Similar appraisal values, but different descriptions.

[muzio]

So, out of interest, I took my ring to two different places for insurance appraisal for my new ring (thread here:https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/opinions-on-this-oec-transitional.202289/).

While the replacement values they came up with were pretty similar, their descriptions were pretty different. Which one should I use as the appraisal for insurance?

One:
Setting: Cast & assembled platinum, with prong and bead diamond setting.
Diamond: Round brilliant with dimensions, colour, clarity copied from GIA report.
Estimated replacement value: $27,200

Two:
Setting: Platinum ladies, handmade unique octagonal top design ring.
Diamond: Old european cut diamond, gauging 8.30 x 8.40 x 5.10. Cut good, clarity VS2, colour K (he thought it was an I before looking at the GIA report).
Estimated replacement value: $30,000
Comment: Diamond may not be readily replaceable due to cut.

So #1 called it an RB instead of an OEC. I asked appraiser #1 about this, and she said it was because GIA called it an RB. Then she back tracked and said, though it has a large cutlet, it was more of an RB than OEC, which I disagree with.

So what do you guys make of this? It seemed like appraiser #2 put more his own opinion into the appraisal. He was very impressed with the cut, and that's why he added the comment about the diamond not being readily replaceable. Would you guys use #2 as your insurance appraisal?

 

[MarionC]

Personally I would use the second one.
Your diamond is unique and so is the setting.

What you would get as a replacement ring with the first description would be more generic.

 

[proto]

depends whether the insurance premium goes up at certain bands.

description doesnt matter so much, more the insurance value

 

[MarionC]

depends whether the insurance premium goes up at certain bands.

description doesnt matter so much, more the insurance value

But the insurance company replaces like with like, so OP should pick the description that he would want as the replacement.

 

[liaerfbv]

Definitely #2. The first one is a joke and I would never have accepted that as the final product. Did you pay for that? I would seriously ask for my money back - they could have written that about any generic ring.

 

[Lorelei]

I would definitely go with number 2, I believe that with an appraisal, especially in the case of an antique diamond, the more detail, the better should a replacement ever be needed. Also with your insurance Muzio, see if you can get a cash payout if needed should the worst happen, that way you can pick another diamond similar to the original one and not be beholden to the insurance company's choices as to a suitable replacement.

 

[Gypsy]

Number 1 was frankly, lazy.

Most GOOD appraisers I know don't use the GIA certificate until AFTER they've examined the stone and looked at it and made up their own minds. Then AFTER that they use the certificate just to list it on the appraisal.

I would use #2 as well. And I wouldn't go back to #1 or recommend them to others.

 

[muzio]

Thank you so much for weighing in. I will definitely go with #2. It feels like overkill to have to insure for >$10k more than I paid for it, but I guess #1 wasn't that different in terms of value, and #2 will allow me to replace with like more closely, as someone mentioned.

I did pay money for appraisal #1 I wasn't assertive enough to argue, though I should have.

 

[denverappraiser]

depends whether the insurance premium goes up at certain bands.

description doesnt matter so much, more the insurance value

Actually it’s exactly the opposite. Given a loss, the usual procedure of the insurance company is to replace with ‘like kind and quality’. The definition of that comes from the description, not the price. Think of it as the purchase order for the replacement. Neither one of them provides sufficient information to do that although my biggest issue is on the description of the mounting. Perhaps there’s more elsewhere in the document.

In terms of grading, you bought a GIA stone and I presume you would like it replaced with a GIA graded stone in the case of a loss, no? That means it’s terribly important to include the GIA data. I normally include the entire GIA report. It seems like both appraisers agree that it's the correct stone and that it's unmodified and undamaged since the GIA inspection. Given that, I see no issue with quoting GIA directly, as both have done.

I’m curious what cut scale #2 is using for Old Europeans, since that's NOT what GIA called it and that doesn’t appear on their report. Did they include the scale?

Apparently GIA DID call it an RB, whether you, I, or the appraisers like it or not. I agree that it’s appropriate to use this term although it opens up a tricky sort of problem. GIA has an odd definition of OEC that not everyone in the trade agrees with. There are certainly circumstances where this is the issue of discussion but an insurance replacement document usually isn’t the right venue. The problem is that they can end up giving a nasty cut grade to an awesome stone by classifying it this way and it sets you up for a problem come replacement time. A ‘like quality’ replacement in both cases here is going to mean GIA-RBC-good/good/good. That category includes some definite dogs as well as some awesome stones. Neither one or your descriptions is including any sorts of language to indicate what makes your's better, worse or even different from the universe of other g/g/g's. The comment as described will do nothing to change this. It says replacement might be difficult. True, but so what? That’s their problem (the replacement company). If the bar is being set at g/g/g, that’s what they need to meet. That actually *IS* pretty difficult, but not for the reasons you’re expecting. I hate to be critical of my fellow appraisers and there is surely more to these documents but, as described, I don't care for either one of them.

In terms of value, talk to your appraiser about it. Again, what they’re usually doing is writing the purchase order for the replacement of the piece, at retail, new, locally. This is not always the same but, whatever definitions they are using should appear elsewhere in the body of the report. I don’t know your local market so I'm not going to get into it here but presumably both you and they do. If you feel that they’ve overvalued it and are thereby costing you insurance money as a result, ring them up and discuss it. If you think they're using a definition that's inappropriate for the task at hand, ring them up and discuss it. They may not agree with you but all that I know will be willing to make their case to you to defend their value conclusion.

By the way, that's a cool ring.

 

[muzio]

depends whether the insurance premium goes up at certain bands.

description doesnt matter so much, more the insurance value

Actually it’s exactly the opposite. Given a loss, the usual procedure of the insurance company is to replace with ‘like kind and quality’. The definition of that comes from the description, not the price. Think of it as the purchase order for the replacement. Neither one of them provides sufficient information to do that although my biggest issue is on the description of the mounting. Perhaps there’s more elsewhere in the document.

In terms of grading, you bought a GIA stone and I presume you would like it replaced with a GIA graded stone in the case of a loss, no? That means it’s terribly important to include the GIA data. I normally include the entire GIA report. It seems like both appraisers agree that it's the correct stone and that it's unmodified and undamaged since the GIA inspection. Given that, I see no issue with quoting GIA directly, as both have done.

I’m curious what cut scale #2 is using for Old Europeans, since that's NOT what GIA called it and that doesn’t appear on their report. Did they include the scale?

Apparently GIA DID call it an RB, whether you, I, or the appraisers like it or not. I agree that it’s appropriate to use this term although it opens up a tricky sort of problem. GIA has an odd definition of OEC that not everyone in the trade agrees with. There are certainly circumstances where this is the issue of discussion but an insurance replacement document usually isn’t the right venue. The problem is that they can end up giving a nasty cut grade to an awesome stone by classifying it this way and it sets you up for a problem come replacement time. A ‘like quality’ replacement in both cases here is going to mean GIA-RBC-good/good/good. That category includes some definite dogs as well as some awesome stones. Neither one or your descriptions is including any sorts of language to indicate what makes your's better, worse or even different from the universe of other g/g/g's. The comment as described will do nothing to change this. It says replacement might be difficult. True, but so what? That’s their problem (the replacement company). If the bar is being set at g/g/g, that’s what they need to meet. That actually *IS* pretty difficult, but not for the reasons you’re expecting. I hate to be critical of my fellow appraisers and there is surely more to these documents but, as described, I don't care for either one of them.

In terms of value, talk to your appraiser about it. Again, what they’re usually doing is writing the purchase order for the replacement of the piece, at retail, new, locally. This is not always the same but, whatever definitions they are using should appear elsewhere in the body of the report. I don’t know your local market so I'm not going to get into it here but presumably both you and they do. If you feel that they’ve overvalued it and are thereby costing you insurance money as a result, ring them up and discuss it. If you think they're using a definition that's inappropriate for the task at hand, ring them up and discuss it. They may not agree with you but all that I know will be willing to make their case to you to defend their value conclusion.

By the way, that's a cool ring.

Thank you for the very thoughtful response! Though, now, I really don't know what to do about this. I would like to find a local, reputable appraiser, but there are so few options in my city! It sounds like I have to go to the appraiser already knowing what this should be appraised as and for how much. I thought it wasn't my place to intrude on their expert opinion... and, really, I don't know the Canadian market!

There is one appraiser left in my city that I haven't seen. Should I go to them, and tell them what I want them to say? I'd really like to get this done so I can insure the ring and wear it--it's living in the vault until then!

 

[denverappraiser]

Pick one of the appraisers you've already paid, ring them up and discuss your concerns with them. Appraising isn't rocket science and this is not a game of 'stump the gemologist'. You've got a cool new ring, you would like to have it properly documented for insurance so that it can be replaced in the case of a loss, and you've hired someone to help you do that. The attributes that make it special are exactly the ones you're interested in documenting so no, it's not a problem to ask. I find photographs and photomicrographs to be very helpful in this sort of situation where the issue is describing what it is about your stone that makes it different from a 'regular' g/g/g, whatever that is. When I said I don't care for either one of them, I mean I don't care for either report as summarized by you, not that I think they're bad appraisers. If the report needs more details, call them up and have them put in more details. I see no reason to expect that either one of these isn't both prepared and capable of doing that.