Poll about damage during setting

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/3/2005 3:56:23 PM
Author: oldminer
Everyone out there can choose their own path. Ultimately it is the consumer that makes the decision as to who will be suitable to sell them a diamond, set it or appraise it. The fewer the roadblocks, the more work we can do for people.

Very wise words :}

 

[perry]

I wrote a longer reply that addressed many of the comments and issues raised by my post above of a concept agreement. When I hit submit I got an error message and lost it all.

So here is the short version:

There were many great comments, and my idea was to post a concept for refinement. All of the issues could be adequately addressed by modifications to the agreement.

I am aware that many people claim that they will pay a reasonable fee - but then run to the lowest bidder. However, you should be able to sell your extra fees necessary as a benifit. Alternately, you do not need the customer who comes in with an internet purchased or other stone who will run to the lowest bidder.

This is a form of self insurance and it will take business disipline to make it work - just like putting money away for taxes takes business disipline.

In the end, as internet business grows, I think that all jewelry stores & setters will have to have some kind of agreement and charge an appropriate fee to cover the risk.

In the end setting and other bench jewelery services will have to be a profit center for a store.

Of course, in the end, many stores will not make it - and in the end I belive that the ones who transistion to the model will be the survivors. I cannot predict the exact timing of that transition though.

Perry

 

[oldminer]

No problem. We accept full responsibility for work we are willing to accept. If a setter wishes to accept some of the risk, we gladly let them. It is a traditional system, not formal. We don''t often set consumer''s diamonds, but we are willing. We always recommend either the seller of the diamond or the seller of the mounting. If the situation dictates our assisting, then we may do the work required. It is a choice based on special circumstances and solely on the request of a client. We don''t chase this work, but rarely would we refuse it.

Refusing work because the stone is fragile, the mounting does not fit right, is poorly made, or the client has unrealistic expectations all would be good reason not to offer seting work.

Few trade shops are affluent enough to accept responsibility for diamond setting in a complete way. Fortunately we are able to take this measured risk. I think it has helped vendors of both mountings and diamonds to make sales. We will continue to offer this service to thos who need it as often as we feel the risks can be undertaken.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/3/2005 6:19:50 PM
Author: crankydave

You take a slap at those vendors who openly and honestly stated that they do not assume risks with stones they do not sell when you posted...

Date: 7/1/2005 1:42:24 PM
Author: oldminer

With falling profit margins, retailers look to create profit centers out of work they might have used to refuse. Saying one can''t be held liable puts off potential customers and is not generally a realistic way to promote one''s business. In order to do business, one must take measured risks for sufficient rewards, not refuse the work....

Just like we guarantee our grading, we guarantee our setting. We do it properly and without fear of a problem. If there is a problem, we make it right. It would be an easier place for consumers if more people acted this way.

And then in your next post...

Date: 7/3/2005 3:56:23 PM
Author: oldminer

For this reason we may not always accept a setting job. We reserve the right to say no when that is best for everyone. Fragile diamonds are best set ONLY be the original vendor. No one else will be responsible or collect enough to cover the potential damage.

I don''t see how David''s comments are perceived as "taking a slap" at other vendors. Some vendors expressed their reasons why they won''t take any setting work for diamonds they didn''t sell; in turn, David expressed *his* personal philosophy of what he feels will help business. The fact that he doesn''t agree with their position doesn''t mean he''s taking a slap at them; it means he simply sees it differently from them.

What I took from the combination of David''s comments above: There is a difference between saying "I won''t accept this work because of these specific potential problems" and "I won''t accept this work because I didn''t get the diamond sale." From a customer perspective, one seems reasonable; the other seems arbitrary. While I personally can understand the reluctance to assume risk, I truly feel that there are other solutions besides "no, we won''t set it."

I think the key is respectful communication between vendor and customer. As someone else pointed out, most instances of damages don''t result in complete loss; rather, it may result in the loss of a few points (or maybe more than a few). Providing both parties discuss the risks (on relatively low risk work) and the possible solutions in the event the worst happens, there shouldn''t be a need to flat-out refuse.

If I brought a diamond to a vendor for setting and he said "look, small chance this can chip. Should that happen, I''ll cover up to $1000 of damage (or whatever # he is comfortable with). If you want coverage exceeding that amount, here is the fee I charge per $1k to assume this risk."

Whatever the arrangement, I can''t see refusing a low-risk job if there is a way to fairly mitigate the risks, and I think that''s what Dave was trying to say.

 

[oldminer]

Yes, I am not acting like, "I didn''t make the sale, so go take a hike!"

Instead, I say, "Great, a chance to make a few bucks, and make someone very happy!"

Retailers can take their choices. Maybe some situations are in between these two extreme versions, too. If we see a huge risk we won''t accept it. If we see regular to no risk, we do the job and try to do it correctly..

This is not a slap at anyone. This is how we do what we do. People are so ready to feel they are being attacked that they don''t see the benefit of keeping an open mind. For those with less anger, there is more good information to make use of. For those blinded by their own situation I can''t say much except please just ignore me and we''ll go two separate ways. I am really sorry to offend anyone. I don''t post on Pricescope to antagonize retailers or trade shops. I post here to benefit consumers and the overall jewelry industry. Change can be painful, but looking for solutions is what I am always about, not creating more tension.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/4/2005 9:35:23 AM
Author: oldminer
Yes, I am not acting like, ''I didn''t make the sale, so go take a hike!''


Instead, I say, ''Great, a chance to make a few bucks, and make someone very happy!''


Retailers can take their choices. Maybe some situations are in between these two extreme versions, too. If we see a huge risk we won''t accept it. If we see regular to no risk, we do the job and try to do it correctly..


This is not a slap at anyone. This is how we do what we do. People are so ready to feel they are being attacked that they don''t see the benefit of keeping an open mind. For those with less anger, there is more good information to make use of. For those blinded by their own situation I can''t say much except please just ignore me and we''ll go two separate ways. I am really sorry to offend anyone. I don''t post on Pricescope to antagonize retailers or trade shops. I post here to benefit consumers and the overall jewelry industry. Change can be painful, but looking for solutions is what I am always about, not creating more tension.

I may not agree with Dave on everything all the time but if more in the diamond industry acted like him there would be a lot less distrust.
I think its rather sad that he is saying give the customer what they want and need, and is getting heat for it.

 

[perry]

I actually think that Dave Atlas has the right basic attitude.

Interesting to note that when I chose an appraiser for my first diamond purchase, another appraiser asked why I chose Dave Atlas''s firm.

Attitude is everything, and while I did not respond on the eventual question of setting the stones - I knew that Dave would do it. My reply was on other things that Dave did that I felt was a value to the customer.

If anyone is looking to why Dave Atlas''s firm has a substaintial internet apprasial business - I suggest that you look no further than his interest in helping out the end customer as long as it is reasonable.

I am sure that some of the other appraisers have a similar attutude.

Perry

 

[WinkHPD]

Well said sir Crankmeister!

I know that my opinion on this issue is vastly unpopular, last time I looked at the poll that started the thread roughly 30% believed that I should set any stone, take full liability and NOT charge extra for it.

I also know that this would be an irresponsible position for me to take as a small merchant. (I am considering anything less than 5 million/year to be a small player on the internet and B&M jewelry market). Although it is EXTREMELY unlikely, a couple of 30-50k hits could put my very business at risk, and even one of them would make me VERY CRANKY for a year or two. I would have to change my lifestyle and my screen name would soon become something like VERY CRANKY WINK or maybe even CRANKIER THAN DAVE...

That being said, I bravely set forth my position, not because I expect to change the mind of the 30+ % but perhaps to give them something to think about in understanding why I will insist that my bench tell me whether or not we can do the job and in discussing the liability issue with my clients.

The last diamond that I chipped was a corner on a princess. Luck of the draw was with me and the 2.028 became a 2.021, only .007 of a carat (que theme music, diamonds are forever). We ended up not even having to redo the cert with GIA since the weight and measurements were unchanged. I discussed every step of the proceedure with my client, showed him the miniscule chip (easily prongable) recommended recutting, showed him the recut stone and then set it for him all at my expense, no charge to him, and fortunately no loss of value to him. I forget if that was two or three years ago. Had there been greater weight loss and the stone become a 1.90 for example there could have been much higher loss of value. When all was said and done he was surprised that although I had told him I would not accept any liability that I did in fact pick up all the expenses.

I did it because I could and because it felt right. Our position is not an attempt to "get one over" on our clients, but rather a self preservation device. I and I think most of my brethren will always attempt to make things come out in the favor of the client, it is simply good business. David Atlas may be uniquely able to accept more risk than many, and that is a great thing for his clients. Many of us are not there, yet, and we must be careful due to the lack of insurance available on this issue. Consumers must decide how they wish to proceed and with whom. It would make VERY good sense to me that they go to someone like Dave who can and will accept full liability on diamonds he did not sell.

Anyway, I like your post and agree that sometimes posting your position is guaranteed to possibly cost you business, but if that is your position you should be able and willing to state it and hopefully explain it. ( I guess my position here could be construed as an anti-advertisement, LOL)

Wink

P.S. Happy 4th of July

 

[strmrdr]

You know iv been thinking about this.
Its pretty hypocritical for any Internet vendor that sells loose diamonds to refuse setting jobs.
You sell them and expect other jewelers to set them while you pocket the money from the diamond sale.
While your not willing to take the risk that you expect others to take so you can get a sale.
Sorry but thats pretty 2faced no matter what the reasons behind it.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/4/2005 5:16:47 PM
Author: strmrdr
You know iv been thinking about this.
Its pretty hypocritical for any Internet vendor that sells loose diamonds to refuse setting jobs.
You sell them and expect other jewelers to set them while you pocket the money from the diamond sale.
While your not willing to take the risk that you expect others to take so you can get a sale.
Sorry but thats pretty 2faced no matter what the reasons behind it.

Stormy my friend,

I think you may not be referring to me, but just in case you are, please read what I said more carefully. I not only set the stones I sell, but I take responsibility for them. What I do not accept liability for are stones that you bought elsewhere. If you buy it from me I own it until it is finished, then you own it.

If I or any other vendor has given you the idea that we do not accept responsibility for stones that we sell then I apologize for giving you the wrong impression. The whole issue to my way of thinking is why should I accept multi thousand dollar liability for a job at which I may net $10 - $15. I can not think of any good reason why so I do not. Obviously, if I sell the stone I made a profit, and thus must accept the liablity that comes with it.

I can only speak for myself, but I frequently set stones that we sell as does Whiteflash, GOG, NICEICE, and probably most of the other vendors here. Many of our clients will have their local jeweler design a mounting and set the stone, but I am not aware of any here that will not set what they sell.

If I am reading the poll correctly then more than 30% of the people here believe that the jeweler should set ANYONE''s stone and not charge more for it, regardless of risk. To me this is not an intelligent business decision. To not take responsibility for what we sell would also be a horrible business decision. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding in my position.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Wink I wasnt talking about anyone specifically.
I haven''t been following this thread that close in a couple pages so not sure what you said.

I will clarify..

Any vendor that sells loose diamonds expecting other jewelers to set those diamonds for the consumer while at the same time refusing setting jobs or acting like its a huge problem for them is acting in a hypocritical manner.

 

[perry]

Strmrdr:

If I understand what you said...

1) You are not talking at all about vendors who set the diamonds they sell themselves and accept responsibility for what happens to the diamonds they sold.

2) You are talking about vendors who:

A) Set their own diamonds with acceptance of full liability
(The damage liability is part of the profit in the sale of the diamond).

B) Sell loose diamonds to others, knowing that someone else will end up setting them.
(pocketing the profit from the diamond sale without any risk taken on setting the stone).

C) Refuses to accept liability for a customer who has their own diamonds
(the liability is too great since the vendor is not making any profit on the diamond).

If that is what you meant, then I agree with you.

Thunk, I think you hit the nail on the head. It is somewhat 2 faced to pocket the profit from loose diamond sales (with no risk of setting damage), and then refuse to take a risk for someone who has their own diamonds. I would think that it all comes out in the wash (actually they come out ahead since the number of request to set another diamond is probably a lot less than the number of loose diamonds they sell).

Here again I feel that some sort of formal policy along the lines of my previoius proposal should be in place, and that in the vast majority of cases (unless there clearly is a problem diamond) that the vendors should be able to accept the liability (or at least up to a point).

Perry

 

[strmrdr]

Yep perry nailed it as too what I am saying.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/4/2005 6:37:50 PM
Author: perry
Strmrdr:

If I understand what you said...

1) You are not talking at all about vendors who set the diamonds they sell themselves and accept responsibility for what happens to the diamonds they sold.

2) You are talking about vendors who:

A) Set their own diamonds with acceptance of full liability
(The damage liability is part of the profit in the sale of the diamond).

B) Sell loose diamonds to others, knowing that someone else will end up setting them.
(pocketing the profit from the diamond sale without any risk taken on setting the stone).

C) Refuses to accept liability for a customer who has their own diamonds
(the liability is too great since the vendor is not making any profit on the diamond).

If that is what you meant, then I agree with you.

Thunk, I think you hit the nail on the head. It is somewhat 2 faced to pocket the profit from loose diamond sales (with no risk of setting damage), and then refuse to take a risk for someone who has their own diamonds. I would think that it all comes out in the wash (actually they come out ahead since the number of request to set another diamond is probably a lot less than the number of loose diamonds they sell).

Here again I feel that some sort of formal policy along the lines of my previoius proposal should be in place, and that in the vast majority of cases (unless there clearly is a problem diamond) that the vendors should be able to accept the liability (or at least up to a point).

Perry

I thought Storm would dissagree with you since you had catagory 1, dealers who set the stones they sell and accept liability, but then you went to have three catagories below that included those who set the stones they sell but then added them to the bad guy list if they did not want to set stones others sold.

No matter, it will just mean I am on your bad guy list.

A few years ago a lady came to me with a stone with a cleavage clear accross the stone from one side to the other. She had won the stone in a promotion and it came with an appraisal from the vendor who supplied it to the promoter for $6,200.

Three jewelers had refused to set the stone and she came to me for an appraisal and also to ask that I set the stone. She was a little irked when I informed her that the stone could be purchased at full retail for about $1,200 at any store in town since she had had to pay over $2,000 in taxes on her winnings. I declined to set the stone also and she went back to the promoter via her attorney and eventually received a cash prize with which she bought a different diamond. (Not from me, I was the expert witness by this time). I expect that this stone would have qualified for your "problem" stone exemtion, but I would have to refuse to take liability for your 50,000 diamond just as quickly as my $10 - $15 profit is not worth the inherent risk in setting such a large stone. I understand that you think this unfair, but unless I sell you the stone, I do not wish to put my business or family in jeopardy, even should the profit be $200. When I am able to get insurance for setting your stone at a reasonable price, then I shall be interested in setting your stone and accepting the liability. Until then, I think it would be only sensible of me to decline the opportunity.

I accept that this may be an unpopular opinion but it is my opinion. I can see nothing two faced about it. I accept full liability for anything that I sell, provided that I set it, I can surely not accept liability should you decide you want your local jeweler to set it and I reserve the right to decline to set anything that you bring to me if I have to take liability for the stone above a reasonable cost to repolish the stone should there be an accident. We set only a few hundred stones a year, well over 90% of them stones that we sell. I have not heard a single argument to make me believe that the few hundred dollars a year I make setting other people''s stones is worth tens of thousands of dollars of liability.

I am not sure what kind of a formal policy you could put in place would be binding on another''s business. It just does not make sense to me from any point of view, ethical or economical. I think this may be one of those issues where we just agree to dissagree. As it turns out so far I have never had a serious loss, but I would hate to see my life''s work and my retirement lost to a single large accident and loss. I work only for myself, so I do not have a large corporation standing behind me with a retirement account. Every dollar that I put on the line is mine, so I tend to be very careful with them. I do not think this two faced but you are certainly entitled to feel differently.

Wink

 

[perry]

I never said that the coverage would be unlimited.

Look at my previous post, I would let the vendor decide what the limit was - and would not be upset as long as the limit was reasonable.

While it it great to say that you could be whipped out by a 50,000 loss. How many $50,000 diamonds do you sell or walk into your shop.

The vast majority of diamond sales are under $10,000; and I suspect that the average diamond is closer to $5000.

Perry

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/4/2005 7:55:58 PM
Author: perry
I never said that the coverage would be unlimited.

Look at my previous post, I would let the vendor decide what the limit was - and would not be upset as long as the limit was reasonable.

While it it great to say that you could be whipped out by a 50,000 loss. How many $50,000 diamonds do you sell or walk into your shop.

The vast majority of diamond sales are under $10,000; and I suspect that the average diamond is closer to $5000.

Perry

Usually only one or two of the big ones per year, and those are nearly always stones that we sold. Only two walk ins that size in my very long career (I am 5 and I accepted no liability for either of them other than the cost of the repolishing should anything happen, which fortunately nothing did. We have broken a couple of smalls, and we replaced both of them, and the chipped princess mentioned earlier.

We do discuss these issues with each client when it becomes appropriate, I am just stating that in my opinion it is unfair to expect me to take liability for an expensive stone that we did not sell. At a few hundred dollars a year in profits from setting stones we did not sell it does not have to be very expensive before it becomes a negative expectation. It is not a large issue with us as that is an extremely tiny part of our business, way less than 10% of the stones that we set.

This thread is extemely interesting to me, as I am somewhat surprised by how diametrically opposed my opinion is with so many consumers. I suspect I am not so different than many of the vendors, but they have been fairly quiet. I have great respect and admiration for David Atlas, and I am glad for him that his business is able to assume those risks. It is a choice that each business must make for themselves and I am sure that if I had a multi million dollar business I would be in a better position to "self insure" for this type of risk.

You might be surprised to learn that many stores average sale is under $500 but obviously that is not my business, thank goodness. My average sale is more in line with your guestimate, but it is not my sales I am worried about, it is the diamonds that come in that I did not sell. Very few of them are of the quality that I sell, a lot of I1''s and SI2''s, medium to poor cut bought cheap but appraised high. (How much fun is it to be liable for a $5,000 stone that should have sold for $1,500?)

Sometimes it is as much the desire that no one think we sold such stones as the fear of damage that motivates me to say no, but even when I get in a wonderful stone that we would have been proud to sell I am willing to set it only if my liability is limited to repolishing any damage. I would guess that the number of outside diamonds I set is less than ten per year and than most of them are inexpensive enough that I do not worry about it. My actual need to have a "conversation" about liability is only a few times per year, and I have never regretted having any of those conversations, even though we never had to act on any of them. It just makes me sleep easier at night, nowing that my future is not at risk over somethning sold elsewhere.

You are correct though, it does not happen often that a big stone comes in the door, but when it does, your policies should already be in place so that no mistakes are made and no unreasonable expectations are there on either side.

Wink

 

[perry]

To futher clarify my position:

I believe that there should be some form of policy worked out up front, in writing, that explains your stone setting policy.

This policy should allow you to set most diamonds - regardless of who sold the diamond; and should have a written notification for cases of problem diamonds where you will aceept limited or no risk.

This policy should provide reasonable customer coverage should a normal diamnod be damaged or broken during setting. This includes the concept of fair and proper valuation for the diamond up front (and you would be free to ask for an independent appraisial of value if necessary)

This policy should provide enough income for each setting to pay you for your reasonable risk.


I never, never said that a vendor should accept unlimited liability for no markup. Feel free to turn down the jobs where people are not willing to abide by the terms of the policy and pay the apprpriate tarrif.

I think the better vendors will work on a way to do this, and I have no objection to the vendors turning their setting operations into profit centers as a result (just be sure to bank the extra money to cover the eventual breakage that will occur).

I am sure that my initiall suggestion of such a policy can be modified with the comments that followed and other issues to cover the situation. Perhaps us at pricescope could all work together to develop a policy that is mutually agreeable to most of us here that the various vendors could trail adopt and see how it goes.


Perry

 

[WinkHPD]

P.S. I have enjoyed our discourse here today, now I am going home, it is 6:30 on the 4th of July and I am feeling the need to go BBQ something. If you lived in Boise I would accept the liability of cooking you a steak, so any time any of you should feel the need to visit, I will probably feel the need to BBQ something for you.

Wink

 

[rickyrockranger]

Two faced? How can policy be two faced?

Wink''s policy makes 110% to me.

Ask yourself this question - would you risk $5000 (or $50,000 for that matter) to make $15? Absolutely not is the rational answer.

I once put a vendor in that position, and he had me sign a waiver that if he destroyed my stone, I was SOL. I had to sign it, he set it, and luckily nothing happened.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/4/2005 8:33:16 PM
Author: rickyrockranger
Two faced? How can policy be two faced?


Wink''s policy makes 110% to me.


Ask yourself this question - would you risk $5000 (or $50,000 for that matter) to make $15? Absolutely not is the rational answer.


I once put a vendor in that position, and he had me sign a waiver that if he destroyed my stone, I was SOL. I had to sign it, he set it, and luckily nothing happened.

The hypocritical part of it is that he puts other jewelers in a position of getting bad publicity or being liable for a diamond that if the situation was reversed he wouldnt take liability for.
I tried to keep this impersonal but Wink keeps making it personal.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/4/2005 7:48:11 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 7/4/2005 6:37:50 PM


I thought Storm would dissagree with you since you had catagory 1, dealers who set the stones they sell and accept liability, but then you went to have three catagories below that included those who set the stones they sell but then added them to the bad guy list if they did not want to set stones others sold.


No matter, it will just mean I am on your bad guy list.

Wink

Not sure if you were talking bout my list or perry's but it doenst put you on my bad guy list.
It puts you on my good guy that I disagree with in some areas list.
You are in very good company because I cant think of one person I agree 100% with on everything.

Iv been trying not to single anyone out because there are a lot of vendors with that policy.
I just happen to think its a little hypocritical to expect other jewelers to set diamonds you sell to consumers without any hassles when you wont do so yourself on diamonds you didnt sell.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/4/2005 9:04:01 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/4/2005 8:33:16 PM

Author: rickyrockranger

Two faced? How can policy be two faced?



Wink''s policy makes 110% to me.



Ask yourself this question - would you risk $5000 (or $50,000 for that matter) to make $15? Absolutely not is the rational answer.



I once put a vendor in that position, and he had me sign a waiver that if he destroyed my stone, I was SOL. I had to sign it, he set it, and luckily nothing happened.

The hypocritical part of it is that he puts other jewelers in a position of getting bad publicity or being liable for a diamond that if the situation was reversed he wouldnt take liability for.

I tried to keep this impersonal but Wink keeps making it personal.

Stormy,

I always take my business personally, but I also take no offence at your comments, they are well reasoned from your point of view, I just have a different point of view. Of course, I would be remiss if I never dissagreed with you, what fun would that be???

I do not intentionally put other jewelers in a position of getting bad publicity as I am always happy to set the stones that I sell. I also expect them to take the same position that I do about others diamonds, but what they do is up to them and how they view their business.

Wink

P.S. Can''t stay long, the fireworks are about to start and we have a great view from my front porch...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/5/2005 12:18:43 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 7/4/2005 9:04:01 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/4/2005 8:33:16 PM


Author: rickyrockranger


Two faced? How can policy be two faced?




Wink''s policy makes 110% to me.




Ask yourself this question - would you risk $5000 (or $50,000 for that matter) to make $15? Absolutely not is the rational answer.




I once put a vendor in that position, and he had me sign a waiver that if he destroyed my stone, I was SOL. I had to sign it, he set it, and luckily nothing happened.

The hypocritical part of it is that he puts other jewelers in a position of getting bad publicity or being liable for a diamond that if the situation was reversed he wouldnt take liability for.


I tried to keep this impersonal but Wink keeps making it personal.

Stormy,


I always take my business personally, but I also take no offence at your comments, they are well reasoned from your point of view, I just have a different point of view. Of course, I would be remiss if I never dissagreed with you, what fun would that be???


I do not intentionally put other jewelers in a position of getting bad publicity as I am always happy to set the stones that I sell. I also expect them to take the same position that I do about others diamonds, but what they do is up to them and how they view their business.


Wink


P.S. Can''t stay long, the fireworks are about to start and we have a great view from my front porch...

Hope you enjoyed the fireworks :}

Just thinking out loud a little bit...

It would be better for you if no one would set other peoples diamonds wouldnt it.
It would guarentee a setting sale.
Would suck for consumers by driving compitition down on setting prices.

How many sales would you lose if you told people they had to buy the setting with the diamond because no one else would set it?
If everyone follows your example then that would be the case for all the intternet vendors.

It would actualy put you at a huge disadvantage over your position right now against local based compitition.

A good case can be made for buying diamonds over the net but a setting less so.

 

[claimsjeff]

Tom is out this week, however, I went back to a prior thread where he posted this..........let me know if we can answer any questions regarding this. Thanks-

Jeff Mills
Vice President Claims
Jewelers Mutual Insurance Co.


Date: 5/19/2005 8:01:56 PM
Author: denverappraiser
Tom,

As I understand it from my JM agent, the company will now insure a loose diamond owned by a consumer under the Jewelers Mutual personal jewelry program against the usual sorts of losses. In addition, if the consumer has this stone set and damaged by a jeweler who is otherwise covered by a Jewelers Mutual commercial policy, the company will accept the claim as valid under the Personal polocy without taking recourse against the jeweler for the damages. Is this correct?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

Neil is correct in that if a jeweler is insured by us (Jewelers Mutual), their customers can apply for insurance on items that the jeweler is going to work on. Our Personal Jewelry Insurance has always covered jewelry if damaged by a jeweler when they are working on an item. This includes setting a loose stone into a mounting.

If a JM-insured jeweler has a customer that is interested in our Personal Jewelry Insurance, the customer can complete and submit an application to us prior to the jeweler beginning their work. The jeweler should provide the customer with a complete appraisal that should be sent along with the application. The appraisal should be valued and based on all of the components in the finished piece of jewelry. Once we determine the application meets our underwriting guidelines, we can confirm that there is coverage and the JM-insured jeweler can begin working on the jewelry.

Not only will we cover the jewelry while being worked on, the customer also receives one year of insurance on the item.

Tom Adelmann
Jewelers Mutual Ins. Co.
800-558-6411, x2376
[email protected]

 

[WinkHPD]

That is very welcome news to me as I am a JM covered jeweler. If I understand you correctly, all I need to do is have any prospective client get a JM policy on the jewelery/diamond that I am going to work on and I/they am covered.

I am confused however, as I thought JM did not cover loose diamonds.

Can you have someone contact me about this and clarify my possible misunderstanding. I would love this for a couple of reasons, one it could relieve me of having to take such an unpopular position.

Two it would provide an additional profit center as I would need to appraise many of the diamonds before they could be insured. (For those who do not know, we jewelers make ZERO on "selling" a policy to our clients. It is a service that we provide with NO compensation from Jewelers Mutual. However if a loss occurs they do send our clients back to us, not out shopping for three quotes. I think I have done two or three repairs and replacements over the last five years, so this is not a huge payoff, but it is a high value added service to our clients as JM rates are generally lower than homeowners rates for jewelry riders.) Chubb is another insurance company that provides a cash payout rather than a replacement, but I have no idea what their stand is on loose diamonds. Not too surprising, as I did not know about JM''s policy either and I am covered by them.

This could be a wonderful thing in my opinion. It has never been a big problem for me as we set most of the stones we sell and only a few are presented to us each year that we did not sell, but it would be nice to have that whole liability issue off my back.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

I hope JM has stepped up to the plate as it sounds like they have.
I will be waiting for the asnswer to wink''s question so please let us know.
I would not think it ureasonable to say yes I can set it but in order for it to be covered you need to buy a JM policy for a year.
From all accounts they are a good insurance company and people need insurance anyway.

one question can the insurance numbers be adjustable after its issued.
ie: Someone didnt like the appraisal numbers and got another appraisal and wanted the amount insured adjusted up or down?
It would kinda suck if the vendor issued a 2x cost appraisal and you were stuck with the high appraisal for a year and the client couldnt recover that much.
It would also allow the vendors to issue an appraisal at todays replacements cost and the client can have an appraisal done later to set a long term value for the policy.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 7/5/2005 12:52:13 PM
Author: crankydave

Date: 7/5/2005 12:26:12 PM
Author: strmrdr
I hope JM has stepped up to the plate as it sounds like they have.
I will be waiting for the asnswer to wink's question so please let us know.

I'm still waiting to hear the answer to Neils question. It's been posted and copied 4 times now. If JM intends to take recourse against their insured jeweler for any loss, then all they are doing is collecting an extra premium from the consumer with the jeweler ending up paying for it anyway.

Dave

Jeff,

In the thread you are quoting from there were several questions that Tom left unanswered about this policy. This is an important issue to both your commercial clients and to consumers. It could serve as a benefit for both while making additional sales for you. There seem to be two key quesitons that remain unanswered:

If a JM insured jeweler unintentionally damages an item covered by a JM personal policy while assembling, setting or repairing it, will this be a covered loss under the consumer policy and can this result in recourse against the jeweler? Is this different from your behavior when a similar problem happens with a jeweler that does not have one of your commercial policies?

Will you bind a personal jewelry policy for a ring or other item that does not yet exist based on a report describing and valuing the expected final product?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[claimsjeff]

I apologize if we did not answer these questions earlier…..

You are correct about the breakage coverage under our Personal Jewelry Insurance Program. If the jeweler (or employee) damages a customer’s item while working on it, we will not pursue reimbursement if the jeweler has a Jewelers Mutual business policy. We will cover their cost to repair/replace the jewelry (but no profit/overhead) under the Personal Jewelry Policy.

Keep in mind, if you send the customer item out to be worked on, or if an in-house independent contractor that we do not insure works on it, we will pursue them to recover the cost of repair that we paid.

How it works…..
Ø Prior to working on the jewelry, ask customers if they have Jewelers Mutual’s Personal Jewelry Insurance, which will cover jewelry if it is damaged during the work process
Ø If your customers are interested in our PJ insurance, have them complete a PJ application while you perform an appraisal that includes all of the components in the finished piece of jewelry. The limit of insurance listed on the policy should be the retail replacement cost of all of the components in the finished piece of jewelry. For example, if a stone retails for $8,000 and the mounting is $2,000 the replacement cost should be $10,000 plus the applicable sales tax.
Ø If your customers complete an application at your store, you can fax it to us right away, confirm coverage, and begin working on the jewelry, knowing you won’t be responsible if the item is damaged.
Thanks for asking!
Jeff A. Mills
Vice President Claims
Jewelers Mutual Insurance Company

 

[strmrdr]

one question for Jeff/JM.
consumer gets the policy.
stone is damaged while being set.
JM pays for a replacment
Will the consumers rates go up for the next renewal because of the claim?

edit to add> I want to send out a huge thanks to JM for making this coverage available.
It makes life a lot easier for both consumers and vendors.

 

[denverappraiser]

Jeff,

I want to second Storm’s compliment to JM for this policy. This sounds like a wonderful product for both consumers and jewelers. I hope your stockholders make money at it and decide to continue. I also want to compliment JM for participating in this forum to help answer questions from your clients. I do have a few questions.

1) As an independent appraiser (who is JM insured), if I do an appraisal on a potential item for a consumer who then buys a policy and takes it to a JM insured jeweler would this policy apply or does the jeweler doing the work also have to do the appraisal? Does it matter that I’m JM insured for purposes of preparing the required appraisal?

2) If the jeweler has the work done by a non-JM insured craftsman and a claim is filed, and assuming that the claim is otherwise valid, will the fact that the jeweler doesn’t have proper insurance mean that you will pay the claim and then consider seeking restitution from the jeweler or is this grounds to deny the claim to the policyholder?

3) You mention that the jeweler should appraise the expected item at ‘retail value’. For a retail jeweler working on new merchandise, does this mean the selling price or something different from that?

4) If, in the course of the development of the piece, the design requires changes, is it necessary for them to report this to you and get a go-ahead for the modifications? In particular, I’m wondering what they should do if they make an important alteration like changing the type of metal used or even what mounting is selected.

5) If the jewelers craftsmanship is poor and a stone falls out due to what would generally be called a ‘manufacturing defect’, would this be a covered loss? Am I correct that this would not have previously been a valid claim?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver