The reason why GIA should add the SI3 grade

[the_mother_thing]

I agree with @Dancing Fire:

If GIA added SI3 to their grading system then why not also add VVS3 and VS3?

I’m not quite sure why there even is an I3. And why stop there? Why not break down color grades as well, such as H1 (high) and H2 (low).

I think GIA’s clarity grades are ‘broad’ enough personally, especially where the average consumer is concerned.

 

[TreeScientist]

Those annoying EGL certs are like women buying bras from certain brand catalogs because their size C bras are actually more standard size B bras, and the women feel good saying they're size C! I almost got fooled a while back with a vendor who said they were selling VS1 F stones at price points I couldn't believe, and I found out they were EGL. I'm not sure if these problems perpetuate due to sleazy marketers or delusional gloating customers...

Haha I love this analogy @blueMA! This is exactly what buying mall store diamonds reminded me of when I first starting learning about the "looseness" of some certifications used there. Does it really matter that you can say "It's an F color" if the stone looks yellow?

...

But then I remembered a few of my women friends in the past who have avoided buying European clothing brands (like Lacoste) because they make them feel "fat" Apparently just being able to say that they are a size 2 is important to some people, just like getting the highest certed stone at the lowest price, regardless of how the stone actually looks, is important to others.

 

[blueMA]

Apparently just being able to say that they are a size 2 is important to some people

I could be wrong but the whole size 0 or size 2 thing started around Desperate Housewives show with Eva L character, and I couldn't understand why women wanted to claim such tiny size since that's anorexic unpleasant thin, The lemming mentality is baffling to me. So they want to be c cup size 0!

When you mess with any stardard, it makes it tougher for consumers to find what they're actually looking for. I read some GIA lab locations are more lenient than another and it's not unusual for some suppliers to try multiple labs for more favorable grade. Unless GIA doesn't want to end up like EGL some years from now, they better tighten their grading standards to earn consumer trust.

 

[david b]

It is 100% sure the cert for the picture, the Good cut comes from the low drown angle- So it is not enough to know the Depth and table % to tell the cut.
Crown angle is critical.

 

[yssie]

It is 100% sure the cert for the picture, the Good cut comes from the low drown angle- So it is not enough to know the Depth and table % to tell the cut.
Crown angle is critical.

I don’t follow your response. I’m well aware of the reasons the stone for which the report was issued would have merited only “Good” cut grade.

I am saying that the table reflection on the pavilion of the stone pictured (small) does not match expectations given reported table size (large) and reported angle of pavilion mains (huge).

I am 100% sure it is either the wrong cert or the current state of the diamond is not reflected by that cert.

 

[david b]

One thing is sure here the diamond picture is of the diamond certificate shown.

 

[david b]

GIA should NOT add the SI3 grade. Tom Tashey started it with EGL Los Angeles many years ago and it caught on with a lot of wholesalers and retailers. It was okay at first, then became horribly abused as both wholesalers and retailers used it to sell clearly I1 goods for more than they could get for an honest I1.

It might have been a good thing had it stayed within the parameters it was designed with, but just like today's grade creep, once you lower your standards, it is hard to ever get them back up...

Wink

 

[david b]

Hello Wink, good day
I am talking of selling SI3s with a future GIA cert, not a self cert.
SI2 is too large range in GIA so one SI2 is eye clean and another is not.
They should split the range in two.

 

[david b]

Because it is a matter of difference seen in the diamonds to the naked eye

 

[sledge]

Those annoying EGL certs are like women buying bras from certain brand catalogs because their size C bras are actually more standard size B bras, and the women feel good saying they're size C! I almost got fooled a while back with a vendor who said they were selling VS1 F stones at price points I couldn't believe, and I found out they were EGL. I'm not sure if these problems perpetuate due to sleazy marketers or delusional gloating customers...

LMAO....really? This really happens? Definitely one of the funniest things I've heard this week.

My girl has the opposite problem. She is a G cup and has a hard time finding people to sell matching bra & panties that she finds acceptable. She gets rather pissy about the subject as the bottoms are way oversized and more like granny panties. In her eyes, it's pure discrimination, lol. Hmmm...maybe a business opportunity here.

 

[blueMA]

LMAO....really? This really happens? Definitely one of the funniest things I've heard this week.

Yes... the variability of Women's bra sizes are ridiculous.

On reference to the mindset, here's a clip from Desperate Housewives mentioned earlier. Gabby needs to be size 00 even if the dress doesn't fit. Fast forward to 7:25, and then 22:17.

A diamond has to be F and VS1 no matter what cert, even if it's yellow and not eye-clean.

 

[sledge]

Yes... the variability of Women's bra sizes are ridiculous.

On reference to the mindset, here's a clip from Desperate Housewives mentioned earlier. Gabby needs to be size 00 even if the dress doesn't fit. Fast forward to 7:25, and then 22:17.

A diamond has to be F and VS1 no matter what cert, even if it's yellow and not eye-clean.

LOL, wow. I'm glad I'm a guy.

Truthful reality seems better.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The ones that are responsible for any fraudulent customer is us the vendors, just lately we sent a nice 0.70 GIA F VS1 to a stolen CC charge and we were charged back with no arguments, we did not check the transaction and sent it to an unknown person and address.

HI David,
Welcome to Pricescope!
You're clearly quite new- and it is very nice to see tradespeople posting.
Advice: Take a bit of time and look around.
The "consumers" here are far more than average shoppers.
The vendors that have stuck around may also be able to give you insight.
First rule- don't ever send out a diamond without checking who and where it's going to on a credit card purchase.

Another good piece of advice- check the stone and pic you listed. The folks who are telling you it does not match are far more capable than you're giving them credit for.

Last thing- the link in your signature is a dead link.....

 

[yssie]

Thank you for the potted histories @oldminer, @Wink... I have wondered why GIA has a multitude of grades for exceptionally non-included stones.

I do agree that the fact that GIA does not consider real-world visibility of inclusions in their grading processes is key. Whilst I don't philosophically object to adding clarity to the scale (I know, bad pun) to more finely demarcate the VS2-I1 range - as an end-consumer it's easy for me to counter the argument of financial investment in the current grading system with "that's the cost of progress, so too bad" - I do strongly object to adding yet another criterion that is dependent on human perception and judgment.
People and "consistency of subjective critique"... scaled over time or geography... don't go hand in hand

One thing is sure here the diamond picture is of the diamond certificate shown.

I don't suppose there's any point at all in stating a third time that they're not... but they're not

 

[Rockdiamond]

From my perspective, the GIA system, while flawed, still works very well.
In the case of many VS, and SI graded stones, there's no viable manner of declaring a stone "eye clean" and have it be true for all people.
When I was at Winston, they had a numerical grading system that mirrored GIA. 6=IF, 2=VVS1, 3=VVS2, 4=VS1, 9=VS2, 5=SI1, 7=SI2, and 8 was equivalent to less than SI2. That's where the Winston system was superior. 8 was divided up into five levels.
Only the seasoned graders worked on 8's. It's far more difficult to assess a grade to an imperfect stone, as oppesed to deciding if it's VVS2 or VS1

 

[flyingpig]

I don't suppose there's any point at all in stating a third time that they're not... but they're not

Clear contrast elongated arrows and tight table reflection. You do not expect these from a diamond such shallow crown and steep pavillion and big table.
This is more like it.
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...arat-g-color-vs1-clarity-good-cut-sku-2657035

 

[blueMA]

When I was at Winston, they had a numerical grading system that mirrored GIA. 6=IF, 2=VVS1, 3=VVS2, 4=VS1, 9=VS2, 5=SI1, 7=SI2, and 8 was equivalent to less than SI2.

That's a wacky and nonsensical numerical scale.

 

[WinkHPD]

Because it is a matter of difference seen in the diamonds to the naked eye

I get the concept, David. It is the reality that keeps infringing.

I have sold totally eye clean I1's and not eye clean SI2's. (Long before I became a CBI dealer.) Each diamond must be evaluated on its own merits. I originally bought the cool aid with the EGL LA SI3 grade, but it quickly lead to massive abuse by both retailers and wholesalers. It leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that I can never support bringing it up for future well meaning uses that human nature will then degrade into an abusive result.

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

That's a wacky and nonsensical numerical scale.

True that!
The color scale was more straightforward
1=D
2=E
etc

So, a 41 was a D/VS1.
I worked in Harry Winston's wholesale loose diamond division- so the clients were knowledgeable ( ostensibly)
At the time ( 1976) GIA was not nearly as prominent so a jeweler would either know how to grade, or take HW's word for it.
In any event, I believe the motivation was to keep the grade secret. The belief being that the grading being cryptic helped the salespeople.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
But Mr Winston never asked my opinion

 

[John P]

One thing is sure here the diamond picture is of the diamond certificate shown.

Agreed. At first glance the image does not seem representative, but that's due to a combination of close obstruction, several degrees off-axis lens to table, and some wild inconsistencies in brillianteering (and possibly cross-working) which are logical, given the producer's desire to save 2ct+ with so little room in the crown.

Also- a magnified photo is pretty much useless in determining if a stone is eye clean.

Preach.

Alternately, magnified photos give proportions clues, but only when the subject diamond, photo setup and leveling cooperate. When you get too much variance - like here where tilt and obstruction overwhelm the half-facets - all bets are off.

 

[John P]

- it is either the wrong cert or the current state of the diamond is not reflected by that cert.

Slight variation on the above: The current state of the diamond is not reflected faithfully by the photo. Here's why...

The steep PA, large table and low crown cause enormous obstruction. In fact, extinction would occupy nearly half the stone if all things were equal. But all things are not equal...

ASET30: 8.17-8.32 63 42.6 29.0 80/55 STK wireframe flat


First, the diamond is out of round enough (8.17-8.32mm) that the thin pavilion mains likely don't create uniform contrast. They wouldn't do this even if the wireframe of the diamond were perfect (like the CG ASET above) and it's decidedly less consistent. That means, even sitting level, the contrast pattern has a footprint that isn't pavilion main-dominant. Next, the diamond in the photo is tilted by quite a few degrees. That causes pattern distortion, as areas normally obstructed in a level photo now start gathering light. When you bring a black camera lens close to such a tilted specimen the result is a combination of irregular areas of extinction while areas usually obstructed may gather light.

It's an example of a stone that may look brighter while tilted than it does straight on.

 

[Karl_K]

To be fair at a glance it does not appear to be the right image.
But if asked could that diamond look like that given the tilt and huge over obstruction then the answer becomes yes it could.
Then if one really cares and has DC you can do as John did and test it.

 

[yssie]

Well I'll be damned. Let me fetch my stockings

Thank you for that very enlightening explanation @John Pollard!

 

[Karl_K]

Now the no DC proof.
Green arrow - Large table
Red arrow - sign of a shallow crown.
overall look - way over-obstructed and tilted.
This is not as sure as the DC method that John used.

 

[LLJsmom]

Slight variation on the above: The current state of the diamond is not reflected faithfully by the photo. Here's why...

The steep PA, large table and low crown cause enormous obstruction. In fact, extinction would occupy nearly half the stone if all things were equal. But all things are not equal...

ASET30: 8.17-8.32 63 42.6 29.0 80/55 STK wireframe flat


First, the diamond is out of round enough (8.17-8.32mm) that the thin pavilion mains likely don't create uniform contrast. They wouldn't do this even if the wireframe of the diamond were perfect (like the CG ASET above) and it's decidedly less consistent. That means, even sitting level, the contrast pattern has a footprint that isn't pavilion main-dominant. Next, the diamond in the photo is tilted by quite a few degrees. That causes pattern distortion, as areas normally obstructed in a level photo now start gathering light. When you bring a black camera lens close to such a tilted specimen the result is a combination of irregular areas of extinction while areas usually obstructed may gather light.

It's an example of a stone that may look brighter while tilted than it does straight on.

Nothing of value to add except that you experts are amazing.

 

[blueMA]

The inner pupil of the diamond on the photo seems to be the biggest throw off besides the pavillion main. It looks as if there's a small pupil table reflection while it should much more dilated on a non-ideal cut diamond of that table size.

 

[John P]

Now the no DC proof.
This is not as sure as the DC method that John used.

Maybe not, but you nailed it and didn't burn up your lunchtime up working on the post.

Well I'll be damned. Let me fetch my stockings Thank you for that very enlightening explanation @John Pollard!

Tip of the hat my friend. We get a bit spoiled here: Even the consumer enthusiasts have become keenly mindful of tilt and obstruction in the shots they post. OTOH, I see images like the one @david b shared with some regularity. One of the courses I instruct for my jeweler-network addresses their magnified diamond photo setup and environment.

 

[flyingpig]

Maybe not, but you nailed it and didn't burn up your lunchtime up working on the post.


Tip of the hat my friend. We get a bit spoiled here: Even the consumer enthusiasts have become keenly mindful of tilt and obstruction in the shots they post. OTOH, I see images like the one @david b shared with some regularity. One of the courses I instruct for my jeweler-network addresses their magnified diamond photo setup and environment.

While I was aware of the diamond is tilted, I, too, was confident that the report and the stone did not match. I looked at several stones at JA ( large table, low CA, low PA). I rotates the diamonds to re-create what I see in OP's photo. It just does not appear anything like that.
https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/l...arat-g-color-vs1-clarity-good-cut-sku-2657035
Having that said, the lighting structures are different in JA videos and OP's photo. Tilt makes it more complex. I did not expect the effect can be so dramatic.
Thank you for great explanation

 

[yssie]

Yup. Wouldn’t have ever guessed obstruction could make that sort of difference on tilt.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yea.
Is this the right GIA report for the diamond? The appearance and light reflection patterns are not what I expect from 63TB/29CA/42.6PA

Wow FP - you are right - the diamond is not the stone on the cert. Good catch