Just discovered diamond doesn't match GIA cert

[Eady]

Hi,

I'm hoping this is the best place to post for some advice.

6 years ago my husband and I bought my engagement ring. It was sold to us as an antique ring with a 1.12ct solitaire I vs1 no fluro. It came with a GIA cert, and the jeweller provided a valuation for insurance purposes.

Since then I have started building my coloured stone collection, and recently dropped in some rings to an independent valuer. While I was there I asked that my engagement ring be valued as well to update the insurance. I included the GIA cert.

The valuer has since come back saying the stone in my ring is not the stone in the certificate. She was very certain - the stone in the ring is approx .96ct, E colour, vs1, faint fluro...

When my husband and I were ring shopping, we wanted a stone over a carat, and purchased this particular one because it was certified.. For us to find out we did not buy what we thought we did, given the amount paid, is a bit upsetting!

With the benefit of hindsight we should have gotten the ring checked before purchasing it, but we were expecting the jeweller who was selling us the ring to know what he was selling..

What should we do next?

I love my engagement ring, but did we over pay for it? Considering we were paying for 1.12ct I and got .96ct E? Does the better colour negate the smaller size?

Should we ask for the current stone to be certified at the cost of the jeweller?

Should we ask to exchange the ring for one that's over a carat with the correct certificate?

Should we ask for a refund (although I'm assuming diamond prices have gone up since we purchased it and we wouldn't be able to buy something comparable for the same price)?

Do we do nothing?

Thanks in advance!

 

[oldminer]

I suppose by your message that your gemologist appraiser has not removed the diamond to weigh it. The grading that has been provided might not be exactly correct especially in color. GIA is notorious for saying no fluorescence when gemologists see some and grade faint or slight.

How about the length and width, are these close to the old lab report?
How about the depth? GIA and Sarine devices are rarely perfect in this single reliable measurement. Does your gemologist have access to an exact measurement while mounted? Does your gemologist actually have a truly accurate measuring device such as a threaded, pressure limited screw caliper with a high degree of accuracy? Few have that kind of tool and many diamonds today are set so depth is pure guesswork estimation.

If your original seller can be visited, in person, then I suggest you go there an ask them to remove the stone in front of you and weigh it and verify the measurements are within expectations. Also, make sure the color is correct to the best extent possible. If anyone wished to purpose switch a diamond, they would rarely give you an E color after you agreed to an I color. So, I doubt there ever was intent to cheat. It could be a wrong diamond, but let the seller rescue themselves and you if at all possible. If you jump to conclusions first, you will back yourself into a corner that becomes difficult to exit well. I have seen such action many, many times and rarely was it the only way through this sort of problem.

If your current gemologist is also hoping to sell you a replacement diamond, then they have taken on the "appearance" of potential bias in this transaction. They may be totally correct and honest, or maybe there is a problem with correctness or honesty. Not making any judgment yet, but please don't make one yet yourself, either. You need to find the truth and to do this the diamond should be removed by the original seller to prevent anyone from being falsely accused such as you or the new gemologist you are using.

Hope you have the time and patience to make the best outcome possible happen. You had faith in the initial seller and might as well continue to trust them to do the right thing still. Most will whenever given the chance. If it was intentional, it is rather late to prove it. If it was accidental it can always be fixed. If no one trusts anyone else, there is little reason to admit anything or to be helpful and that is hardly productive. I've seen this kind of animosity take a mistake and turn it into a fruitless and costly lawsuit where no one wins in the end. Good luck.

 

[rockysalamander]

+100 to @oldminer. I was just about to say something similar, but less eloquently.

Additionally...In the 6-years that have passed, you have been happy with the ring. The two stones in question would have similar value, so you likely paid for exactly what you got - even if is not what you thought (the weight difference is largely offset in the color difference in value). So, consider carefully if you really want to do anything about this. Going from an E to an I (assuming these are accurate) may make you quite unhappy.

 

[Matthews1127]

I have a question to add: since the diamond has a GIA cert, can't the cert number be located on the stone to verify the correct cert was attached to the correct stone? Personally, I'd prefer to take that route before going any further, or jumping to conclusions....

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The diamond you have might be worth more than the 1.12 I color. As Old Miner said, the appraiser can't know the weight unless they removed the stone from the setting. Since you love it, I'd just be happy I got a higher color than expected! I agree that it's unlikely you were cheated.

 

[MollyMalone]

I have a question to add: since the diamond has a GIA cert, can't the cert number be located on the stone to verify the correct cert was attached to the correct stone? Personally, I'd prefer to take that route before going any further, or jumping to conclusions....

Don't know the year of Eady's GIA report or which kind it is, but at least in recent years, it's diamonds with the less expensive, GIA Dossier Report (issued only for diamonds under 2 cts) that are inscribed as a matter of course by the lab -- and that's because there's no clarity characteristics, plotting diagram in a Dossier Report.
https://www.gia.edu/analysis-grading-sample-report-diamond?reporttype=diamond-dossier

If you want a laser inscription on a diamond for which GIA is going to issue a Diamond Grading Report -- which has the plotting diagram
https://www.gia.edu/analysis-grading-sample-report-diamond?reporttype=diamond-grading-report
-- there's an additional charge.

 

[Matthews1127]

Don't know the year of Eady's GIA report or which kind it is, but at least in recent years, it's diamonds with the less expensive, GIA Dossier Report (issued only for diamonds under 2 cts) that are inscribed as a matter of course by the lab -- and that's because there's no clarity characteristics, plotting diagram in a Dossier Report.
https://www.gia.edu/analysis-grading-sample-report-diamond?reporttype=diamond-dossier

If you want a laser inscription on a diamond for which GIA is going to issue a Diamond Grading Report -- which has the plotting diagram
https://www.gia.edu/analysis-grading-sample-report-diamond?reporttype=diamond-grading-report
-- there's an additional charge.

Thank you for the info. My diamond has a laser inscription...
Hopefully, so does Eady's...

 

[ericad]

I suspect that the diamond in your ring is indeed the 1.12ct I you purchased. If the appraiser didn't unmount it and only used face up measurements, I would expect the calculation to render a weight slightly lower than 1.12 because they use a formula for modern rounds, but OEC's have added depth so they are almost always heavier than they calculate. And OEC's are notorious for facing up whiter than they should for their graded color, so an I that's set and being evaluated face up could easily be graded as a G based only on its face up color (GIA grades color loose and face down). Until you unmount and weigh your stone, you won't know for sure, but knowing old cuts the way I do my guess is that your diamond is indeed the same 1.12ct I color you thought you purchased. I hope you solve the mystery and love that you chose an antique!!!

 

[Eady]

Thank you everyone for all the quick and helpful replies!

Yes the ring was appraised with the diamond mounted. The appraiser had mentioned the difficulties in measuring the stone while in the setting but said if she thought if the stone was unmounted and weighed it might get to a carat but no heavier.

One other thing I forgot to mention is that the stone is an old European cut, but the cert just has round brilliant cut - the appraiser said the correct cert should state "Old European cut"... I had just assumed an OEC fell under the round brilliant "umbrella"..

The appraisers view is that it was just a cert mix up by the original jewellers, and I didn't get the feeling that she was trying to sell me anything.

@Matthews1127 I don't think my diamond has a laser inscription, though that would make things a lot easier!

@ericad thanks for the reply, it makes me feel much better to think there's a chance the cert matches. An I looking like an E face up is quite a big jump though, have you seen other OECs perform the same?

I suppose the next step is for me to go into the original jeweller and get his thoughts on it

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

"One other thing I forgot to mention is that the stone is an old European cut, but the cert just has round brilliant cut - the appraiser said the correct cert should state "Old European cut"... I had just assumed an OEC fell under the round brilliant "umbrella".."

Here is a good link from GIA that describes their criteria in determining a round brilliant vs. OEC cut.

https://www.gia.edu/gia-news-research-round-brilliant-cut-diamond-pay

 

[Lookinagain]

My understanding is that GIA has very strict parameters for what they will label an OEC. So that many old stones that look like OEC's may not be called that on the certificate. I have a stone that looks like an OEC but is called a round brilliant on the GIA cert. So don't let the fact that it's called a round brilliant and not an OEC convince you that the cert and the stone don't match.

 

[denverappraiser]

The GIA definition of Old Euro is relatively recent. A decade or two ago, 58 facet round stones were all called round brilliant.

As recently as last week, by the way, I sent in an old stone for grading and they called it a round brilliant. I’m reasonably familiar with the rules and protested. They acquiesced and called it a ‘circular brilliant’.

 

[ChristineRose]

An OEC is a round brilliant cut. The un-brillianted version is the single cut, not the OEC. There is no single definition of the line between OEC and not-OEC and GIA's has a pretty strict definition. The only way you can tell if GIA would have called it an OEC is to measure the proportions.

 

[denverappraiser]

This is a fairly serious accusation for a seller. Most are eager to get to the bottom of it although 6 years is a long time to wait for this conversation. Call them up. Show them the appraisal report. Tell them your concerns. Most will be happy to cooperate. It's usually easy, but not free, to 100% match or separate a stone from a GIA report and it's easy to spot some of the differences you're describing. Spotting 0.16cts weight difference can be done with a scale for example.

It's worth asking the question simply because it worries you but I doubt you'll have much recourse even if the stone is different because of the 6 year lag. A lot can happen in that amount of time. I'm with Erica above in suspecting that it's actually correct and that the error is at the appraiser's office rather than the jeweler's. They too will probably be eager to get to the bottom of it.

 

[doberman]

I'm pretty sure the diamond you have would be worth more than the I color, even though it is slightly smaller. So I doubt this was done on purpose, if it was done at all. I'd definitely ask the seller to remove the diamond and weigh it. Unfortunately I believe you have to pay extra for engraving the GIA number so it's not done in all cases.