Would you ever buy an SI3/I1 diamond?

[PumpkinsAreAwesome]

In addition to OWD, JBEG, and LAD, I've been working to Ilya from mydiamondzone who has been very responsive and helpful.

One of the diamonds Ilya recommended for light performance is the following:
CARAT WEIGHT: 1.48
COLOR: I
CLARITY: SI3 (according to Ilya it's 100% eyeclean)
MEASURE: 7.1m diameter
DEPTH: 66
TABLE: 44
POLISH: Forgot to ask
SYMMETRY: Forgot to ask
GIRDLE: Thin to Medium
FLUORESCENCE: None
CULET: Forgot to ask
EGL report: None yet. Ilya has yet to send it to EGL for grading.
Price: $3,900
Videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbDxpwtd4iM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWSE7a7i2v0


The videos look surprisingly promising for an SI3/I1. Has anyone ever had luck purchasing a diamond their liking of this low clarity?

 

[southLA504]

Honestly, as far as clarity goes in my opinion, if it's eye clean, i'll go as low as possible to save money. I would have zero problem buying an I1 if it was eye clean. Use that money you would save to upgrade the diamond in other areas.

I don't care if it's a VVS1 or an SI2, if it's eye clean it's eye clean, now thing you CAN see the difference in, like carat and color, of course you would want to upgrade those things.

Would you rather an eye clean diamond that is 2 carats and the same color grade, or an eye clean 1 carat of the same color with eye clean clarity?

You have people out there that will pay more money just for the piece of mind to know they have a VVS, but personally I'm not one of them.

With jewelry there is no set in stone answer, it's opinion, and the best opinion I can give u is if u like it, get it!!!

 

[foxinsox]

My OEC is an EGL SI3 altho a local appraiser has since graded it as VS2. I think the main inclusion is a small chip on one of the crown facets which is almost wholly covered by a prong. There are a few tiny other inclusions on the EGL chart.
So yes I'd go for an SI3 if I could see the map of the inclusions and could see that it doesn't affect the way the stone reflects and handles light.

 

[Dancing Fire]

IMO no such grade as SI3..

 

[denverappraiser]

SI3=I1 spelled differently.

That said, I have no problem with I1's.

I don't even have a problem with not being 'eye clean'. A tiny inclusion that requires careful inspection to find drops the price dramatically. Sometimes in half. That can come back either in the form of a bigger stone, better color or cutting, or just money in the bank. Those are entirely reasonable trade offs and the diamond selection process is all about trade offs. The problem comes when people don't know that's what they're doing. What people WANT is a 2 carat D/IF because she's worth it. That lasts until they see the price. Yikes! This can't be serious! That starts a negotiation, and the negotiation is driven by price. What are you willing to give up to get the price down to where it needs to be and what needs to stay? This doesn't go the same for everyone but there's a definite set of advice online. Eye clean SI2. No fluorescence. G-I color. Ideal cutting (by some definition). It's not that there's anything wrong with any of those things, but none are either mandatory or even necessarily better. Buy what you like but do it with both eyes open.

That's my problem with SI3. The stone is whatever it is but the description is being provided for the purpose of justifying the price and making it 'sound' better. To me it's deliberately misleading. If it's an I1, call it an I1. There's nothing wrong with that. If it's better than the average I1 and commands a better price because of it, charge a higher price and sell it on it's merits. That's the jeweler's job, not the lab's.

 

[distracts]

I would absolutely buy an I1 diamond if I found the inclusions tolerable, loved the stone's appearance, the inclusions wouldn't impact durability, and the price was right. I don't even care if it's not eye clean as long as I can't easily locate the inclusion. If it's a clear crystal that doesn't reflect around the stone but that I can see if I hold my hand still a foot away from my face? I am totally cool with that. A black crystal obvious if I do that? Not so much. Plenty of people on PS are much stricter about inclusions than I am. I've seen plenty of I1 diamonds where the inclusions wouldn't be seen under normal circumstances by most people and don't impact the overall performance of the diamond, and those are just fine by me.

 

[motownmama]

That about sums it up for me.

 

[akoya]

Err in not sure. I placed deposit for si2 diamonds n saw one with inclusions under scope that I wasn't keen in. Took another one though also in si2 but the lights r too bright for me to check them out if they r eye clean or not
I have seen si2 or si1 n see the inclusions. One thing is I have great eyesight. So sometimes I wonder does one's eye clean = the other one's eye clean ... If u get what I mean

 

[telephone89]

I would absolutely buy an I1 diamond if I found the inclusions tolerable, loved the stone's appearance, the inclusions wouldn't impact durability, and the price was right. I don't even care if it's not eye clean as long as I can't easily locate the inclusion. If it's a clear crystal that doesn't reflect around the stone but that I can see if I hold my hand still a foot away from my face? I am totally cool with that. A black crystal obvious if I do that? Not so much. Plenty of people on PS are much stricter about inclusions than I am. I've seen plenty of I1 diamonds where the inclusions wouldn't be seen under normal circumstances by most people and don't impact the overall performance of the diamond, and those are just fine by me.

+1.

Some folk are mind clean, and this would drive them crazy, but if I can't really see it (especially something prongable) I wouldn't mind. I am nearsighted and can spot quite a few inclusions if I TRY to. I've said it before that a diamond is a natural substance, and inclusions are par for the course.

 

[telephone89]

Err in not sure. I placed deposit for si2 diamonds n saw one with inclusions under scope that I wasn't keen in. Took another one though also in si2 but the lights r too bright for me to check them out if they r eye clean or not
I have seen si2 or si1 n see the inclusions. One thing is I have great eyesight. So sometimes I wonder does one's eye clean = the other one's eye clean ... If u get what I mean

Most places will give you their definition of eye clean - ie eye clean w/ 20/20 vision from 10" away (or 6", 8", 12", etc). You can ask this.

 

[AdaBeta27]

What denverappraiser said. I'd rather have cut, size, and color. I seek those great SI2 and I1 stones because making that clarity tradeoff is wise and keeps me from "wasting"money on things that I (almost) can't see. Someone else might not find that tradeoff acceptable. I still have great eyesight, but I don't spend as much time staring closely into diamonds as I did when I got, say, my e-ring, or my first H&A.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I couldn't do lower than SI1 for a ring stone, so don't go by my opinion on clarity! But the one thing I would absolutely recommend avoiding is an I1 with a primary feather (crack) inclusion. That could be big trouble if you hit the stone just right.

 

[737liz]

Yes. I have been looking for an I2/3 since 2002! I want an excellent cut, d-g color, and for the diamond to have absolutely no inclusions EXCEPT tiny black carbon dots suspended IN the diamond, but for the surface to be unmarked. And over 1.5 ct.

I wanted to do a rubover setting (it was 2002!) with grey diamond accent stones. Sounds awful now, but I still want that I3.

Go ahead and laugh, pretty much every jeweler who I've asked has.

 

[solgen]

Why send it to EGL for grading when they are notoriously poor? I've seen quite a few OECs online and they always seem to be EGL certed? Any particular reason for this? Does GIA or AGS really ding OECs and give them poor ratings for cut, sym or polish?

 

[adom]

diamond seeker - You brought up a point that I would love to learn more about. How does one sort out what inclusions are a structural concern and which are just for appearances? You make reference to a "primary feather". Can you expound on that as well? Thanks

 

[kb1gra]

Why send it to EGL for grading when they are notoriously poor? I've seen quite a few OECs online and they always seem to be EGL certed? Any particular reason for this? Does GIA or AGS really ding OECs and give them poor ratings for cut, sym or polish?

That's exactly it. An OEC, even a good one, is likely to have at least some asymmetry and since the faceting is obviously completely off the mark vis a vis a standard MRB, these stones get dinged with deal-killing poor or fair grades.

 

[ariel144]

I would absolutely buy an I1 diamond if I found the inclusions tolerable, loved the stone's appearance, the inclusions wouldn't impact durability, and the price was right. I don't even care if it's not eye clean as long as I can't easily locate the inclusion. If it's a clear crystal that doesn't reflect around the stone but that I can see if I hold my hand still a foot away from my face? I am totally cool with that. A black crystal obvious if I do that? Not so much. Plenty of people on PS are much stricter about inclusions than I am. I've seen plenty of I1 diamonds where the inclusions wouldn't be seen under normal circumstances by most people and don't impact the overall performance of the diamond, and those are just fine by me.

DITTO on all the above...to me high clarity is way over rated and just jacks up the price. Would not go for any noticeable black inclusions though. My daughter found a diamond ring and wore it...never could see ANY inclusions but was an I1 grade by Bailey Banks and Biddle when we had it appraised. Most inclusions are not noticeable to most people. "mind clean" ...fine if you want to pay for it, but I've seen stones on JA that were VS2 with a little black booger under the table.

Good luck on your search.

 

[ariel144]

What denverappraiser said. I'd rather have cut, size, and color. I seek those great SI2 and I1 stones because making that clarity tradeoff is wise and keeps me from "wasting"money on things that I (almost) can't see. Someone else might not find that tradeoff acceptable. I still have great eyesight, but I don't spend as much time staring closely into diamonds as I did when I got, say, my e-ring, or my first H&A.

DITTO on all the above too. In Real life these stones are so tiny that most inclusions are not seen with the eye when one glances at your diamond...what you want is performance/cut....online they are magnified as are the inclusions.

 

[LLJsmom]

Probably not. I am one of those mind-clean types. I can really close once to buying an E, I1 for an earring, but went with a G, SI1. I am REALLY glad I did and never regretted it. (BIG THANKS TO DIAMONDSEEKER!!) I know that it would bug me knowing that there were these inclusions. I think an I1 could be right in some situations, like for a necklace if the inclusions were clear. But I am one of those who would pay more for mind-clean. Not wasting money if it is for my sanity.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Probably not. I am one of those mind-clean types. I can really close once to buying an E, I1 for an earring, but went with a G, SI1. I am REALLY glad I did and never regretted it. (BIG THANKS TO DIAMONDSEEKER!!) I know that it would bug me knowing that there were these inclusions. I think an I1 could be right in some situations, like for a necklace if the inclusions were clear. But I am one of those who would pay more for mind-clean. Not wasting money if it is for my sanity.

I surely am thankful you are glad for that decision! I went on to copy you and get studs almost the same size and love them!

Mind clean means a lot to me, but even more so, I like to know I am collecting things of quality to leave my daughters and granddaughters.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

diamond seeker - You brought up a point that I would love to learn more about. How does one sort out what inclusions are a structural concern and which are just for appearances? You make reference to a "primary feather". Can you expound on that as well? Thanks

The inclusion listed first is the primary inclusion; the most significant. A feather certainly may not be visible to the eye, but if you have a large crack in the stone (feather is a nice way of saying it) that reaches to the girdle, I would not consider the stone for a ring. I guess in earrings or a pendant the stone would be more safe from hitting things, but in a ring, there could be a risk. I'd rather have a black carbon spot somewhere, really.

 

[LLJsmom]

Probably not. I am one of those mind-clean types. I can really close once to buying an E, I1 for an earring, but went with a G, SI1. I am REALLY glad I did and never regretted it. (BIG THANKS TO DIAMONDSEEKER!!) I know that it would bug me knowing that there were these inclusions. I think an I1 could be right in some situations, like for a necklace if the inclusions were clear. But I am one of those who would pay more for mind-clean. Not wasting money if it is for my sanity.

I surely am thankful you are glad for that decision! I went on to copy you and get studs almost the same size and love them!

Mind clean means a lot to me, but even more so, I like to know I am collecting things of quality to leave my daughters and granddaughters.

DIAMONDSEEKER, that is what really convinced me in the end. That does matter to me, a lot. In the excitement and hype of potentially saving some money, I can forget. Thank you for reminding me.