Many jewelers feel that their competition is the guy next door. We at NGL have seen a marked increase in jewelry returning from cruise line purchases. According to one client, "Our sightseeing tours made the local jewelry stores out to be 'points of interest.' I was angry!"
The items of interest seem to center around total weight pieces such as tennis bracelets, colored stone rings and other items of promotional nature, all which can be found here. While the prices paid are generally fair, they are not necessarily better than at home. The quality of some articles left a lot to be desired and a few clients have returned their jewelry for refunds or replacement.
Loose tanzanite seems to be cruising out the doors as well, with merchants selling their customers on the idea of an imminent rise in its value.
Friday, July 1, 1994
Fracture-filled: fact, fiction, future
It has been seven years since Zvi Yehuda was credited with the process that fills surface-reaching fractures in diamonds, giving them an apparent clarity improvement.
What have we learned since then and how will the industry handle the on-going debate aver its use?
Over the past five years, NGL newsletters have reported on the process, its telltale signs and ethical concerns as has the GIA and numerous trade publications.
As gemologists, we are concerned over the grading aspect. If a fracture is filled it hasn't gone away. It may be less visible but its true nature hasn't appreciably changed.
It's like clarity grading with the naked eye and saying "If you can't see it, it doesn't count."
There is no standard industry position on the fracture-filled diamond. Some labs will grade them - some will not. GIA will not. EGL did but now does not.
NGL's position is as it was in the beginning. We will identify the treatment and issue a report as such but not assign a clarity grade or value [Editor's Note, 2008: NGL will offer appraisals to the end consumer only on fracture-filled stones. It will include a visual-only clarity grade along with a disclaimer and a value for insurance purposes only.]
What sets this policy for us is the fact that it is not stable in a diamond's normal environment. Everyday wear is fine, steam cleaning and an ultrasonic may even be OK for some, but a "normal" environment for a diamond includes being subjected to the heat of the jeweler's torch and under those conditions the process is highly unstable.
The effects are obvious and the consequences for the unsuspecting jeweler are not pleasant. It cost one jeweler his life and may cost others their livelihood.
What have we learned since then and how will the industry handle the on-going debate aver its use?
Over the past five years, NGL newsletters have reported on the process, its telltale signs and ethical concerns as has the GIA and numerous trade publications.
As gemologists, we are concerned over the grading aspect. If a fracture is filled it hasn't gone away. It may be less visible but its true nature hasn't appreciably changed.
It's like clarity grading with the naked eye and saying "If you can't see it, it doesn't count."
There is no standard industry position on the fracture-filled diamond. Some labs will grade them - some will not. GIA will not. EGL did but now does not.
NGL's position is as it was in the beginning. We will identify the treatment and issue a report as such but not assign a clarity grade or value [Editor's Note, 2008: NGL will offer appraisals to the end consumer only on fracture-filled stones. It will include a visual-only clarity grade along with a disclaimer and a value for insurance purposes only.]
What sets this policy for us is the fact that it is not stable in a diamond's normal environment. Everyday wear is fine, steam cleaning and an ultrasonic may even be OK for some, but a "normal" environment for a diamond includes being subjected to the heat of the jeweler's torch and under those conditions the process is highly unstable.
The effects are obvious and the consequences for the unsuspecting jeweler are not pleasant. It cost one jeweler his life and may cost others their livelihood.
Could this happen to you?
Various appraisal and jewelers organizations are currently looking into a recent case that many believe exemplifies the need for regulations on the practices of jewelry appraisers.
The case goes something like this: A local jeweler is given a rather large color-change stone in a ring mounting for repair work. No documentation exists on the article (which was an inheritance) and at the time was though to be of minimal value by the customer, according to the jeweler.
When stolen from the jeweler however, the article with no identity becomes a nine carat rare and expensive natural alexandrite chrysoberyl.
At least this is according to the appraiser who never saw the ring, but through a series of questions with the client made this determination and wrote a document stating an absolute conclusion with a value in the neighborhood of $50,000.
When contacted concerning this matter, several of the area's top Graduate Gemologist/appraisers had turned down the proposition of providing such a document. There was no proof of the stone having ever been documented as natural and since its original place of purchase was stated to be Mexico in the 1960s, when very few nine carat alexandrites existed, the possibility of such was deemed very remote. Add to this, the fact that synthetic color-change sapphire is commonly sold as "alexandrite" throughout the world, and has created one of the most common misnomers known to the jewelry industry to date.
Well...
The case went to trial. The judge heard testimony of two Graduate Gemologists who believed the likelihood of the stone being natural was remote. The judge read the report of the appraiser saying it was natural as well as heard the plaintiff's testimony describing the correct color-change attributes for natural alexandrite.
In the end, it was the plaintiff's testimony that won out - a judgement in the vicinity of $50,000.
The plaintiff's lack of tangible proof of what was owned was apparently not important. The burden of disproving what they may have had was on the defendant.
The plaintiff's failure to hire an expert with a gemological degree was also apparently not important in the eyes of the law. Since the state of Washington has no regulations on jewelry appraisers and therefore no requirements of them, the plaintiff's expert was considered as valid as the defendant's.
What can be learned by this case? Most assuredly, a customer can make any claim and put the burden of proof on the jeweler. Without documentation, one might think the plaintiff had little chance. But it was this lack of evidence that worked to their benefit.
While this once again stresses the importance of proper job take-in procedures, this alone won't solve the problem. The jeweler needs to qualify a customer's expectations, anticipate potential problems (however remote) and act to prevent them.
It also wouldn't hurt to utilize the services of an independent and reputable gemological laboratory when the need arises.
The case goes something like this: A local jeweler is given a rather large color-change stone in a ring mounting for repair work. No documentation exists on the article (which was an inheritance) and at the time was though to be of minimal value by the customer, according to the jeweler.
When stolen from the jeweler however, the article with no identity becomes a nine carat rare and expensive natural alexandrite chrysoberyl.
At least this is according to the appraiser who never saw the ring, but through a series of questions with the client made this determination and wrote a document stating an absolute conclusion with a value in the neighborhood of $50,000.
When contacted concerning this matter, several of the area's top Graduate Gemologist/appraisers had turned down the proposition of providing such a document. There was no proof of the stone having ever been documented as natural and since its original place of purchase was stated to be Mexico in the 1960s, when very few nine carat alexandrites existed, the possibility of such was deemed very remote. Add to this, the fact that synthetic color-change sapphire is commonly sold as "alexandrite" throughout the world, and has created one of the most common misnomers known to the jewelry industry to date.
Well...
The case went to trial. The judge heard testimony of two Graduate Gemologists who believed the likelihood of the stone being natural was remote. The judge read the report of the appraiser saying it was natural as well as heard the plaintiff's testimony describing the correct color-change attributes for natural alexandrite.
In the end, it was the plaintiff's testimony that won out - a judgement in the vicinity of $50,000.
The plaintiff's lack of tangible proof of what was owned was apparently not important. The burden of disproving what they may have had was on the defendant.
The plaintiff's failure to hire an expert with a gemological degree was also apparently not important in the eyes of the law. Since the state of Washington has no regulations on jewelry appraisers and therefore no requirements of them, the plaintiff's expert was considered as valid as the defendant's.
What can be learned by this case? Most assuredly, a customer can make any claim and put the burden of proof on the jeweler. Without documentation, one might think the plaintiff had little chance. But it was this lack of evidence that worked to their benefit.
While this once again stresses the importance of proper job take-in procedures, this alone won't solve the problem. The jeweler needs to qualify a customer's expectations, anticipate potential problems (however remote) and act to prevent them.
It also wouldn't hurt to utilize the services of an independent and reputable gemological laboratory when the need arises.
So, What is retail anyway?
As appraisers of fine jewelry and gemstones, NGL has been asking that question a lot lately as have many customers and jewelers alike.
By definition, retail means the price paid by theultimate consumer, but with traditional jewelers' practices out the window in today's marketplace, retail ain't what it used to be.
In the "old days" the retail environment was relatively stable. One could apply standard mark-ups to cost and arrive at values that very often stood up to the comparables in their marketplace. Today, comparables researched through market data (which is the preferred and most representative method of appraising) have brought retail figures down to leave some jewelers out of the mainstream.
The appraiser's first job is to accurately identify and describe the article being appraised. The process of applying standard gemological procedures in a consistent nature gives tha appraiser credibility in this evaluative process. To accurately describe the quality of a given gem and the mounting it is contained in are the basis for the appraisal and certainly the most important component in the insurance replacement process.
When the subject of "value" comes up, however, most jewelers feel the appraisal is only a vehicle to facilitate the sale. As long as the appraised prices reflects a "savings" to the customer, it is considered a sales tool.
To satisfy their impression of what makes a customer happy, many jewelers seek out the appraiser who will report their perception of "suggested retail price" regardless of what the item sells for. This they feel, implies the selling price as being a bona fide discount. All too often the opposite is true, if a comparable item is readily available at the new price and offered elsewhere for a similar amount it can be argued that the advertised price has now established a new retail for that item.
In the end, all the discounting game really acomplishes is either a false customer satisfaction or confusion. By reporting a value reflective of a "regular price" that never really existed, the jeweler and appraiser both are not only doing a disservice but are courting disaster in the eyes of the Federal Trade Commission and the office of the Attorney General.
With guidelines currently being written for appraisers, leading to licensing and regulations, this issue is at the forefront of discussions.
The jewelry appraiser who reports "value" to be that of a price unsubstantiated by actual sales will find themselves under a watchful eye.
By definition, retail means the price paid by theultimate consumer, but with traditional jewelers' practices out the window in today's marketplace, retail ain't what it used to be.
In the "old days" the retail environment was relatively stable. One could apply standard mark-ups to cost and arrive at values that very often stood up to the comparables in their marketplace. Today, comparables researched through market data (which is the preferred and most representative method of appraising) have brought retail figures down to leave some jewelers out of the mainstream.
The appraiser's first job is to accurately identify and describe the article being appraised. The process of applying standard gemological procedures in a consistent nature gives tha appraiser credibility in this evaluative process. To accurately describe the quality of a given gem and the mounting it is contained in are the basis for the appraisal and certainly the most important component in the insurance replacement process.
When the subject of "value" comes up, however, most jewelers feel the appraisal is only a vehicle to facilitate the sale. As long as the appraised prices reflects a "savings" to the customer, it is considered a sales tool.
To satisfy their impression of what makes a customer happy, many jewelers seek out the appraiser who will report their perception of "suggested retail price" regardless of what the item sells for. This they feel, implies the selling price as being a bona fide discount. All too often the opposite is true, if a comparable item is readily available at the new price and offered elsewhere for a similar amount it can be argued that the advertised price has now established a new retail for that item.
In the end, all the discounting game really acomplishes is either a false customer satisfaction or confusion. By reporting a value reflective of a "regular price" that never really existed, the jeweler and appraiser both are not only doing a disservice but are courting disaster in the eyes of the Federal Trade Commission and the office of the Attorney General.
With guidelines currently being written for appraisers, leading to licensing and regulations, this issue is at the forefront of discussions.
The jewelry appraiser who reports "value" to be that of a price unsubstantiated by actual sales will find themselves under a watchful eye.
