Trust the jeweler or the appraiser?

[Paddy730]

All,

I brought my fiancee's engagement ring in for appraising today for insurance purposes and the appraiser told me something very different from the jeweler. My fiancee loves the ring, but I now I have questions about what exactly I bought and who is telling the truth.

I'm also a bit concerned because most of the time people seem to get appraisals that are much higher than they paid for the ring -- this appraisal is for only $130 more than I paid for the ring. If I hadn't negotiated the price down, or if I'd paid sales tax (out of state purchase), it would have appraised for significantly less than I paid.

I'm curious to hear what people think. Is this a transitional or OEC? Should I go for another appraisal or just suspect that I propably overpaid?

Any input you can provide would be greatly appreciated!

Jeweler:
Says ring is from 1920s; diamond is OEC also from 1920s.

Appraiser:
Says ring may be from 1920s, diamond is transitional and closer to 1940-60s. Suggested that the diamond may have been re-cut after damage.

To be fair, the jeweler specializes in antique jewelry and the appraiser doesn't.

The diamond is GIA certified:
ROUND BRILLIANT
Measurements 7.30 - 7.47 x 4.62 mm
Carat Weight 1.55 carat
Color Grade I
Clarity Grade VVS2
Cut Grade Fair

PROPORTIONS
Depth 62.6 %
Table 59 %
Crown Angle 33.0°
Crown Height 13.0%
Pavilion Angle 43.8°
Pavilion Depth 46.5%
Star Length 60%
Lower Half 65%
Girdle Very Thin to Slightly Thick, 3.0%
Culet Medium

FINISH
Polish Good
Symmetry Fair

FLUORESCENCE
Fluorescence None

CLARITY CHARACTERISTICS
Clarity Characteristics Needle, Cavity, Feather, Extra Facet, Pinpoint

 

[Rhea]

The photos look like the ring is from Erstwhile. If it's from there I don't think you necessarily overpaid, you just paid retail price. They are a high street jeweller located in Manhattan. Did you ask the appraiser how they came up with the value? It's better that the appraisal isn't overinflated because then you'd be paying higher insurance than you'd need to.

As far as the cut of the diamond it's my understanding that there is a lack of clarity about when certain cuts were happening and it depended a lot on each individual cutter. I've never heard of transitional being cut as late as the 1960's though, 1940's is certainly a possibility for a tranny as is the 1920's. I don't think there's anything wrong with a diamond being recut after damage. Diamonds aren't indestructible and do chip. If someone chose to recut it to bring it back to it's former glory in my book that's a fine thing to do. Did the appraiser mention why he thought it was recut though?

 

[Rhea]

I just noticed the extra faucet on the GIA report. That could mean a recut because of a chip or damage. I missed that when I first posted.

 

[gemmyblond]

Hi Paddy,
I'd start with trying to understand if the difference in opinion is mostly semantic or substantive, and what reasons each party cites for his/her view. In other words, why does the appraiser think it's a transitional stone cut after the 1920s? And conversely, why does Erstwhile (as the photos do look to be from them) believe that the stone is indeed cut/from the '20s? Why do they think it's original to the ring (if indeed they do)?

As you probably know from reading around PS, OEC typically refers to stones with smaller tables (like mid/upper 40s or low 50s % range) and steep, high crowns. This stone doesn't have those specific dimensions (which may be some of what led the appraiser to conclude it's a transitional/newer)...but the stone does have an 'old stone feel' to it and other characteristics that fit an OEC, such as a slightly bigger culet and shorter lower halves than a modern round. And sometimes, people use the descriptor OEC as a term of art, to refer more to the combination of shape (round) + overall look of the stone rather than to adherence to specific criteria. So if you start with trying to understand why the appraiser and jeweler are saying what they each believe, you can begin to come to your own point of view and sort out what to do.

Do you and your fiancée still like the ring and the stone? The ring has to be right, but the process has to feel good too imho, and that's what you're in the midst of sorting out. Good luck and congrats on your engagement!

 

[chrono]

It looks more like a later cut (transitional) from the facet pattern than an earlier cut (OEC).

 

[Circe]

A) I am very impressed with the depth of knowledge and sheer good sense of GB's answer, so, co-sign.

B) To go back to your original question ... neither, or both. The thing is, they could both be right about some part of it. The dealer could have the age of the diamond down pat (according to Al Gilbertson's American Cut, it is at least plausible for a stone like this to have come from that period), but have been wildly off on its value. The appraiser could have pegged the possibility of a recut dead-on, but not have had the expertise to gauge the rarity value of a relatively high-color old-cut properly.

Would you mind saying what you paid and what the appraiser put it at, so we can assess who's being unrealistic as regards comparable prices? Nobody here can say for sure who's right on that basis (frankly, seeing another appraiser might be the way to go if you're feeling really uncertain), but it might help put your mind at ease.

P.S. - Does the appraiser by any chance also sell jewelry? I only ask because sometimes it can lead to a conflict of interest.

 

[Paddy730]

Thanks GB & Rhea,

Good call on the jeweler.

We both got a good vibe on working with him (and all of the yelp reviews were good), so we didn't ask as many questions as perhaps as we should have. We'd read enough to know that it's hard to date jewelry for certain, so when we were told the style of the ring suggested 1920s, we didn't ask for documentation. And to be fair, I'd probably still go back to him if I needed something else.

And, I think part of it was gut reaction: My fiancee has a diamond ring from her grandma that we know came from the early 1940s and although the diamond itself isn't as good, the facets are smaller and it's just not nearly as lively. Hence, the e-ring looks old, has some super slight wearing away of the pattern on the band and in person, the diamond just looked like a much whiter version of the OECs we saw at Doyle & Doyle.

For Rhea's question, your second post was exactly what he said: the appraiser thought it was cut to hide a chip. The extra facet is actually hidden pretty well under the prongs and he had to search for a while and turn the ring sideways to find it.

 

[Paddy730]

B) To go back to your original question ... neither, or both. The thing is, they could both be right about some part of it. The dealer could have the age of the diamond down pat (according to Al Gilbertson's American Cut, it is at least plausible for a stone like this to have come from that period), but have been wildly off on its value. The appraiser could have pegged the possibility of a recut dead-on, but not have had the expertise to gauge the rarity value of a relatively high-color old-cut properly.

Would you mind saying what you paid and what the appraiser put it at, so we can assess who's being unrealistic as regards comparable prices? Nobody here can say for sure who's right on that basis (frankly, seeing another appraiser might be the way to go if you're feeling really uncertain), but it might help put your mind at ease.

P.S. - Does the appraiser by any chance also sell jewelry? I only ask because sometimes it can lead to a conflict of interest.

Thanks Circe!
Good questions. I paid $17,500 for the ring and it appraised, replacement value, at $17,685. The market value was much less -- something like $14000.

I used Gemological Appraisal Laboratory -- supposedly they only do appraisals. I don't know that they have any expertise in old jewelry.

 

[Circe]

B) To go back to your original question ... neither, or both. The thing is, they could both be right about some part of it. The dealer could have the age of the diamond down pat (according to Al Gilbertson's American Cut, it is at least plausible for a stone like this to have come from that period), but have been wildly off on its value. The appraiser could have pegged the possibility of a recut dead-on, but not have had the expertise to gauge the rarity value of a relatively high-color old-cut properly.

Would you mind saying what you paid and what the appraiser put it at, so we can assess who's being unrealistic as regards comparable prices? Nobody here can say for sure who's right on that basis (frankly, seeing another appraiser might be the way to go if you're feeling really uncertain), but it might help put your mind at ease.

P.S. - Does the appraiser by any chance also sell jewelry? I only ask because sometimes it can lead to a conflict of interest.

Thanks Circe!
Good questions. I paid $17,500 for the ring and it appraised, replacement value, at $17,685. The market value was much less -- something like $14000.

I used Gemological Appraisal Laboratory -- supposedly they only do appraisals. I don't know that they have any expertise in old jewelry.

Hmm ... actually, I think that's a pretty reasonable retail price. The closest loose stone that's comparable (in fact, eerily identical), is this one at Old World Diamonds:

Here are its specs, including cost: http://oldworlddiamonds.com/detail.php?ID=2512&SHAPE=EU

Stock #: OWA33597
Carat Weight: 1.55
Color: I
Clarity: VVS1
Measure: 7.41*7.28*4.54
Cert: GIA
Depth: 62.4

Table: 52
Polish: Good
Symetry: Fair
Girdle: xtn
Flourescence: None
Culet: Slightly Large
Price: 14,822.00

Factor in another couple of grand for a setting and taxes, and that's pretty much exactly what Erstwhile charged. I think the appraiser was feeling persnickity that day.

 

[Rhea]

I wouldn't say that you overpaid either. Not as close as the one Circe found, this one is a bit larger in carat weight and mm with 1 higher colour and 1 lower clarity, but here's another to compare to. It's the closest I could find with the time I had.
http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?pagename=GST%2FDispatcher&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&c=Page&cid=1355954554547&reportno=6157139559
http://www.jewelsbyericagrace.com/loose_antique_and_vintage_diamonds_-_151_to_250_carats
It's on the market for over $18K.

 

[Paddy730]

Thanks everyone, especially Circe & Rhea! I feel much more reassured now.

 

[lindacat]

An extra facet doesn't necessarily mean damage or chips. From what I have read about antique diamonds, the hand cutters often included an extra facet in them on purpose, and it was not done to hide anything.

 

[houserabbitz]

I found this interesting because I had a similar experience. The appraiser said our stone (a generational gift) was from the 1940s or 50s, a transitional cut, and, though looks like it has a chip, it is not chipped, he said it is the “skin” of the diamond? The jeweler said it is an OMC, from before the 1920s, and does in fact have a chip. I really have no idea, and wonder if I should have a third party look at it? It’s currently out at Ritani, being set.

 

[arkieb1]

Did the setting above come with the diamond? It looks like a 1920s setting. It is very common to take diamonds out to re-polish the girdle. I have seen early transitionals that look like this one but the actual pattern looks like a later dated transitional which, I think is what is causing the confusion. The stone may have been recut a bit, it also may not be the original stone that was in the setting.

 

[MMtwo]

Hi, I am not an expert like many of the others here, but wanted to say it is a beautiful ring. I am especially taken with the setting. The old styles from the 20's had an architectural element that is so compelling. Wear with happiness and good health!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I would call it a transitional given the specs. But a lot of estate or vintage jewelers don't use that term at all.

You paid a fair price for a high end retailer. The fact that the appraisal lines up with what you paid is a good thing. It means you won't be over-insured and it means your appraiser is doing his/her job properly!

 

[alene]

Hi Paddy, I can't offer much on the stone itself, though I do think it's beautiful, but I just wanted to chime in on the GAL appraisals. I've used them for several pieces of jewelry and found them to be always very very close to what I paid (retail), like within a couple of hundred dollars. Personally, I prefer it, I'd rather not pay insurance on an inflated appraisal.

Thanks Circe!
Good questions. I paid $17,500 for the ring and it appraised, replacement value, at $17,685. The market value was much less -- something like $14000.

I used Gemological Appraisal Laboratory -- supposedly they only do appraisals. I don't know that they have any expertise in old jewelry.