SI3, is it misleading or is it a useful classification?

[oldminer]

What do you think Is it legitimate? Is it a fraud? Are you undecided? Do you recognize what it signifies or is this unimportant to you?

 

[niceice]

The SI-3 clarity grade is deceitful and fraudulent. An SI-3 is an I-1 by any other name...

 

[oldminer]

Fast reply. Wow! I wonder if you feel there are differing values among the range of Legitimately GIA I1 diamonds? Is there any room for a term which denotes a better I1 from a pooer I1 in you interpretation of grading?

 

[niceice]

Date: 5/16/2005 1:40:03 PM
Author: oldminer
Fast reply. Wow! I wonder if you feel there are differing values among the range of Legitimately GIA I1 diamonds? Is there any room for a term which denotes a better I1 from a pooer I1 in you interpretation of grading?

Just happened to be in the right place at the right time...

A nicer I-1 would be an SI-2

A poorer I-1 would be an I-2

Okay seriously, your point is valid but SI-3 is not the answer because it is not a grade which is recognized as being valid across the industry. The problem with the SI-3 clarity grade (from our perspective) is primarily the lab which issues the grade seems to lack consistency in their grading practices and thus what is labeled as an SI-3 by the EGL would be considered to be an I-1 by the GIA or AGS laboratories... Now if their was a truly standardized grading system in place that was followed to the letter by all of the various gemological laboratories then SI-3 might have a valid place in the market, but that would require a complete restructuring of the grading system and getting the powers that be to sit down at one table and work out all the details which some might perceive as collusion, etc. so for now it remains an invalid option despite the need to divide the clarity grades further... By this we''re saying that there are better SI-1 clarity diamonds than others and better VS-2 clarity stones than others, but this does not mean that there is going to be a VS-3 put on the table anytime soon. Excellent documentation and properly written appraisal documents are the best way for a consumer to differentiate the degree to which their particular diamond falls within the clarity grade assigned to their diamond, if the clarity grade is based upon diamond crystals instead of substantial feathers we would consider that to be a better end of the I-1 clarity grade, but other graders might not think so because the diamond crystals might be less visible than the feather - but we''d rather have the visibility of the diamond crystals over the potential durability risk of an I-1 feather if that''s the grade maker...

 

[strmrdr]

I see it as just another way to separate a sucker from their money.
The grades need revamping and eliminate a lot of crude from it for example scaling inclusions based on diamond size but adding another arbitrary grade in attempt to make something sound better than it is that is a huge step backwards.

 

[strmrdr]

It misleads consumers who would not buy an I1 clarity knowingly

I wouldn''''t ever consider an SI3

fyi I wanted to vote for both of those :}

 

[AdaBeta27]

Si3? Yeah, it signifies that the nearly meaningless cert is from a lab also known to grade colors 2 grades off. I'm certain my local jewelers do better than that. I don't intend to buy any SI3 stones because I'd have to have them independently appraised and also AGS or GIA-certed. Just my $.02

I also voted that if GIA or AGS used it, SI3 would have more credibility.

 

[valeria101]

Since this EGL grade is being judged in terms og GIA grades to begin with (is this fair ?)...


... and any such grades are arbitrary choices anyway...


I voted "If the GIA used it, I''d believe in it more".

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 5/16/2005 1:33:09 PM
Author:oldminer
What do you think Is it legitimate? Is it a fraud? Are you undecided? Do you recognize what it signifies or is this unimportant to you?

Interesting question.... but one who''s answer should be patently obvious, which really isn''t covered in the selection of answers.


I''ve written about this before, but I''ll say it again.

The consumer''s perceive that a VS-1 from any lab will be at least the minimum clarity grading as the "standard" - GIA. The same for all grades used by labs and appraisers with the IDENTICAL terminology or nomenclature. If a lab or appraiser wants to change the clarity grading terminology - it should clearly state what the GIA grade would be accurately as compared to their system.

Take AGS''s numerical nomentclature for clarity grade ( and for color) which was established years ago. While they wish to still grade using the AGS system, they at least have the "decency" to also report how their numberical grade corresponds with GIA''s.

This plain, easily understood, and interpreted easily by readers of their reports.

In the SI-2 / SI-3 /I-1 grades this has a huge potential for misleading consumers.

EGL and IGI don''t do that. My opinion is that these labs should either agree to comply with the GIA standard, or come up with a clear explanation of what their grading actually means, and equate it to GIA''s standard.

Dave, you must recognize this as a few years ago you came out with a very clear "guarantee" that AGA (your lab''s grading" would concur with GIA''s or you would pay the difference in value.

Personally, I think the system should be "tightened". Variances in many of the grades are too broad. Hence the same could be said about a lower SI-1 graded vs a higher graded SI-2.

I believe that all the labs, should clearly notice on their reports that they are "more forgiving" in clarity grading stones of 1.50 or higher, which is their practice.

But back to your poll question... I believe it could be derceptive used in the wrong dealer''s hands, but I believe it is far more confusing and potentially misleading than deceptive. But who decides at what separation point makes an SI-3 or an I-1? A lab that has a reputation for not being consistently accurate?

For the most part I agree with Storm.

Rockdoc

 

[Kaleigh]

I think it''s very misleading and am confused as to where the line is drawn between an SI3 and an I1?? I mean whats the difference exactly???

 

[marriahlyn]

My friend just bought an EGL USA SI3 and it''s the first SI3 I''ve ever seen. The plot on the cert is unbelievable and not a single space was without an inclusion. Without the cert and just the plot, I''d have called it I2. There is also a big booger on the edge of the table and when you run your fingernail over it, you can feel the inclusion chip. I think SI3 is VERY deceptive.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 5/16/2005 6:08:32 PM
Author: crankydave
Interesting replies thus far.

Just like color could be better defined with more ''steps'', so could clarity. A ''3'' could easily be added to all grades (flawless grades excluded of course).

I think if you''re going to give shades of ''grey'' their own classification, then the ''grey'' area needs to be represented in all categories, not just 1 or 2. There should be a VS3 and a VVS3.

As far as I''m concerned, as long as it is properly defined and presented, it''s as legitimate as any other grade there is.

Dave

I''d tend to agree with using a "3" grade - maybe more such as 4 or 5 , but only if the lab, seller, or appraiser uses a different designation than the same ones that GIA does.

I wonder how many consumers really take heed to the "disclaimers" even on the AGS and GIA reports, which state that the stone should be checked by "a certified or credentialed gemologist"? ( AGS - GIA''s is slightly different ). HOw many consumers rely on just the report, or advice from non gemologists, depsite the "warning" on the reports ?

So it is reasonable to assume that a patently similar grading terminology is confusing or misleading to consumers?

I think maybe terminology such as : Moderately included / Heavilly included / Durability inclusions... etc. be used that are totally and easily understood by consumers. Maybe I am a little "heavy handed" with those terms, but ya gotta admit it would be easier for consumers to interpret these.


Rockdoc

 

[Dancing Fire]

i don't believe in SI 3 grade stones,if there is a SI 3 grade why not a VVS 3,why not a VS 3 ?

IT"S A Bull S**T 1 GRADE

 

[oldminer]

Thank you for all these superb answers in response to the question. This is truly an elite group of consumers and experts. No one has missed the point. Notice how divided the results are. Feel the passion and get a hint of the anger in the messages, too. There is little doubt that this is a polarizing question. Not many people are sitting on the fence on this one, are they?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/16/2005 9:56:27 PM
Author: oldminer
Thank you for all these superb answers in response to the question. This is truly an elite group of consumers and experts. No one has missed the point. Notice how divided the results are. Feel the passion and get a hint of the anger in the messages, too. There is little doubt that this is a polarizing question. Not many people are sitting on the fence on this one, are they?

Dave
i hope you''re not thinking about using SI 3 grade on your AGA cert.

is that why you ask the question.?

 

[oldminer]

AGA will not be opening this can of worms by adopting SI3 at this time. I always consider making advances, but I am not about to offer such a misunderstood grade on the AGA-Cert. I wanted to examine the depth of conviction on this subject. Some strong feelings.

It is my belief that a LEGITIMATE use for SI3 exists, just like one could legitimately want to use VVS3 or VS3 as has been suggested. What we have at present is an abuse of a term that could other wise have been useful to the extent that now it is a loaded gun waiting to go off and no longer so readily useful. It is regrettable that using SI3 in a helpful, honest and informative manner would be viewed in such a negative way. That''s not something we can correct quickly.

I have another lab, called DGLA, that only does volume grading for large chain firms....MAUL STORES..... Many of them want SI3 and we all know why, but their customers generally don''t understand. Right now we do not offer SI3, but have considered offering it. Your advice is all appreciated. I don''t want to sell myself out for a few bucks profit. THANK YOU.

 

[oldminer]

I probably will be among the last to offer a phoney, meaningless grade. Don''t be dissapointed. Considering all issues is smart. Acting on them is another. I am forward thinking but not that greedy. My curiousity is intense, but my willingness to do dumb things is well tempered. Don''t worry.

 

[oldminer]

I love the way other posters here have turned Mall Stores into Maul Stores. Every time I read it, I get a smile on my face. We do lots of grading for the chains, but I just have to laugh at the way people feel about them sometimes.. Personally, my firm is well treated by our chain store clients.

 

[fire&ice]

Don''t people know what the grading (SI3) means? I don''t find it deceptive. I think of it as a "cherry picked" I1. I wouldn''t hesitate buying a SI3 or an I1 that I have eyeballed. I think they can represent a good value.

Are people thinking it''s deceptive because an SI3 grade may be more expensive than an I1? What''s the difference between a dealer pricing a fine F grade that is closer to an E a higher (more premium) price than an F that is closer to a G?

To take that logic, isn''t it rather deceptive to price an approved H&A super louper ideal at considerably more than a stone at a fine near close to perfection make?

Honestly, why do people think it''s deception? Grading is subjective - the SI3 grade gives more description to an I1 grade. And surely, one would expect to pay more for a more eyeclean SI grade.

But then, I don''t think an I1 grade is the kiss of death - maybe to a dealer - but not from this consumer''s point of view.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I''m pro (correct) SI3 grading. To me the misuse of it isn''t an argument to eliminate it, as all the grades are extensively misused by those with deceptive tendencies. The extremely wide range of the I1 grade actually lends itself to more misuse than the narrower range of a correctly graded SI3.

The SI3 grade is a market driven reality, as dealers and the public alike pay more for this "top end I1" than they do for a mainstream I1. Endorsed by the World Diamond Council and the World Federation of Diamond Bourses, it is reported by the most well known pricing index in the world (Rapaport Diamond Report), and graded by the EGL laboratories, as well as my own.

I feel anything which reflects a difference in pricing should be reported by an appraiser hired to report all factors regarding a client''s stone. Priced correctly and properly explained, I think most clients are appreciative of this grade which supplies them with more clarity information (& value information) regarding their stone.

 

[strmrdr]

Calling an Included diamond Slightly Included is a deceptive practice plain and simple.
If they want to label them I1a then I wouldnt have a problem with it.
Bumping them up an entire class is fraud.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/17/2005 9:19:38 PM
Author: strmrdr
Calling an Included diamond Slightly Included is a deceptive practice plain and simple.
If they want to label them I1a then I wouldnt have a problem with it.
Bumping them up an entire class is fraud.

i agree, i heard this one time in a store. a salesman showing a customer some GIA I1 stones, said something like....these are really SI3 stones but since GIA don''t have a SI3 grade they just call them I1''s.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 5/17/2005 9:19:38 PM
Author: strmrdr
Calling an Included diamond Slightly Included is a deceptive practice plain and simple.

Bumping them up an entire class is fraud.

It''s not deceptive when you clearly outline the grading being used as a non-GIA term which more specifically delineates a top I1.

They''re not being bumped up an entire class. They''re being more accurately defined.

There''s a price difference between a mainstream I1 and what the diamond world defines as an SI3. As long as that price difference exists someone is going to have to report it. I''m fine if GIA comes up with some kind of term (such as I1a) to define it. As long as they don''t, and the worldwide diamond trade (and public) continues to use the SI3 terminology in their buying and selling decisions, I''ll keep using the term when warranted.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

We only stock SI2 up and do not sell I1-3 or use SI3.
We have not come to any decisions about out side appraisals within my business.

But a survey of a number of stones graded by GIA and HRD 10-20 years ago were resubmitted by the National Council of Jewellery valuers in Australia - many I1 stones were given SI2. this seems to show that since EGL et al introduced SI3 - that I1 softened

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/18/2005 7:21:09 AM
Author: Richard Sherwood

Date: 5/17/2005 9:19:38 PM

Author: strmrdr

Calling an Included diamond Slightly Included is a deceptive practice plain and simple.


Bumping them up an entire class is fraud.

It's not deceptive when you clearly outline the grading being used as a non-GIA term which more specifically delineates a top I1.


They're not being bumped up an entire class. They're being more accurately defined.


There's a price difference between a mainstream I1 and what the diamond world defines as an SI3. As long as that price difference exists someone is going to have to report it. I'm fine if GIA comes up with some kind of term (such as I1a) to define it. As long as they don't, and the worldwide diamond trade (and public) continues to use the SI3 terminology in their buying and selling decisions, I'll keep using the term when warranted.

imho explaining it removes some of the deception as long as it clearly states that it is still an I1 just one of the better ones.
I still dont like it there is way to much potential for abuse.

si is bumping it up a class its the same as calling a H diamond colorless instead of near colorless.
The clarity classes are VVS VS SI I calling an I diamond a SI is bumping it up a class.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/18/2005 7:33:08 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
But a survey of a number of stones graded by GIA and HRD 10-20 years ago were resubmitted by the National Council of Jewellery valuers in Australia - many I1 stones were given SI2. this seems to show that since EGL et al introduced SI3 - that I1 softened

Iv really been thinking about calling my congress criters and asking them to make diamond color and clarity grading standards law in the US to stop that kind of crap.
Or at the least ftc rules.
UV in lighting used for grading being the other area that needs to be a regulated standard.

 

[fire&ice]

Fraud? Deceptive? No one has yet to explain why. It *is* what *it* is. To me it''s a more honest grade. How is it any different than a dealer saying this H is closer to a G? He/she may very well be correct & not trying to be deceptive. Grading is subjective. It a far leap of faith to assume that the SI3 grade has that much power to bump an I1 to an SI2 grade. Defies logic.

And, Garry - this not carrying I1''s sounds more macho than a benefit to the consumer.

I like quality - don''t get me wrong - but I also appreciate value when buying something. I have the perfect little stone (well not perfect- but darn close). I don''t value it except for the sentimental factor. I don''t think my relationship is less flawed because of it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/18/2005 10:15:28 AM
Author: crankydave
For the sake of discussion...


You''re looking at a stone that barely meets the criteria of SI2. It is a bad SI2. You''ve seen I1''s that look better. Calling it an SI2 would mean the consumer would be paying that grades premium for a stone clearly at the lowest end of that scale. Wouldn''t calling it an SI3 be more accurate and serve both the consumer and merchant more fairly?


Dave

Calling a bad si2 a si3 would be ok because its a step down.
Calling an I1 an SI3 is a step up and deceptive in most cases.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/18/2005 11:23:56 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/18/2005 10:15:28 AM
Author: crankydave
For the sake of discussion...


You''re looking at a stone that barely meets the criteria of SI2. It is a bad SI2. You''ve seen I1''s that look better. Calling it an SI2 would mean the consumer would be paying that grades premium for a stone clearly at the lowest end of that scale. Wouldn''t calling it an SI3 be more accurate and serve both the consumer and merchant more fairly?


Dave

Calling a bad si2 a si3 would be ok because its a step down.
Calling an I1 an SI3 is a step up and deceptive in most cases.

You have yet to state *why* it''s deceptive. I don''t see it as such. I see it as more descriptive. More descriptive is not deception.