What is SI3?

[oldminer]

It needs to be clearly said that a diamond graded SI3 is a GIA I1. My lab is constantly hounded
by dealers that we grade diamonds for to allow the SI3 grade to be applied to their "better I1" diamonds. We could readily do this, but the consequences are that some consumers are then mislead in the belief that their SI3 is somehow not a GIA I1. No dealer, with half a brain, would want a legitimately SI2 GIA clarity grade diamond to be rated SI3 by any lab. Virtually the only diamonds being rated SI3 are the upper range of GIA I1. SI3 is not a GIA term and should not be confused with the GIA system. Labs that insert SI3 into an otherwise GIA clarity system are doing something that they would probably not want done to themselves or their friends and families.

I have personally graded many GIA I1 diamonds which were just fine for use in jewelry and were completely attractive. It is meaningless to add SI3 into the clarity grading scheme when it is without any distinct meaning other than the top 1/2 or top 1/3 of I1 GIA..... I1 is I1 and what you call it changes nothing.

Very few independent appraisers use SI3. Be careful when you see it and just say to yourself, "Oh, a nicer I1". Then check it out, because it might not be a "nicer" stone after all. Grading remains "subjective" and SI3 sounds so much nicer, so we are told, to consumers. To me, it does not sound "nicer", but that is a subjective, personal opinion.

 

[joycer]

As a consumer, when I hear that something is "SI3" it triggers an alarm for me. It makes me think that the person selling it is trying to pass off an I clarity diamond for an SI grade diamond, and they lose a lot of credibility with me at that instant. I would much rather have a dealer say, " I have a great looking I1 diamond here that would save you some money". Although the stone may acutally fit the EGL SI3 grade, it still feels like they are "lying" to me, so I commend your efforts not cave in to include it in your scale and to the other merchants here who do the same.

-joycer

 

[RockDoc]

SI-3!!!

Dave is being courteous.. in his reply, but his post is well taken.

The consumer post I feel is more appropriate.

Most consumers don''t want any I clarity graded stones, so they send to labs that issue the SI-3 grade.

The GIA grading "standard" which of course is followed by GIA, AGS and most appraisers, is the standard.

I believe that many stones submitted by dealers acutally have been graded by several labs, and they choose the "best" report to offer the stone for sale. This is how IGI and EGL gets business for this grade of stones. Unfortunately, many sellers would prefer this on stones of this level, so they won''t be informing consumers of the "real" standard that exists to make a sale and have to inform consumers of the stone actually being an I-1 or lower.

Once you add a grade to the already exisiting "standard"....is has to affect the surrounding grades. As I''ve written before, consumers should pick a stone graded under GIA standards, rather than some others which may or may not equally compare with the GIA standard.

If a lab or appraiser wants to use different standards then they SHOULD not use the same or similar nomenclature as GIA and if this is so it should clearly be noted in the report, that their VS or SI grade MAY or may not be equivalent to other labs ( GIA & AGS).

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 ?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

this 1ct stone was graded H SI2 by EGL Israel.

So what do their SI3''s look like?

I bought this stone as an example of bad grading. Good news was it cost no where near as much as a real 1.00H sI2

 

[Richard Sherwood]

As an appraiser reporting the reality of the marketplace, and how it affects the value of my client's diamond, I feel obligated to report as accurate a grading as possible on their stone.

In the marketplace, there is a definite price niche for the "VERY high I1", one of those diamonds which is soooooooo close to the GIA SI2 grade, but for one reason or another didn't QUITE make it.

Over the years, this grade began to be unofficially called "SI3" by dealers. They would pay more for this grade, and sell it for more than a "mainstream" I1. I know because I used to routinely pay more for this grade myself while I was dealing. Then Tom Tashey at the EGL had the guts to reflect this marketplace reality by actually issuing this grade, while Martin Rapaport began to report the reality of the SI3 pricing level in his pricing guide.

This was not all based in fantasy, but in the reality that there was a top end range of I1's which were commanding more money in the marketplace. Dealers would pay more for an "SI3" over a mainstream I1, and they would sell it for more to jewelers. Jewelers would then charge more to consumers for this grade.

Accordingly, this grade has been endorsed in the year 2000 meeting of the World Diamond Congress and recognized by the World Federation of Diamond Bourses. We're talking world organizations here, with every bit the marketplace stature of the GIA. These people deal in the reality of diamond pricing every day. GIA merely reports the factors influencing it, and are sometimes incomplete in reporting all those factors. Take for example their non-reporting of cut quality for so many years, their wide range of grading regarding fancy color diamonds, and their non-reporting of a clarity feature which has a definite effect on pricing (SI3).

As an appraiser, I feel it is my duty to report any factors which influence the value of my client's property. Take the following example as a case in point:

The Rapaport Price Guide (used as a reference by every diamond dealer I know), lists the following wholesale values for a 3 carat G I1 versus a 3 carat G SI3:

3 ct. G I1 : $5900 per carat
3 ct. G SI3: $7400 per carat

As you can see, we're talking about a lot of money here. A 20% difference in price, that translates in the neighborhood of $3,000 on the wholesale level, and even more retail.

Again, this difference is a reality in the marketplace. If, as an appraiser I do not report this legitimate price difference to my client should he happen to own a "legitimate" SI3, am I doing him a service, or a dis-service?

SGL issues the SI3 grade when warranted. This is actually very seldom, but there are definitely instances when it most accurately describes the clarity grade of the stone. When used it is clearly identified as a "non-GIA" grading term with a explanation attached in a blurb as to it's history and definition.

 

[Patty]

This is one of my GIA I-1s:

Even with my loupe, I cannot see the feathers (they are under or near prongs) and I have never seen the "cloud" near the bottom. The only thing with my loupe that I can see is the two sections of black dots. I can see nothing with my naked eye.

 

[oldminer]

Rich: I agree there is a price for better I1 stones that is higher than lower I1 stones. The SI3 on Rapaport is strictly an AVERAGE of I1 and SI2 price grid blocks, not a true market report as any opf the other grids are "supposed to" be. Check it out and see if this is not still the case. SI3 is a fact, but a misused process in many places. You and I could use it properly, but the big ones who do use it are more abusive than helpful with it.

 

[Christy42]

Hey guys,

I''m not trying to hijack the thread but I think this is related. I was told by a jeweler the other day that an SI shouldn''t be graded as an SI if it''s not eyeclean. Is that true? I always thought that an SI may or may not be eyeclean. My SI1 does have an inclusion that I can see but that is only because that is where a prong used to be and I know where it is. It is very minute and no one else would ever notice it. Any thoughts?

 

[oldminer]

SI in an ideal world or system should be "eye-clean", but the real world and the actual system employed does not correspond clarity grading to eye-cleanliness in a direct way. It could be that way. The system would be different and it would not be popular with diamond dealers. It would eliminate an area of the "subjectivity excuse".

 

[Christy42]

Thanks Dave. I was interested in some rings on a website but virtually all of the clarities were SI and below. I was questioning whether they were eyeclean as I have seen many that weren''t. and you know how misleading pictures can be......I have to admit that their standards on SI''s and I''s seem to be stringent so I would have more confidence buying from afar.....She said that their I''s had to be eyeclean to be acceptable! How about that? I''ll let you guys know how it turns out.