Chip discovered AFTER purchase
- Thread starter Hannahsb21
- Start date
- Status
aljdewey
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 9,170
Date: 3/3/2005 7:402 PM
Author: Hannahsb21
Will get back to all on this tomorrow, but for anyone who doubts, we didn't chip the stone.
First, Hannah, let me say again (since it seems it was missed the first time)......I do NOT think you chipped the stone. Not at all. I thought I was pretty clear about that. I believe the version you've told us.
My point was, it was *possible* for anything to have happened to the stone once it left the seller's possession, and because of that *possibility*, it's tough to make a conclusive case on it.
Actually, it's not very simple at all by this statement. In order for you to derive any meaning from a grading report, you first have to know what the data is based on and how to interpret it.Date: 3/3/2005 7:402 PM
Author: Hannahsb21
It is actually very simple, the stone has a chip that though you can't see with a loop, exists, therefore making the cert that was guarenteed to me fraud
The clarity grade on a grading report reflects what can be seen at 10x magnification. As such, a diamond may have a flaw at 60x mag, but if you cannot see it at 10x mag, then it's graded IF. If you cannot see this chip with a loupe (which is 10x mag), then for *grading* purposes, it doesn't exist.
As such, the grading report wasn't "fradulent". It would only be fraudulent if the chip COULD be seen at 10x mag, and the grading report said it was IF.
The grading report says it's "IF" at 10x mag, and it is (which you've confirmed because you've said it cannot be seen at 10x mag).
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
I''m confused....
You said you loved this stone from the first time?
So you still love it? Or is it unsuable now that it has this chip?
Maybe this is an after-the-fact type comment but princess stones are very prone to chipping if the girdle is thinner which many times it is. Do you know if your girdle is thin?
As one of the other appraisers noted, picking up a stone like this with tweezers could maybe even cause this.
I have used Nancy a few times and think she is great. But I would get a 2nd opinion, why not? Just to ensure that the situation for repolishing is as you say...but to be frank, as MANY others have noted here...you said 60x mag the chip can be seen. That is major major magnification. If at 60x mag you can see it, chances are at regular viewing you can''t...hence you didn''t even know it was there until you took it to someone who mag''d it. Nancy''s suggestion seems drastic and it''s only one opinion....why not get another to confirm? Or maybe they will tell you something else..something more heartening!
Lastly, there is no fraud in terms of the report. As so many others have told you, 10x mag is how diamonds are graded. That is how the EGL/GIA/AGS reports are created. No one loupes it at 40x mag or 60x mag and grades a stone. Therefore, if the chip is not visible at 10x, it would NOT be required to be put on a grading report! So there''s no fraud.
I agree with those who are saying calm down and look at the facts rather than getting any lawyers or drama involved. Those who have an intimate knowledge of the jewelry industry and diamonds, aka Dave, CrankyDave, Neil etc who see diamonds every day, day in and day out, are probably the best people to listen to...as they may have seen experiences like this before. Why not send the diamond to Dave Atlas to look at...he''s very experienced and would be great as a second opinion.
It''s unfortunate that Tony doesn''t want to assist, but the fact is that you now own this diamond, Tony is no help at all, and you have to figure out what to do to move fwd. I guess the bottom line is...DO YOU STILL LOVE THIS STONE? If so, get over the chip and just have it set--if it''s possible. Chances are your diamond will chip anyway again over time...when we appraised with Nancy Stacy she told me that over time and years of wearing a stone, small chips happen and they cannot be prevented. If you can''t have it set as is, get it polished and lose only the minimal, then get it set.
Whatever else, enjoy the stone.
You said you loved this stone from the first time?
So you still love it? Or is it unsuable now that it has this chip?
Maybe this is an after-the-fact type comment but princess stones are very prone to chipping if the girdle is thinner which many times it is. Do you know if your girdle is thin?
As one of the other appraisers noted, picking up a stone like this with tweezers could maybe even cause this.
I have used Nancy a few times and think she is great. But I would get a 2nd opinion, why not? Just to ensure that the situation for repolishing is as you say...but to be frank, as MANY others have noted here...you said 60x mag the chip can be seen. That is major major magnification. If at 60x mag you can see it, chances are at regular viewing you can''t...hence you didn''t even know it was there until you took it to someone who mag''d it. Nancy''s suggestion seems drastic and it''s only one opinion....why not get another to confirm? Or maybe they will tell you something else..something more heartening!
Lastly, there is no fraud in terms of the report. As so many others have told you, 10x mag is how diamonds are graded. That is how the EGL/GIA/AGS reports are created. No one loupes it at 40x mag or 60x mag and grades a stone. Therefore, if the chip is not visible at 10x, it would NOT be required to be put on a grading report! So there''s no fraud.
I agree with those who are saying calm down and look at the facts rather than getting any lawyers or drama involved. Those who have an intimate knowledge of the jewelry industry and diamonds, aka Dave, CrankyDave, Neil etc who see diamonds every day, day in and day out, are probably the best people to listen to...as they may have seen experiences like this before. Why not send the diamond to Dave Atlas to look at...he''s very experienced and would be great as a second opinion.
It''s unfortunate that Tony doesn''t want to assist, but the fact is that you now own this diamond, Tony is no help at all, and you have to figure out what to do to move fwd. I guess the bottom line is...DO YOU STILL LOVE THIS STONE? If so, get over the chip and just have it set--if it''s possible. Chances are your diamond will chip anyway again over time...when we appraised with Nancy Stacy she told me that over time and years of wearing a stone, small chips happen and they cannot be prevented. If you can''t have it set as is, get it polished and lose only the minimal, then get it set.
Whatever else, enjoy the stone.
PLEASE TAKE THIS STONE TO GIA LAB. LET THEM ANALYZE ALL THE FACTS.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE EGL DIAMOND REPORT, COULD THIS DIAMOND HAVE A DESCRIPTIVE GRADE OF A NATURAL OR A CHIP ON THE REPORT.
WAS THIS DIAMOND LOOSE OR MOUNTED?
DID THE OTHER EXPERTS GIVE YOU A WRITTEN REPORT. COMPARE ALL THE EXPERTS NOTES. SPEAK TO FEW EXPERT MASTER DIAMOND CUTTER IN NEW YORK DISTRICT. SEE WHAT THERE ANSWER IS.
AFTER ALL, THEY WILL DETERMINE HOW MANY POINTS WILL YOU LOOSE.
IT''S A VERY DIFFICULT TIME FOR YOU NOW, JUST TAKE ONE STEP AT A TIME.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE EGL DIAMOND REPORT, COULD THIS DIAMOND HAVE A DESCRIPTIVE GRADE OF A NATURAL OR A CHIP ON THE REPORT.
WAS THIS DIAMOND LOOSE OR MOUNTED?
DID THE OTHER EXPERTS GIVE YOU A WRITTEN REPORT. COMPARE ALL THE EXPERTS NOTES. SPEAK TO FEW EXPERT MASTER DIAMOND CUTTER IN NEW YORK DISTRICT. SEE WHAT THERE ANSWER IS.
AFTER ALL, THEY WILL DETERMINE HOW MANY POINTS WILL YOU LOOSE.
IT''S A VERY DIFFICULT TIME FOR YOU NOW, JUST TAKE ONE STEP AT A TIME.
Hannahsb21
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 20
Hi Deb,
Just wanted to say thanks so much for your support, felt like you heard me and read the post all the way through. Feels very good.
: )
Hannah
Just wanted to say thanks so much for your support, felt like you heard me and read the post all the way through. Feels very good.
: )
Hannah
Hannahsb21
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 20
OK
Again, it is clear how the stone was chipped, three, three jewelers confirmed this. (because of the chip/sliver/whatever, it is not possible that could have done this with tweezers, it had to be in setting or removing when the stone undergoes the most pressure.) I appreciate the advice to take it to Nancy, but I already have. I appreciate the advice to get a second opinion, but I have had three.
When I went to buy the stone I did not anticipate getting an internally flawless or F color. I was thinking G and as long as there were no mosquitos in it. However, when I say this stone, it was the first after a month of looking that one really caught my eye and I knew instantly that it was the one I wanted. When I found out about it''s quality and additional cost, I felt that it was ok for two reasons, one I loved it and two I felt like i was getting a really quality and fairly unique stone.
When we found out about the chip my heart was broken because i was told it had to be cut, polished and would loose it''s fire, all these things that felt really bad. Before freaking out we got more opinions and have a good hold on our options. 1. recut 2. polish 3. set in corners if we can find someone exceptionally reputable who says it is ok. None of these options, just for the record, are what I signed up for or paid 7,500 for. Of course this isn''t a huge amount of money, but if the story was here is an awesome diamond for 7500 and when you get home you have to get it cut of have it set with a chip, totally changing the value, I am pretty confident I wouldn''t buy the stone. It wasn''t here is a great stone with a tiny chip in it, it was here you go! lucky you! near perfect stone with no inclusions or issues!
I agree that it is possible that Tony may have not known that the stone was chipped, but when i quickly reported it to him, with three individuals to confirm and an official report from a forensic gemologist, he should have returned it. Wow, this turns out not to be what I told her it was, that is my mistake and I will gladly fix the situation because I am completely capable of making that choice, and I stand by my product as well as my word. This is what I would expect from a reputable "master" jeweler. That fact that he was unwilling to honor the situation tells me something else is going on.
I also respect jewelers instantly defending their own. This reflects poorly on all jewelers. And as far as running to court, my options would have to be the bleakest of the bleak to go that far. Though I understand this isn''t about any dollar amount, it is very much about principal, you have to choose your battles and decide what moves are truely in your best interest. It is definatley an option, but honeslty I hope that I can find ways around the situation that are better than that. No need to take this lying down, but don''t necessarily need to demolish someone either.
So here I am. Wanting to let people know what happened and do whatever I can lawfully to show Tony that he can''t do business the way he did with me, and expect me to walk away with my tail between my legs. I am impressed that so many questions are raised and opinions proposed, in this we are keeping eachother honest.
Again, it is clear how the stone was chipped, three, three jewelers confirmed this. (because of the chip/sliver/whatever, it is not possible that could have done this with tweezers, it had to be in setting or removing when the stone undergoes the most pressure.) I appreciate the advice to take it to Nancy, but I already have. I appreciate the advice to get a second opinion, but I have had three.
When I went to buy the stone I did not anticipate getting an internally flawless or F color. I was thinking G and as long as there were no mosquitos in it. However, when I say this stone, it was the first after a month of looking that one really caught my eye and I knew instantly that it was the one I wanted. When I found out about it''s quality and additional cost, I felt that it was ok for two reasons, one I loved it and two I felt like i was getting a really quality and fairly unique stone.
When we found out about the chip my heart was broken because i was told it had to be cut, polished and would loose it''s fire, all these things that felt really bad. Before freaking out we got more opinions and have a good hold on our options. 1. recut 2. polish 3. set in corners if we can find someone exceptionally reputable who says it is ok. None of these options, just for the record, are what I signed up for or paid 7,500 for. Of course this isn''t a huge amount of money, but if the story was here is an awesome diamond for 7500 and when you get home you have to get it cut of have it set with a chip, totally changing the value, I am pretty confident I wouldn''t buy the stone. It wasn''t here is a great stone with a tiny chip in it, it was here you go! lucky you! near perfect stone with no inclusions or issues!
I agree that it is possible that Tony may have not known that the stone was chipped, but when i quickly reported it to him, with three individuals to confirm and an official report from a forensic gemologist, he should have returned it. Wow, this turns out not to be what I told her it was, that is my mistake and I will gladly fix the situation because I am completely capable of making that choice, and I stand by my product as well as my word. This is what I would expect from a reputable "master" jeweler. That fact that he was unwilling to honor the situation tells me something else is going on.
I also respect jewelers instantly defending their own. This reflects poorly on all jewelers. And as far as running to court, my options would have to be the bleakest of the bleak to go that far. Though I understand this isn''t about any dollar amount, it is very much about principal, you have to choose your battles and decide what moves are truely in your best interest. It is definatley an option, but honeslty I hope that I can find ways around the situation that are better than that. No need to take this lying down, but don''t necessarily need to demolish someone either.
So here I am. Wanting to let people know what happened and do whatever I can lawfully to show Tony that he can''t do business the way he did with me, and expect me to walk away with my tail between my legs. I am impressed that so many questions are raised and opinions proposed, in this we are keeping eachother honest.
I''ve gotta ask - and to be answered by a benchmen, jeweler, appraiser, gemologist. How in world can a "something" that can *only* be seen under *60x* be a problem with the integrity of the stone & the setting of such?
This is not necessarily this particular stone - but *any* stone. It would seem to me a non-issue.
This is not necessarily this particular stone - but *any* stone. It would seem to me a non-issue.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
I just saw this posting. You are welcome. I certainly hope that when one has a problem that s/he will receive support and caring advice on how to deal with the problem here. Pricescope has been a wonderful community for me and helped me immensely when I was trying to find stones. I hope it will become a warm home for you, too, Hannah.
Deb
What does grading under 10x mean....?
I think we all will agree, that every individual has varying eyesight and the ability to see things.
Every gemologist has varied abilities to see as well.
So given this fact, how can a standard be set to everyone''s individual abilities?
The procedure to accomplish this is fairly easy, and makes common sense, although it will vary from person to person.
The first logical conclusion based on varying eyesight is to attempt to make an equal standard for everyone.
Hunting for an unknown at 10x is not the way this is accomplished. After the inclusion(s) is found at whatever power is necessary based on the personal ability of the grader.
This is my procedure:
1. The stone is examined without magnification
2. The stone is then examined in many positions under 10x. I then make a mental note of how easy it is to view what inclusions are in the stone.
3. I gradually increase the power and examine the stone using the zoom feature on the microscope. If I find an inclusion, I zoom back to 10x to see if I still can see it. If so ( and usually it is visible at 10x ) it gets consideration in the grading and goes on the plot.
4. Identify the inclusion ... This can take even higher power than 60x to identify it. It is rare, but I have examined stones also using the "doubler lens" which can be increased to 120x in order to see the detail of a tiny inclusion. However, the amount of times I felt using the doubler lens I tell you is exceptionally uncommon.
WHY IS HIGH POWER NECESSARY? Usually 60x is sufficient to find most inclusions, but the inclusion also must be identified as to what kind of inclusions it is. What might appear to be a very tiny pinpoint, may be a crystal that is minute. In order to establish this, it is necessary to see and examine the inclusion at higher power.
Nearsightendness and Farsightedness.
Nearsightness is the ability to see small objects easier than someone with uncorrected 20/20 vision. The opposite holds true for those who are farsighted. This also has to be considered.
I hope this more clearly explains how there is a gemological equal standard is achieved with factoring in varying abilities to see inclusions. This should make sense to most readers here. Grading with just using a loupe isn''t accurate, even many times for the trained and well experienced eye, so if your aren''t an expert, what are your chances of grading correctly and accurately?
Rockdoc
I think we all will agree, that every individual has varying eyesight and the ability to see things.
Every gemologist has varied abilities to see as well.
So given this fact, how can a standard be set to everyone''s individual abilities?
The procedure to accomplish this is fairly easy, and makes common sense, although it will vary from person to person.
The first logical conclusion based on varying eyesight is to attempt to make an equal standard for everyone.
Hunting for an unknown at 10x is not the way this is accomplished. After the inclusion(s) is found at whatever power is necessary based on the personal ability of the grader.
This is my procedure:
1. The stone is examined without magnification
2. The stone is then examined in many positions under 10x. I then make a mental note of how easy it is to view what inclusions are in the stone.
3. I gradually increase the power and examine the stone using the zoom feature on the microscope. If I find an inclusion, I zoom back to 10x to see if I still can see it. If so ( and usually it is visible at 10x ) it gets consideration in the grading and goes on the plot.
4. Identify the inclusion ... This can take even higher power than 60x to identify it. It is rare, but I have examined stones also using the "doubler lens" which can be increased to 120x in order to see the detail of a tiny inclusion. However, the amount of times I felt using the doubler lens I tell you is exceptionally uncommon.
WHY IS HIGH POWER NECESSARY? Usually 60x is sufficient to find most inclusions, but the inclusion also must be identified as to what kind of inclusions it is. What might appear to be a very tiny pinpoint, may be a crystal that is minute. In order to establish this, it is necessary to see and examine the inclusion at higher power.
Nearsightendness and Farsightedness.
Nearsightness is the ability to see small objects easier than someone with uncorrected 20/20 vision. The opposite holds true for those who are farsighted. This also has to be considered.
I hope this more clearly explains how there is a gemological equal standard is achieved with factoring in varying abilities to see inclusions. This should make sense to most readers here. Grading with just using a loupe isn''t accurate, even many times for the trained and well experienced eye, so if your aren''t an expert, what are your chances of grading correctly and accurately?
Rockdoc
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,484
Off topic - but why dont labs charge more to grade IF / VVS than SI?
You never need to bother with 60X analysis which can take 2-3 hours in an IF / VVS1 grading.
You never need to bother with 60X analysis which can take 2-3 hours in an IF / VVS1 grading.
I think the labs average out the time spent on grading. Sure it takes a lot longer for an IF or VVS, but an SI-2 doesn''t take that long, unless it has a lot of inclusions to plot.
In a court case, I had to submit a stone to GIA that was an I-3. When I picked it up, I did hear some comments about how long it took to plot the stone. The of course were stumped as to why anyone would spend the lab fee to grade a horrible stone.
Conversely, if you''re a lab and make a mistake on an IF , that someone else finds something minute in it, the liability the seller and the lab face can be a little messy. So you do need to look at an IF or VVS stone, with varying magnification to make sure you found "everything."
Rockdoc
So it sort of averages out.
Hi Dave....Date: 3/5/2005 8:57:31 AM
Author: crankydave
Usually 60x is sufficient to find most inclusions, but the inclusion also must be identified as to what kind of inclusions it is. What might appear to be a very tiny pinpoint, may be a crystal that is minute. In order to establish this, it is necessary to see and examine the inclusion at higher power.
I can certainly appreciate the need to identify the type of inclusion under 60X + magnification once it's found.
Are you also saying that one should look for inclusions at 60X + and then back off to see if they can see them at 10X? To what magnification should one be accurate? Is it reasonable to assume that an inclusion that would not be spotted at 10X could be found and it's location pinpointed at 60X? Or would it be more reasonable to assume once located and pinpointed at 60X the inclusion would invariably be seen at 10X since you now know not only that it exists but exactly where?
Thanx!
Dave
Thanks for your questions. As I see it, one of the major problems with plotting inclusions, is that GIA / AGS and others draw inclusions in a one dimensional format.
There is a plot (which if you read the descriptions on the reports) which have certain conditions. AGS has a paragraph that says the plots may be drawn to look more seriously than they actually are. Others say the plots are approximate. Still others say that they have only plotted the inclusions which are considered in their assignment of the clarity grading.
Most labs which may show( based on the one dimensional format) of inclusions which appear to be just under the table surface, which may not be accurate. Some of the inclusions may be deep in the stone.
Considering this, a 3 dimensional plot is really needed to supply the reader of the grading report with the true "picture" of the inclusions.
Personally I prefer micro-photographs of inclusions at a close up view, along with lower power images that show the location better. These type of photographs do take a lot of time for some stones...
Equipment manufacturers have produced equipment to make this easier. But as of the moment, I don't know of anything that does this on a completely reliable automated basis. From what I have read about the IMAgem, they are addressing this, but since nothing has been made public on it, I can't comment other than there is supposed to be a way for it to scan for inclusions and image them. I suppose a lot of people have been working on this, and as technology improves it will become more "robotic" a task.
Consider cut analysis.. years ago it was impractical to report the angles and percentages of each facet on a stone. To manually measure 57 or more facets of a round stone, it might take "unendless hours" and be extremely difficult. Today proportion measuring machines ( Sarin, OGI, Imagem, and Helium) perform these tasks in almost instantaneous results. One of the growing concerns with this of course is accuracy as the machines only currently report one facet angle. The flatness of a facet and yaw are also concerns that the machines in the future will probably address. Gemological reports in the future will probably will almost certainly be far more detailed than the ones currently presented.
In conversations with some of the executives of GIA, I was told that GIA does make a 3 dimensional plot, but they don't include this in their reports. These are kept on file and they have a computer generated archive of this to be able to know when a stone has been submitted more than once, so that any subsequent reports have gradings that match or are similar to previous ones. This is not new, as my conversations about this occured in the mid 1980's. Certainly, with improvements in technology they have most likely automated this to a more exacting science.
Gemprint also has a program for labs, that identifies if the same stone is submitted again.
But to get back to your question of when higher power is called for, it is a matter of personal decision. Sometimes 60x is far too strong a magnification. What I do is gradually increase the power as needed to observe the characteristics. As you may know, the stronger the magnification the smaller the field becomes as you examine the stone. In that each diamond is a unique creation of mother nature, you sort of have to adjust the procedure to each stone's characteristics.
I hope, since I wrote this as a reply to your questions, and not a full blown article that at least an introductory explanation is understood by all the readers of the forum.
If anyone has more comment or questions, I will answer them.
My apologies to Hannah for stealing/hi-jacking her thread.....Perhaps Leonid can transfer this to a more permanent location on PS where more people can see and access it.
Regards
Rockdoc
Hannahsb21
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 20
No Worries Dave,
I am following and find it very interesting.
Dan had a chance yesterday to look at the posts and said that he understood where some of the confusion may have come from. He said he would post as soon as he had a chance and was sure he could clarify whatever i fogged up. I am interested to see what he has to say and how people respond to him.
: )
I am following and find it very interesting.
Dan had a chance yesterday to look at the posts and said that he understood where some of the confusion may have come from. He said he would post as soon as he had a chance and was sure he could clarify whatever i fogged up. I am interested to see what he has to say and how people respond to him.
: )
Hi all,
I am the other part of this equation. I have really enjoyed reading the posts. Thanks for the opinions and insight. I understand where some of the confusion regarding the 60x magnification started. I will quickly run through the series of events and this should clarify the matter.
Hannah and I picked out the stone together. That was supposed to be the end of her involvment with the stone, until our engagement. That didn''t quite go as planned.
I designed a setting and took the stone into a reputable local jewelry designer the weekend after purchase. After discussing the setting design he asked to inspect the stone under the microscope. We pulled the stone out of the protective sleeve/paper and he put it under the scope at 60x. and noticed the chip/splinter. This was the first time the stone had been viewed since leaving the jewler''s shop in Tucson. He asked me to look at it and immdeiately my heart sank. Our F, IF stone, once thought to be perfect, was in fact far from it. We discussed the options and he said that he was not comfortable setting the stone. He said that chips at the corners of princess stone were common and he felt professionally, that this chip occured during setting or removal from a setting. While he isn''t a cutter he felt the stone needed to be recut and polished. His estimate was a loss of 10 to 20 points.
After departing, in my frustration, I informed Hannah of the situation. She was the only person I could confide in as this was to be a suprise to our family and friends. Thoughts of buying another stone or stealthily having it recut crossed my mind but she would know, she loved that stone.
The next day I took the stone to a AGS GG in the area. I told her the sad story and asked her opinion. Se first looked at the stone with the scope then viewed it under a loupe. She said the chip was visible under the loupe once she knew to look for it. She said that the chip definately happened after the report as the report was clean. She felt that the stone needed to be recut and polised before setting. She said that the type of chip occurs during setting when the pressures exerted on the stone are greatest. She said that it did not occur from tweezers or handling. This gemologist advised Nancy Stacy as a resource.
We called Nancy the next day and met with her that evening. Nancy was amazing. She was lerring of the quality of the stone due to it EGL cert. Nancy inspected the stone with a loupe and said that she could see it because she was specifically looking for it. In her extensive inspection of the stone she regraded it. She said that the color was in fact G but the stone did not have any internal inclusions. Taking the chip into account she graded the clarity as VS1. She again confimred that Tony''s claim tat we caused it with tweezer was false. She felt that the chip occured from a prong, during setting.
So there we have the events, now for my opinion... I am not claiming that Tony knew about the chip but he did not sell us the quality of stone he represented. He claimed the stone was new, never set, with an ideal cut (now I know that staondard doesn''t even exist). The report would have shown the chip and it would have dropped the clarity grading, as Nancy did. When we picked up the stone, we looked at it extensively and did not notice the chip. As I look at the stone today, even with a loupe, I don''t notice it, but I am not a jeweler. He needs to know his products and honor his word.
Thank you,
Dan
I am the other part of this equation. I have really enjoyed reading the posts. Thanks for the opinions and insight. I understand where some of the confusion regarding the 60x magnification started. I will quickly run through the series of events and this should clarify the matter.
Hannah and I picked out the stone together. That was supposed to be the end of her involvment with the stone, until our engagement. That didn''t quite go as planned.
I designed a setting and took the stone into a reputable local jewelry designer the weekend after purchase. After discussing the setting design he asked to inspect the stone under the microscope. We pulled the stone out of the protective sleeve/paper and he put it under the scope at 60x. and noticed the chip/splinter. This was the first time the stone had been viewed since leaving the jewler''s shop in Tucson. He asked me to look at it and immdeiately my heart sank. Our F, IF stone, once thought to be perfect, was in fact far from it. We discussed the options and he said that he was not comfortable setting the stone. He said that chips at the corners of princess stone were common and he felt professionally, that this chip occured during setting or removal from a setting. While he isn''t a cutter he felt the stone needed to be recut and polished. His estimate was a loss of 10 to 20 points.
After departing, in my frustration, I informed Hannah of the situation. She was the only person I could confide in as this was to be a suprise to our family and friends. Thoughts of buying another stone or stealthily having it recut crossed my mind but she would know, she loved that stone.
The next day I took the stone to a AGS GG in the area. I told her the sad story and asked her opinion. Se first looked at the stone with the scope then viewed it under a loupe. She said the chip was visible under the loupe once she knew to look for it. She said that the chip definately happened after the report as the report was clean. She felt that the stone needed to be recut and polised before setting. She said that the type of chip occurs during setting when the pressures exerted on the stone are greatest. She said that it did not occur from tweezers or handling. This gemologist advised Nancy Stacy as a resource.
We called Nancy the next day and met with her that evening. Nancy was amazing. She was lerring of the quality of the stone due to it EGL cert. Nancy inspected the stone with a loupe and said that she could see it because she was specifically looking for it. In her extensive inspection of the stone she regraded it. She said that the color was in fact G but the stone did not have any internal inclusions. Taking the chip into account she graded the clarity as VS1. She again confimred that Tony''s claim tat we caused it with tweezer was false. She felt that the chip occured from a prong, during setting.
So there we have the events, now for my opinion... I am not claiming that Tony knew about the chip but he did not sell us the quality of stone he represented. He claimed the stone was new, never set, with an ideal cut (now I know that staondard doesn''t even exist). The report would have shown the chip and it would have dropped the clarity grading, as Nancy did. When we picked up the stone, we looked at it extensively and did not notice the chip. As I look at the stone today, even with a loupe, I don''t notice it, but I am not a jeweler. He needs to know his products and honor his word.
Thank you,
Dan
Patty
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,456
If the chip was visible under a 10x loupe, then you are right. It was misrepresented when it was sold to you. The vendor may not have known it was chipped but he should trust that you were NOT the ones to chip it.
As for whether or not the stone was "used," we had a discussion about that here recently. There may not be a problem with a vendor selling a used stone, but I would expect him to reveal that fact and to make sure that the stone was still in the same condition as the certificate.
Your vendor should take it back.
As for whether or not the stone was "used," we had a discussion about that here recently. There may not be a problem with a vendor selling a used stone, but I would expect him to reveal that fact and to make sure that the stone was still in the same condition as the certificate.
Your vendor should take it back.
ame
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 10,869
From every post I read, and the Dan post...you should probably seek out legal assistance to see what kind of recourse you have because in all of that, I think this jeweler misrepresented.
I can relate to how this frustrates you and upsets you when you are trying to get engaged. It takes all the steam out of your sails.
Id try like hell to get money back, file a BBB report especially--it always makes it more a priority for the business when their reputation is questioned publicly, and if you can finally succeed, Id almost suggest you buy a different shape stone altogether as to not smear your new ring with fears about the original disaster.
I can relate to how this frustrates you and upsets you when you are trying to get engaged. It takes all the steam out of your sails.
Id try like hell to get money back, file a BBB report especially--it always makes it more a priority for the business when their reputation is questioned publicly, and if you can finally succeed, Id almost suggest you buy a different shape stone altogether as to not smear your new ring with fears about the original disaster.
Hi again Dave.....Date: 3/5/2005 106:37 PM
Author: crankydave
Thanx Rocdoc...
Welcome Dan P...
I certainly hope everything works out for the best for you and Hannah. I truly do.
At the risk of being improperly labeled as a ''defender'' again, I ask my same question again...
I would like for anybody to please explain to me how anyone can definitively tell when and how a particular chip was caused after the fact. This cannot be known. I would dearly love to know how this can be done and will be more than pleased to stand corrected.
Any particular chip that could be caused by a prong could just as easily be caused by tweezers or many other things.
Dave
This is a subject that could be written about extensively.. Generally as I am aware any shape diamond can fracture if the setter using UNEQUAL PRESSURE when closing the prongs.
In a princess cut the cleavage direction has a weakness in the corners of the stone, if the crystal is oriented that way.
The GIA does do damage reports, as do some independents. There isn''t always evidence of why a stone broke, chipped or fractured, but certain breaks can reasonably concluded as to why they happened.
Another consideration is strain in the area around the break, which can only be seen with a polariscope of crossed polarized lenses.
Sometimes it can be determined that a break started on the outside of a stone and pertruded inward.
Believe it or not there are scientists that study fracturing in materials. The world''s expert is with the Livermore Lab in CA.
In the emerald case, in Key West FL, which was highly publicized, this person was an expert witness in the testifying why an emerald that was sold fractured.
Search Google using fracture, fracturing etc. and you''ll probably find a lot of scientific articles about it. If you use google with strain in diamonds there is a significant amount of articles, mostly directed towards the increase in strain present in HPHT treated diamonds.
Hope this helps.
Rockdoc
Richard Sherwood
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,924
Heh heh heh...
I''m going to rename you BullDogDave, cranky.
I''m going to rename you BullDogDave, cranky.
take a few pictures of the chipped stone with many different angles. take one from the top view, one from the side were the chip is, one from the were the chip is all the way down to the culet. let us all see, then we can judge more with an open minded.
It depends.
I believe in some situations you can determine why, in others the conclusion would be assumptive, and still on others it can''t be determined. As a gemologist if I am not sure ( and the determination was crucial to the purpose of a determination) I would get a forensic fracture specialist.
Another consideration would be the opening of a pre-existing cleavage or feather. There it would be an easier conclusion.
In Hannah''s situation three gemologists have made a conclusion that the damage was not caused by tweezers. This has been based on examination of the diamond. would the "break" run with or against the grain of the stone? They all seem to agree that what they observed was caused in an attempt to set the diamond.
I can''t comment on this stone, because I haven''t seen it. I don''t know how thoroughly it was examined.
Maybe to address you question more directly... I don''t think 100% just isn''t true for either you can or you can''t. Also the people in the jewelry industry ( including some gemologists etc.) don''t know what additional technology there is. An example might be analysis with an electron microscope.
I know I am not wording this well,but I think you get the point.
Rockdoc
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,484
Here is an interesting thing I was involved with 2 weeks ago.
There was 2 stones that were said to be clean that were sawn in half. During the sawing 3 of the halfs got big I2 inclusions - but the other half with the arrow pointing to it (the one that had no inclusions after sawing) had some Double Refraction colors still showing.
My friend Janak Mistry maintains that after damage to badly stressed stones, the DR stress through crossed polars often disappears. He is a formally trained engineer and has a large amount of experiance with diamond factories.
BTW the firm manufacturing these stones does not usually bother examining stones with a polariscope because the incidence of breakage is so small. But firms working with bigger better goods often do - and they might decide to laser saw or cleave along the cleavage direction if they think there is a great risk.
(The blue line on the upper center stone is a new marking line for the next sawing)
There was 2 stones that were said to be clean that were sawn in half. During the sawing 3 of the halfs got big I2 inclusions - but the other half with the arrow pointing to it (the one that had no inclusions after sawing) had some Double Refraction colors still showing.
My friend Janak Mistry maintains that after damage to badly stressed stones, the DR stress through crossed polars often disappears. He is a formally trained engineer and has a large amount of experiance with diamond factories.
BTW the firm manufacturing these stones does not usually bother examining stones with a polariscope because the incidence of breakage is so small. But firms working with bigger better goods often do - and they might decide to laser saw or cleave along the cleavage direction if they think there is a great risk.
(The blue line on the upper center stone is a new marking line for the next sawing)
Richard Sherwood
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,924
It's tough when a stone is loose to determine how it got chipped. The nature, location, size, depth, and direction of break however can often (but not always) give a strong indication.
The "crunch, and travel" look of a chip caused by setting pressure, for example, will usually look distinctly different than a very light, shallow, flaking chip caused by improper pressure of a tweezer. A chip caused by a blow to the corner through dropping on a concrete floor will have a different look still.
Forensic gemology using very high power magnification, or an electron microscope, can often give a conclusive indication if a metal residue if detected in the chip area. If the residue is platinum versus steel versus concrete than you have an idea of what contact metal created the chip.
If a chipped stone is still mounted, it's much easier to determine whether the diamond was chipped because of setting trauma, or wear & tear trauma. The clues listed above are augmented by clues exhibited under microscopic examination of the prongs and setting. If you see no indication of trauma to the outer portion of the prong for example, and see that the prong is improperly notched, and that the chip corresponds exactly to a contact area of the prong, then you have a reasonable conclusion that the diamond was chipped during setting.
On the other hand, if the outer surface of the prong indicates post-purchase trauma, then you have a reasonable conclusion that the diamond was chipped by the owner during wear.
The "crunch, and travel" look of a chip caused by setting pressure, for example, will usually look distinctly different than a very light, shallow, flaking chip caused by improper pressure of a tweezer. A chip caused by a blow to the corner through dropping on a concrete floor will have a different look still.
Forensic gemology using very high power magnification, or an electron microscope, can often give a conclusive indication if a metal residue if detected in the chip area. If the residue is platinum versus steel versus concrete than you have an idea of what contact metal created the chip.
If a chipped stone is still mounted, it's much easier to determine whether the diamond was chipped because of setting trauma, or wear & tear trauma. The clues listed above are augmented by clues exhibited under microscopic examination of the prongs and setting. If you see no indication of trauma to the outer portion of the prong for example, and see that the prong is improperly notched, and that the chip corresponds exactly to a contact area of the prong, then you have a reasonable conclusion that the diamond was chipped during setting.
On the other hand, if the outer surface of the prong indicates post-purchase trauma, then you have a reasonable conclusion that the diamond was chipped by the owner during wear.
aljdewey
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 9,170
Hi, Dan: Nice to hear from you too on this.
I personally think this unfortunate situation came about for two primary reasons. 1) Because of Tony's sales pitch embellishments, and 2) because you folks made a buying decision with limited homework/knowledge in advance.
I'd add some thoughts to a few of your comments.
The next day I took the stone to a AGS GG in the area......Se first looked at the stone with the scope then viewed it under a loupe. She said the chip was visible under the loupe once she knew to look for it.
I don't doubt what you've said here, but as many people have pointed out, that's not how stones are graded *in the lab*. When a grading lab grades stones, they are grading based ONLY on what they see under 10x mag. Your GG said "it was visible under the loupe only once she knew to look for it and only after she'd seen it under 60x mag. That's just not how grading labs grade stones. The information she's giving you is helpful, but it doesn't invalidate the grading report because the grading report is telling you what you should expect to see under 10x mag.
Nancy was .........leery of the quality of the stone due to it EGL cert.
Nancy inspected the stone with a loupe and said that she could see it because she was specifically looking for it.
She said that the color was in fact G but the stone did not have any internal inclusions.
The result of these comments is this: after extensive regrading by Nancy, she finds that it's a G, IF instead of an F, IF. Nancy maintained that the stone doesn't have any internal inclusions.....and that's what IF means...."internally flawless". Yes, she did also say "taking the chip into account, I'd call it a VS1", but that doesn't affect the integrity of the grading report because the chip can't be seen at 10x mag unless you've seen it at higher mag first, and the grading report doesn't claim to represent the stone's properties at anything other than 10x mag. Ask any appraiser here....they will all tell you the same thing. The fact that stone are graded "IF" doesn't mean they don't have any flaws at all.....it means they appear flawless when viewed at 10x mag.
So, the bottom line is that the color grade was off by one grade.
She ALSO said that she could only see it under 10x mag.....which is what the grading report represents.....ONLY because she was specifically looking for it. That means both people (the AGS GG and Nancy) have told you that they could only see it because they KNEW it was there and were looking for it. That's not how labs grade stones, so these findings don't invalidate the grading report by EGL on this stone.
Yes, the color grade was off one grade, but that doesn't constitute "fraud" or misrepresentation. The grading report is nothing more than an educated but *subjective* opinion that reflects what the grading lab experts believe the elements of the stone are. It would have to be off by two grades or more to be significant.
This is where a little more education prior to purchase would have helped you both. Most of the folks who do a bit of research learn that an EGL grading report can be a little lenient. That's why Nancy was a little leery of the stone being EGL-graded; their reputation isn't as solid as labs like GIA/AGS. That doesn't mean EGL stones shouldn't be considered.....sometimes they represent great values. They just require a bit more caution when purchasing them, and that means negotiating a generous return policy and having it independently appraised during the return period so you can return it if it doesn't pass muster. I know that doesn't help you now.....but honestly, there is nothing *now* that can change what's already done.
I am not claiming that Tony knew about the chip but he did not sell us the quality of stone he represented.
He claimed the stone was new, never set.
The report would have shown the chip and it would have dropped the clarity grading, as Nancy did.
It's not quite accurate to say he didn't sell you the "quality" of stone he represented. He sold you a stone that he and you believed to be graded by EGL as F, IF.....and it was a stone graded by the EGL as F/IF. That's not misrepresentation.
The grading report would *not* have shown the chip and/or dropped the clarity grading. Nancy dropped the clarity rating only AFTER she viewed the stone at higher mag. The grading report reflects what the graders see at 10x mag and ONLY at 10x mag....without advance knowledge of what might exist at 60x mag.
As far as the stone being "new" and "never set", those aren't factors that affect the represented "quality" of the stone. My husband bought my stone 18 months ago. If I were to trade it in today and the vendor determined it didn't show any damage, my stone would still be the same quality it was when we bought it eighteen months ago.....even though it's not "new". It's still an ideal make, it's still an H, it's still an SI2, etc. Further, if it's sold 3 times subsequently, and the 4th vendor to buy it does so thinking it's new/never set, then he's not *misrepresenting* to claim that, because he doesn't know differently.
It doesn't affect a stone's monetary value either. In fact, diamonds often appreciate in value over time, so "new" or "not new" isn't relevant to a diamond's quality. The diamond my husband bought for me 18 months ago would now cost someone else $1800-2000K more if I were to trade it in to a vendor and they were to resell it at today's market price.
A diamond's "quality" is affected only by it's "elements"--color, clarity, make, polish, and symmetry, girdle thickness, etc......that's it. Other things affect the price---carat weight, which lab grades it, whether or not it has fluorescence, etc---but not the stone.
Again, this is where a little homework prior to purchase may have helped you. It's nearly impossible for any jeweler to make a claim that a stone is "new" or "never set"....unless they cut the stones themselves. Most jewelers purchase stones from suppliers/brokers, so it's impossible for them to warrant what happened to that stone prior to their possession of it. Had you known then what you know now, it would likely raise "alarms" in your head if someone tried to tell you a princess stone was "ideal-cut".....and would make you considerably less confident in purchasing from that person. Hindsight is a brutal thing.
It's important to know the "sales pitch" a vendor gives about how great the stone is, etc. isn't binding representation. It's marketing....nothing more and nothing less. As long as he has no knowledge of the stone ever having been set previously, then he's telling you the truth as he knows it. He can tell you a diamond is among the most beautiful he's ever seen......as long as he believes it to be a true statement when he makes it. Did your purchase documents state in writing that the stone was "new" and "never set"? I'm guessing not.
Again, the report would *not* have shown the chip because it's not discernable at 10x mag alone and both of your independent sources have told you that they could ONLY see it because they KNEW (from viewing at higher mag first) that it was there.
I'm so sorry for the frustration you've both felt in this process. It's terrible to feel that someone has exploited your trust. I'm sure the things you've discovered in this process will serve you well on your next purchase, and I hope you both find the solution that makes you happy.
I agree with Mara's question earlier. Does she still love the stone? If she does, then there's no reason not to set it and wear it proudly.
I personally think this unfortunate situation came about for two primary reasons. 1) Because of Tony's sales pitch embellishments, and 2) because you folks made a buying decision with limited homework/knowledge in advance.
I'd add some thoughts to a few of your comments.
The next day I took the stone to a AGS GG in the area......Se first looked at the stone with the scope then viewed it under a loupe. She said the chip was visible under the loupe once she knew to look for it.
I don't doubt what you've said here, but as many people have pointed out, that's not how stones are graded *in the lab*. When a grading lab grades stones, they are grading based ONLY on what they see under 10x mag. Your GG said "it was visible under the loupe only once she knew to look for it and only after she'd seen it under 60x mag. That's just not how grading labs grade stones. The information she's giving you is helpful, but it doesn't invalidate the grading report because the grading report is telling you what you should expect to see under 10x mag.
Nancy was .........leery of the quality of the stone due to it EGL cert.
Nancy inspected the stone with a loupe and said that she could see it because she was specifically looking for it.
She said that the color was in fact G but the stone did not have any internal inclusions.
The result of these comments is this: after extensive regrading by Nancy, she finds that it's a G, IF instead of an F, IF. Nancy maintained that the stone doesn't have any internal inclusions.....and that's what IF means...."internally flawless". Yes, she did also say "taking the chip into account, I'd call it a VS1", but that doesn't affect the integrity of the grading report because the chip can't be seen at 10x mag unless you've seen it at higher mag first, and the grading report doesn't claim to represent the stone's properties at anything other than 10x mag. Ask any appraiser here....they will all tell you the same thing. The fact that stone are graded "IF" doesn't mean they don't have any flaws at all.....it means they appear flawless when viewed at 10x mag.
So, the bottom line is that the color grade was off by one grade.
She ALSO said that she could only see it under 10x mag.....which is what the grading report represents.....ONLY because she was specifically looking for it. That means both people (the AGS GG and Nancy) have told you that they could only see it because they KNEW it was there and were looking for it. That's not how labs grade stones, so these findings don't invalidate the grading report by EGL on this stone.
Yes, the color grade was off one grade, but that doesn't constitute "fraud" or misrepresentation. The grading report is nothing more than an educated but *subjective* opinion that reflects what the grading lab experts believe the elements of the stone are. It would have to be off by two grades or more to be significant.
This is where a little more education prior to purchase would have helped you both. Most of the folks who do a bit of research learn that an EGL grading report can be a little lenient. That's why Nancy was a little leery of the stone being EGL-graded; their reputation isn't as solid as labs like GIA/AGS. That doesn't mean EGL stones shouldn't be considered.....sometimes they represent great values. They just require a bit more caution when purchasing them, and that means negotiating a generous return policy and having it independently appraised during the return period so you can return it if it doesn't pass muster. I know that doesn't help you now.....but honestly, there is nothing *now* that can change what's already done.
I am not claiming that Tony knew about the chip but he did not sell us the quality of stone he represented.
He claimed the stone was new, never set.
The report would have shown the chip and it would have dropped the clarity grading, as Nancy did.
It's not quite accurate to say he didn't sell you the "quality" of stone he represented. He sold you a stone that he and you believed to be graded by EGL as F, IF.....and it was a stone graded by the EGL as F/IF. That's not misrepresentation.
The grading report would *not* have shown the chip and/or dropped the clarity grading. Nancy dropped the clarity rating only AFTER she viewed the stone at higher mag. The grading report reflects what the graders see at 10x mag and ONLY at 10x mag....without advance knowledge of what might exist at 60x mag.
As far as the stone being "new" and "never set", those aren't factors that affect the represented "quality" of the stone. My husband bought my stone 18 months ago. If I were to trade it in today and the vendor determined it didn't show any damage, my stone would still be the same quality it was when we bought it eighteen months ago.....even though it's not "new". It's still an ideal make, it's still an H, it's still an SI2, etc. Further, if it's sold 3 times subsequently, and the 4th vendor to buy it does so thinking it's new/never set, then he's not *misrepresenting* to claim that, because he doesn't know differently.
It doesn't affect a stone's monetary value either. In fact, diamonds often appreciate in value over time, so "new" or "not new" isn't relevant to a diamond's quality. The diamond my husband bought for me 18 months ago would now cost someone else $1800-2000K more if I were to trade it in to a vendor and they were to resell it at today's market price.
A diamond's "quality" is affected only by it's "elements"--color, clarity, make, polish, and symmetry, girdle thickness, etc......that's it. Other things affect the price---carat weight, which lab grades it, whether or not it has fluorescence, etc---but not the stone.
Again, this is where a little homework prior to purchase may have helped you. It's nearly impossible for any jeweler to make a claim that a stone is "new" or "never set"....unless they cut the stones themselves. Most jewelers purchase stones from suppliers/brokers, so it's impossible for them to warrant what happened to that stone prior to their possession of it. Had you known then what you know now, it would likely raise "alarms" in your head if someone tried to tell you a princess stone was "ideal-cut".....and would make you considerably less confident in purchasing from that person. Hindsight is a brutal thing.
It's important to know the "sales pitch" a vendor gives about how great the stone is, etc. isn't binding representation. It's marketing....nothing more and nothing less. As long as he has no knowledge of the stone ever having been set previously, then he's telling you the truth as he knows it. He can tell you a diamond is among the most beautiful he's ever seen......as long as he believes it to be a true statement when he makes it. Did your purchase documents state in writing that the stone was "new" and "never set"? I'm guessing not.
Again, the report would *not* have shown the chip because it's not discernable at 10x mag alone and both of your independent sources have told you that they could ONLY see it because they KNEW (from viewing at higher mag first) that it was there.
I'm so sorry for the frustration you've both felt in this process. It's terrible to feel that someone has exploited your trust. I'm sure the things you've discovered in this process will serve you well on your next purchase, and I hope you both find the solution that makes you happy.
I agree with Mara's question earlier. Does she still love the stone? If she does, then there's no reason not to set it and wear it proudly.
Hi Richard
Thanks for your posting.. It was around 2 am when I wrote the one that Dave responded to.
I see you wrote one this morning, you''ve written it wonderfully, and perhaps Dave will understand it better than the one I posted.
Rockdoc
This reply is to Ajldewey''s post.
I don''t know how to separate the paragraphs I am responding to, and didn''t want to "clog" up my reply by "quoting" it.
May be someone will explain to me how to do this.
But in any event, here is my reply.
The applicable law here is very different than you''ve explained.
Perhaps Sashabella will chime in from a more legal aspect, since I am not a lawyer, but I have done litigation support in these type of matters as an expert witness.
Firstly, the courts will not generally concern themselves in determining whether the seller knew about the discrepancy. They will generally look at the facts which conclusively support that Hannah and Dan didn''t get what they bargained for. This is called "Benefit of the Bargain". The group of laws here that will have jurisdiction is the Uniform Commercial Code, which also ties in the Magnusson Moss Warranty laws. Each state has adopted its own version of the UCC, but if the seller is domiciled in a different state, there is diversity of citizenship, and the applicable UCC would be the Federal one.
Secondly, the seller and the buyer in this matter are not on an equal position. The seller held himself to be an expert, and has a duty to have examined the diamond to make sure it was the quality as described in the report by EGL. The buyer doesn''t have that level of the burden of proof, since they are not expert. It would change the situation dramatically if their reason for purchasing the stone was for resale.
Thirdly, the seller made representations both under express warranty and implied warranty ( oral ) as well. As an expert anything written or said involving the purchasing decision of a purchaser for end use, becomes a warranty. The salient issue here is that the consumer made the purchasing decision based on a reasonable expectation supported by the written as well as oral representation of the seller. Purchaser expectation of representations is the basis in this situation. Whether Tony had knowledge of the "damage"or not isn''t the issue. The fact is the stone isn''t as represented by the seller (the primary liability is only his, and not EGL- although if he can prove that EGL was negligent in their grading he has an action against EGL). See FL appeals court case against Neiman Marcus for a diamond graded D-IF by GIA, and then subsequently grade lower by GIA, which makes Neiman Marcus the liable party and not GIA even though they relied on the grading by GIA in making the sale).
In this matter, the court will decide which representations made by the seller are Express Warranty or Implied Warranty. AN example of this is a court case about the sale of a used airplane, where the seller told the buyer that it "was a great little airplane". When the airplane didn''t pass the customary inspection, the seller was held liable for the costs the buyer had to pay to make it pass its inspection.
Fourthly, there is a consideration as to the price paid. If the price paid is within the range of what a stone of the represented quality would be this might end up being the deciding factor in the opinion of the trier of fact (either a judge or jury).
I don''t think Dan and Hannah would have a very tough time, in establishing what they got (a chipped diamond) would be worth what they paid. Resultant loss of value based on the estimation of costs of recutting, loss of weight, change of the diamond''s color (which commonly happens in the recutting of a stone), the diamond''s clarity grade (when recutting other clarity inclusions may "develop") needs to be explored, and if possible - determined. The results would be reconciled ( as to monetary change of value to support that the expected quality isn''t in line with the item received by the buyer).
In summation, the damages awarded to the purchaser may be for treble damages because of the potential warranty issues.
The consumer, unless the seller can substanciate PROOF that the buyer did try to set it and damaged the stone would most likely prevail in this matter. The consumer acted in a way that would be reasonable and prudent after receiving delivery of the stone, and has gathered a lot of expert opinion that the damage was caused by setting or attempted setting of the stone.
I respectfully disagree with the advice of those who say keep the stone and wear it. This is certainly an important issue, as the stone doesn''t comply with the reasonable expectations of Dan or his fiance, Hannah.
The end fact is the stone isn''t what they bargained for and only magnified as such due to the seller''s adamant refusal to replace or refund the purchase price, doesn''t help the seller''s position at all. There are also potential issues of Warranty of Merchantibility and Fitness here as well.
I probably haven''t covered everything that I could write in this post. I also want to make it clear that I am not providing legal advice here. That has to be done by a legal professional, but I did write this, to inform other consumers and readers of the thread, based on experience, and research that I personally have been involved with.
Hopefully, Sashabella will comment here from her position.
Rockdoc
I don''t know how to separate the paragraphs I am responding to, and didn''t want to "clog" up my reply by "quoting" it.
May be someone will explain to me how to do this.
But in any event, here is my reply.
The applicable law here is very different than you''ve explained.
Perhaps Sashabella will chime in from a more legal aspect, since I am not a lawyer, but I have done litigation support in these type of matters as an expert witness.
Firstly, the courts will not generally concern themselves in determining whether the seller knew about the discrepancy. They will generally look at the facts which conclusively support that Hannah and Dan didn''t get what they bargained for. This is called "Benefit of the Bargain". The group of laws here that will have jurisdiction is the Uniform Commercial Code, which also ties in the Magnusson Moss Warranty laws. Each state has adopted its own version of the UCC, but if the seller is domiciled in a different state, there is diversity of citizenship, and the applicable UCC would be the Federal one.
Secondly, the seller and the buyer in this matter are not on an equal position. The seller held himself to be an expert, and has a duty to have examined the diamond to make sure it was the quality as described in the report by EGL. The buyer doesn''t have that level of the burden of proof, since they are not expert. It would change the situation dramatically if their reason for purchasing the stone was for resale.
Thirdly, the seller made representations both under express warranty and implied warranty ( oral ) as well. As an expert anything written or said involving the purchasing decision of a purchaser for end use, becomes a warranty. The salient issue here is that the consumer made the purchasing decision based on a reasonable expectation supported by the written as well as oral representation of the seller. Purchaser expectation of representations is the basis in this situation. Whether Tony had knowledge of the "damage"or not isn''t the issue. The fact is the stone isn''t as represented by the seller (the primary liability is only his, and not EGL- although if he can prove that EGL was negligent in their grading he has an action against EGL). See FL appeals court case against Neiman Marcus for a diamond graded D-IF by GIA, and then subsequently grade lower by GIA, which makes Neiman Marcus the liable party and not GIA even though they relied on the grading by GIA in making the sale).
In this matter, the court will decide which representations made by the seller are Express Warranty or Implied Warranty. AN example of this is a court case about the sale of a used airplane, where the seller told the buyer that it "was a great little airplane". When the airplane didn''t pass the customary inspection, the seller was held liable for the costs the buyer had to pay to make it pass its inspection.
Fourthly, there is a consideration as to the price paid. If the price paid is within the range of what a stone of the represented quality would be this might end up being the deciding factor in the opinion of the trier of fact (either a judge or jury).
I don''t think Dan and Hannah would have a very tough time, in establishing what they got (a chipped diamond) would be worth what they paid. Resultant loss of value based on the estimation of costs of recutting, loss of weight, change of the diamond''s color (which commonly happens in the recutting of a stone), the diamond''s clarity grade (when recutting other clarity inclusions may "develop") needs to be explored, and if possible - determined. The results would be reconciled ( as to monetary change of value to support that the expected quality isn''t in line with the item received by the buyer).
In summation, the damages awarded to the purchaser may be for treble damages because of the potential warranty issues.
The consumer, unless the seller can substanciate PROOF that the buyer did try to set it and damaged the stone would most likely prevail in this matter. The consumer acted in a way that would be reasonable and prudent after receiving delivery of the stone, and has gathered a lot of expert opinion that the damage was caused by setting or attempted setting of the stone.
I respectfully disagree with the advice of those who say keep the stone and wear it. This is certainly an important issue, as the stone doesn''t comply with the reasonable expectations of Dan or his fiance, Hannah.
The end fact is the stone isn''t what they bargained for and only magnified as such due to the seller''s adamant refusal to replace or refund the purchase price, doesn''t help the seller''s position at all. There are also potential issues of Warranty of Merchantibility and Fitness here as well.
I probably haven''t covered everything that I could write in this post. I also want to make it clear that I am not providing legal advice here. That has to be done by a legal professional, but I did write this, to inform other consumers and readers of the thread, based on experience, and research that I personally have been involved with.
Hopefully, Sashabella will comment here from her position.
Rockdoc
Sashabella
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 85
Unfortunately, it's impossible (and inappropriate) to receive legal advice from ANYONE for a specific situation over the internet (and RokcDoc was clear he was not giving you legal advice - just sharing his personal experience and research). Rockdoc's own experiences are very interesting and a good illustration the the situation is more complex than a number of people on the board make it seem AND of the fact that your probably have more rights than you think you do.
I need to be clear that I am NOT providing legal advice for your situation with the following comments.
Rockdoc is right that most jurisdictions have consumer protection laws to protect from these types of situations. You need to become familiar with the consumer protection laws in your area. You probably have more rights and avenues for rectification than you think you do.
You also can NOT judge Tony's actions until you understand his legal obligations. You can't do this if you don't understand the law.
Furthermore, a civil matter does not require definitive proof. You can do research to understand the burden of proof in a civil matter (it's "on the balance of probabilities").
You need to get information on the laws in your area regarding consumer protection. You can contact a lawyer or consumer protection group in order to get that information.
Having information on consumer protection laws in your area will help you negotiate with Tony and it's always important to be informed about your rights. Having information on these rights does not mean you need to file a lawsuit. You can't determine if you have rights in this situation, negotiate or enforce any rights you may have if you don't know them.
You also can NOT judge Tony's actions until you understand his legal obligations. You can't do this if you don't understand the law.
I wish you the very best with whatever you decide.
I need to be clear that I am NOT providing legal advice for your situation with the following comments.
Rockdoc is right that most jurisdictions have consumer protection laws to protect from these types of situations. You need to become familiar with the consumer protection laws in your area. You probably have more rights and avenues for rectification than you think you do.
You also can NOT judge Tony's actions until you understand his legal obligations. You can't do this if you don't understand the law.
Furthermore, a civil matter does not require definitive proof. You can do research to understand the burden of proof in a civil matter (it's "on the balance of probabilities").
You need to get information on the laws in your area regarding consumer protection. You can contact a lawyer or consumer protection group in order to get that information.
Having information on consumer protection laws in your area will help you negotiate with Tony and it's always important to be informed about your rights. Having information on these rights does not mean you need to file a lawsuit. You can't determine if you have rights in this situation, negotiate or enforce any rights you may have if you don't know them.
You also can NOT judge Tony's actions until you understand his legal obligations. You can't do this if you don't understand the law.
I wish you the very best with whatever you decide.
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
"I respectfully disagree with the advice of those who say keep the stone and wear it. This is certainly an important issue, as the stone doesn't comply with the reasonable expectations of Dan or his fiance, Hannah."
________________________
RD...I definitely agree that if Hannah and Dan are unhappy with the stone now due to the current events, they should not keep it. But Hannah noted more than once that THIS was the stone, that she liked it from the beginning, Dan noted that she loved the stone and would notice if it was not the same one, etc.
So it stands to reason that IF they still love the stone as they did in the beginning, even though it was not what they expected, they should keep it. Yes the current events are disappointing but as Al noted...you really learn alot from your first purchase. It would be ideal if everyone was educated to the gills when they made that first decision, but many people find PS and more details after the fact. We paid about $1.5k more for our first stone, than we would have if we got it online, but we had to chalk that up to experience, move on and make sure that future purchases were more educated. We didn't do all of our homework before purchase, our bad.
I guess from my opinion, if they still love the stone they way they did originally, I would keep it and just enjoy it! In the future, other purchases can be researched rather than impulse. If they are truly unhappy with the stone and can't enjoy it due to what has transpired, then that is a different experience...but it's hard to tell really what the feeling is right now as the facts are still being laid out on the table.
________________________
RD...I definitely agree that if Hannah and Dan are unhappy with the stone now due to the current events, they should not keep it. But Hannah noted more than once that THIS was the stone, that she liked it from the beginning, Dan noted that she loved the stone and would notice if it was not the same one, etc.
So it stands to reason that IF they still love the stone as they did in the beginning, even though it was not what they expected, they should keep it. Yes the current events are disappointing but as Al noted...you really learn alot from your first purchase. It would be ideal if everyone was educated to the gills when they made that first decision, but many people find PS and more details after the fact. We paid about $1.5k more for our first stone, than we would have if we got it online, but we had to chalk that up to experience, move on and make sure that future purchases were more educated. We didn't do all of our homework before purchase, our bad.
I guess from my opinion, if they still love the stone they way they did originally, I would keep it and just enjoy it! In the future, other purchases can be researched rather than impulse. If they are truly unhappy with the stone and can't enjoy it due to what has transpired, then that is a different experience...but it's hard to tell really what the feeling is right now as the facts are still being laid out on the table.
Hannahsb21
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 20
The point of a forum is definately to get information and opinions, but as pointed out earlier, too many can clutter a discussion. The stone has a chip in it, no one questions that. I was never told of any chip when we purchased the stone, infact, quite the contrary. In this, I was happy and willing to pay higher dollar and honor the sellers price. Upon further inspection, the stone sadly isn''t what Tony told me it was. Hence, we want our money back.
That is the simple version and how the situation should be honored. For those who still question if you can determine the cause of a chip, think about the fact that based on different measurements and information a police officer can tell how fast a vehicle was traveling prior to an accident. In addition, if there was a major dent on the hood of a car we would assume a pebble hadn''t caused it and in turn a tiny dent likely wasn''t caused by a boulder. With deductive reasoning, and in unique circumstances, under close examination, by an expert, it is very possible to say how something occured. Especially with something like a diamond, where similar situations have happened.
It isn''t that hard to comprehend that upon inspection it is clear how the stone was damaged. It also isn''t hard to imagine that a buyer, untrained eye, might miss such a tiny chip. Further, a trained eye, looking for such a problem, knowing it is there, will likely find it. Or in a hurry, not knowing it was there, may miss it thanks to an IF grade. Either way, it does exist, under 60x, 10x, or with the naked eye, whether you can see it is disgretional, and fortunatley for me, that is not the point. It isn''t what was sold to me, and either has to be recut, polished or take the risk of setting it chipped, in this knowing we paid far too much.
A lemon is a lemon, it either has to be fixed or returned and if the buyer doesn''t trust the seller, since the original contract was inaccurate, you must return it.
- Status
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 04/26
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)