elrohwen
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,542
D_D, that's definitely something else to think about. My worry is that, if it were lost, even if we got back the $2500 we paid, buying a new stone would cost a lot of money. If the insurance agreed to purchase something similar, would I be able to add money to that? I would be willing to throw in $4k extra to buy a nicer stone of the same size, for example. I just don't know if I would be able to put up the $10k required to buy a nice stone out of pocket. I'll talk about your idea with DH (and Travelers) and see what he thinks.Date: 2/28/2010 2:11:17 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
OK, this is gonna sound crazy, but I am not sure if buying separate insurance for your ring is really that great an option anyways.
You will never replace the sentiment, so it doesn't help with that. You did not pay out of pocket for the diamond, so you don't need insurance to cover that either. I have no clue what they would try to offer you as 'like kind and quality' if it were lost anyways! I don't think you would want what they would offer. So what does insurance really get for you? The only way it would help is if you get a cash-out policy so that you can buy what you like with the insurance money. But that will cost more. In a sense, you only really need to cover the cost of the setting. Typically, your homeowners policy automatically covers jewelery up to a certain value (in our case it is $5k), with a small deductible. The only benefit to a separate rider is to cover a greater value or to have no deductible. In your shoes I would be tempted to just let the home owner's policy cover the setting (which would require an appraisal listing its value), and just accept the risk on the diamond.
And yes, my husband works in insurance
A cash out policy would absolutely be the best - I'm interested in Chubbs and I'm going to try to find out if I could meet their minimum $12k requirement somehow. Perhaps if I get a pair of studs or something in the next few years I could bring the total (including my ering and other two rings) up to their minimum. Also, if they insure items other than jewelry, I have a cello worth a bit (covered under renter's at the moment) that I could get appraised and added on - assuming they would count that towards the $12k. I really need to call them and do some investigating. Getting cash is really the only way to ensure I get something comparable if I lost my ring. Of course, the premium may be more than we're willing to pay. It claims 1-3% on the value, and 1% wouldn't be outrageous, while 3% would probably be too much.
This is some great insight thought. Lots of things I didn't think of originally when we had it insured.
For denverappraiser, here are the rest of the details. I was pretty shocked at how spready and shallow it is - it really looks pretty in person, so I didn't expect those numbers. Plus, OECs are usually on the deep end of the spectrum, not shallow. In addition to the chip, the description talks about a black inclusion - almost invisible to the eye. I can see it, but I've spent time staring at it. Unless I look for it, I don't normally see it.
Shape: Old European Cut
Weight: 1.67ct
Size: Max Diameter - 7.88mm. Min Diameter - 7.85mm. Depth - 4.55mm
Depth Percentage - 57.9%
Girdle: Medium, rough
Clarity: I2
Color: H
Symmetry: Fair
Culet: Large
Polish: Fair
Fluorescence: None
Description: An internal characteristic can be seen reaching the surface from the crown to table facets. A large girdle chip can also be noted crossing a facet junction and reaching into a crown facet and the pavilion. It also extends and crosses a pavilion facet and extends to the culet.
300x240.png)