Gray]

Hi Rockdiamond,

Naturally I agree with your lab preferences. Although, I would add HRD to the list. I believe the concept is widely accepted; Given the acceptance of Rapaport in the 90's it would be hard to suggest otherwise. In practice, Eg trading of diamonds, I personally have never looked at an SI uncertified stone without considering rapaport information on SI3. Calling it a bad SI or great P1 or an SI3, we all know what is meant regardless. My own experience in practice is, at presentation of a poor SI2, someone is likely going to have a quick look at SI3 on the sheet.

Kind regards.

I like the HRD as well, but don't see much of their paper here in the U.S.

 

[Rockdiamond]

hi Todd!
I've heard other professionals here say they like HRD- but my experience with HRD has been very "EGL-Like".
As an example,. we bought a 4ct stone graded I/SI2 by HRD- but I negotiated based on the grade I felt was accurate- K/I1- which was exactly what GIA graded the stone.
In fact, pretty much every time I've seen an HRD report, it's been a similar story.
Maybe that's because they are geared more towards a European clientele- but for US buyers, HRD is not on par with GIA , in my experience.