Recertification - what’s the deal, aka Why are new lab certs better?

[caolsen]

I know that buyers prefer newer lab certs, but why? Has technology improved? Are older certs less accurate? Assuming one has a cert from a top flight lab, why does a buyer or the market put a premium on a new cert for an older stone? I recently bought a set stone in a ring with a GIA report from 2013 from a highly reputable vendor but some have asked why I didn’t get the stone pulled and recertified by GIA. I have no clue as to WHY I would do that, outside of trust issues with a vendor or seller which was not the case

Setting aside an antique cut that GIA used to rate as a fair round brilliant and now could rate as a circular or an OEC, what’s the deal? I’m not questioning people who do this, I just don’t understand the market forces at play…

 

[DejaWiz]

It's primarily for assurance and peace of mind that nothing has happened to the diamond between then and now such as chipping or fracturing.

 

[Karl_K]

In the trade any report older than 2 years is considered stale.
It may or may not accuracy reflect the current state of the diamond.
If someone has been wearing it is different from sitting in a safe for a long time.
In general something like a 2ct D/IF or D/FL an older report makes more sense than a 1ct G/Vs2. Even then many buyers would want a refreshed report with the lab doing a recheck.
On a case by case basis I would consider longer than 2 years but not much longer.

 

[kenny]

Besides identifying wear and tear occurring after a grading report here's another reason newer reports are better than older ones.
The best labs use the latest technology which is constantly improving.

Unfortunately technology used by crooks is also constantly improving.
They too develop the new tricks to fool the labs, making stones seem more valuable than they really are.
Fooling the labs is especially lucrative in some hues of Fancy Colored Diamonds.
The best labs have the latest knowledge and buy the latest equipment to keep up with the crooks.

Various things are responsible for the color in FCDs, nitrogen, boron, radioactivity, deformation of the diamond's crystal lattice, etc.
I seem to recall GIA graded some green diamonds as fully natural, even though the green was actually the result of radioactive lab treatments, not natural radiation in the earth.
A green FCD being graded as fully natural means TWO things:
1. The diamond was minded from the earth, not grown in a lab.
2. The source of the green color was natural radiation in the earth, not radiation from lab treatments.

When GIA got better newer equipment/processes those diamonds no longer qualified as fully natural and their value plummeted.

In this cat and mouse game the best consumer protection is new lab reports.
Nobody knows what new treatments the crooks will try to get away with next ... or frankly, what new treatments they might be getting away with now.

 

[caolsen]

It's primarily for assurance and peace of mind that nothing has happened to the diamond between then and now such as chipping or fracturing.

Suppose I didn’t think of that. Thanks

 

[RunningwithScissors]

I have been told that the labs have gotten a softer on grading color/clarity over time. If this is true, how does it play into getting a diamond regraded?

For example, I remember my husband having a discussion with @Wink about this issue when we were looking to sell my original engagement ring to a local jewelry store. I had a 1 ct oval F VS1, GIA report from 2005. We were selling it in 2019. If I'm remembering correctly (but I might not be - I've got a migraine and my memory is muddled at the moment!) Wink said that my older lab report was a strength because back then they were graded more harshly.

 

[caolsen]

I have been told that the labs have gotten a softer on grading color/clarity over time. If this is true, how does it play into getting a diamond regraded?

For example, I remember my husband having a discussion with @Wink about this issue when we were looking to sell my original engagement ring to a local jewelry store. I had a 1 ct oval F VS1, GIA report from 2005. We were selling it in 2019. If I'm remembering correctly (but I might not be - I've got a migraine and my memory is muddled at the moment!) Wink said that my older lab report was a strength because back then they were graded more harshly.

That’s what I would have assumed as well. That assuming a stone had no damage that an older cert would be more strict. I’ve been told this is the case with fancy colored diamonds. A plain old low color UV stone back in the day gets a light fancy grade now.

 

[flyingpig]

You would not buy a house or a car with a 2 yr inspection report, would you?

 

[Venti25]

You would not buy a house or a car with a 2 yr inspection report, would you?

Great analogy!

 

[caolsen]

You would not buy a house or a car with a 2 yr inspection report, would you?

Cars have consumable parts, diamonds don’t. So I suppose I’d ask if I’d buy a piece of art with a verified chain of control with an older appraisal. And yes, I would and have.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Note- I’m going to answer in general….
A lot of great points were raised.
In general- I do look at stones with old reports skeptically....but a lot depends on the circumstance.
A loose diamond with an old report- on the wholesale market....not always a problem- but could be.

At the retail level....if a stone is set, sending it back to GIA requires removing it from the ring. If the seller has a strong reputation and is trustworthy, many buyers will accept the report, as is.
So there might be a legitmate reason not to pull a ring apart and re-certify.
Also- the date on the report, from the buyer ( owner's) perspective.....if they get a new report, and want to sell the ring in 5 years, a new buyer may ask the same question...requiring yet another removal from the ring and trip to GIA. In this case, it would make the most sense to remove and send for a GIA at the time of a new sale.
So - if there's not a doubt about the provenance of the stone, it's concievably not necessary to send it back for a new report.
If there's any doubt about stone and the seller can't answer- don't proceed

 

[vintage diamond]

Thank you for asking the question! I just bought a 2ct oval with a gia report from 2010. The jeweler took the diamond in as a trade. It was mounted in a setting and he was going to sell the diamond in the setting (I think it was the original setting from the trade in). I wanted a different setting though, so it's getting put in a new one. I wish I knew at the time of purchase that I should have potentially not bought it because the report is old. Not being knowledgeable about this I didn't know, and looked at it as an opportunity to buy a 2ct oval in my budget because it wasn't being sold as "new". My jeweler seems reputable and it's my second time working with him, so hopefully all is ok.

 

[Rockdiamond]

opportunity to buy a 2ct oval in my budget

This is an important point.
Say a jeweler takes a mounted stone in trade....they examine it, verify that it matches the GIA report- and inspect for damage.
In a case where everything looks good....it might be a piece that can be sold at a discount, as is.
Removing the stone, sending to GIA...besides the actual monetary costs....there's time and other aspects that would cause most sellers to raise the price.

I need to walk a fine line here....it's super important knowing what you're getting, as a consumer- and the lab report is the best way....but there are cases where an older report is just fine.
I hate to see someone developing doubts about something that may not be an actual problem

 

[caolsen]

Thank you for asking the question! I just bought a 2ct oval with a gia report from 2010. The jeweler took the diamond in as a trade. It was mounted in a setting and he was going to sell the diamond in the setting (I think it was the original setting from the trade in). I wanted a different setting though, so it's getting put in a new one. I wish I knew at the time of purchase that I should have potentially not bought it because the report is old. Not being knowledgeable about this I didn't know, and looked at it as an opportunity to buy a 2ct oval in my budget because it wasn't being sold as "new". My jeweler seems reputable and it's my second time working with him, so hopefully all is ok.

Great perspective, thanks!

 

[mtran89]

Interesting post as I wanted to ask about this as well.

I made a thread not too long ago, helping a friend find a diamond. She was looking at a JA True Hearts 2.14 Carat G IF for 50k CAD.

I noticed that the certificate was from Nov 2019. Other PS’rs mentioned they would have the stone regraded before purchasing. Initially JA said that if she paid for the stone, they would send it for regrading. But when it came time to actually buy the diamond, they said they would not do it anymore. They even told her that it’s not necessary because diamonds do not have an expiry date…Not only was I unhappy with the response that was given, it’s a shame that they offered to send it for regrading and then went back on their word after.

Also, they weren’t able to tell her if the stone just sat in inventory for 2 years, or if it was ever returned. They said they don’t own the diamond and work with partners to sell them. Just strange to me they label stones as True Hearts that aren’t even in their inventory or possession.


In this scenario, would you advise her to have it regraded??

@jamesallenrings