GIA cert wrong vs. Martin fuller apprasial.

[bigsparkles]

Martin said that comment doesnt cover the ones he plotted.

 

[Laila619]

My opinion changes a little now knowing the GIA cert said additional clouds not shown. That is a red flag that indicates everything is not plotted on the inclusion map. An appraiser can be wrong, too. Their opinion doesn't necessarily mean more than the gemologist at GIA. This is subjective, and as Karl said, it is accepted that grading can differ by one level and still be acceptable.

So I do think it boils down to whether you loved the stone before the appraisal. If so, then I'd just keep it and insure with the sales receipt and GIA report.

It's not a red flag, and in fact it's very common. GIA and AGS both do this. When they aren't shown, it's because they're considered irrelevant and minor, and to plot them would make things overly confusing. It's ONLY problematic when the cert says "the clarity grade of the diamond is based on clouds not shown," which is a whole different animal.

To the OP, grading is subjective. That is the main thing here. What GIA or AGS says is just one opinion. What an appraiser says is another. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. If you love it, keep it!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I thought that when plotting inclusions they basically plot the grade makers and don't bother plotting others that exist that would not make the grage any worse?

OP: GIA trumps an appraiser when it comes to value of the stone. Why send it back to GIA? The seller would not do that, there is no reason for them to do it. GIA rated it as an SI1 and they will sell it as a GIA Si1. It IS a GIA SI1! If you are not happy with the diamond for its own merits, or think you can shop around and find a better deal -- meaning a more beautiful or better graded stones for your money -- go for it! But to me, the difference in opinion of the clarity is a moot point. It is conflicting opinions. JA does not owe you anything for that difference in opinion, nor does the seller need to regrade the diamond. It only matters to you and whether you want to keep the stone or not.

 

[Laila619]

I thought that when plotting inclusions they basically plot the grade makers and don't bother plotting others that exist that would not make the grage any worse?

OP: GIA trumps an appraiser when it comes to value of the stone. Why send it back to GIA? The seller would not do that, there is no reason for them to do it. GIA rated it as an SI1 and they will sell it as a GIA Si1. It IS a GIA SI1! If you are not happy with the diamond for its own merits, or think you can shop around and find a better deal -- meaning a more beautiful or better graded stones for your money -- go for it! But to me, the difference in opinion of the clarity is a moot point. It is conflicting opinions. JA does not owe you anything for that difference in opinion, nor does the seller need to regrade the diamond. It only matters to you and whether you want to keep the stone or not.

Yes, that's generally what they do.

And I absolutely agree with the underlined.

 

[milton333]

FWIW, I bought an AGS-certified SI1. I had my ring appraised for insurance, and the appraiser, also an AGS gemologist, stated that he'd grade it SI2. I told him thanks, but he could keep his opinions to himself. Not in so many words, of course. But it is not unusual for an appraiser to have a different opinion on clarity, especially if it's only 1 grade off. Why the map looks so different is something I can't explain.

However, you have a lovely stone. You have a GIA report that says it's SI1. You can resell as an SI1, and can most likely insure as an SI1, too. Personally, I'd keep it and be thrilled with it.

 

[Gypsy]

FWIW, I bought an AGS-certified SI1. I had my ring appraised for insurance, and the appraiser, also an AGS gemologist, stated that he'd grade it SI2. I told him thanks, but he could keep his opinions to himself. Not in so many words, of course. But it is not unusual for an appraiser to have a different opinion on clarity, especially if it's only 1 grade off. Why the map looks so different is something I can't explain.

However, you have a lovely stone. You have a GIA report that says it's SI1. You can resell as an SI1, and can most likely insure as an SI1, too. Personally, I'd keep it and be thrilled with it.

This too.

 

[oldminer]

When the GIA says a diamond is SI1, then that is what it is. Appraisers may disagree, they may see more inclusions to plot, etc, but the trade takes it as a given that the GIA clarity grade is what the diamond now has. Of course, the trade also adjusts the asking price of diamonds according to the reality of each individual diamond. If an SI1 has more inclusions than another SI1, then the asking price or agreed end selling price might differ based on the nuances of a grade. An appraiser can clarity grade a diamond, plot inclsuions not on a GIA report and call the grade higher or lower, but it changes nothing about that diamond. The appraiser's opinion may be totally valid when it comes to the value calculated and still not at the exact GIA grade. Thuthfully, the function of an appraiser is to be sure a GIA graded diamond is the one which goes with the report and is undamaged since it was examined by GIA. They call call attention to poor clarity plotting and make their own clarity decision, but regardless, the stone is still the same one GIA blessed as SI1.

If you like a diamond and an appraiser has confirmed it is the one on the report it came with, then nothing chnages no matter how the appraiser re-grades it. Such discrepancies are useful in the calculation of relative market value, and on rare occasions do prove to indicate that a diamond has been altered since grading, damaged, or actually the wrong diamond. However, such discrepancies more commonly highlight the subjective nature of clarity grading creating concern among consumers who don't understand the GIA system or the degree of authority commanded by GIA in regard to the "grade" they have placed on a given diamond.

Rather than complain about a vendor who has a great exchange and return policy, why not decide if you personally like the diamond and want to wear it or take advantage of the return process? Every diamond is an individual. Sales people want you to buy and can't be faulted for pitching what the GIA paper tells as the "story". If you want a different, diamond, then nothing said here on Pricescope will make the situation better. I hope the above explanation of how the trade works with GIA grading reports gives you better insight to the degree reports communicate somewhat less than 100% disclosure with somewhat less than 100% precision. No matter, the trade takes the 100% right on the GIA approach when it suits them in selling and lets the buyer, dealer or consumer, make a decision. Best of luck.

 

[denverappraiser]

There are several choices for why an independent grader and a lab don’t match:

1) The lab is wrong, the appraiser is wrong or both.
2) They didn’t see the same stone.
3) The stone has been damaged or altered since the date of first inspection.
4) They’re using different grading scales, grading methods or both.
5) It’s a borderline call and they made different decisions based on the same observable ‘facts’.

Assuming we’re ruling out 2&3, I think it’s reasonable that JA sold it based entirely on the GIA grade. There seems to be no question of the scales being used and Martin’s methodology is similar if not identical to GIAs. He’s a well regarded gemologist. That said, as soon as GIA calls it an SI1, it’s an SI1. As was pointed out, if returned it will still be an SI1, it will again be sold as such and this is NOT cheating or mistreating the next customer. It’s a GIA-SI1. From the sellers side, Martin’s opinion doesn’t matter for a hill of beans and for the next buyer, unless he’s the chosen appraiser, it still doesn’t matter.

Martin is seeing something that GIA didn’t. Again, assuming he’s not disputing that it’s the correct stone then he's saying that it’s a ‘lucky cert’. That is to say, a stone that would be expected to grade out lower than it actually did. That may very well be a reason not to buy it, but it’s still a GIA-SI1 and I would fully expect it to be priced and promoted as a such.

This is indeed a weakness of shopping online but moreso it’s a weakness of shopping based 100% on lab docs, which happens with this kind of goods in a store as well. Separating SI1 from SI2 is sometimes remarkably difficult even with the correct tools and decidedly few consumers are prepared to do it. Rather few PROFESSIONALS are prepared to do it. Even fewer are prepared to stand up and call GIA wrong. Kudos to Martin. He saw what he saw, he graded it as he saw it and he’s standing his ground. Kudos also to Jim and his supplier. They’re taking a return outside of the regular return policy on a distinctly expensive stone where the issue is a clarity dispute on a GIA graded stone. Yikes! Someone in New York is banging his head on the table over this but they'll get over it.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

What Dave and Neil said.

In addition, let's face it folks...this job is not an easy one.

I respect an independent appraiser who stands by his observations and convictions as
long as he or she can explain and justify their decision.

 

[LibbyLA]

Why would it take half an hour to realize there's an inscription on the girdle? I'd have thought that would be one of the first and easiest things to look for. I would think that one of the first things that the appraiser would do with a loose diamond would be to check for an inscription.

liz

 

[AN0NYM0US]

Me personally, I would not only return it, I'd start over at another vendor. Even if I knew I had to pay more for the same elsewhere. I wouldn't be able to just accept that I overpaid for a lesser clarity stone and knowing full well what's there that is misrepresented on the report. It's no longer mind-clean.

The hesitance to refund the appraisal fee to confirm you got what you paid for bothers me a great deal, he should have immediately said "if you don't love it please return it, I will have your refund sent as soon as we receive it OR if you keep it Ill send you a refund for the amount of the appraisal right away." There should be zero hesitation, just bending over backwards and total embarrassment in his behavior and reaction, and I don't know how he behaved to you but your description makes me think he's trying to blow it off. And while I would not think Jim would be that way, it would really bother me if it turns out he was in this instance.

This is exactly why we always say on here to get an independent appraisal. It confirms you got what you actually bought.

She didn't get a diamond of "lesser clarity" she got a GIA SI1 and/or a Martin Fuller SI2. JA was selling a GIA SI1 and that is what she received. I don't think JA should have to refund the independent appraisers fee, the appraiser confirmed it was the same diamond, with possible (Fuller's opinion) plotting issues that are (IMO) covered under the "additional clouds..." That is a pretty clean plot for a 3ct SI1.

I view JA's refunding of the appraisal fee as a sign of integrity and dedication to customer satisfaction.

OP, IMO you should have sent the diamond to GIA to either verify the report or issue a new one. If there had been new damage to the stone after the last appraisal then I believe you would have had a legitimate complaint.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

My opinion changes a little now knowing the GIA cert said additional clouds not shown. That is a red flag that indicates everything is not plotted on the inclusion map. An appraiser can be wrong, too. Their opinion doesn't necessarily mean more than the gemologist at GIA. This is subjective, and as Karl said, it is accepted that grading can differ by one level and still be acceptable.

So I do think it boils down to whether you loved the stone before the appraisal. If so, then I'd just keep it and insure with the sales receipt and GIA report.

It's not a red flag, and in fact it's very common. GIA and AGS both do this. When they aren't shown, it's because they're considered irrelevant and minor, and to plot them would make things overly confusing. It's ONLY problematic when the cert says "the clarity grade of the diamond is based on clouds not shown," which is a whole different animal.

To the OP, grading is subjective. That is the main thing here. What GIA or AGS says is just one opinion. What an appraiser says is another. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. If you love it, keep it!

Yes, very common. And it should be an indicator (flag) to the buyer that there are MORE inclusions in the stone that the plot shows. That's all I meant. No one should be surprised when they see unplotted inclusions on a stone where the report already tells them that there will be!

 

[Laila619]

My opinion changes a little now knowing the GIA cert said additional clouds not shown. That is a red flag that indicates everything is not plotted on the inclusion map. An appraiser can be wrong, too. Their opinion doesn't necessarily mean more than the gemologist at GIA. This is subjective, and as Karl said, it is accepted that grading can differ by one level and still be acceptable.

So I do think it boils down to whether you loved the stone before the appraisal. If so, then I'd just keep it and insure with the sales receipt and GIA report.

It's not a red flag, and in fact it's very common. GIA and AGS both do this. When they aren't shown, it's because they're considered irrelevant and minor, and to plot them would make things overly confusing. It's ONLY problematic when the cert says "the clarity grade of the diamond is based on clouds not shown," which is a whole different animal.

To the OP, grading is subjective. That is the main thing here. What GIA or AGS says is just one opinion. What an appraiser says is another. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. If you love it, keep it!

Yes, very common. And it should be an indicator (flag) to the buyer that there are MORE inclusions in the stone that the plot shows. That's all I meant. No one should be surprised when they see unplotted inclusions on a stone where the report already tells them that there will be!

Oh yes, I do agree DS.

Like Anonymous said, it's actually pretty clean for a 3 carat SI stone though...!

 

[Gypsy]

Me personally, I would not only return it, I'd start over at another vendor. Even if I knew I had to pay more for the same elsewhere. I wouldn't be able to just accept that I overpaid for a lesser clarity stone and knowing full well what's there that is misrepresented on the report. It's no longer mind-clean.

The hesitance to refund the appraisal fee to confirm you got what you paid for bothers me a great deal, he should have immediately said "if you don't love it please return it, I will have your refund sent as soon as we receive it OR if you keep it Ill send you a refund for the amount of the appraisal right away." There should be zero hesitation, just bending over backwards and total embarrassment in his behavior and reaction, and I don't know how he behaved to you but your description makes me think he's trying to blow it off. And while I would not think Jim would be that way, it would really bother me if it turns out he was in this instance.

This is exactly why we always say on here to get an independent appraisal. It confirms you got what you actually bought.

She didn't get a diamond of "lesser clarity" she got a GIA SI1 and/or a Martin Fuller SI2. JA was selling a GIA SI1 and that is what she received. I don't think JA should have to refund the independent appraisers fee, the appraiser confirmed it was the same diamond, with possible (Fuller's opinion) plotting issues that are (IMO) covered under the "additional clouds..." That is a pretty clean plot for a 3ct SI1.

I view JA's refunding of the appraisal fee as a sign of integrity and dedication to customer satisfaction.

OP, IMO you should have sent the diamond to GIA to either verify the report or issue a new one. If there had been new damage to the stone after the last appraisal then I believe you would have had a legitimate complaint.

I agree.

 

[JulieN]

Mr. Fuller has never seen a fluorescent stone in all his years of practice? I think something like 30% of diamonds show some fluorescence.

I think it's beautiful, stop worrying about it. I agree with the appraisers above who said that GIA is the final word.

 

[OCgirl]

So the only thing we know is that the laser inscription matches the GIA report? Does the cut (measurements of crown angles...etc), color and carat match up? So the clarity is the ONLY thing off?

I would say if that's the case and you still love the stone before knowing this, it's just a "mind clean" issue. If it's eye clean enough for you and the price is comparable to an SI2 stone then it's still a lovely deal. All the gradings (color or clarity) are highly subjective. You need to love the stone for what it is, not what it says on a report!