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.