From Diamond to Appraiser to Setting – No Gap

[denverappraiser]

Tom,

As I understand it from my JM agent, the company will now insure a loose diamond owned by a consumer under the Jewelers Mutual personal jewelry program against the usual sorts of losses. In addition, if the consumer has this stone set and damaged by a jeweler who is otherwise covered by a Jewelers Mutual commercial policy, the company will accept the claim as valid under the Personal polocy without taking recourse against the jeweler for the damages. Is this correct?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 5/19/2005 7:02:34 PM
Author: mepearl53

Leonid, please consider a spell check option! I''d be willing to pay extra for it

Bill,

The spell check option you seek is free, and I learned about it when it was reviewed here.

Best,

 

[pricescope]

Date: 5/19/2005 7:02:34 PM
Author: mepearl53

Leonid, please consider a spell check option! I''d be willing to pay extra for it

What Ira sez

Google toolbar allows spell checking for the web-forms: http://toolbar.google.com/

 

[mepearl53]

Hi

Dave, Cubs fan? First forgive me on posts that ramble off the subject. I''m new to this and it will take some time to get my bearings straight. I do have spell check now I can only offer my experience with whom I deal with and the situations that arise with my business.

Risk is a matter of business. Buying correctly, advertising $$, employees and all the other stuff that goes into overhead is risk. We needed to change this risk environment for as our state goes our store goes and I for one did not want to get caught in a down economy for I risk investment. We ventured into the internet 7 years ago for 2 reasons: 1) Our local growth had matured and 2) my bet on the future of retailing, if that is a correct word anymore, was going to be information first web-tailing. This has changed our business model drastically. We could do two things based on how I saw the future unfolding (risk) Stick to our old pricing structure or look seriously at what the competition was doing on the net. We do not discount our mountings in the store or on the net. Like everyone if it is a returning customer or good customer we adjust the pricing accordingly. We did not want to allow future market share to go to the internet dealers so we adjusted our diamond pricing to reflect what the market was doing. We price the diamonds the same weather the customer comes through the door or over the net. Not changing to this model was a risk I saw. What I found was volume. Our diamond suppliers worked very close on their sales to us and we adopted the same mentality. Sell more diamonds and we have.

As far as taking in someone else''s diamonds for settings in our jewelry this is not a problem for me. As stated if the stone won''t work I send them to someone else who is willing to take a risk and adhere to their policies. I WILL NOT take a diamond and a mounting from a outside vendor and do the work of having the stone set. This may change but I just hate to get into the legal end of having customers sign waivers for this I feel is a way of showing the customer we really don''t believe in our selves. 98% of people are understanding of this policy and that is pretty good odds for me. For the ones we do set problems have been a needle in a hay stack.

Understand that my situation maybe different than others. We do not do custom work per say. Our business is based on name brand designers. These people are like surgeons and work with a particular design over and over again and they know their capabilities and expertise. I have not seen a damaged stone in 15 years! On the custom side I would imagine this to be a major problem but I cannot address for lack of experience. Spell check, Yes!

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 5/21/2005 9:18:30 AM
Author: crankydave

Date: 5/20/2005 12:57:41 PM
Author: mepearl53
Hi

Dave, Cubs fan?

Yep. How''d you know?

If they can avoid getting trashed this weekend by the Sox, I won''t have to hear about it for the rest of the season.

Date: 5/20/2005 12:57:41 PM
Author: mepearl53
I WILL NOT take a diamond and a mounting from a outside vendor and do the work of having the stone set.

This is not uncommon, and as Steve pointed out a growing trend, as more and more setters and jewelers are becoming unwilling to do this. This is also a major component of Ira''s thoughtful post that started this thread.

Would it help if I''m a cub''s fan, too? (I hail from Chicago; spent my first 20 years of life there; Rogers Park!)

Can''t fault Cranky Dave for calling the post thoughtful. Also, and in fairness, there were about 3 different presentations/morphs of this plan, and where -- in only the second iteration do I stipulate:

"The understanding is that the setting would be bought at the jeweler"

So, if it hadn''t been clear from what was written before, it should be clear now that having the option of getting the setting at a 3rd party, other than the local jeweler would not be required in any roll out of this idea...and if it would make this idea work to stipulate that the setting would need to come from a local jeweler, that would not only be fine with me...but I would support it in principle, without a doubt.

Any way to make some local action happen in a reasonable way, where still a large part of the diamond engagement ring purchase is based on working with a vendor at a distance -- that is without a doubt the singular theme of this post.

I appreciate the idea having been revived. Moreover, I appreciate Bill Pearlman being receptive to the idea. I can only hope that Leonid''s un-mothballing of this post may be in part due to his contemplation of trying to roll out "option #2" of this idea, work out some of the messy details (i.e., hoping insurance can partner in assuming some of the risk in making the setting task local), and have Pricescope possibly manage this process. In option #1 of the idea, it was supposed that the appraiser might take ownership for it.

In the meanwhile, to the extent this idea continues to have legs, and as far as I can tell, option #3 is still somewhat in place, and DiamondOnWeb provides a network of dealers one can go to, if you were like me and not so savvy as to be able to work out the details with my preferred jeweler of choice. Using DOW in the way I suggest here still requires you to need to work the system...having them as your back up, and plan B, as against option A, which would be a Pricescope selected diamond, and so, as Neil complains, this option is not really swell either.

So, let''s cheer Pricescope on, if there are other fans of the idea! Based on what has been put forward, and despite Bill''s own willingness to assume risk at presumably cost plus $0, maybe we can support a more explicit premium for the benefit of local packaging of the ring & setting with the diamond from afar.

I think I must be up to 3 cents now (i.e., not just my 2 cents).

Best,

 

[mepearl53]

Risk: Closing Argument to win. Horses! Cubs Risk : Bad! Tigers Yes! Have a wonderful Saturday evening. Romance is what''s it about so take your sweetie out tonight and be in love. Dates are a good thing and I''ll take my wife out for a date. Been in love with her for a very long time!

 

[JMIC]

Date: 5/19/2005 8:01:56 PM
Author: denverappraiser
Tom,

As I understand it from my JM agent, the company will now insure a loose diamond owned by a consumer under the Jewelers Mutual personal jewelry program against the usual sorts of losses. In addition, if the consumer has this stone set and damaged by a jeweler who is otherwise covered by a Jewelers Mutual commercial policy, the company will accept the claim as valid under the Personal polocy without taking recourse against the jeweler for the damages. Is this correct?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

Neil is correct in that if a jeweler is insured by us (Jewelers Mutual), their customers can apply for insurance on items that the jeweler is going to work on. Our Personal Jewelry Insurance has always covered jewelry if damaged by a jeweler when they are working on an item. This includes setting a loose stone into a mounting.

If a JM-insured jeweler has a customer that is interested in our Personal Jewelry Insurance, the customer can complete and submit an application to us prior to the jeweler beginning their work. The jeweler should provide the customer with a complete appraisal that should be sent along with the application. The appraisal should be valued and based on all of the components in the finished piece of jewelry. Once we determine the application meets our underwriting guidelines, we can confirm that there is coverage and the JM-insured jeweler can begin working on the jewelry.

Not only will we cover the jewelry while being worked on, the customer also receives one year of insurance on the item.

Tom Adelmann
Jewelers Mutual Ins. Co.
800-558-6411, x2376
[email protected]

 

[pricescope]

Tom, while I commend JM on trying to resolve the situation, it sounds a bit cumbersome from a consumer point of view...

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 5/24/2005 11:54:30 AM
Author: JMIC

Our Personal Jewelry Insurance has always covered jewelry if damaged by a jeweler when they are working on an item. This includes setting a loose stone into a mounting.

Tom Adelmann
Jewelers Mutual Ins. Co.
800-558-6411, x2376
[email protected]

Tom,
Please correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve been under the impression that until recently, you would not bind a personal policy on an unmounted stone. This leaves a gap in coverage for the period between when the consumer receive the stone and when the jeweler delivers the final piece. I’m further under the impression that this kind of loss would not be covered under a JM commercial policy. This leaves either the jeweler or the consumer with the damages and it’s the source of much stress on both sides of the counter.

I further understand that it is the policy of JM (and most other companies) to consider an independent claim against the jeweler who was in control of the piece when the damage was caused and that the jeweler could then peruse a claim against the craftsman or tradeshop that did the actual work. It is a change in policy for JM to declare that they will not make such a claim when they are the insurer of both the consumer and the jeweler. This is a great boon for both because it clearly establishes who is liable for what and it sets a price for assuming that liability.

but….

As much as I like it, the logistics of your new system strikes me as needing some more thought. What you are asking for is an appraisal on an item that does not exist at the time of the appraisal. In effect the jeweler is submitting to you the design and a listing of materials that they plan to use and you are agreeing to bind a policy on the strength of this. This conflicts with one of the primary purposes of asking the insured to provide an appraisal; to indicate that the item exists and is undamaged as of a particular date. Assuming that your underwriters aren’t planning to assess the feasibility of what the jeweler is planning, what is gained by seeing this hypothetical appraisal? Why not allow the consumer to bind a policy on the diamond itself and then ‘update’ the description and value when it is mounted with exactly the same procedure that you use when a client makes any other important modification to an insured piece?

Date: 5/24/2005 11:54:30 AM
Author: JMIC


Not only will we cover the jewelry while being worked on, the customer also receives one year of insurance on the item.

Free insurance with every insurance purchase. Hmmm.


Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/21/2005 10:56:45 AM
Author: Feydakin
Ira, I understand the desire to remove some of the stress from the purchaser''s life by developing this system.. I really do.. And here it comes.. Wait for it.. Wait for it..

This type of beginning to end service is ''exactly'' what those of us in better Brick and Mortar stores do offer, have offered, and always will offer.. We just can''t do it at ''internet'' prices all of the time.. A lot of the time we can, just not always.. It seems to me that adding this much complexity to an internet purchase will erase any potential savings buying on the internet may give a buyer..

Since the inception of this thread, I''ve been trying to understand what the goal is.

At the end of the day, I think Fey summed it up nicely......trying to "regulate" this process by developing an overly complex system seems to make it far more cumbersome than it should be.

To me, that the very nature of folks who research such a purchase and find PS are those who are motivated by being in *control*....they want to know enough to be in the driver''s seat and make their own selections. It''s hard to imagine wanting to give up that driver''s seat, especially to such a cumbersome process.

As Fey mentioned, people who really want a "beginning to end process" are likely much better local retail candidates. They pay a little more for it (although they can perhaps use the information from the internet to possibly negotiate a slightly better price), but they get the ease of purchase.

Honestly, I really didn''t find it all that hard to do everything separately. I guess I personally don''t perceive this to be that complex an issue. Vendor ships diamond to appraiser, appraiser ships back to vendor, vendor sets it and then sends it to customer.

For folks who''ve saved hundreds of dollars on a stone by shopping online, it''s hard to imagine them quibbling about spending $30-60 or so of those saved hundreds to ship the diamond a couple of times to accomplish this.

I''m all for things that streamline a process, but it doesn''t seem as though regulating or developing a system accomplishes this so far.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 5/24/2005 3:01:40 PM
Author: aljdewey

To me, that the very nature of folks who research such a purchase and find PS are those who are motivated by being in *control*....they want to know enough to be in the driver''s seat and make their own selections. It''s hard to imagine wanting to give up that driver''s seat, especially to such a cumbersome process.

Al, I think this pretty well represents a sort of response that I would have to Feydakin, as well. So, here we''ll agree. I have 3 other thoughts I''ll share:

1) Re your description of the process:

Vendor ships diamond to appraiser, appraiser ships back to vendor, vendor sets it and then sends it to customer.

Not sure if you are abbreviating what actually happened for you or not, but I think you''re leaving out an important standard part of the process, whereby the appraiser sees the diamond back again, after the diamond is set. It''s only then that the appraisal document is routinely developed. I know recently Oldminder commented, saying that that part could be skipped, even though he wouldn''t recommend it. Frankly, in the case of my own experience, the appraiser''s evaluation of the diamond in the setting was where I experienced the greatest value...because it was there that she was able to comment on problems with the assembly, that I could then remedy. And so, this is yet just one more leg of the process to include. And for which I am not actually complaining, by the way.

2) Although I used a local appraiser, I probably wouldn''t again (in today''s world), for a big diamond purchase, because -- to the extent I use the appraiser in a strategic way (see the beginning of this post where in my own process, things didn''t actually go according to plan), no local appraiser has the equipment to confirm crown & pavilion measurements...as is the case with most independent appraisers around the country. What I would want to plan to do would be to use, probably, one of the 4 appraisers represented here on this board (important exception to note...with the advent of GIA providing this data, this problem may go away; also, with AGS certs even now, ditto) to help me evaluate the purchase. As a result, and a central point of this post, is that -- yes -- for this sensitive purchase, and despite my own intended involvement, it would be nice to have a local professional hand to hold...someone experienced in looking at diamonds...even though they may not have the state of the art equipment. That is where a local jeweler could somehow come into play.

Important note...because of the new info coming with GIA certs, and already with AGS certs, the need for the appraiser at a distance may make this post have less gravity altogether, from my point of view. With less need for the confirmation of this angle measurement, your regular local independent appraiser, without this equipment, may be just fine as your local presence.

3) I see a lot of people buying their own rings, here, lately, separate from their diamond purchase. This -- it seems to me -- is making them hyper involved in putting this together. I do just find this a bit odd, given the sorts of risks, etc., at least discussed here, they are assuming. As Brian Knox a while ago recommended, it seems prudent to me, generally, and as reviewed consistent with this thread...the general plan of the diamond seller also providing the ring, when reasonable, seems still the way to go, or so it seems to me.

 

[aljdewey]

My comments in blue:

1. Vendor ships diamond to appraiser, who appraises loose stone
2. Appraiser ships back to vendor,
3. Vendor sets it and then sends it to customer.
4. Customer receives finished piece; takes it to local appraiser for final assessment.


Not sure if you are abbreviating what actually happened for you or not, but I think you're leaving out an important standard part of the process, whereby the appraiser sees the diamond back again, after the diamond is set.

It wasn't a part of the process for me because I had a temporary $80 setting, but as you can see my addition above in red, it's easy enough to accomplish once you get the finished piece if you want it. You can do it at your convenience this way without holding up the stone/proposal.

It's only then (after the diamond is set) that the appraisal document is routinely developed.

Respectfully disagree on this, Ira. Any appraiser doing the things you and I want (measurements of crown/pav, etc.) can only do those accurately when the diamond is loose. Rich Sherwood did an exhaustively complete appraisal documentation on my loose stone.

When an appraisal document is routinely developed is determined by what the customer wants. Most customers happen to get finished pieces appraised, so that's why it seems routine to you, but any decent appraiser here will confirm s/he can develop an appraisal document just as readily on a loose stone if you wish.

Although I used a local appraiser, I probably wouldn't again ...(because) no local appraiser has the equipment to confirm crown & pavilion measurements...as is the case with most independent appraisers around the country...............Frankly, in the case of my own experience, the appraiser's evaluation of the diamond in the setting was where I experienced the greatest value...because it was there that she was able to comment on problems with the assembly, that I could then remedy.

I think you're making this harder than it has to be.

I don't see any reason the unset/set appraisals have to be done by the same appraiser. In the process above, the initial appraiser takes all the measurements and does the light performance evaluation on the diamond. He drafts a full appraisal document for the loose stone. (Have you ever seen one of Rich Sherwood's appraisals? Incredibly detailed on loose stones.)

The local appraiser evaluating the set piece only needs to do 3 things then.....confirm that the diamond in the setting is the one identified in the initial appraisal , critique the assembly, and give a revised value for the completed piece.

The most important part of any appraisal document is the description of the DIAMOND, because no two are precisely alike. Settings are more of a standardized thing. There could be a HUGE variance in the value of a 1.05 H, SI1 diamond depending on the make, H&A, etc, etc., etc....but there isn't going to be a huge swing on a Vatche truffle setting.

Furthering that thought a bit.......Dave did mention that some folks might want to skip a second appraisal. For those that do, there are two ways to do so and still document the value of the finished piece for insurance purposes.

1. They can ask their diamond vendor for a diamond-vendor-provided appraisal for the finished piece and submit that.
2. They could simply submit the loose diamond appraisal report and the receipt for the setting (complete the model name, number, etc.). The combination of these two are your replacement value.

3) I see a lot of people buying their own rings, here, lately, separate from their diamond purchase. This -- it seems to me -- is making them hyper involved in putting this together. I do just find this a bit odd, given the sorts of risks, etc., at least discussed here, they are assuming. As Brian Knox a while ago recommended, it seems prudent to me, generally, and as reviewed consistent with this thread...the general plan of the diamond seller also providing the ring, when reasonable, seems still the way to go, or so it seems to me.

I respectfully but completely disagree on this....I don't see any risk at all in people buying their own settings if they wish, and I don't agree with being restricted to buying the diamond and setting from the same vendor. As a customer, that means LESS choice to me, not more.

With all due respect to Brian Knox, it doesn't surprise me that a full-service vendor would suggest a full-service solution.....that's his job, and that's how he sells the value in what he offers.

(Those who prefer that type of service should really work with a local vendor for the whole piece and Brian and Fey mention.....but for purposes of this discussion, let's continue focusing on those PS folks who want to buy from on online source.)

If only 6 vendors carry the XYZ designer setting I want, then I can only choose among the diamond inventory of those 6 vendors? What if they all carry mostly VS goods and I want an SI stone? Why should I have to settle on one component or the other? The truth is, I don't have to.

Customers who buy their own settings can simply send them Registered/Insured to the vendor they are buying the diamond from and have the diamond vendor set it. (This assumes they purchase both diamond and setting to fit properly.)

Only one of two things can be damaged....the diamond or the setting. If the diamond vendor ruins the setting, it's a $1-2K problem, right? But if the setting vendor ruins the diamond, it's a $5-10K problem. Which of the two makes more sense to you?

Also, if the diamond vendors damages the setting, you can get another setting EXACTLY like it, right? If the setting vendor damages the diamond, it you may not be able to source even a like diamond right away regardless of who eats the cost. It's the diamond that's unique, not the setting.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/25/2005 8:32:40 AM
Author: Feydakin

As for risk of buying seperately the diamond and the mounting.. There is some risk in this in that it is getting harder and harder to find a jeweler willing to set other people's stuff.. Most of the online vendors won't even do it.. Same with many of the B&M jewelers.. The risk to reward ratio is too low for many to work on things not their own.

I agree that's it hard to find jewelers to set other people's stones, but I'm not sure I'd agree with this in respect to sending a setting to your diamond vendor. In fact, there's another thread here that seems to support this precisely: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/i-bought-the-diamond-now-what.29163/. Customer bought the diamond he wanted from the vendor he wanted, and he's sending them a setting he's purchased. WF apparently has no problem setting the diamond for him. This is the best of all worlds to me....being able to buy exactly the diamond one wants and exactly the setting one wants.

The lower end settings just don't seem terribly risky, and many folks with higher end settings (designer) have to go back to the manufacturer and let them set the stone in order to preserve the warrantee...... so in that case, the designer sets the stone.

I'm afraid I don't perceive it to be difficult to select the diamond of one's choosing and the setting of one's choosing without compromise.

 

[Regular Guy]

I''m not sure that the best way to tune into this topic is to revive this older thread, or start a new one. Garry recently took the bait and revived an HCA thread of mine; what''s good for the goose is good for the gander, perhaps, so here goes:

Although perhaps more than a casual reader here, I''m not a thorough reader, for sure. But, from what I''ve read here yesterday, pieces are only still coming together for a very typical Pricescope participant to get what they want: options for buying the diamond and setting that they want for their sweetheart, and where the sources for those two may be different.

I thought I read new information suggested yesterday from Jeweler''s Mutual...that the diamond buyer need only seek insurance from them on the diamond he just bought, and needn''t be specifically concerned that the place who will set the diamond is also insured by Jeweler''s Mutual...JM can pursue whoever they need to, in the case damage is done to the diamond when a setting is done, or so I thought I read yesterday.

(To assist, the helpful text I read yesterday was this: "Yes, JM will insure loose stones that will be set. Assuming you insure the stone prior to the setting, if it is damaged during the mounted process we will pay to replace it.(regardless if it had a feather in it or not).... If the jeweler is insured by us they will be relieved of any obligation/negligence for this process. Hope this helps.")

I also followed back the thread pointed to on yesterday''s post, and did read perhaps that, for JM to accept the appraisal document (conceivably for the unmounted stone), it may still need to reference the setting it would eventually go into, which seems unfortunate. What I thought could be the case (and think ideally would be the case) would be what Neil plainly suggests directly above:

Date: 5/24/2005 1:49:06 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Why not allow the consumer to bind a policy on the diamond itself and then ‘update’ the description and value when it is mounted with exactly the same procedure that you use when a client makes any other important modification to an insured piece?

Finally, I went to JM''s website to see what it may say directly to its consumers about this process. Most disappointingly, as you fill out the application, and despite clarifications made here by JM representatives, when you fill out their on-line application, it does plainly state:

"Insurance is not available on antique jewelry, loose stones, damaged items, items with missing stones or pieces, watches that do not work, or non-jewelry items."

For a shopper taking a fresh start at these things, there may be lots of insurance options. It''s possible Chubb provides another option for unmounted stones, and since we have a new contact from them referenced on this site recently, maybe that could be clarified; my hunch is that for a Chubb policy to be binding, it too should stipulate the diamond is already mounted. If that''s the case, JM is steps away from serving at least this clientele on Pricescope robustly, and all but the words need to be tweaked to put it together, it seems to me.

Still, for this to come together successfully, rather than the consumer having to go to Pricescope to pull out text from threads to support a possible claim, it seems that even if JM wants to restrict the opening of a market to those people who would have narrowly found out about it through Pricescope, even then, it needs to more clearly spell out a process whereby an insurance shopper can buy this insurance without having to in part bind themselves to declarations that say the opposite of what they are trying to do, i.e., insure a loose stone.

Many diamond shoppers are vigorous shoppers. Still, most of us are otherwise lazy in varying regards. Whether or not we might prefer to leave JM after a first year of being insured with them, having gotten that diamond insured on it''s way to being set, we may never leave JM due to laziness. Capturing that strategic first year could be a windfall to JM and consumers alike. Right now, the JM program does not seem to be there (or if it is, how am I missing it...in print?). But it seems to be close to being there.

What say you?

 

[claimsjeff]

Thanks...and I too am not sure if it will just be you and I bantering here or we should start a new thread. Historically it is very unprofitable for insurers to provide coverage for loose stones.(that is why no one does it) It all takes a lot of time and cost to get approved by the state regulators to file a new product...(though we continue to look at new opportunities every day).

Our shift in philosophy on insuring loose stones that will be set(ie...via an appraisal of the loose stone including the setting) provides an opportunity for many buyers to obtain coverage that they did not have before.(ie...as you mentioned for the guy who just bought his sweetheart a stone and wants to set it) It also insulates JM jewelers from any negligence in setting. Does it still provide a gap in the insurance world for just loose stones and provides still some exposure to non JM jewelers....absolutely yes. We will continue to find ways to fill that gap through new products as suggested...but it takes time.

The advantage for the JM jewelers is that the claims for setting do not go against their commercial policy(thus it won''t effect their premium). The claim is made on the personal jewelry policy. Also, most commercial policy will have a flat limit for workmanship...$10K, $20K, etc.... Thus they can''t work on pieces over that limit without having some exposure. By having it appraised and put on the Personal Jewelry policy, they will have coverage up to the scheduled limit.

Hope that helps....let me know if you have questions.

Thanks-
Jeff Mills
Vice President Claims- Jewelers Mutual Insurance Co.

 

[denverappraiser]

Jeff,

There seems to be a discrepancy between your words on this forum and the words found in the JM application. The application clearly says that unmounted stones are not covered with a consumer policy and there is no mention of the possibility of binding a policy for a piece that does not yet exist but for which the customer already has some of the components.

Is there something in the wording of the policy itself that clears this up? Perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong place. Can you please give us a link to where this policy is explained to your customers (and potential customers)?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver