'Estimated replacement value' used as sales tactic, expert says Marketplace bought all the diamonds at a discount offered by the retailers, and although Knight said the journalists didn't necessarily overpay for the rings they got based on the new reports, he says the salespeople went too far when they told shoppers the reports are certain. " very common between different gemologists to have different opinions on the same diamond." "We're talking about shades of grey, not black and white," said Tom Hart. Tom Hart, vice-president of merchandising for Charm Diamond Centres, says it’s common for different gemologists to have different opinions on the same diamond.
The vice-president of merchandising for Charm Diamond Centres, which owns Ben Moss, told Marketplace in an interview that reports can be subjective. Michael Hill says the lab it uses is "recognized" and "used internationally." Peoples says that expert gemologists are expected to have differing opinions to this small degree. The labs also stand by their assessments.
Peoples, Michael Hill and Ben Moss all told Marketplace they stand by their reports, graded by Gemological Science International (GSI) in Peoples' case, and the International Gemological Institute (IGI) in Michael Hill and Ben Moss's cases. "Cut can make a big difference in price from the very best cut to the very worst cut," said Knight. In the grade's absence, Knight appraised the ring as an average or "good" cut, but when the ring was re-graded at GIA, the grade was deemed "fair" - just a step above poor on the five-level scale. The cut grade was not included on the grading report sold with the Ben Moss ring, which also factored into its value drop. All three of these diamonds were sold as 'SI2' or 'slightly included.' When Marketplace sent them for regrading at GIA, that lab found only the Michael Hill ring was 'slightly included,' while the others were 'included.' (GIA Reports) Even though the specs were relatively close, key inconsistencies led to some significant value differences.ĭepictions by the Gemological Institute of America show the internal flaws in each diamond. Knight did two appraisals for each ring, first considering the grades on the reports sold with the rings and then with the re-grades from GIA. GIA designed the original grading system for diamonds in the 1950s that other labs model their methodologies on.Īccording to the reports they were sold with, the diamonds Marketplace purchased were each under a carat and "SI2" or "slightly included" in clarity, meaning they should have no visible internal flaws or "inclusions" without magnification.Īfter they were re-graded by GIA, the rings were taken to Knight to consider the value difference between the two reports. The rings were then sent to a different lab, the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), to see how their grades compared to the report provided in store. Marketplace purchased a ring from each of the retailers, each with a grading report indicating the diamond's quality. Duration 2:08 Marketplace reveals misleading claims and inconsistent grading reports in the diamond industry.
0 kommentar(er)
