The other discussion relates to identification in case of theft or loss. In most cases of theft, or loss, recovery is very rare. Though Gemprint may be a nice ''extra'' there is no substitute for good insurance in such a catastrophic situation.
John
HI John
In theory you''re right about having insurance. But to make a successful claim you have to PROOVE the loss. Since most of the time, this involves a standard of proof that is "beyond the shadow of a doubt" if you can''t substanciate your loss to that level, you might find yourself (as a consumer) up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
There was a recent court case about a diamond switch accusation where the consumer really didn''t have the level of proof. There was expert opinion by experts that was brought in testimony.
If the diamond in this matter had been Gemprinted, it would have been a lot easier a matter to decide, and in the consumer''s favor if the stone had actually been switched. Conversely, having the Gemprint and proving the stone was not switched would have avoided a lot of expense and aggravation on both sides.
Rockdoc
John
HI John
In theory you''re right about having insurance. But to make a successful claim you have to PROOVE the loss. Since most of the time, this involves a standard of proof that is "beyond the shadow of a doubt" if you can''t substanciate your loss to that level, you might find yourself (as a consumer) up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
There was a recent court case about a diamond switch accusation where the consumer really didn''t have the level of proof. There was expert opinion by experts that was brought in testimony.
If the diamond in this matter had been Gemprinted, it would have been a lot easier a matter to decide, and in the consumer''s favor if the stone had actually been switched. Conversely, having the Gemprint and proving the stone was not switched would have avoided a lot of expense and aggravation on both sides.
Rockdoc
300x240.png)