Appraisal question

[Speedbump]

Is it better for the appraiser to evaulate a loose diamond rather than one that is already in a setting? So if I were to buy a loose diamond from an internet seller, I should have them send the diamond to my chosen appraiser. However, if I want a setting from the same internet seller, the appraiser would have to send the diamond back for the seller to mount it on the setting. This is where I''m confused. To ensure the my diamond is actually in the setting, do I have to send it to the appraiser a second time? Or can I just read the numbers (if laser engraved) using a loop?

Some internet sources, like WF, offer so called "free verification":

Every diamond and/or ring that is sold by Whiteflash.com is primarily inspected by our in house expert. In addition, every loose diamond and/or diamond ring is personally inspected by an independent appraiser who issues a signed Letter of Verification confirming:

1. The weight/color/clarity of the diamond and that all measurements match the original grading document from AGS, GIA or EGL.
2. Laser inscriptions (where they apply)
3. Setting details
4. Approximate retail replacement value.

This Letter of Verification accompanies your purchase, confirming the contents of your package and ensuring your secure shopping experience.

Can there "independent" appraiser be trusted?

Thanks for helping out this newbie.

 

[Demelza]

To answer your first question: it probably is better for the appraiser to see the stone loose. That way he/she can really evaluate the color, clarity, etc. Once the stone is mounted, this is not as easy to do. And if you're sending it to them as a condition of purchase, you probably don't want to buy a setting and pay for the stone to be set should you and the appraiser decide it's not the right stone.

Re: your second concern: I haven't personally dealt with WF, but their reputation here is stellar. I don't think you have to worry about them doing anything dishonest. I believe WF has a list of approved appraisers with whom they are willing to work and I would feel quite confident that any of them would be just fine. Good luck!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I usually advise my clients that if they feel good about the stone, feel good about the vendor, and if the vendor supplies comprehensive information regarding the stone (ie major lab report, OGI/Sarin report, IdealScope photo, H&A photos, etc, etc, etc), then it's probably okay to go ahead and have the stone appraised mounted.

This eliminates one shipping charge, one appraisal revision charge and several days of time.

On the other hand, if the client isn't sure about the stone, doesn't know much about the vendor, if the vendor doesn't supply comprehensive information about the stone, or the client is just a cautious person by nature (versus a gambler), then I advise them to let me check it out loose first.

There are some advantages to appraising a diamond loose over mounted, but most appraiser's are able to work around this, especially if there's documentation which supplies information that the appraiser might have difficulty getting because of the mounting. This would be one instance in which I would advise letting the appraiser see any supporting documentation when he's doing the appraisal. If he can't get a precise depth measurement, for example, because of the mounting, he could just use the measurement off the major lab report.

If I were to characterize the accuracy of a loose diamond appraisal as being "100%", I would characterize the accuracy of a mounted diamond appraisal as being "93%". Sometimes that's enough, especially if augmented with independent documentation supplied with the stone (ie, major lab report, etc.)

Here's the things which are a little more difficult to determine with a mounted diamond:

1. The body color is slightly more difficult to determine, because of the influence of the mounting's color, and the difficulty of comparing the diamond face down next to a master stone.

2. Sometimes difficult to get a depth measurement on a mounted stone.

3. You can't get a "hearts" photo of the Hearts & Arrows pattern. (You can get an "arrows" photo).

4. On a very high quality stone (VS1 and up), it's difficult to spot and plot inclusions underneath a prong. With VS2 and lower you can usually spot them by examining the internal reflection on the other side of the stone.

5. You can't do an OGI/Sarin report on a mounted stone.

6. You can't get an exact loose weight.

Most of these problems are solved by referring to the major lab report, and incorporating the vendor's photos and information in the appraisal.

 

[RockDoc]

To add to Richard''s comment about grading while the stone is set.....

You can''t do a firescope test with it mounted...

You can''t do a good light leakage analysis.

You can''t see the corners of a princess cut when set to see if there was damage to the points of the stone

You can''t do a B Scope (if you want it)


Some appraisers can arrange to have the stone set for you. So you have the stone and the ring sent to the appraiser, and it can be examined after the work is done.

The advantage of this is that the appraiser has direct contact with the setter to guide the setter with any issues that he should know.

As far as setting damage, if you have Chubb insurance coverage set up before the stone is set, if something does happen they provide coverage for it.


Rockdoc

 

[Speedbump]

Thanks a lot everyone. You guys "rock!"

 

[MrBleeker]

As far as setting damage, if you have Chubb insurance coverage set up before the stone is set, if something does happen they provide coverage for it.


Rockdoc

Jeweler''s Mutual does this also. There was confusion as to if they actually did provide loose stone coverage while being set, and I spoke to several people high up in their office, and they do in fact provide this coverage to you the consumer. The difference is if a stone is broken or chipped etc, then JM will go after the setter for the money (after getting you a new stone or fixing the old one). If the setter is JM covered, then JM will not go after them for restitution.

 

[jaz464]

Are you sure about this MrBleeker? Their website says it doesn't cover unset stones. I'm interested to know as I am looking for an insurer and apparently Chubb only covers BN stones.

 

[mrssalvo]

Hi jasmine,
I remember in an old thread JM popped in to clarify and what MrBleeker says is true.

ETA: found the thread. you can check it out


here about 1/2 way down the page.

 

[jaz464]

Thanks so much, mrssalvo. That ph # will help me out a lot. I thought I would never find someone to insure my diamond while it is being worked on.

 

[MrBleeker]

Ya, I PM''d the guy who posted on that thread, and I think his avatar shows his status within the company. Either way, I was was told via the phone by 3 different people that they would cover the stone during setting anyways. It doesn''t hurt to call and ask to speak with the guy posted in that thread.

Good luck,

 

[jaz464]

I did call Jeweler''s Mutual and they will cover stones while they are being set but only if they are set by one of their jewelers (one insured by them). This narrows things down quite a bit so I will not be able to use them to insure my diamond.

 

[Regular Guy]

Complicated stuff.

When Rock Doc said...

Date: 9/5/2005 2:53:08 PM
Author: RockDoc

As far as setting damage, if you have Chubb insurance coverage set up before the stone is set, if something does happen they provide coverage for it.

...I had presumed he didn''t suggest this capriciously, as he had earlier also mentioned knowing a Chubb rep covering all 50 states, and so I figured he had come up with a parallel solution to the JM one, which seems to remain both not crystal clear, and perhaps not published as well. Hopefully I was correct, still, and he will advise?

Since so many here do go for the non two fer...(i.e. buying diamond & setting at different locations), such solutions will make many more at peace, no doubt.

Regards,

 

[RockDoc]

HI All....

Yes, I did research this before I posted about it.

There is an issue regarding princess cuts. It appears that it is a VERY PRUDENT decision to have the corners chamferred, before the setting. This has to be done by a diamond cutter. I have two diamond cutters, locally who have done this, but I didn''t want to be caught in the middle, if there was a problem either by the cutter, or the setter.


In fact, I recently had a stone to send to a client that was of a very high value. Chubb told me that they will even cover the insurance for the shipping.... So this very expensive stone, could be insured for far less which saved the client quite a bit of money.

I have a princess now which is an AGS 0 stone that the corners weren''t chamferred, and being anal about these beauties, I have recommended, it be chamferred in advance of sending it to Mark Morrell. I discussed this with Mark, and when I told him that I was getting this done, he was very appreciative, and was impressed at my attention to avoiding any potential setting problems, as he told me that it is incredibly less risky to have had that done in advance of his work.

Rockdoc

 

[MrBleeker]

Date: 9/6/2005 3:49:37 PM
Author: jazmine
I did call Jeweler''s Mutual and they will cover stones while they are being set but only if they are set by one of their jewelers (one insured by them). This narrows things down quite a bit so I will not be able to use them to insure my diamond.

Jazmine,

From my understanding, this is NOT correct.

They will cover any one who sets your stone. The only difference is if something happens, whether they go after the setter or not. This is straight from that same thread that was posted above, and also verbally from two JM agents. Several of their agents do not know their own policies I fear.

 

[MrBleeker]

Jazmine,

One more thing; PM Tom or Jeff from the previous posted thread link. They have the final say in the matters of insurance,

 

[MrBleeker]

Quote from Jeff:

" The restitution from a wrongdoer(for negligence) is termed subrogation in insurance. An insurers responsibility is to fulfill the contract for their policyholder first and then pursue restitution. Thus we would pay and then pursue the (non- JM insured) regardless if they had insurance to cover this or not."