E-Ring Dream to E-Ring Nightmare in the Diamond District

[Hephephippo]

And from the report details -- is it a good gem?

 

[alamana]

So I guess I can't talk about my experience here? I thought this forum was welcoming to this. I did not name the merchant and suggest that unless the point is constructive, zip it. Don't appreciate accusatory tone.

I think that to "talk about" your experience and ask advice is one thing, but to lead people to believe you were "deceived" and "ripped off" when you weren't is another. You did not name the merchant, but you also made it very clear that you intended to do so in the near future. My point is constructive -- very constructive -- you better watch yourself before you find yourself on the other end of a defamation lawsuit.

 

[yssie]

The report is from 2011 so it is possible it was a trade in.

Ditto this. The answers to these questions in particular become more important:

1) Does the GIA report represent the stone your SO paid for? (This is a question your SO should answer)
2) Is the centerstone in your ring the one for which that GIA report was issued? (Ask your appraiser)
3. Does the report accurately reflect the current condition of the stone? (Ask your appraiser)

 

[canuk-gal]

Ditto this. The answers to these questions in particular become more important:

1) Does the GIA report represent the stone your SO paid for? (This is a question your SO should answer)
2) Is the centerstone in your ring the one for which that GIA report was issued? (Ask your appraiser)
3. Does the report accurately reflect the current condition of the stone? (Ask your appraiser)

This. Your appraiser will be able to visualize the laser inscription and corroborate. And of course, condition (as set). Do bring the GIA cert with you!

cheers--Sharon

 

[Hephephippo]

I think that to "talk about" your experience and ask advice is one thing, but to lead people to believe you were "deceived" and "ripped off" when you weren't is another. You did not name the merchant, but you also made it very clear that you intended to do so in the near future. My point is constructive -- very constructive -- you better watch yourself before you find yourself on the other end of a defamation lawsuit.

Then why are you passing judgement? Judgment is never constructive especially when negative. People come here to seek advice. I made it clear I'm a novice and in fact still lost in the world of diamonds. I made it clear I will name the merchant, after the outcome of our experience, not before. They have already been named on here so I would not worry about defaming them since they already appear to have a reputation -- which is what led us to be worried in the first place.

Read my OP, I clearly stated the gem in itself looks fine to me -- I would wear the actual gemstone because my SO picked it and it looks fine. I was not a fan of the setting but that can easily be changed. You read through my OP so negatively. Has it not occurred to you that being newbies some people do not know any better so they come here?

I came here because we worried we were not getting what SO paid for. He got a ring, not from a PS approved source, that's disappointing but not the worst. The worst is that the vendor has a reputation of unreliability and gals advertising -- making us wary the gem could be not what is claimed. If the gem my SO selected is legit and valued as claimed, then we can Move forward which is indicated in my game plan in my OP.

Not sure why you want to judge us. If you know better then share your knowledge and information without the unnecessary tone of judgement.

 

[Hephephippo]

This. Your appraiser will be able to visualize the laser inscription and corroborate. And of course, condition (as set).

cheers--Sharon

Thank you @yssie and @canuk-gal -- silly question here but how does SO answer question number one? How can he verify, just by being at the store, that the diamond shown him is the one in the cert?

He changed his appraiser appointment to one highly recommended here on PS after I sent him the link you all shared with me. He will be dealing with this tomorrow and we hope the results are favorable and that the vendor was not deceitful.

 

[whitewave]

Defamation is hard to prove, would require the plantiff to prove loss of something such as business as a result and they would have to prove intent.

Yes, words on the internet never die, but someone expressing concern on one post on one website about their experience does not trigger anything for a defamation case. My opinion

 

[yssie]

How can he verify [...] that the diamond shown him is the one in the cert?

He cannot. That is question #2 in my list (that your appraiser will address).

What he should answer is:
Did I pay for a XXXct F VS2 princess with no fluorescence and VG polish/symmetry?

He may not have noted/discussed pol/sym prior to purchase. However, if he paid for an E and he’s holding a report for an F, you know there’s a problem.

 

[alamana]

Defamation is hard to prove, would require the plantiff to prove loss of something such as business as a result and they would have to prove intent.

Yes, words on the internet never die, but someone expressing concern on one post on one website about their experience does not trigger anything for a defamation case. My opinion

You are very wrong -- plaintiffs in New York defamation cases can sue for per se damages when the comments made concern their profession, which means the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove economic loss or injury because the defamatory statement is inherently harmful. And OP expressed more than concern about her experience, she expressed that her SO had been "deceived."

 

[Hephephippo]

He cannot. That is question #2 in my list (that your appraiser will address).

What he should answer is:
Did I pay for a XXXct F VS2 princess with no fluorescence and VG polish/symmetry?

He may not have noted/discussed pol/sym prior to purchase. However, if he paid for an E and he’s holding a report for an F, you know there’s a problem.

Thanks @yssie -- problem here too is their word against ours. They could claim they said this but not really. SO noticed for example that the rreceipt indicated special order. It was not. He walked in and walked out of a store.

On a separate and unrelated note, assuming the diamond is what it is, are the specs acceptable?

 

[yssie]

Does the receipt not indicate carat, colour, and clarity of the centerstone, at least?

 

[yssie]

If the stone you have is the one indicated on the report and current condition matches that specified on the report - specs are fine. We can’t tell you much about the stone (besides “no giant waving red flags”) without more info - fancy shapes are difficult and we’d need images.

 

[whitewave]

Trade in means since the report is old, it is possible someone owned the ring and traded it in for something different and larger since it is unlikely the stone has been sitting around unsold since 2011.

It needs to be examined for chips, scratches, etc since it may not be in the original new condition it was in when that report was issued in 2011.

 

[whitewave]

You are very wrong -- plaintiffs in New York defamation cases can sue for per se damages when the comments made concern their profession, which means the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove economic loss or injury because the defamatory statement is inherently harmful. And OP expressed more than concern about her experience, she expressed that her SO had been "deceived."

Since the GIA report was dated in 2011, it already appears possible they were sold a used stone as a new stone. I'm not impressed with THAT right there...

 

[Hephephippo]

If the stone you have is the one indicated on the report and current condition matches that specified on the report - specs are fine. We can’t tell you much about the stone (besides “no giant waving red flags”) without more info - fancy shapes are difficult and we’d need images.

Yes, I understand. Will definitely check with the appraiser on their advice. I read on here about a machine like the loupe? Is that the one? To check a diamond. What machines or test should we consider for it or for our next purchase if this one fails through.

 

[Hephephippo]

Trade in means since the report is old, it is possible someone owned the ring and traded it in for something different and larger since it is unlikely the stone has been sitting around unsold since 2011.

It needs to be examined for chips, scratches, etc since it may not be in the original new condition it was in when that report was issued in 2011.

Thank you @whitewave again for your inputs. I know I ask a lot of questions and I apologize for this. Would the appraiser be able to update the certification? That's not our intention but obviously if the diamond and cert does not match up then we have stronger ground for dispute. However if it does match up, I just wonder if the appraiser is legally allowed to update certification or that is done through an entirely separate process.

 

[whitewave]

Thank you @whitewave again for your inputs. I know I ask a lot of questions and I apologize for this. Would the appraiser be able to update the certification? That's not our intention but obviously if the diamond and cert does not match up then we have stronger ground for dispute. However if it does match up, I just wonder if the appraiser is legally allowed to update certification or that is done through an entirely separate process.

I would definitely see if they would be willing to pay the $250 (somewhere around there) to get a new certificate.

Let me edit and rephrase: ask the seller why the report is from 2011. Ask if it is a used stone.

 

[Hephephippo]

I would definitely see if they would be willing to pay the $250 (somewhere around there) to get a new certificate

Thank you we will check on that. SO said he didn't see the GIA certificate until after signing card slip. Just verbal assurance they are GIA certified.

 

[whitewave]

I mean I would get the seller to pay for the new certificate if it is a used stone... (not the appraiser)

 

[Hephephippo]

Ah yes -- great suggestion!! This will also be a neutral and fair ask that benefits both parties I think. After all, if the appraiser comes back to us saying the diamond is sub-par against the specs paid for, then we'd have dispute grounds.

 

[alamana]

I mean I would get the seller to pay for the new certificate if it is a used stone... (not the appraiser)

Why would a new certificate be necessary (assuming the appraiser finds no new chips, scratches, or whatever that would effect a clarity grade)?

 

[whitewave]

Why would a new certificate be necessary (assuming the appraiser finds no new chips, scratches, or whatever that would effect a clarity grade)?

First, the seller needs to account for where the diamond has been since 2011.

The buyer should not have to hire an appraiser or pay for a new certificate after buying what he thought was a brand new diamond (assuming he thought that).

Whether or not to recertify would be after the basic facts are established.

Yes, if the stone is in the exact same shape, then a new cert may not be needed but the buyer shouldn't have to put out any money to find that out... on the other hand, if they ever trade it in, that person or company may want to know why the certificate is old, etc...

 

[yssie]

Why would a new certificate be necessary (assuming the appraiser finds no new chips, scratches, or whatever that would effect a clarity grade)?

I am also wondering why this would be beneficial? The stone would have to be unset for re-grading, which is additional risk and expense - I personally would be satisfied with David Wolf’s professional opinion. It’s true that if OP winds up selling the stone herself... that new GIA report becomes much more valuable!

Edit - I see the explanation to this above my response here... I suppose I disagree: it’s nice of a vendor to re-submit a stone on trade-in (and I work only wth vendors who do this), but ultimately I do think it’s the consumer’s responsibility to ensure an up-to-date report is available if that’s important to him. Most diamonds are “used”, I don’t have any problem with re-selling one as long as the consumer has the opportunity to examine what he’s buying at time of sale.

 

[Hephephippo]

First, the seller needs to account for where the diamond has been since 2011.

The buyer should not have to hire an appraiser or pay for a new certificate after buying what he thought was a brand new diamond (assuming he thought that).

Whether or not to recertify would be after the basic facts are established.

Yes, if the stone is in the exact same shape, then a new cert may not be needed but the buyer shouldn't have to put out any money to find that out... on the other hand, if they ever trade it in, that person or company may want to know why the certificate is old, etc...

To add to that, it apparently is common practice for businesses to re-certify a diamond when it is traded in or sold back to them to keep it fresh. By not re-certifying it, it also leaves them vulnerable I guess. I read this:

http://www.lumeradiamonds.com/blog/GIA-Certificate-Date-For-Loose-Diamonds

 

[flyingpig]

This has been a debated topic.

Personally, I would never buy a stone with a grade report from 6 years ago, regardless who the vendor is and who the appraiser is. It is just me.

Whether sending the stone back to GIA for re-grading is feasible in this case is a different topic.

 

[Hephephippo]

This has been a debated topic.

Personally, I would never buy a stone with a grade report from 6 years ago, regardless who the vendor is and who the appraiser is. It is just me.

I think that makes so much sense even if it is a personal preference. My personality type is "best be safe than sorry" so yes even if it means it will cost me more money, I'd rather go a fresh route than an outdated one. Six/Seven years is a long time. Have to wait til the appraisal tomorrow to find out -- SO found one from the list here in PS although outside Manhattan. We just felt comfortable going that way.

 

[yssie]

This has been a debated topic.

Personally, I would never buy a stone with a grade report from 6 years ago, regardless who the vendor is and who the appraiser is. It is just me.

Whether sending the stone back to GIA for re-grading is feasible in this case is a different topic.

Ditto. This thread would look very different had this discussion been pre-purchase.

 

[Hephephippo]

Ditto. This thread would look very different had this discussion been pre-purchase.

I'm back to feeling bad about this whole thing but i guess the appraisal outcome will help us with our case.

Thanks for pointing us in this direction, very helpful although the reality sounds horrible right now.

 

[canuk-gal]

Thank you @whitewave again for your inputs. I know I ask a lot of questions and I apologize for this. Would the appraiser be able to update the certification? That's not our intention but obviously if the diamond and cert does not match up then we have stronger ground for dispute. However if it does match up, I just wonder if the appraiser is legally allowed to update certification or that is done through an entirely separate process.

1) First things first. Many appraisers ask the reason for your visit--valuation for insurance purposes? Valuation for estate purposes and resale? Validation of purchase? And the list goes on. Let them know why you are there..."I bought a ring and want to know what I purchased is what.... You get the idea. Provide the GIA cert.

2) If there is a laser inscription, the gemologist will do his best to identify it under a microscope. If it is present and visual, you can also look to see it. Hopefully, it should match your GIA cert. Sometimes settings can obstruct the laser inscription. In the event the inscription is not visualized, etc, gemologists are educated to look for inclusions, color, clarity,etc, to match your cert. Like a map and the geography is very telling.

3) Your stone is set. That said, there are some limitations to what can be seen. Again settings can obscure nicks and chips--which can happen on any stone "new" or "reset' or "estate" piece.


Recertification by GIA is done through GIA, not with the appraiser. Since you are concerned about "what" you purchased, verify what you have. Go from there. Big breaths.

cheers--Sharon

 

[alamana]

First, the seller needs to account for where the diamond has been since 2011.

The buyer should not have to hire an appraiser or pay for a new certificate after buying what he thought was a brand new diamond (assuming he thought that).

First, I disagree that the seller "needs to account for where the diamond has been." "Used" diamonds are sold all the time, it's not the same thing as a used car. If buyer wanted to know the history of the diamond, he should have asked. Caveat emptor.

And as far as "The buyer should not have to hire an appraiser" ... I think pretty much everyone who buys a diamond or diamond ring has it appraised. I took my diamond to an appraiser within 48 hours of receiving it and had the appraiser compare it to the GIA cert. It's just reasonable due diligence when buying a diamond.