+2.5 yr old grading report on James Allen

[Phillies787]

Hello everyone,

I just purchased a loose diamond from James Allen that has a GIA grading report dated back to July 2010 (more than 2.5 yrs old).

A) Is this cause for concern?

B) Is this likely to be a worn diamond that was acquired/returned/traded in recently?

C) What other reasons could there be for the delay?

Any help is appreciated, as I am trying to decide whether to return it.

Thanks!

 

[HoratioNelson]

Id be interested to hear thoughts on how old,a certificate should be too.

I've been ordered (not from JA but a wholesaler in London) a stone with a report from March 2009. Are stones often that old?

 

[LibbyLA]

The fact that a diamond has a grading report with a very recent date doesn't mean that it's not "used." A diamond could have an old report and be sent back in for regrading or it could be recut and sent back in. It could have been worn by several people over the years.

liz

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I agree. Don't worry about whether it has been worn before as long as you can verify that it is still in the condition it was in when it was graded. I once looked at a diamond with a 20 year old report that had been kept in a safe as an investment! But there may be diamonds in certain color/clarity ranges that move more slowly. Or there could be something wrong with the diamond such as visible inclusions or poor cut. So don't worry about the date and evaluate the stone on it's merits.

 

[John P]

Id be interested to hear thoughts on how old,a certificate should be too.

I've been ordered (not from JA but a wholesaler in London) a stone with a report from March 2009. Are stones often that old?

It does happen. It's more common in divergent color-clarity combinations like K VVS1 or D I1, but it can happen with any diamond. The reasons are various and benign, but the effect can be cumulative: A report from a couple of years ago gets dismissed by more and more people as time goes by, and soon you have a perfectly new diamond with a report from 2009 that people assume must have some issue.

Your jeweler will gladly answer questions about a diamond's history and report date. At that point you can either (a) trust the jeweler you've chosen to work with, (b) involve an appraiser (at slight expense) to verify that the stone is in the condition described on the report, (c) negotiate or purchase a new report (at slight expense & a week or so delay) from a grading lab, or (d) pass on the diamond and seek another - which is unfortunate if the one with the older report is a perfect fit.

 

[Phillies787]

John, that's interesting that you mentioned divergent color/clarity characteristics as being a potential cause for delay in turnaround, because the diamond I purchased is a J/VVS2/excellent cut.

I will also likely get an appraiser to confirm the results of the report. Thank you for the information.

 

[John P]

John, that's interesting that you mentioned divergent color/clarity characteristics as being a potential cause for delay in turnaround, because the diamond I purchased is a J/VVS2/excellent cut.

Viola.

I will also likely get an appraiser to confirm the results of the report. Thank you for the information.

You're welcome. This inspires a couple of thoughts:

1. Be sure to use an appraiser with up-to-date knowledge. Many appraisers have great traditional color, clarity and finish skills, but are not familiar with all of the current cut metrics.

2. Be sure it's truly someone independent... I was recently contacted by a local consumer who purchased from an internet seller. She had seen an appraiser who told her (a) the AGS is not trustworthy. (b) the VS1 should be an SI1. (c) It took 3 tries to get his diamond-tester to green-light, which is a sign that it's man-made or treated (poppycock). He went on to say that internet diamonds are 'leftovers' and frequently fake or enhanced...the horror!..so it was fortunate she brought it to him. Also fortunate (sarcasm) he just happened to know a jeweler in the same building and offered to make sure she got a "great deal" once she returned the internet diamond.

She was upset and frightened. She found me via Facebook and asked for assistance since she lives in my state. We put the stone through its paces in my lab and no worries. Solidly graded, very nicely cut and well-priced. All good, but she had a scare (as a footnote, she lurks on PS but does not post...and I hope she doesn't mind my telling this story).

The advice here: If you choose to involve an appraiser please vet them for reputability, knowledge and trustworthiness, just as you would with your seller.

 

[SMC]

John, that's interesting that you mentioned divergent color/clarity characteristics as being a potential cause for delay in turnaround, because the diamond I purchased is a J/VVS2/excellent cut.

Viola.

I will also likely get an appraiser to confirm the results of the report. Thank you for the information.

You're welcome. This inspires a couple of thoughts:

1. Be sure to use an appraiser with up-to-date knowledge. Many appraisers have great traditional color, clarity and finish skills, but are not familiar with all of the current cut metrics.

2. Be sure it's truly someone independent... I was recently contacted by a local consumer who purchased from an internet seller. She had seen an appraiser who told her (a) the AGS is not trustworthy. (b) the VS1 should be an SI1. (c) It took 3 tries to get his diamond-tester to green-light, which is a sign that it's man-made or treated (poppycock). He went on to say that internet diamonds are 'leftovers' and frequently fake or enhanced...the horror!..so it was fortunate she brought it to him. Also fortunate (sarcasm) he just happened to know a jeweler in the same building and offered to make sure she got a "great deal" once she returned the internet diamond.

She was upset and frightened. She found me via Facebook and asked for assistance since she lives in my state. We put the stone through its paces in my lab and no worries. Solidly graded, very nicely cut and well-priced. All good, but she had a scare (as a footnote, she lurks on PS but does not post...and I hope she doesn't mind my telling this story).

The advice here: If you choose to involve an appraiser please vet them for reputability, knowledge and trustworthiness, just as you would with your seller.

Ooh, what an interesting story, John! Thanks for sharing.

 

[HoratioNelson]

Thanks for the story and advice.

I'm looking at another stone now offered by this London based dealer, and that has a certificate dated June 2009. It seems to have a discount against the Raperport price.. I wonder why that is and if it's purely related to the fact that it's got an old report?

In practice, how do you get another report done, particularly if you haven't bought the stone? I'd be happy to pay for it, but wouldn't want to irritate the seller, as it is effectively saying "I don't believe the stone you're selling me is what you say it is". And as I'm dealing with a wholesaler rather than resaler, patience with me as a customer isn't really there!

Would a diamond graded one colour/clarity in 2009 really be that different in 2013? I can't imagine so. This diamond is an F VS2, so not too much divergence there.

 

[kenny]

A new report is no guarantee the diamond was not owned/worn before.
When there is a divorce or death nobody throws away a diamond.
Many are returned to the market, repolished if needed and sent to the lab for a new report.
The retailer may not even be aware it was pre-loved, and IMHO this is no crime since the diamonds are a billion years old anyway.

As long as there are no chips or damage I would not mind an older report.

The only time I'd insist on a very new GIA report is for a fully natural colored diamond since criminals are always trying to find new color-treatment processes that will fool GIA into thinking the color is of natural origin.
GIA also conducts research to keep up with the crooks, so insisting on a report less than, say, 2 years old seems reasonable to me.

 

[kenny]

I'm looking at another stone now offered by this London based dealer, and that has a certificate dated June 2009. It seems to have a discount against the Raperport price.. I wonder why that is and if it's purely related to the fact that it's got an old report?

In practice, how do you get another report done, particularly if you haven't bought the stone? I'd be happy to pay for it, but wouldn't want to irritate the seller, as it is effectively saying "I don't believe the stone you're selling me is what you say it is". And as I'm dealing with a wholesaler rather than resaler, patience with me as a customer isn't really there!

Would a diamond graded one colour/clarity in 2009 really be that different in 2013? I can't imagine so. This diamond is an F VS2, so not too much divergence there.

The worst thing you could do to irritate the seller is not buy the stone.
Don't worry about irritating him/her.
YOU are irritated by the old report and it's YOUR money which you can take to many other diamond vendors.

Just tell this "wholesaler" you want a new GIA report, you don't need to explain.
In negotiations explaining displays weakness.
BTW, if you are not a diamond retailer and he/she is selling you a diamond then he/she is a retailer not a wholesaler. RED FLAG!

When I bought my green diamond I insisted on a new GIA report.
The seller had to send GIA the old report with the diamond to get a new report.
GIA confiscates the old report to prevent modification and counterfeiting.

FWIW here is the price of a new full grading report.
I don't know if GIA charges less for a 're-grade'.
Also be clear you want a new report, not just a $75 laminated letter verifying the stone matches the report.

http://www.gia.edu/gem-lab-service/diamond

 

[SMC]

Thanks for the story and advice.

I'm looking at another stone now offered by this London based dealer, and that has a certificate dated June 2009. It seems to have a discount against the Raperport price.. I wonder why that is and if it's purely related to the fact that it's got an old report?

In practice, how do you get another report done, particularly if you haven't bought the stone? I'd be happy to pay for it, but wouldn't want to irritate the seller, as it is effectively saying "I don't believe the stone you're selling me is what you say it is". And as I'm dealing with a wholesaler rather than resaler, patience with me as a customer isn't really there!

Would a diamond graded one colour/clarity in 2009 really be that different in 2013? I can't imagine so. This diamond is an F VS2, so not too much divergence there.

Do you mind disclosing the GIA report number and the price this seller offered the diamond to you for? It might not be worth the hassle of getting a new GIA report if there are better and cheaper options available.

 

[John P]

Thanks for the story and advice. I'm looking at another stone now offered by this London based dealer, and that has a certificate dated June 2009. It seems to have a discount against the Raperport price.. I wonder why that is and if it's purely related to the fact that it's got an old report?

If it has a cost-basis from several years ago the price would be surpassed by newer stones due to the slow rise of diamond prices. However most dealers adjust all prices systematically, even for older goods, because they need to replace sold inventory with new inventory of like-kind. With that said, I imagine they're simply motivated to move a diamond with a 2009 report.

In practice, how do you get another report done, particularly if you haven't bought the stone? I'd be happy to pay for it, but wouldn't want to irritate the seller, as it is effectively saying "I don't believe the stone you're selling me is what you say it is". And as I'm dealing with a wholesaler rather than resaler, patience with me as a customer isn't really there!

Bring it up. This concern could come from any buyer, professional or consumer. You might tell them you don't mind to pay for a new report and offer to make a deposit already. That deposit should be subject to refund or price-reduction if the report is not favorable - but if everything is in-order all should be the same. The seller can even send-in the old report with the diamond for an update. GIA has a lab take-in location in London so it should be a simple matter - if this is a GIA-graded diamond.

A personal aside: If you're a consumer this is a de-facto retail transaction, regardless of how the seller promotes themselves. I know it may be semantics. The $ may be an upstream price. Your source might show you the invoice from their supplier, or it may even be a supplier doing you a favor. But for the sake of terminology if you're an end-user this is a retail sale (okay, stepping down from soapbox).

Would a diamond graded one colour/clarity in 2009 really be that different in 2013? I can't imagine so. This diamond is an F VS2, so not too much divergence there.

With a normal update it should be the same. You know... A Diamond Is Forever.

 

[pang_k]

Hi Diamond professionals,

Ok I get that diamonds can be seen as a commoditized good, so it shouldn't matter if the diamond has been worn or not for years so long as there isn't any chips, cracks, etc.

Are there any plans in the future for vendors to disclose if a diamond had previously been worn?

Just so you know from a consumer perspective - there are women out there that don't want to be wearing someone's old diamond for many reasons i.e. maybe the diamond was associated with a failed or unsuccessful relationship or curse! or they don't want to be wearing a diamond from dead people.

As a consumer advocate I think there should be some form of disclosure and this can be a value-added selling point for vendors out there!

I agree. Don't worry about whether it has been worn before as long as you can verify that it is still in the condition it was in when it was graded. I once looked at a diamond with a 20 year old report that had been kept in a safe as an investment! But there may be diamonds in certain color/clarity ranges that move more slowly. Or there could be something wrong with the diamond such as visible inclusions or poor cut. So don't worry about the date and evaluate the stone on it's merits.

 

[kenny]

Hi Diamond professionals,

Ok I get that diamonds can be seen as a commoditized good, so it shouldn't matter if the diamond has been worn or not for years so long as there isn't any chips, cracks, etc.

Are there any plans in the future for vendors to disclose if a diamond had previously been worn?

Just so you know from a consumer perspective - there are women out there that don't want to be wearing someone's old diamond for many reasons i.e. maybe the diamond was associated with a failed or unsuccessful relationship or curse! or they don't want to be wearing a diamond from dead people.

As a consumer advocate I think there should be some form of disclosure and this can be a value-added selling point for vendors out there!

I agree. Don't worry about whether it has been worn before as long as you can verify that it is still in the condition it was in when it was graded. I once looked at a diamond with a 20 year old report that had been kept in a safe as an investment! But there may be diamonds in certain color/clarity ranges that move more slowly. Or there could be something wrong with the diamond such as visible inclusions or poor cut. So don't worry about the date and evaluate the stone on it's merits.

I understand that some people are superstitious, sensitive, and emotional.
Some believe in curses and I hear over a billion believe that a virgin can have a baby.
After all, people vary.

But IMO with diamonds there is too much money at stake and it is too easy to conceal previous ownership for sellers to throw tons of money down the drain by disclosing previous ownership.
Why sell something for $9,000 when they can sell it for $10,000?
Again the vendors may not even know their inventory's history, or may be lied to.
GIA can't tell if a 1 billion year old diamond is new or not.

Disclosure is a nice sentimental idea but it's naive to think it will never happen.
Profits are oxygen to businesses.
Even if a vendor claims they are certain each diamond is 'new' lingering suspicions would remain in my mind since so much money's at stake and unlike a used car it's easy to repolish and get a new report on a diamond.

Also, unlike gold or pork bellies, diamonds are not a commodity.
Too many things affect the value of each diamond, even with identical GIA reports.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think there's a lot to be gained for a seller that discloses if they know a stone has been sold once ( or more times)
The diamond, if it's in the same condition it was sold for the first time, is not worth less.
In many cases, as been pointed out- the seller does not know if a stone was sold before
But if they do, my position is that disclosure is actually adding value, as opposed to the opposite.


One thing to keep in mind with GIA- you're generally going to have to wait about 3 weeks from submission till when you get the diamond back.
There is a same day rush service, at double the price...and sometimes they do get it back a bit quicker.
But right now it's taking a lot longer than a week......

 

[kenny]

I think there's a lot to be gained for a seller that discloses if they know a stone has been sold once ( or more times)
The diamond, if it's in the same condition it was sold for the first time, is not worth less.
In many cases, as been pointed out- the seller does not know if a stone was sold before
But if they do, my position is that disclosure is actually adding value, as opposed to the opposite.

Sorry David but that post strikes me as diamond vendor's attempt to influence public opinion to keep their prices and profits up on used diamonds.

The only way someone is going to pay more for a known-used diamond is if it was used by Princess Di.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I suppose it's easy to read that way Kenny.
My point is not that a used diamond is worth more ( unless it was worn by Napoleon)- rather that a seller's willingness to fully disclose what they know about a diamond is of value.

 

[John P]

Are there any plans in the future for vendors to disclose if a diamond had previously been worn?

Hi pang_k.

This is only possible with a verifiable mine-to-showroom tracking system. It's pretty rare to find, although some Canadian brands have purported to do it in the past. My company, Infinity, used to provide a "Birth Certificate" with a photo of the original rough crystal from which the finished diamond was cut.

Times have changed, though. For some years there has been a disparity in the high price of rough versus slow-moving polished. This is due to mining houses who know demand will exceed supply in coming years (that is unavoidable). Meanwhile, polished dealers have been confronted with the very real flux in global economies, the crash of the Indian Rupee last year and slow buying in-general.

With rough being overpriced and gold prices riding high for some years (until recently) diamond manufacturers have turned more aggressively to sourcing old diamonds for recut. Gold/silver buying in the USA has turned into a pipeline of "used" diamonds moving back to world cut centers. Resultantly there is no way for a retailer to know if a diamond he/she is selling was cut from rough - or sourced in a secondary market and recut.

Another situation exists that is very bizarre: I mentioned that rough prices have been out of line with polished. This has not stopped the major sightholders from buying at inflated prices in order to keep their esteemed status with the mining houses. Once the rough is purchased they quickly cut steep-deeps (for best yield) and sell-off that polished at little or no profit to get their cash back. We have found it useful to purchase brand new diamonds of pithy cut-quality, re-cut them to higher standards and move them in our system.

I believe there are so many variables that it's impossible for a retailer to say "The diamond you're looking at was cut from rough...But this one over here was improved from a brand-new diamond of fair proportions...This other one was recut from a broken antique stone...And this last one was a previously owned stone that simply has a new report..." It's not practical.

I hope this helps.

Off-topic: Are you the poster who began the CNC topic? You got a number of replies (I know because I contributed images and comments there) and it would be interesting to hear your reaction, and continue the dialogue if appropriate.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...r-numerically-controlled-cut-diamonds.187796/