This is scary--ripping people off and defending it...

[John P]

I remembered this thread and wanted to record a short follow-up article by Rob Bates.

http://www.jckonline.com/blogs/cutting-remarks/2014/05/21/egl-usa-were-different

Notes:

* EGL USA has been trying to have overseas EGL reports banned from U.S. shores.
* “I wish people would understand that EGL International is not affiliated with EGL USA." - Mitchell Jakubovic (EGL USA)
* EGL International did not return a request for comment.

 

[WinkHPD]

I remembered this thread and wanted to record a short follow-up article by Rob Bates.

http://www.jckonline.com/blogs/cutting-remarks/2014/05/21/egl-usa-were-different

Notes:

* EGL USA has been trying to have overseas EGL reports banned from U.S. shores.
* “I wish people would understand that EGL International is not affiliated with EGL USA." - Mitchell Jakubovic (EGL USA)
* EGL International did not return a request for comment.

What a delightful post. EGL USA who many of us regard as a second tier lab is chastising EGL International who most of us regard as a third or fourth tier lab.

Ah, I get it...

Hello Kettle, this is the Pot calling. YOU STOP THAT SOFT GRADING!


RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I MEAN IT!!!!!!!!


REALLY! IT IS OFFENSIVE TO ME.


Seriously? Who do they think they are fooling?

Oh, I get it, the American public who thinks that they know how to grade a diamond.

Wink

 

[MollyMalone]

Wink, are you aware of the study that Rapaport did last year; the results were summarized as follows (emphasis mine):
GIA [ranks] as the strictest of the labs [evaluated], followed very closely by IGI and EGL USA. The scores of these three labs were sufficiently close to suggest that the U.S.-based labs are working within comparable boundaries, while the non-U.S. labs are applying more lenient standards. Whereas HRD is treading a fine line in its grading quality, EGL Hong Kong and EGL Israel were by far the most lenient of the labs that were surveyed.

Complete text of article, with charts, etc., here:
http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=43417

Perhaps it will prompt you to revise your views.

 

[WinkHPD]

Wink, are you aware of the study that Rapaport did last year; the results were summarized as follows (emphasis mine):
GIA [ranks] as the strictest of the labs [evaluated], followed very closely by IGI and EGL USA. The scores of these three labs were sufficiently close to suggest that the U.S.-based labs are working within comparable boundaries, while the non-U.S. labs are applying more lenient standards. Whereas HRD is treading a fine line in its grading quality, EGL Hong Kong and EGL Israel were by far the most lenient of the labs that were surveyed.

Complete text of article, with charts, etc., here:
http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=43417

Perhaps it will prompt you to revise your views.

Sadly, it will not.

I have seen too many poorly graded diamonds from EGL USA to ever think of them as anything but an inconsistent second tier laboratory. Perhaps they are changing their spots, perhaps not. For sure they are not well respected by the trade since their diamonds trade at a significant discount to GIA. If they truly change and earn the privilege of being spoken of in the same breath as GIA and AGS (which trades at a slight premium to GIA since the cut grading system is clearly superior) it will be a pleasant surprise to me. It is highly unlikely to me that I will ever be a fan, even if they do manage to change, because by then I will be a very old man who does not easily change his memory of all of the transgressions and insults to the art of diamond grading that I have already personally observed over the years.

If they are now suddenly somehow grading correctly, I will expect to see a short term bustling business in crafty diamond buyers at trade shows snapping up the heavily discounted EGL USA diamonds, spending a $100 or so to repaper them and now selling them for an extra ten to twenty percent profit on an item often traded in profit margins of single digits at the wholesale level. Since I am not observing this to date, I am not holding my breath for this to happen.

Wink

P.S. I will be at the Vegas Jewelry show later this week, and I will be attending more than one presentation by the Rapaport organization. It will be interesting to me to see further illumination that Mr. Rapaport will be adding to this and other issues in the jewelry world.

 

[WinkHPD]

Molly,

In further reflection, I feel I may be coming off as all touchy feely about why I doubt that I will ever be a fan of EGL USA. I think you deserve a better answer and will attempt to deliver that here.

Please see this graphic posted by John Pollard.

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/first-time-diamond-wholesale-purchase.201496/page-2#post-3666579#p3666579']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/first-time-diamond-wholesale-purchase.201496/page-2#post-3666579#p3666579[/URL]

The trade is voting with their wallets.
They feel a given 1ct EGL USA graded diamond is worth only 69% of one from GIA with the SAME GRADES.
That is huge. And it is trade-wide.
Other EGLs are even more discounted. Meanwhile look at the price advantage that AGS enjoys, having top prices, often by a significant margin we should note.

A tiny snapshot 10-stone survey means nothing to me.
These are actual trading values for millions of dollars worth of diamonds in real-time.

I know the survey says “some labs might be getting punished” but it’s based on a drop in the bucket. What if they sent 100 stones. Or 1,000. Or 10,000. Do you think the results would be different or the same, and why? (Side note, every time Mr. Rapaport does one of these studies, in which he shows that AGS sells at a premium to GIA, he still fails to include AGS in the evaluation process of which diamond labs are softer than GIA. As a strong proponent of AGS, I really wish he would, although even if AGS was demonstrated to grade the same or even tighter than GIA I am sure that it would not stop those who proclaim that AGS is too soft on color which has never been my experience. Sigh.)

For that matter, why are labs like EGL USA being punished to begin with? Have they always been innocent (not saying they are now) or has there always been fire causing the smoke? I have had personal experiences, too many, that have me firmly believing that I should not, and thus do not, sell these imitation laboratory papered diamonds.

I could walk the JCK convention this week and ask jewelers how far off they think EGL USA is…and I am wagering the answer will be “2 grades.” It is what we have come to expect.

Of course, this begs the question, "But, have they improved?"

I do not know, and frankly, I probably would not care. With me, and with many, they have earned their reputation. It was theirs to lose, and they lost it. I will not buy diamonds that are papered by any laboratory but AGS and GIA unless I am sitting at the table with a diamond dealer and inspecting each unpapered diamond and buying on my analysis. I did this several times in Antwerp and always bought more correctly than wrongly, although even one wrong diamond can harshly effect your profit for the entire trip.

I would love to see them become a more respected laboratory, but I do not think that they can over come the inertia that they have earned as an inconsistent and too soft grading laboratory. Even more importantly, I do not think it would be profitable to them, as if they became equal with GIA in quality of grading, there would be no incentive for those selling the over graded goods to continue sending their diamonds to them for grading so that the over graded goods could be sold to the great unwashed and uneducated buying public. From whence then would come the clientele for their now correctly graded paper?

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

Wink, are you aware of the study that Rapaport did last year; the results were summarized as follows (emphasis mine):
GIA [ranks] as the strictest of the labs [evaluated], followed very closely by IGI and EGL USA. The scores of these three labs were sufficiently close to suggest that the U.S.-based labs are working within comparable boundaries, while the non-U.S. labs are applying more lenient standards. Whereas HRD is treading a fine line in its grading quality, EGL Hong Kong and EGL Israel were by far the most lenient of the labs that were surveyed.

Complete text of article, with charts, etc., here:
http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=43417

Perhaps it will prompt you to revise your views.

The igi results are also off.
They offer 2 services, graded mounted and loose diamond mounting.
The vast majority of what you will find in the US is mounted diamond grading which is about on par with egl-Israel for being crap.
The loose stone grading is slightly better but still below gia/ags.

 

[MollyMalone]

he igi results are also off.
They offer 2 services, graded mounted and loose diamond mounting.
The vast majority of [IGI reports] you will find in the US is mounted diamond grading which is about on par with egl-Israel for being crap.

This seems an odd criticism to lob since the grading of mounted stones was not what RapNet was exploring.

Wink, I especially appreciate the greater explanation you offered in your second post. But corporate leadership changes, and the products a corporation offers, the ways in which it conducts business, are not cast forever in stone. If EGL-USA has stepped up its game, it would be frustrating to be saddled with the consequences of reform be damned, the sins of the father should be visited upon the son.

I don't know if EGL-USA has stepped up their game -- and I recognize that the small number of stones submitted means that this RapNet project suffers from the same kind of infirmity as did the now 10-year-old "Diamonds Graded by 3 Different Laboratories" posted here on PS. Which is why I was careful to quote RapNet's own "suggests" language (which isn't nearly as strong as, e.g., "establishes"), did not otherwise characterize the RapNet article, and provided a link to it.

More info about the grading comparisons study was part of Rapaport's round-table discussion, with audience participation, of diamond certification at last year's JCK convocation. The article provides an embedded link to the video of that program, but here's the direct link; I thought it was a fascinating discussion:
http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsIt...leTitle=The+Rapaport+Certification+Conference

Now that I've watched that one, I'm looking forward to seeing the video for the upcoming, June 1st one!
http://www.diamonds.net/JCK2014/Home.aspx

 

[Karl_K]

he igi results are also off.
They offer 2 services, graded mounted and loose diamond mounting.
The vast majority of [IGI reports] you will find in the US is mounted diamond grading which is about on par with egl-Israel for being crap.

This seems an odd criticism to lob since the grading of mounted stones was not what RapNet was exploring.

no its not, because the mounted stone reports are the vast majority of igi reports a consumer will see in the real world.

 

[WinkHPD]

he igi results are also off.
They offer 2 services, graded mounted and loose diamond mounting.
The vast majority of [IGI reports] you will find in the US is mounted diamond grading which is about on par with egl-Israel for being crap.

This seems an odd criticism to lob since the grading of mounted stones was not what RapNet was exploring.

no its not, because the mounted stone reports are the vast majority of igi reports a consumer will see in the real world.

I am assured by John Pollard that in other parts of the world, especially China, that IGI runs an excellent lab and that the only IGI lab doing the mounted reports with grossly overpriced appraisal values is the US IGI. It is very wrong in my opinion and I rank IGI US as a second tier lab right along with EGL. I believe that EGL also issues the absurd values if asked, but I am not certain.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

he igi results are also off.
They offer 2 services, graded mounted and loose diamond mounting.
The vast majority of [IGI reports] you will find in the US is mounted diamond grading which is about on par with egl-Israel for being crap.

This seems an odd criticism to lob since the grading of mounted stones was not what RapNet was exploring.

Wink, I especially appreciate the greater explanation you offered in your second post. But corporate leadership changes, and the products a corporation offers, the ways in which it conducts business, are not cast forever in stone. If EGL-USA has stepped up its game, it would be frustrating to be saddled with the consequences of reform be damned, the sins of the father should be visited upon the son.

I don't know if EGL-USA has stepped up their game -- and I recognize that the small number of stones submitted means that this RapNet project suffers from the same kind of infirmity as did the now 10-year-old "Diamonds Graded by 3 Different Laboratories" posted here on PS. Which is why I was careful to quote RapNet's own "suggests" language (which isn't nearly as strong as, e.g., "establishes"), did not otherwise characterize the RapNet article, and provided a link to it.

More info about the grading comparisons study was part of Rapaport's round-table discussion, with audience participation, of diamond certification at last year's JCK convocation. The article provides an embedded link to the video of that program, but here's the direct link; I thought it was a fascinating discussion:
http://www.diamonds.net/News/NewsIt...leTitle=The+Rapaport+Certification+Conference

Now that I've watched that one, I'm looking forward to seeing the video for the upcoming, June 1st one!
http://www.diamonds.net/JCK2014/Home.aspx

Molly, you are very welcome.

EGL will have to do a lot of good work to convince me and most of the trade that they have truly changed their ways. If they do, you will see the disconnect between GIA and EGL pricing quickly diminish or even disappear, but I do not believe that it will happen in the near future. If you watch the June 1st video, keep your eyes open for John Pollard and me, we will be sitting in the first row taking pictures and notes.

Wink

 

[MollyMalone]

If you watch the June 1st video, keep your eyes open for John Pollard and me, we will be sitting in the first row taking pictures and notes. Wink

I'll be virtually waving at you two

Another, quick question if you don't mind

If they are now suddenly somehow grading correctly, I will expect to see a short term bustling business in crafty diamond buyers at trade shows snapping up the heavily discounted EGL USA diamonds, spending a $100 or so to repaper them and now selling them for an extra ten to twenty percent profit on an item often traded in profit margins of single digits at the wholesale level. Since I am not observing this to date, I am not holding my breath for this to happen.

I'm ignorant of who all comprises "diamond buyers at a trade show", but are most of them in a strong enough financial position that keeping a stash of stones out of further circulation for as long as 3-4 months -- GIA's current turn-around time for diamonds less than 1.5 ct -- would not be a hardship? That seems like an awfully long time to be without inventory one has already purchased.

 

[WinkHPD]

If you watch the June 1st video, keep your eyes open for John Pollard and me, we will be sitting in the first row taking pictures and notes. Wink

I'll be virtually waving at you two

Another, quick question if you don't mind

If they are now suddenly somehow grading correctly, I will expect to see a short term bustling business in crafty diamond buyers at trade shows snapping up the heavily discounted EGL USA diamonds, spending a $100 or so to repaper them and now selling them for an extra ten to twenty percent profit on an item often traded in profit margins of single digits at the wholesale level. Since I am not observing this to date, I am not holding my breath for this to happen.

I'm ignorant of who all comprises "diamond buyers at a trade show", but are most of them in a strong enough financial position that keeping a stash of stones out of further circulation for as long as 3-4 months -- GIA's current turn-around time for diamonds less than 1.5 ct -- would not be a hardship? That seems like an awfully long time to be without inventory one has already purchased.

One of my good friends used to go to coin shows and buy slabbed coins that he felt were misgraded and resubmit them. He made an excellent living. He tells me that once he completed his gemological training that he went to several gem shows to try to do the same with EGL papered diamonds that he felt would get the same grade at GIA. He gave it up as a waste of time and energy.

He assures me that with larger stones he gets often same day turn around. If it was there and worth an extra twenty percent to him (selling at ten percent below market to get a quick turn around) he would be the first one at the show and the last one to leave. An extra ten to twenty percent on a diamond deal would be HUGE and well worth a 90 to 120 wait as done even twice per year it would be worth twenty to forty percent more on your money. You just can not get that at the bank. He normally turns his money much more than that, but at minuscule margins. He would LOVE it if he could arbitrage one or two million dollars worth of undervalued diamonds just by getting a new paper on them.

Just a few months ago I was at a Polygon Conclave with a buyer from Antwerp. At the trading table there were a lot of GIA and EGL papered diamonds available. Just like in real life the EGL papered diamonds were 35 - 50 % less than GIA papered diamonds. These were vendor to vendor diamonds prices and my buyer from Antwerp stated that he could buy nothing at these prices as they were higher than he would pay in Antwerp. He came with a small fortune in my bank account to spend, I ended up sending almost all of it back to him.

Even if the goods were not big enough to justify a quick turn around, the successful arbitrager would simply pay a "hurry it the heck up" fee and still walk away with bucket loads of "found" money.

I wish it were so, but I fear it is not. The vendors who own those diamonds know what they have. If they have a diamond that will get the better GIA grade, it is not realistic to assume that they are not smart enough to also get it. In my opinion, the clients for EGL are those who know and depend on the fact that they will more often than not get a better grade from EGL than from GIA and they make enough selling to those willing to sell to the unsuspecting retail clients that they have no real incentive to demand that EGL do it correctly. In fact, it is in their best interest that EGL NOT do it correctly.

Wink

 

[Tekate]

they really should change their name..

I remembered this thread and wanted to record a short follow-up article by Rob Bates.

http://www.jckonline.com/blogs/cutting-remarks/2014/05/21/egl-usa-were-different

Notes:

* EGL USA has been trying to have overseas EGL reports banned from U.S. shores.
* “I wish people would understand that EGL International is not affiliated with EGL USA." - Mitchell Jakubovic (EGL USA)
* EGL International did not return a request for comment.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

they really should change their name..

That certainly makes logical sense. But they have a dilemma. If their grading standards are on par with GIA and they change name, what is the value proposition for the new brand? Better turn around time? I'm not sure that is compelling enough for a successful re-launch, particularly since the trade would no longer have the perception that they could get higher grades by sending their stones to them. Whatever your opinion of EGL USA you have to sympathize with their predicament. Their best hope is probably in the courts.

 

[WinkHPD]

they really should change their name..

That certainly makes logical sense. But they have a dilemma. If their grading standards are on par with GIA and they change name, what is the value proposition for the new brand? Better turn around time? I'm not sure that is compelling enough for a successful re-launch, particularly since the trade would no longer have the perception that they could get higher grades by sending their stones to them. Whatever your opinion of EGL USA you have to sympathize with their predicament. Their best hope is probably in the courts.

They made their bed and earned their reputation. They must remake the bed if they wish. Going to court and saying, "Hey, they do it worse than me, it should not be allowed," just seems kind of pathetic to me. I do not think they have a legal leg to stand on since their own paper is so suspect.

Which is probably why I am not allowed to practice law...

Wink

 

[Texas Leaguer]

they really should change their name..

That certainly makes logical sense. But they have a dilemma. If their grading standards are on par with GIA and they change name, what is the value proposition for the new brand? Better turn around time? I'm not sure that is compelling enough for a successful re-launch, particularly since the trade would no longer have the perception that they could get higher grades by sending their stones to them. Whatever your opinion of EGL USA you have to sympathize with their predicament. Their best hope is probably in the courts.

They made their bed and earned their reputation. They must remake the bed if they wish. Going to court and saying, "Hey, they do it worse than me, it should not be allowed," just seems kind of pathetic to me. I do not think they have a legal leg to stand on since their own paper is so suspect.

Which is probably why I am not allowed to practice law...

Wink

My thinking is that if they could cut off the "rogue" EGL's from the American market, the biggest offenders might not have enough business to continue operations, leaving just the EGL USA as the standard bearer for EGL. They would have still have the core of their brand value to work with and would not be dragged through the mud by anybody else's bad behavior.

I am not an apologist for EGL USA, but to a certain extent it seems somebody else has helped make the bed that they are forced to sleep in.

 

[John P]

It doesn't help that this is EGL, standing for European Gemological Laboratory (but based in the USA) fighting to block others EGLs also named European Gemological Laboratory, but based in Europe (and elsewhere, also abroad).

That's hard to explain. It's like a high-end auto maker named "Italian Motors" saying "You should only buy the Italian Motors cars we make here in the USA: Those cars made by "Italian Motors" in Italy are lower in quality & reliability and have hurt our reputation...

 

[Texas Leaguer]

It doesn't help that this is EGL, standing for European Gemological Laboratory (but based in the USA) fighting to block others EGLs also named European Gemological Laboratory, but based in Europe (and elsewhere, also abroad).

That's hard to explain. It's like a high-end auto maker named "Italian Motors" saying "You should only buy the Italian Motors cars we make here in the USA: Those cars made by "Italian Motors" in Italy are lower in quality & reliability and have hurt our reputation...

Indeed. They have a steep hill to climb. But it may be their only real option considering the odds of a complete brand remake being successful. Chances are that's what they have been thinking too, all these years that they have been in litigation.

 

[pbr]

I guarantee you this happens ALL the time.
And not just in nashville.
It's a fairly easy thing to do and the fact there are all these different diamond laboratories issuing these reports makes it easy.
This type of stuff should be more standardized.

 

[MollyMalone]

I can't find a link for easy, free access to the 2007 decision of federal Judge Paul A. Crotty re a motion for summary judgment in one batch of litigation between Guy Margel, founder of EGL International (consider that short-hand for the various Margel-operated labs outside the USA) & EGL-USA (again, shorthand for its true corporate moniker). But here are several paragraphs that I think illuminate the crux of the dispute in the federal District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Judge Crotty explains that the parties entered into an Agreement in 1998 (following earlier rounds of litigation-arbitration) whereby Margel agreed to "transfer or surrender…any and all rights and claim to rights he may have to the license and use of the EGL marks…anywhere in the United States…."

In addition, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that "neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract".... EGL-USA argues persuasively that a contract term requiring a surrender of rights to a trademark necessarily includes a requirement that the surrendering party refrain from subsequent use of that trademark....

Margel concedes that the Margel Labs have advertised in U.S. trade publications, using the E.G.L. trademarks, and introduced gem grading certificates bearing the E.G.L. trademark into the United States. There is evidence that EGL-USA officers complained to Margel and the directors of the Margel Labs regarding the advertising. These complaints create genuine issues of material fact as to whether EGL-USA adequately notified Margel of its position that this use of the trademarks constituted a breach of the 1998 Agreements, preventing waiver of Margel's obligations. Margel argues, however, that the advertising and introduction of certificates were carried out by the Margel Labs rather than Margel himself, and that these activities did not constitute use of the trademarks in the United States within the meaning of the 1998 Agreements. Both arguments are inadequate support for Margel's summary judgment motion.

Even if Margel could establish that the Margel Labs were the entities directly responsible for the use of the E.G.L. trademarks, and that they were not signatories to the 1998 Agreement, there is more than sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Margel controlled the Margel Labs. The fact that a non-signatory breached the agreement is irrelevant if Margel controls the non-signatory.

Margel's second argument is that he has the right to provide diamond services outside the United States, and in consequence to advertise his overseas services in U.S. publications, and to introduce certificates into the United States representing gem grading done overseas. This is an interesting argument, but there is no evidence to show that this was the intent or understanding of the parties, and the plain meaning of the contract does not compel this conclusion.

Because Judge Crotty concluded that he could not agree "that the actions of the Margel Labs were [unquestionably] consistent with the 1998 Agreements" & since there were numerous genuine issues of material fact, he ruled that Margel was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Meaning the litigation in that courthouse didn't come to a halt.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I can't find a link for easy, free access to the 2007 decision of federal Judge Paul A. Crotty re a motion for summary judgment in one batch of litigation between Guy Margel, founder of EGL International (consider that short-hand for the various Margel-operated labs outside the USA) & EGL-USA (again, shorthand for its true corporate moniker). But here are several paragraphs that I think illuminate the crux of the dispute in the federal District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Judge Crotty explains that the parties entered into an Agreement in 1998 (following earlier rounds of litigation-arbitration) whereby Margel agreed to "transfer or surrender…any and all rights and claim to rights he may have to the license and use of the EGL marks…anywhere in the United States…."

Interesting. How is it that this is still not resolved this many years later if the above highlighted was agreed to in 1998? With Markel even admitting (although the proof would be indisputable if he took out ads in US publications) that the EGL mark was used improperly. It must be infuriating for EGL USA to still be trying to get enforcement of an agreement made 16 years ago. That one sentence seems pretty clear to me.

 

[GliderPoss]

This thread is hilarious, nothing like seeing either 1. blank look from salesperson when you ask for something specific with stats or 2. suprise from salesperson/manager when you know more than she/he does...

I am NOT an expert by any means but if your salesperson cannot be bothered to learn the names of different diamond cuts or which "family" a group of gemstones belong to? I am so out of there, you can kiss my wallet goodbye

Example: I went to a really lovely fancy jeweller in Canberra and aked to see the cushion cut FYD in the window (just for fun!). "You mean the Princess cut?"says the model-like salesgirl "No the cushion cut please". "That's a Princess cut" she says firmly. Hubby looks at me and grins. "Nevermind" I say, "How about the Emerald cut there on the left?" "Absolutely! That's actually a Radiant cut - a real beauty!". Me "Forget it".

 

[MollyMalone]

Interesting. How is it that this is still not resolved this many years later if the above highlighted was agreed to in 1998? With Markel even admitting (although the proof would be indisputable if he took out ads in US publications) that the EGL mark was used improperly. It must be infuriating for EGL USA to still be trying to get enforcement of an agreement made 16 years ago. That one sentence seems pretty clear to me.

Oh, there was a bunch of claims & counterclaims (there is more to the Agreements than that 1 provision) in this particular litigation, which formally commenced in 2004 when Margel claimed EGL-USA owed him/his confreres money; the pretrial discovery process (production of documents, depositions of anticipated witnesses) was allowed to drag on for years after that 2005 denial of Margel's motion for summary judgment; a lot of pretrial motion hooey; and -- according to the JCK article that John Pollard linked up-thread -- the trial was almost a year ago, but the judge hasn't yet handed down his verdict decision
[can you tell I hate the imo "hurry up and wait" tedium of most civil litigation, am very happy that I switched over to criminal law ]

EGL-USA will be at JCK Las Vegas; seems likely (based on some EGL-USA press releases) that Mitch Jakubovic himself will be there, if you or anyone else in the trade would like to speak with him:
http://jcklv14.mapyourshow.com/5_0/exhibitor_details.cfm?exhid=396060

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Interesting. How is it that this is still not resolved this many years later if the above highlighted was agreed to in 1998? With Markel even admitting (although the proof would be indisputable if he took out ads in US publications) that the EGL mark was used improperly. It must be infuriating for EGL USA to still be trying to get enforcement of an agreement made 16 years ago. That one sentence seems pretty clear to me.

Oh, there was a bunch of claims & counterclaims (there is more to the Agreements than that 1 provision) in this particular litigation, which formally commenced in 2004 when Margel claimed EGL-USA owed him/his confreres money; the pretrial discovery process (production of documents, depositions of anticipated witnesses) was allowed to drag on for years after that 2005 denial of Margel's motion for summary judgment; a lot of pretrial motion hooey; and -- according to the JCK article that John Pollard linked up-thread -- the trial was almost a year ago, but the judge hasn't yet handed down his verdict decision
[can you tell I hate the imo "hurry up and wait" tedium of most civil litigation, am very happy that I switched over to criminal law ]

EGL-USA will be at JCK Las Vegas; seems likely (based on some EGL-USA press releases) that Mitch Jakubovic himself will be there, if you or anyone else in the trade would like to speak with him:
http://jcklv14.mapyourshow.com/5_0/exhibitor_details.cfm?exhid=396060

There's something wrong with a legal system that forces businesses to live in purgatory for decades. The whole reason you go to court is to get a ruling so that you know where you stand. Win or lose you can move forward.

I don't have a dog in that hunt since we deal only in AGS and GIA certs, so I personally won't waste their time or mine by prying into their saga. But it is interesting. Do you agree with my theory that they must have considered rebranding many times over the years and felt that they just couldn't do it successfully? Otherwise, why not stop the madness, cut your losses (at least your legal fees), clear the slate and start over.

 

[John P]

EGL-USA will be at JCK Las Vegas; seems likely (based on some EGL-USA press releases) that Mitch Jakubovic himself will be there, if you or anyone else in the trade would like to speak with him:
http://jcklv14.mapyourshow.com/5_0/exhibitor_details.cfm?exhid=396060

Thank you for the information. Candidly, those who choose not to do business with EGL have little reason to seek him out. With that said, should I run across him, I'm always open to discourse - especially as it relates to promoting consumer education, unifying grading standards and improving cut quality.

I hope Mr. Jakubovic will be participating in the Rapaport Certification Conference on Sunday.
http://www.diamonds.net/jck2014/Home.aspx

I look forward to any contributions he makes there.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Wink|1401144246|

One of my good friends used to go to coin shows and buy slabbed coins that he felt were misgraded and resubmit them. He made an excellent living. He tells me that once he completed his gemological training that he went to several gem shows to try to do the same with EGL papered diamonds that he felt would get the same grade at GIA. He gave it up as a waste of time and energy.

Wink[/quote]


Here ya go Wink.... I have done it a few times and have yet to fail... ..don't think I can do it with diamonds.. This Proof half dollar came back 2 grades higher.

 

[denverappraiser]

Labs have a nasty problem that comes from their customers. I’ll try to explain with an example.

Imagine a lab. We’ll call them XYZ. And imagine they’re ‘right’ 60% of the time. By right here, I mean that they’re dead on to what GIA would call them with every line item. Of the ones that are off, 50% are higher and 50% lower. Most by a single grade but 10% by 2 or more grades.

That’s actually a pretty good track record. It’s likely close to what the results for GIA themselves looks like. On average, it’s dead on. Great job folks.

So what does ‘the market’ do with that? ANY stone with a harsher grade immediately gets rebranded. The stone gets sent somewhere else, maybe GIA, maybe not, the document hits the shredder and that’s the end of it. It never sees the light of day. What about the ones that are dead on? Shred them too. 80% of the documents are now going to the trash. The other 20% go to market. Effectively, instead of costing $50 to grade, they cost $250. That’s a bit pricey, but if XYZ’s trade for the same price as GIA’s, that’s still a huge gain for the trader.

Meanwhile the lab reputation is getting trashed, even though they’re actually pretty good. In the market, 100% of the stones are wrong, and 20% of those are wrong by more than a grade. Prices will start to slip. Your paper is going to trade at a discount. So now what? Customers, meaning dealers, are going to start to complain. Everybody already thinks you’re a hack. So you let the standards slip, just a little bit. Instead of being dead on 60% of the time, let that drop to, say 40%. When you miss, instead of 50/50 which direction they go, push them all to the favor of the client. Instead of 10% by more than one grade, let that go to 20%. On average, the slide I just described is about half of a grade and would barely turn up on the PS study. The effect for the clients is HUGE. Instead of trashing 80% of the paper, they’re only trashing 40%. We just cut the effective price in half! Instead of getting a homerun on 2% of the stones (2 or more grades to their favor), they’re clients are knocking home 12%! Bingo, you’re inbox is packed.

The problem here is that it’s hard to go back. Once you accept the slide in reputation, you’re stuck. If you go back the other way, your customers are going to be mad mad mad. XYZ’s trade for a discount. Who would want an ‘accurate’ report from you? If you 'fix' the problem, your customers evaporate. So slide another half a grade. You can’t go back but you can sure go forward, and laugh all the way to the bank along the way.

 

[ame]

Guess who my newest Twitter follower is...

Ame--
You have a new follower on Twitter.


Genesis Diamonds Inc
@GenesisDiamondz
The world’s largest selection of hand crafted designer engagement rings & #1 destination for true wholesale diamond prices. Like us on FB facebook.com/genesisdiamonds
Nashville,Brentwood,Louisville · http://www.genesisdiamonds.net

Uh. Wow.