I had an I diamond appraised today, and was told that it was a K.

[AndyRosse]

Date: 12/29/2006 11:21:15 AM
Author: Harriet
I''m waiting for WF to arrive at a fair conclusion re the price. Any reason I shouldn''t?

I don''t see why the price should change. AGS still considers the color I. If anything, I would send the stone back to be reevaluated on color if you want a price adjustment. Just like Brian said, he actually considers the clarity better than what the report says, so if you are going to go by the opinion on color, why not also have to recalculate based on the higher clarity opinion? See how things start getting screwy? Hence why WF sets the prices by what AGS concludes, it''s the fairest, simplest method for all involved IMO. But that''s all just my opinion of course!

 

[oldminer]

There is no easy formula to resolve these kinds of problems. It takes a cool head and a disciplined approach. A dealer, such as Brian regards his own opinion of quality as the ultimate decision maker when it comes to buying the stone. He cedes this to AGS Lab when it comes to putting a selling price on it, especially when it advantageous to do so such as in this particular case.
He is acting perfectly in a normal way for a buyer and a seller. Its how one hopes to profit from trading in diamonds.

This diamond, whatever the color, is a superbly cut and beautiful example. Someone will want it and I believe with a fair adjustment to price Harriet would be well served by owning it. It is totally up to Brian and to Harriet to work out mutually satisfactory details of price. In the interest of Harriet, no one is served by re-submitting an I color stone in hopes of getting it lowered to J on the AGS report. It is subjective, proves nothing and hurts Harriet's position in case of a loss. She can presently insure it as an I color and if it is lost she'll get a sure fire replacement with no grading problems. She does not need to overinsure it, but having the "lucky" grade on the AGS report does no harm after the purchase is consumated.

Anyway, I wish all parties well. I fully understand where David Wolff was coming from. Larger diamonds do look darker than smaller ones. I have the benefit of several graders who work with me and I think David W. works alone. More eyes can't hurt in gaining accuracy. I also used a couple large size GIA graded diamonds as comparison tools. David Wolff is a credit to the appraisal profession. He is one of the fine folks who took on the overwhelming task of identifying, and recovering and returning personal jewelry items from the victims of 9/11. For that alone, I would cut him a little slack. As someone else said, David W was not afraid of giving his opinion and he certainly knew such a dissenting view could create a problem. Even if he was unaware of the I grade, his opinion of color was probably unbiased, or at least I would assume so until proved otherwise.

 

[RockDoc]

I''ve been following this thread, and was just curious as to what the IMAGEM and SAS2000 results were.

I guess you''d need Harriet''s permission to post it, but it would be interesting to see the printouts from the equipment.

Rockdoc

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 12/29/2006 11:36:12 AM
Author: Harriet
Can anyone estimate the price difference between an I and a J, all things equal?

a) non-professional here
b) two quick strategies come to mind:

1) go the the search by cut tool, constrain between 3 - 4 carats, and interpolate. WF has two, but sizes are different
2) Pricescope does this for you with some truncated math, in the Price Stats feature, under Prices. Note, though, little data is available for H&A and these tables include all certs, including EGL.

 

[kenny]

Harriet, my story may interest you.
A few weeks ago I purchased a $28,0000 GIA F VVS2 asscher with Excellent polish and symmetry from a PS vendor.
It arrived with a tiny chip on the girdle that was visible with a 10x loupe. (Which is the magnification criteria for grading.)
The chip was not on the Oct 2004 GIA report.
Here are pics of the chip at much higher power than 10x. (I happen to work in a laboratory with high-end microscopes.)

pics of chip

The vendor gladly took the stone back to get the chip polished out, no charge to me for shipping.
Amazingly it still weighed 2.265 carats, which I was able to verify exactly since we have the same scales that are used for gemological work.

But when I got the stone back I noticed tiny polish lines that are visible with a 10x loupe, again the magnification criteria for grading.
Because of these lines I doubt it would still get an Excellent from GIA for polish, every other facet is perfect.
If it got a Very Good from GIA that dings the value 3 or 4% or about $1000. (An average of several professional opinions I privately got.)
Here are pics of the polish lines at much higher power than 10x.

pics of polish lines

So, I was in a situation that has similarities to yours.
PS posters suggested that I ask for a price adjustment.

I decided not to.
I could have and probably got it.
Too much hassle.
Ten years ago I would have; I was more of a "I'm going to fight tooth and nail for what is right" kind of person then.

I know I overpaid if it no longer matches the GIA report, but the vendor did other things during the transaction that gave me very good vibes.
Besides it is an superbly-cut asscher (which is like finding a needle in a haystack) and the polish lines are very minor and I can hide them during mounting.
It was also well priced to begin with.

So it is complex.
How a person handles these things is personal.
Nobody can tell you what to do.
You will do what feels right to you.

You may want to privately contact several pros to get an idea of how much a J would affect the price of the stone.
(You may consider sending it back to AGS or GIA too.)

I contacted a highly respected appraiser and she said she'd be happy to look at my stone and take my fee but the only opinion that really counts is GIA's because the price was set on THEIR opinion.

Harriet, my main point is this.
Perfection is elusive.
You are dealing with very honest and reputable people, who deserve respect just as you do.
Everyone can come out of this feeling good about the transaction.

 

[belle]

Date: 12/29/2006 11:40:22 AM
Author: Rascal49

Date: 12/29/2006 11:21:15 AM
Author: Harriet
I'm waiting for WF to arrive at a fair conclusion re the price. Any reason I shouldn't?

I don't see why the price should change. AGS still considers the color I. If anything, I would send the stone back to be reevaluated on color if you want a price adjustment. Just like Brian said, he actually considers the clarity better than what the report says, so if you are going to go by the opinion on color, why not also have to recalculate based on the higher clarity opinion? See how things start getting screwy? Hence why WF sets the prices by what AGS concludes, it's the fairest, simplest method for all involved IMO. But that's all just my opinion of course!

exactly michelle. the price is based on the ags grading report and like you said, there could even be contention that the stone is actually vvs because grading is subjective. i think price based on the report is as fair as you can get.
i wonder how many times a stone would be graded exactly the same by several different appraisers or even labs? not many is my guess.
i think this is the most recent thread about stone appraisal and grading differences https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/i-feel-like-i-won-the-lottery.55142/=
is it reasonable to expect price changes every time an appraisal is different? maybe you could have it resubmitted to ags? it seems redundant but i think it would be fair.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 12/29/2006 11:21:15 AM
Author: Harriet
I''m waiting for WF to arrive at a fair conclusion re the price. Any reason I shouldn''t?

Well yeah... if you don''t like the stone who cares what price it is? Can it be untainted? Would you like or dislike it just as much as an I or K? $$ aside, the numbers are one thing, the answer is do you love it? Would you have wanted a K for a K price? Do you want a J for a J price? Seriously - the price should reflect reality - but as far as liking it, the reality is beyond numbers, no?

 

[SKR]

Date: 12/29/2006 12:25:47 PM
Author: oldminer

Anyway, I wish all parties well. I fully understand where David Wolff was coming from. Larger diamonds do look darker than smaller ones. I have the benefit of several graders who work with me and I think David W. works alone. More eyes can't hurt in gaining accuracy. I also used a couple large size GIA graded diamonds as comparison tools. David Wolff is a credit to the appraisal profession. He is one of the fine folks who took on the overwhelming task of identifying, and recovering and returning personal jewelry items from the victims of 9/11. For that alone, I would cut him a little slack. As someone else said, David W was not afraid of giving his opinion and he certainly knew such a dissenting view could create a problem. Even if he was unaware of the I grade, his opinion of color was probably unbiased, or at least I would assume so until proved otherwise.

Thanks for the clarification on David Wolf - I had read one of your previous posts recommending him. David W made a tough call, but one which was in the best interests of his customer. It also sounds like he wasnt too far off in his conclusion.

David A / Harriet - whats a solid J ? Does this mean approx in the middle of the J band ?

 

[zhuzhu]

I am speaking as a consumer. I understand perfectly why Harriet is upset and frustrated about the discrepancy between lab reports, and am very happy for her that additional appraisal leads to the direction of a successful resolution. PS readers also benefit tremendously from this incidence and learn much about diamond knowledge from this real-life experience.

More importantly, I would like to give many applause

to ALL professional involved in the ¡§other end¡¨ of this incidence: the seller, appraisers, PS administrator and AGS. The team has really step-up and serve Harriet with the utmost integrity and timely attention (it is still the holiday season!) to resolve this unfortunate incident.

You are a very lucky lady Harriet and I wish you the very best in every aspect of your beautiful diamond! Wear it in good health in 2007!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Since there should be a significant price difference between an I and a J, I think some price adjustment would be appropriate. I agree that the stone was appropriately priced as an I because of the AGS grading, but now that Dave has objectively found that it is more likely a J and would continue to be graded a J in future private appraisals by another potential buyer, I think WF would be wise to compromise on the price...maybe something in between the I and J price for that size stone.

But ultimately, Harriet will have to decide if she likes that color regardless of the price adjustment.

 

[calcaver]

Date: 12/29/2006 12:25:47 PM
Author: oldminer
It is totally up to Brian and to Harriet to work out mutually satisfactory details of price.

Dave, I could not agree more! Harriet and Whiteflash (WF) have all the information they need to complete this transaction, whatever the outcome. While we all are very curious to know the details of the resolution, I think it is in the best interests of WF and Harriet to resolve this between themselves without a public display.

This situation is an example of what happens with the appraisal is different than the lab. It is a fact that differences in color and clarity result in significant price differences in a diamond, especially in a stone of this size which could be thousands of dollars. In my opinion, Harriet has a valid reason to request a price adjustment. However, per Dave this is a superb diamond and WF is equally valid to consider the current price appropriate as another person may be willing to purchase this diamond.

I must commend John Pollard at Whiteflash and David Atlas at Gem Appraisers for their very professional handling of this situation.

Paul

 

[strmrdr]

Kenny: glad you decided to keep it. I love that diamond :}

An appraiser especially if they are going to disagree with a lab has to be dead on.
The color scale is not linear and there is a huge price difference and color difference between a high j and a k.
Likely more so than the color difference between a d and a g.
Mr Wolff has a history of overly harsh color grading that does not serve his clients in my opinion.
I would never use his services.

 

[Mara]

Date: 12/29/2006 11:40:22 AM
Author: Rascal49

Date: 12/29/2006 11:21:15 AM
Author: Harriet
I'm waiting for WF to arrive at a fair conclusion re the price. Any reason I shouldn't?

I don't see why the price should change. AGS still considers the color I. If anything, I would send the stone back to be reevaluated on color if you want a price adjustment. Just like Brian said, he actually considers the clarity better than what the report says, so if you are going to go by the opinion on color, why not also have to recalculate based on the higher clarity opinion? See how things start getting screwy? Hence why WF sets the prices by what AGS concludes, it's the fairest, simplest method for all involved IMO. But that's all just my opinion of course!

I agree here. Everyone knows that grading and appraising is subjective. 10 appraisers could say it's a J and if AGS says it's an I then that is what the cert says. People place a ton of trust in the certs. Are they foolproof? No way! Want another opinion cert wise? Send it to GIA. It might come back still an I. or it might come back a J.

Is there any sort of guarantee when someone buys a diamond that an appraiser will agree with AGS or GIA or whoever graded it? Nope.

If you don't like the stone, return it and get another one. But honestly I don't think that any vendor should have to price adjust unless it's out of the goodness of their hearts.

Knowing WF, they will not hesitate to price adjust because positive reputation and good will from the forums is important to them and they probably know they'd get some bad press for not making it right for the consumer, but honestly I don't think they are required to in this situation. You have the option to return the stone and call it a day.

That said, even if they do price adjust, does the J verdict bother you aka will you have peace of mind? I have a J and I love it...but not everyone wants to make that mental leap into the J arena.

 

[Dee*Jay]

What if the stone had been "graded" an H or a G by Mr. Wolf and/or Dave Atlas? Would people think that Harriet should whip out the checkbook and send Whiteflash more $? Probably not!

I agree with paying in accordance with the cert in this case.

 

[zhuzhu]

Sometimes adding oil (subjective kind) to the fire is really not helpful or kind.

I would never use his services.>>

 

[Mara]

Date: 12/29/2006 1:37:45 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
What if the stone had been 'graded' an H or a G by Mr. Wolf and/or Dave Atlas? Would people think that Harriet should whip out the checkbook and send Whiteflash more $? Probably not!

I agree with paying in accordance with the cert in this case.

Definitely not DJ...we see all the time when people come on here who are ecstatic that their stones were graded one color grade or clarity grade higher by an appraiser. An appraiser's opinion does not negate the cert. It is typically used as a corroboration of a reputable cert, but many of us know that it can go one way or the other.

That said, I can definitely see having frustration in buying an I and having one expert call it a K and another call it a J. But really for me it's about loving the STONE rather than the paper color grade...but color doesn't mean much to me obviously, heehee. My girlfriend bought a K ACA and one appraiser said it was a low K, almost an L. But my girlfriend loves it, the AGS cert says K and she can't see color in it. She didn't even care that the appraiser said it was borderline L. And honestly, I have seen the stone and compared it to mine and it doesn't even look close to an L. But it didn't matter...she loved the stone because it was flat out lovely.

In the end people have to be totally at peace with the decision they make or else it will bother them long term. So Harriet just make sure whatever the outcome, you are 10000% happy with this stone. Price adjustment or not.

 

[kenny]

Isn''t it "legal" for a stone to be within one grade up or down anyway?

 

[SKR]

Date: 12/29/2006 1:37:47 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Sometimes adding oil (subjective kind) to the fire is really not helpful or kind.

I would never use his services.>>

Exactly right. Wolf called it as he saw it and in this case he has clearly served the best interests of his client. On the same basis, given AGS seems to have been overly generous in this case, maybe we shouldnt purchase stones graded by them ?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 12/29/2006 12:25:47 PM
Author: oldminer

He cedes this to AGS Lab when it comes to putting a selling price on it, especially when it advantageous to do so such as in this particular case.

A quick clarification on Dave''s comment above......

Brian cedes to the AGS lab all the time when it comes to putting a selling price on a stone (or whatever lab grades it)....not just when it is "advantageous" for him to do so, and not "especially" in situations when it benefits him.

My stone was a case in point.....Brian felt it was an SI1, but AGS ranked it as SI2, and Brian ceded to AGS then, too....against his own economic advantage. Even more impressive, he actually recommended that SI2 stone OVER a more expensive SI1 stone I was considering. He said he felt the SI2 stone was a better stone and cleaner than the SI1.

Brian is about integrity and his reputation above all else, and I want to be sure that''s crystal clear. He''s earned it.

Date: 12/29/2006 12:25:47 PM
Author: oldminer

He is acting perfectly in a normal way for a buyer and a seller. Its how one hopes to profit from trading in diamonds.

This could be read as saying that diamond dealers hope to profit by exploiting lab mistakes to their advantage, and I hope that''s not how it''s interpreted. My feel in talking to Brian over the years is that he hopes to profit by providing an exemplary product and building a solid reputation. I also got that sense from Wink when I worked with him.

Date: 12/29/2006 12:25:47 PM
Author: oldminer

This diamond, whatever the color, is a superbly cut and beautiful example. Someone will want it and I believe with a fair adjustment to price Harriet would be well served by owning it.

In the interest of Harriet, no one is served by re-submitting an I color stone in hopes of getting it lowered to J on the AGS report. It is subjective, proves nothing and hurts Harriet''s position in case of a loss. She can presently insure it as an I color and if it is lost she''ll get a sure fire replacement with no grading problems. She does not need to overinsure it, but having the ''lucky'' grade on the AGS report does no harm after the purchase is consumated.

These two statements would seem to contradict each other, Dave.

If any buyer (not specifically Harriet) wants to reap the benefit of insuring the stone as an I, then s/he should pay for it as an I. If s/he wants a price adjustment based on a belief that it''s a J, then s/he should be willing to insure it as a J as well. It doesn''t seem fair to expect a price adjustment during the purchase process if one is unwilling to take that same adjustment in the event of loss.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 12/29/2006 1:37:45 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
What if the stone had been ''graded'' an H or a G by Mr. Wolf and/or Dave Atlas? Would people think that Harriet should whip out the checkbook and send Whiteflash more $? Probably not!

I agree with paying in accordance with the cert in this case.

Exceptional point.....and right on target!

Since pricing is dictated by the grading report, I don''t see how there should be the expectation of a price adjustment unless it is regraded and comes back as a J. Many learned opinions will still vary, and it''s the grading lab opinion that sets the price.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I completely agree that WF has no obligation to discount the stone. But if I were the buyer, I would not want to pay the price of I color on a three carat stone that has now been graded as one to two color grades lower by independent appraisers. If I were paying the I color price, I'd want a diamond that the cert and independent appraisers all agreed that the color was I. I'd simply return the stone and find a true I. So then, the next buyer buys the stone and gets it appraised as a J, and they return it as well. Most people probably won't buy a $48,000 stone without having an independent appraisal. So the stone gets returned again and again. I'd just think that WF might consider the possibility of discounting the stone since it is likely to have the same problem in the future. I wouldn't consider paying $48,000 for a 3 ct. J color stone even if the cert said it was a D IF.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 12/29/2006 3:00:29 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I completely agree that WF has no obligation to discount the stone. But if I were the buyer, I would not want to pay the price of I color on a three carat stone that has now been graded as one to two color grades lower by independent appraisers. If I were paying the I color price, I'd want a diamond that the cert and independent appraisers all agreed that the color was I. I'd simply return the stone and find a true I. So then, the next buyer buys the stone and gets it appraised as a J, and they return it as well. Most people probably won't buy a $48,000 stone without having an independent appraisal. So the stone gets returned again and again. I'd just think that WF might consider the possibility of discounting the stone since it is likely to have the same problem in the future. I wouldn't consider paying $48,000 for a 3 ct. J color stone even if the cert said it was a D IF.

Touche. Unfortunately for WF, this stone has acquired a taint.

 

[kenny]

Don't you mean a tint?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[Harriet]

Date: 12/29/2006 12:25:47 PM
Author: oldminer
There is no easy formula to resolve these kinds of problems. It takes a cool head and a disciplined approach. A dealer, such as Brian regards his own opinion of quality as the ultimate decision maker when it comes to buying the stone. He cedes this to AGS Lab when it comes to putting a selling price on it, especially when it advantageous to do so such as in this particular case.
He is acting perfectly in a normal way for a buyer and a seller. Its how one hopes to profit from trading in diamonds.

This diamond, whatever the color, is a superbly cut and beautiful example. Someone will want it and I believe with a fair adjustment to price Harriet would be well served by owning it. It is totally up to Brian and to Harriet to work out mutually satisfactory details of price. In the interest of Harriet, no one is served by re-submitting an I color stone in hopes of getting it lowered to J on the AGS report. It is subjective, proves nothing and hurts Harriet's position in case of a loss. She can presently insure it as an I color and if it is lost she'll get a sure fire replacement with no grading problems. She does not need to overinsure it, but having the 'lucky' grade on the AGS report does no harm after the purchase is consumated.

Anyway, I wish all parties well. I fully understand where David Wolff was coming from. Larger diamonds do look darker than smaller ones. I have the benefit of several graders who work with me and I think David W. works alone. More eyes can't hurt in gaining accuracy. I also used a couple large size GIA graded diamonds as comparison tools. David Wolff is a credit to the appraisal profession. He is one of the fine folks who took on the overwhelming task of identifying, and recovering and returning personal jewelry items from the victims of 9/11. For that alone, I would cut him a little slack. As someone else said, David W was not afraid of giving his opinion and he certainly knew such a dissenting view could create a problem. Even if he was unaware of the I grade, his opinion of color was probably unbiased, or at least I would assume so until proved otherwise.

Thank you very much for your input. It was helpful speaking with you earlier. I'd also like to speak up in defence of David Wolf. My fiance and I found him and his associate (Toby Smart) to be professional and helpful. I see no reason to impugn his integrity because of his stringency.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 12/29/2006 1:37:45 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
What if the stone had been ''graded'' an H or a G by Mr. Wolf and/or Dave Atlas? Would people think that Harriet should whip out the checkbook and send Whiteflash more $? Probably not!

I agree with paying in accordance with the cert in this case.

in baseball the tie goes to the runner.... I think it is in the best interests of the vendors to let the benefit go to the client. I can see where it might not be fair, but I think it''s also wise for the vendors to eat errors that favor the client as well as compensante errors that favor them. It really is the only way the graders at the major labs can be held liable. They''re not going to care nearly as much about whether or not Harriet is upset with their grading - but if whiteflash is upset, they might listen.

 

[kenny]

Harriet wrote,
"Thank you very much for your input. It was helpful speaking with you earlier. I'd also like to speak up in defence of David Wolf. My fiance and I found him and his associate (Toby Smart) to be professional and helpful. I see no reason to impugn his integrity because of his stringency."



What an odd post.
I don't see any impugning going on.

The goal should not be the lowest grade possible. (Unless this is now more about maximizing a price adjustment to you)
The goal should be accuracy - stringent accuracy.

Based on your logic if you find an appraiser who gives it an L or M you would call him more stringent?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 12/29/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Mara

That said, I can definitely see having frustration in buying an I and having one expert call it a K and another call it a J. But really for me it''s about loving the STONE rather than the paper color grade...but color doesn''t mean much to me obviously, heehee. My girlfriend bought a K ACA and one appraiser said it was a low K, almost an L. But my girlfriend loves it, the AGS cert says K and she can''t see color in it. She didn''t even care that the appraiser said it was borderline L. And honestly, I have seen the stone and compared it to mine and it doesn''t even look close to an L. But it didn''t matter...she loved the stone because it was flat out lovely.

In the end people have to be totally at peace with the decision they make or else it will bother them long term. So Harriet just make sure whatever the outcome, you are 10000% happy with this stone. Price adjustment or not.

ITA with all of this, esp. the highlighted part

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 12/29/2006 2:43:03 PM
Author: aljdewey

If any buyer (not specifically Harriet) wants to reap the benefit of insuring the stone as an I, then s/he should pay for it as an I. If s/he wants a price adjustment based on a belief that it''s a J, then s/he should be willing to insure it as a J as well. It doesn''t seem fair to expect a price adjustment during the purchase process if one is unwilling to take that same adjustment in the event of loss.

I do agree with this also. I think if it were to be regraded though I''d send it to GIA since the accuracy of color seems to be paramount to anything else in this case.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 12/29/2006 3:19:13 PM
Author: Harriet

Date: 12/29/2006 3:00:29 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I completely agree that WF has no obligation to discount the stone. But if I were the buyer, I would not want to pay the price of I color on a three carat stone that has now been graded as one to two color grades lower by independent appraisers. If I were paying the I color price, I''d want a diamond that the cert and independent appraisers all agreed that the color was I. I''d simply return the stone and find a true I. So then, the next buyer buys the stone and gets it appraised as a J, and they return it as well. Most people probably won''t buy a $48,000 stone without having an independent appraisal. So the stone gets returned again and again. I''d just think that WF might consider the possibility of discounting the stone since it is likely to have the same problem in the future. I wouldn''t consider paying $48,000 for a 3 ct. J color stone even if the cert said it was a D IF.

Touche. Unfortunately for WF, this stone has acquired a taint.

I disagree. The *stone* is what it is and remains what it is. It is the same color it has been for longer than any of us have been alive. You can either love it for what it is, or dismiss it for what it is not. The only *taint* here is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, multiple beholders.

 

[JustAppraisers]

Harriet,

With all that''s been said, you know my opinion and how it was rendered, and I think I understand your concern, but in the end, this is a prize stone. From the heart, I also appreciate your direct approach and how constructive all of the players have been in getting you to a comfortable place where you and Adam can make a confident bid on this unique gem. But, this entire process, the knowledge, the dialogue and pricescope, all is unique. Nothing good comes easy and this is a testament to you, Adam and the relationship you forge. I want to publicly thank David Atlas. The experience, the brains and the integrity, Thanks for holding the candle high. You are a gift to our profession. And Kudos to Whiteflash, and all the caring and professional comments from all sides who got involved.

A special sincere, wish for You and Adam, Happy, Healthy 2007,

Respectfully,

David Wolf