SI1 Clarity in Larger Carats

[Gnmu]

I'm looking to get a diamond in a 2 carat range, but I'm having trouble deciding between I/VS2 or H/SI1.

In terms of I color, the yellow tint can start to become noticeable enough to bother me in certain lighting, which makes me lean towards an H color. However, to get something within my budget, I'd have to shoot for an H/SI1 clarity. I have read that at 2ct+, you should try to get VS or higher because the larger carats also make inclusions more noticeable. Is it still possible to get an eye-clean SI1 diamond at 2ct+?

Does anyone have any links that illustrate what a "bad" SI1 that impacts light performance looks like? I've read that certain inclusions can interfere with light refraction/reflection to make the diamond "hazy", but what does that actually mean. Are there any detailed videos about this?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi gnmu!
Welcome to PS.....
About color- it's totally individual preference- as well as sensitivity.
Some people look at an H and see a tint- others look at the same stone and see a very white diamond.
There's varying degrees of sensitivity to color- think of color blindness as a sliding scale. Some folks are super sensitive to small differences in shade, others are oblivious.....this goes for so many things, not just diamonds....furniture, clothing, cars...you name it!

Now, regarding SI1 diamonds........please throw out most of what you've read because there's just so much incorrect or misleading information out there.
The percentage of SI1 graded diamonds where the imperfections affect light performance is nil.
Yes, there are indeed larger SI1 clarity diamonds that are 100% eye clean, no impact whatsoever on LP. In fact, there's SI2 and even I1 diamonds that are completely eye clean and no LP impact.
The reason is that the grade is based on the presence of imperfection, not the ability to see the imperfection. So the same carbon spot which is invisible tucked away in a corner, will be easily visible in the middle of the table over a large pavilion facet- and both will be correctly graded SI1.

Now, without a doubt, really good SI1 diamonds are super desirable because they look just like a flawless and cost so much less. I have noticed over time that the pool of SI diamonds has gotten worse- so I'd say the percentage of eye clean SI1 diamonds is less than it was years ago- but they are still out there.....maybe a bit harder to find.

 

[sledge]

Great post by @Rockdiamond.

I might add that there is no industry standard definition of the term "eye clean". So this may vary from Vendor A to Vendor B, who may or may not match Vendor C.

A pretty generic definition is that no visible inclusions are visible from around 10-12" away looking at the top of the stone. Some elaborate and say with 20/20 vision and good lighting. One vendor adds the verbiage about the inclusions not being "readily and immediately" visible to the trained diamond grader.

The one about "readily & immediately" is what gives me fits. To me, this means a casual observation. In reality, we know the person wearing and gifting the ring will do more than casually observe the stone. They will analyze the bejezus out of it!

My point isn't to detract from the search of a truly good eye clean SI1 stone, but rather to inform you with enough information that you can determine your visual acuity and properly articulate those requirements to the vendor you buy from so that there are no misunderstandings or disappointments from terminology fallacies.

I would absolutely consider an SI1, but I would be very particular and very clear about my expectations before pulling the trigger. But if I'm being completely honest, from a mind clean perspective I do prefer a VS2+ clarity. However, I know (and accept) those preferences come with a price premium, and I have to be okay with sacrificing dollars, color and/or size to get it if that is important to me.

Alas, I might add that colors are RANGES, so it's possible to have a high H (almost G) or low H (almost I). The further down the color scale you go, the more range you have. So possible a high I looks as white as a low H. Again, color is subjective and this is where it's nice to work with a vendor that has stones in stock that can do those comparisons for you, assuming you are buying online.

 

[doberman]

I believe that clarity is very much a mind game. For some people, just knowing that flaws exist in their stone is disturbing. They dont have to be visible or affect performance in any way to be viewed as undesirable. And then there are people like me who are fine with a well cut SI1. I have stones in varying clarity and without a loupe the imperfections are not visible.

But I can see even the slightest differences in color without a loupe and depending on the stone it may affect my enjoyment, as I prefer round brilliant stones to be colorless or at the high end of near colorless. Also, there are ranges within the individual grades themselves, there are higher colored I diamonds and lower. You have to look and see what you can live with - or more accurately what your wallet can live with.

There's no right or wrong way to be here, H is not "better" than I. You just have to know yourself and know what's most important to you. Buying a diamond is an exercise in compromise and you decide what you're willing to give up in order to get the best diamond for you.

 

[arkieb1]

You need to find a SI1 that is clean for you - that will be all that matters. Perhaps start with some super Ideal cuts, that will also offer better edge to edge brightness and sometimes places like Whiteflash and High Performance Diamonds will tell you if they are eye clean, or tell them what you are looking for and see if they have or can get something that is in your budget.

 

[CHRISTY-DANIELLE]

Yes, exactly, there are fine Si1 and there are some scary ones too. It depends on the type and location too. A flaw on the table would bug me, but I have a 3.51ct Si1 that is Si1 due to a feather in the facets. I can see the feather in close up still photos, but I promise you, in real life you'd never notice it. And my Si1 sparkles like crazy ---no issues there!
Be sure to look at the GIA plots on diamonds you are considering, but look at the stone too. What might look scary on the plot may be unnoticeable in real life!

 

[OoohShiny]

Now, regarding SI1 diamonds........please throw out most of what you've read because there's just so much incorrect or misleading information out there.
The percentage of SI1 graded diamonds where the imperfections affect light performance is nil.
Yes, there are indeed larger SI1 clarity diamonds that are 100% eye clean, no impact whatsoever on LP. In fact, there's SI2 and even I1 diamonds that are completely eye clean and no LP impact.
The reason is that the grade is based on the presence of imperfection, not the ability to see the imperfection. So the same carbon spot which is invisible tucked away in a corner, will be easily visible in the middle of the table over a large pavilion facet- and both will be correctly graded SI1.

Now, without a doubt, really good SI1 diamonds are super desirable because they look just like a flawless and cost so much less. I have noticed over time that the pool of SI diamonds has gotten worse- so I'd say the percentage of eye clean SI1 diamonds is less than it was years ago- but they are still out there.....maybe a bit harder to find.

This post has made me think of a post that Garry has previously put up, which (IIRC) put forward the view that is it better to find an SI1 with a visible inclusion than one without a visible inclusion - I think the basis was that one more obvious inclusion was likely to mean the rest of the stone was clean (for example) but not having obvious inclusions meant it could suffer with potentially 'haze' issues from clouds, whether or not they were marked on the clarity plot and/or inclusions list??

 

[WinkHPD]

This post has made me think of a post that Garry has previously put up, which (IIRC) put forward the view that is it better to find an SI1 with a visible inclusion than one without a visible inclusion - I think the basis was that one more obvious inclusion was likely to mean the rest of the stone was clean (for example) but not having obvious inclusions meant it could suffer with potentially 'haze' issues from clouds, whether or not they were marked on the clarity plot and/or inclusions list??

Say What?

I think it is better to find an SI1 that looks good to you! Not having obvious inclusions means that the diamond does not have obvious inclusions and may look just like a flawless diamond until you put it under a loupe.

True, as has been stated, there has been noticeable grade creep over the past several years and it is getting harder and harder to find those top of the line SI1's. Still, they are around for those willing to look and to spend the money to buy an SI1 that is an SI1 and not a low SI2 pretending to be an SI1.

 

[AV_]

Look among SI2 too. I am also noticing discounts on GIA 'Medium' or 'Strong' fluorescence. It is nice to buy what markets - whoever they might be, do not understand.

 

[headlight]

I would much prefer an H over an I, To me, I think that I color is the "turning point" and is very apparent... ESPECIALLY as you go higher in carat size.
I have a 2 ct SI2 that is EYE CLEAN. And it has none of the types of inclusions best to stay away from. My jeweler and his assistant (both GIA GGs) were very surprised it was graded SI2.
I know some are hesitant about an SI2, but you should feel good about an SI1 as long as it doesn't have things like cavities, etc. These are specifics you should review with the vendor and can also bring here to discuss. The professionals here can correct me, but I would take a guess that SI1 is the most common clarity grade purchased. On that note, I would guess that H color is, as well. HENCE, SI1, H color is a GREAT value. I would not get a VS if it meant I had to get I color. Color is VERY important to me, which is something you pay for that you directly see whereas if eye clean I don't need to pay extra for higher clarity (if it is at the price of having to go down in color). I am very specific about my disdain for I color because I previously had an I color and that was all I could see to the point that now I can't even tolerate G, which is a beautiful color. Go for an SI1, H color... I really don't think you will be disappointed!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Now, regarding SI1 diamonds........please throw out most of what you've read because there's just so much incorrect or misleading information out there.
The percentage of SI1 graded diamonds where the imperfections affect light performance is nil.

While you are throwing out what you've read, you can add the bolded to your stack.

In our operations we regularly find Si1's that have diminished transparency. It is one of the things we specifically screen for. It is often very subtle and would not be picked up by casual observation.

An Si1 with comment on the report "clarity grade based on clouds" is quite commonly a little sleepy.

The purpose of saying this is not to scare anyone away from Si grades, which offer some of the very best values. But these grades are broader than the upper clarity grades and can have a wide range of different characteristics. As such they require closer scrutiny.

More info here: https://www.whiteflash.com/about-di...inclusions-impact-on-diamond-sparkle-1372.htm

 

[LauraJandLudlow]

I'm looking to get a diamond in a 2 carat range, but I'm having trouble deciding between I/VS2 or H/SI1.

In terms of I color, the yellow tint can start to become noticeable enough to bother me in certain lighting, which makes me lean towards an H color. However, to get something within my budget, I'd have to shoot for an H/SI1 clarity. I have read that at 2ct+, you should try to get VS or higher because the larger carats also make inclusions more noticeable. Is it still possible to get an eye-clean SI1 diamond at 2ct+?

Does anyone have any links that illustrate what a "bad" SI1 that impacts light performance looks like? I've read that certain inclusions can interfere with light refraction/reflection to make the diamond "hazy", but what does that actually mean. Are there any detailed videos about this?

My first diamond was 2.7 carats and an SI1. It had a white feather near the girdle. I think it looked totally eye-clean to the average person, but over time the feather began to bother me. In terms of light performance, however, it was an AGS000 and was totally sparkly! In retrospect, I probably would have picked a slightly smaller stone with a higher clarity grade since I found my eyes going to that feather time and again . . . but if this sort of thing doesn't bother you, I think you should be fine. Just make sure the inclusions don't include clouds under the table - I think that's where you wind up with a "hazy" look.

 

[AV_]

An Si1 with comment on the report "clarity grade based on clouds" is quite commonly a little sleepy.

How about grain?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

How about grain?

Indeed. Things like graining and twinning wisps also have the potential to scatter light and diminish transparency.

Like cloud inclusions, the mere fact that these features exist in the stone does NOT mean that light performance will be appreciably affected. It just means they must be evaluated carefully.

 

[distracts]

@Rockdiamond and @Texas Leaguer what do you guys think is behind clarity creep? Just accidental, or a strategy to keep prices on more desirable diamonds higher when prices are falling? Because when I started on the forums circa 2010 it was taken as a given that most si1s would be eyeclean, and it was reasonably easy to find eyeclean or acceptable si2s, and now it has gone to you pretty much need vs2 to have an eyeclean stone, si1 you might be able to find an eyeclean one if you really look, and si2 forget about it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi All!
Bryan- I suggested throwing out MOST of what’s written. Not to include my comments
This is from your own promotional page that you linked to
“In conclusion, diamond cloud inclusions are not something to fear. They normally have no appreciable impact on diamond brilliance”
So it seems we agree- or at least whoever wrote the page on your site.
This is especially true in GIA graded SI1 diamonds.
If you have photos depicting GIA graded SI1 diamonds with transparency issues I’d love to see them. For sure some exist- but they are rare and likely mistgraded

 

[Rockdiamond]

@Rockdiamond and @Texas Leaguer what do you guys think is behind clarity creep? Just accidental, or a strategy to keep prices

My perspective is that over time the better SI1 diamonds get sold while the non eye clean ones get sold- but then returned. Over time this has the effect of lowering the percentage of eye clean SI diamonds.

 

[distracts]

My perspective is that over time the better SI1 diamonds get sold while the non eye clean ones get sold- but then returned. Over time this has the effect of lowering the percentage of eye clean SI diamonds.

That makes sense - they’re a hot commodity!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

@Rockdiamond and @Texas Leaguer what do you guys think is behind clarity creep? Just accidental, or a strategy to keep prices on more desirable diamonds higher when prices are falling? Because when I started on the forums circa 2010 it was taken as a given that most si1s would be eyeclean, and it was reasonably easy to find eyeclean or acceptable si2s, and now it has gone to you pretty much need vs2 to have an eyeclean stone, si1 you might be able to find an eyeclean one if you really look, and si2 forget about it.

I'm not sure I buy into the argument of grade creep. I do think the internet has made the trade have to take a more disciplined approach to communicating to customers the degree to which a diamond has inclusions visible to the naked eye. And over time, this can have an impact on perceptions of the market in general and lab practices specifically.

I will say that size matters here. Clarity grading to some extent is relativistic. That is, the same size inclusion in a 2ct Si1, if you could magically place it in a .50ct, could result in a grade of Si2.

Thus, Si1 inclusions in bigger diamonds are more likely to be visible to the naked eye.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yesterday a guy showed me this remarkable pink diamond about 2cts.
GIA had graded it I1. In this particular case the imperfections were nearly invisible with a loupe!!
There were a few feathers scattered about but you had to hold the diamonds in one specific orientation to be able to see them. And the only orientation was through the pavilion. So you have a 100% eye clean and loupe clean I1.
The cutter was peeved as heck even though the diamond was still worth well over $100k per carat.

 

[John P]

In our operations we regularly find Si1's that have diminished transparency. It is one of the things we specifically screen for. It is often very subtle and would not be picked up by casual observation. An Si1 with comment on the report "clarity grade based on clouds" is quite commonly a little sleepy. The purpose of saying this is not to scare anyone away from Si grades, which offer some of the very best values. But these grades are broader than the upper clarity grades and can have a wide range of different characteristics. As such they require closer scrutiny.

We are finding the same thing at the upstream side, as we select/reject starting crystals which must pass our transparency requirements for our brand.

Addressing @distracts ' question: "What is behind clarity creep." There are a number of factors which might contribute to that perception. Some may be related to grading practices. Less talked about are factors relating to the starting rough material itself.

In the past few decades many large, historic mines have gone underground (moved from open-pit mining to block-caving). Block caving brings expense, thus motivation to sell more, thus the possibility of more rough at the low threshold of gem-quality becoming sold as part of the mine's overall GQ output.


(Image - courtesy of Petra Diamonds)

Back in 2000 the comment “Additional clouds not shown” implied pinpoints so few and sparse in a diamond that any mark on the plot would uselessly exaggerate the situation. So they were notated as “not shown,” meaning absolute non-factors. Alternately the term “Clarity grade based on clouds not shown” - also mentioned by @Texas Leaguer above - was designed as a warning. That comment infers characteristics dense enough at 10X magnification to set the clarity grade by themselves. These two comments - "X-not-shown" vs. "clarity-grade-based-on-X" were designed to imply very different things.

Fast forward to now. The term, “additional clouds not shown” - supposedly a non-factor - has become applied to a wider overall range of frequency and density of minute or minor characteristics. So in 1999 a diamond graded SI1-2 with comment ‘additional clouds not shown’ was reliably safe in terms of fundamental transparency (what might lie beyond 10X notwithstanding). And I want to be clear by saying that comment should still be completely safe in 2019... But in my experience it’s not as neatly reliable as it was in 1999. The good news: As long as you have an expert you trust vetting the diamond, or have diamond-experience and can vet it yourself, you need not worry.

@Texas Leaguer also mentioned "sleepy" diamonds. This happens when natural factors (at or beyond the 10X clarity magnification threshold) become numerous and/or dense enough to compromise transparency. If you want to see what such sleepy diamonds look like, and live in certain areas of the USA, it's easy. Look for commercials on TV, with happy people waving in their showroom, advertising impossibly low 'wholesale' prices on diamonds. In my travels such discount outlets reliably have sleepy stock any diamond enthusiast can quickly pinpoint (pun intended). In cases which are slight it may seem like the diamond is just a bit dirty. In egregious cases the nasty term 'frozen spit' applies. Hint: If you're wearing your own sparkler that's wide-awake and popping it's rather easy to spot dozy diamonds by comparison.

More good news ahead. Just yesterday the Star Diamond Corp (nee Shore Gold) completed sample drilling on the Star Kimberlite in Saskatchewan. SDC is sitting on top of the largest diamondiferous formation on the planet. High gem-quality projected. It will be exciting to have their output added to the global mix.

 

[AV_]

There are so many teaching examples among the - sea - of macro vodeos of diamonds around, it is a pity not to have a guide to reading clarity in them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

And I want to be clear by saying that comment should still be completely safe in 2019... But in my experience it’s not as neatly reliable as it was in 1999. The good news: As long as you have an expert you trust vetting the diamond, or have diamond-experience and can vet it yourself, you need not worry.

Excellent and informative post John!
Without a doubt, standards have shifted since 1999. But the bottom line is still that the GIA report is an overview. Having expert advice was- and is- crucial.