Dealing with Misleading Appraisal Documents

One more business, - the aristocrat has continued. - a trifle, but I want, that it has been executed. - What exactly? - has taken an interest Íèñòóð. - On this person - very unusual armour. Carried out of the task, work to removetake off them from ithim and to transfertransmit me. You can receive for it the extra charge to a payment for work. Mister, you offend me! I - àñàññèí with high reputation, and I am not engaged in marauding. I recognize, that for heroes and even knights to removetake off an armour with ïîâåðæåííîãî the opponent, so noble and notable, - usual business. But it is possibleprobable only on a battlefield, after the open duel.

May I add, the formulas that are used to make value determinations on e-praise.com utilize only the two diameters of a diamond, it's depth and carat weight. These determinations are not high tech conclusions and can be expected to be reported accurately on any Certificate of Quality by any of the Labs. From this information we develop what we choose to call an eCS (e-praise cut score) which is a numerical indicator of the subjects approximation to the Tolkwosky IDEAL.

May I add, the formulas that are used to make value determinations on e-praise.com utilize only the two diameters of a diamond, it's depth and carat weight. These determinations are not high tech conclusions and can be expected to be reported accurately on any Certificate of Quality by any of the Labs. From this information we develop what we choose to call an eCS (e-praise cut score) which is a numerical indicator of the subjects approximation to the Tolkwosky IDEAL.

Jogia Diamonds of Pearth Australia has identified on his Blog the laboratory who certified the coated pink diamond, as (Auscert SGTL) of Melbourne Australia.

The above story is true see the thediamondguru.blogspot.com for the identity of the laboratory.

News from the DCLA web site in Australia Recently, a pink coloured diamond weighing 0.70ct was submitted to DCLA laboratory for certification and colour authentication. The colour was described as 3 PP on a diamond report issued by another Australian-based laboratory. After routine examination however, DCLA discovered that when the diamond is viewed under high magnification with reflected diffused light, a patchy iridescent coating is visible on the surface. This coating is also easily visible on the pavilion facets of the diamond when viewed through the table. However, when the diamond is observed under magnification with regular diffused light, the pink coloration appears evenly distributed, particularly when viewed face up. The pink colour is the result of a coating rather than from natural lattice defects in natural pink diamonds. Surface coating is the process of adding a thin layer of coloured foreign material to all or part of a gemstone's surface, with the intent of either masking the underlying body colour or enhancing a desirable colour. Most often, this coating is applied to the pavilion and/or girdle of the diamond

Undercutting Prices Diamond website vendors pretending to be expert specialists with very little to no expertise in diamond education or technology, often market virtual or "ghost" diamonds they do not stock. These rogue traders and drop shippers are offering to sell these "invisible" diamonds at ridiculously cheap prices often making legitimate ethical jewellers and genuine diamond specialists appear overpriced. On numerous occasions both the Diamond Certification Laboratory of Australia ( DCLA) and lately the Jewellers Association of Australia have combined forces have issued an industry alert about these cheap diamonds. Many of these internet diamond retailers do not inspect ordered diamonds until the they are paid for by the buyer and continue to hide behind very questionable diamond grading reports with inaccurate gradings. These are often the diamonds with overseas diamond certificates rejected by diamond merchants for being inferior with exaggerated grades. These bluff diamonds can not be sold via traditional channels, often are over graded, over valued and may be treated without disclosure listed for sale at unbeatable low prices. Real jewellers then seem undeservedly overpriced and are unable to compete against this unethical practice. The Jewellers Association of Australia last week issued a warning about both EGL and GIA diamond grading reports from overseas. Once again buyers please beware. Prior to purchase always verify the accuracy of the diamond's grade by contacting the DCLA to avoid disappointment Daniel Katz GG NAME THE GIA BRIBERS

I know I will probably get cyber slammed for posting this, but as a stricly online retailer, I to am frustrated from these rogue sellers (brick and mortar and ecommerce) who choose to "

I see quite a bit of discussion regarding the GIA certificates and the bribery. On blogs and websites. But not in the mainstream press. Is it really a big problem? Are they really in contempt of court for not identifying the bribers or the people involved? If it is true and not just gossip why has there not be a world wide industry alert? Would that not be the correct thing to do rather than slamming them on blogs? I for one believe it is probably a small problem but on the other hand, I don't want problems with my customers, over something that was sold to me. I mean the profit isn't mine it went to the seller right? It would be best if this get sorted out quickly.

The retail jewelry appraisal is probably the main topic of interest here, not rare or antique jewelry. The easiest source of objective and supportable information is the reputable manufacturers of jewelry who publish suggested retail prices. Since many importer/wholesalers do not provide suggested retail prices, I generally use the same basic guidelines (triple key, etc.) that are most commonly used. However, there is a sliding scale with the markup being gradually reduced as the cost goes up. Nobody can really support a retail valuation of 3 times the cost of a large diamond, for example. I assume that I might be required to substantiate my appraisals, and keep enough documentation and comparables in my files to stay out of legal trouble. I have found that "official" appraisal organizations are protective of their guidelines and want to sell you appraisal courses rather than provide industry leadership and standards. They want a certain amount of exclusivity, to promote themselves to the public as accredited appraisers. I personally do not find ordinary appraising a profitable use of my time, but a necessary service to my own customers. What would probably work best is a panel of industry leaders who develop a simple set of guidelines, such as the sliding markup scale. However, someone will then publish the information on the web, undercutting the whole retail jewelry industry. Who wants that to happen? For that reason, maybe it is best to leave the situation alone, and let every jeweler continue to use his or her own appraisal guidelines. There is nothing wrong with having a little "mystery" or "proprietary" knowledge that is not available to outsiders. Retailers who sell for exorbitant prices will either find a niche as "exclusive stores" or go our of business, as always. Also, there is a good case for letting jewelry designers and manufacturers set their own retail prices and not forcing them into the same mold as commodity jewelry. The last thing we would want to do is "commoditize" our industry further. If the price becomes the main issue, we would all suffer. The few retailers who actually commit fraud will eventually be singled out, as insurance companies start rejecting their valuations and customers are unable to collect on the insurance. Those are the ones the JVC should be looking for. Let ordinary retailers handle their retail price valuation the way that works best in their markets, and the consumers will choose who to buy from. Can you ignore the companies who sell purses for $2,500 - a perfectly legal practice - and worry about jewelers who charge prices that are higher than average? I say "no - let the free market take care of itself. That's what America is all about.

You said it. I boggles the mind how the industry in Australia works. We have over valuations and Certificates done in-house or by shady characters like the one mentioned by Danny. but what can you do about it really? Even our local jewellery magazine covers up the trash in the industry.

Very interesting blog on faulse claims and certificates Auscert (SGTL) Non Compliant Diamond Grading Laboratory Auscert (SGTL) Still a NON Compliant Diamond Grader * The above information was sent to us by Anthony Bates of Auscert, one of the non compliant pseudo diamond grading laboratories in Australia. * I have been requested by Mr. Bates of Auscert to keep up to date with our facts and findings. This is one of those rare moments where I will agree with him and I thank him for bringing this to my attention. * The old pictures and information on the DiamondSure(tm) and DiamondView(tm) came from De Beers the company responsible for manufacturing both these instruments and De Beers was named as the source of this information. The new pictures come from the GIA British site. Previously only De Beers marketed these two products but now they are available for sale from GIA who has been appointed a retail distributor. * During the course of the last year we have subjected Mr Bates to justifiable scrutiny. * Gemological Qualifications? Until only recently we believe Mr Bates has finally acquired a gemological qualification offered by GIA for those who need a diamond grading qualification quickly in the shortest space of time. We are not sure exactly which course it was suffice to say it was a diamond evaluation course not equivalent to residence course which is part of the esteemed graduate gemologist qualification which takes six months and a lot more money. * It is encouraging to see Mr Bates, who previously would never reveal his gemological credentials to us in the past, has finally become slightly more educated. * Colour Grading Diamond Master Set? We still have no confirmation of Auscert's (SGTL) diamond master set that a laboratory requires for colour comparisons. The Colorimeter which we believe Auscert uses is unacceptable.No respectable laboratory that requires recognition would seriously use a colorimeter for ascertaining accurate colour grades on their diamond grading reports. * The colorimeter is simply a convenient indicator of colour. Those who use it rarely practise and train their eyes and colour grading skills by constantly comparing real diamonds with real diamonds. * However there is still a problem. * Mr Bates and his sidekick Monica Crofts continue to falsely claim they are an independent diamond grading laboratory yet both of them are trading in jewellery and gemstones. * Mr Bates has a retail jewellery business and even has the chutzpah to list the Auscert logo on his retail jewellery website. * Hardly independent is it Mr Bates ? * Under the CIBJO Diamond Blue Book guidelines to avoid a conflict of interest both gem or jewellery traders and vendors are not permitted to certify diamonds. The world jewellery and diamond governing bodies such as CIBJO and the WFDB do not permit jewellery or diamond dealer members to have cross ownership or interests in laboratories. * Can you imagine buying a diamond from a diamond vendor who certifies his own diamonds ? To understand why this is unethical read more here . * Monica Crofts has a coloured gemstone business. * I quote Mr Bates on Gemex 23rd August 2006: "Simply, we are not a CIBJO approved Laboratory, thus we can do whatever we want. We are not answerable or legally bound to any of their codes of ethics or rulings from the blue book" I further quote Mr Bates on Gemex 24th August 2006: "I have never hidden the fact from anyone that I run a very small and exclusive design studio. When and if I require diamonds I will source them from many avenues in order to gain the best deal for my clients, At a retail level I have absolutely no preference of one type of cert over another" Yet on the Auscert website of which Mr Anthony Bates is the Director it clearly says "We don't even sell diamonds! " and "Auscert is completely independent. We do not sell diamonds, nor are we affiliated with any manufacturers of diamonds". Mr Bates has resented our exposure but it is very simple. Either you are an independent diamond grader or you are a diamond/gemstone/ jewellery trader. Attempting to gain credibility by attaining qualifications and upgrading a " lab " with recognised instruments might be admirable but all is negated and certainly NOT independent. * Professional Liability Assuming Auscert ( SGTL ) has finally acquired suitable instruments for determining the differences between synthetic and natural diamonds, what of the thousands of diamonds that were graded and tested by the previously unqualified Mr. Bates ? ; not to mention inaccurate colour grades which under world trade organisations' guidelines require a minimum of three people to assess real diamonds against a real diamond master set. * Ridiculous Correspondence Both Messrs Bates & Croft have written to me requesting I remove information that they obviously are uncomfortable with. * They have requested I do not show or publish their letter to me. * I understand completely. I would be embarrassed also. Written by Danny katz of Sydney Australia

An Appraisal is an Opinion of Value supported by an argument. Verifiable by a knowledgeable reader.

Appraisals can be tricky. In many cases an appraisal can be very subjective and I can give an example: What could be an appraisal for a ring having a Burmese ruby of 10cts pigeon blood unheated with Gubelin certificate? What about a natural pink diamond of 5cts in the center? The simple answer for that can vary by the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Prices for such stones are floating and are very subjective because of their rarity. In this case how could anyone blame the appraising company? As far as I know, most of the appraisal companies know little about gemstones and fancy diamonds prices. They exist for a simple purpose: to only make money no matter what and not to protect consumers AND make money. If we are to talk about appraising cheap junk jewelry then the term "appraisal" should be totally ignored in my opinion. Unfortunately most of appraisal certificates are done for such jewelry in order to boost sales;i.e, to make money by cheating and capitalizing on consumer ignorance on this matter. To answer the question on how to address the problem of appraisals, I can say to the consumer: Buy from a reputable company. If you know from who you are buying then you can rest assured that you will get a good product which value will last for generations. Don't buy a ring that is being advertised at $1000 retail but sold for $100. The gap already indicates that it worth nothing and an appraisal here can only be used as toilet paper. A company that gives you one price without all the windows dressing can be reputable. Go for quality and your appraisal is in the item itself and not in a piece of paper.

When appraisal organizations start caring about the ethics of their own members by creating and enforcing standards for membership, maybe some of these “appraisers” who abuse the system will lose a little of their credibility. All appraisal groups have to do this, together to make this work. One has to ask, “What are the appraisal organization’s motives in keeping these bad apples?” If the appraisal groups are AFRAID to do this, then Cecelia’s suggestion carries weight. These groups have an ethical obligation to at least report and document this type of gross misconduct to someone like the JVC.