ALL AiCertification 2017 Program Rates & Fees currently on AISociety.com are 2016 rates valid while posted!
Professional Valuation Appraisers - CHECK THIS OUT:
Register AiCertifications Live or Self-Study G&J Triple-Crown Program
Appraising 'Old-Cut' Gemstones
Old cuts are often valued on a modern scale
rather than within their own market,
which may not properly serve
clients and their third parties
by Elly Rosen, AiSCV AVS-GJV, FGA, GG
©1983, 1997, 2002, 2014 with all Rights Reserved
Based on Elly Rosen's teachings on this subject starting in 1983, this article furthering the subject appeared in the October 1997 issue of Jewelers' Circular Keystone Magazine (JCK), pp 160, 166, as part of the author's JCK Appraisal Q&A series, and as part of the Rosen On Appraising series which ran on the JCK Web site from August 1997 through June 1998.
Related principles and applied procedures have been further advanced during the 2011-14 AiSCV-GJV diploma program's AiS-GJ Gems & Jewelry/Jewellery Valuation & Appraisement course offerings. AiS-GJ alumni and enrolled candidates can use the AiCloud link at the bottom of this page to access Elly Rosen's 2013 2-hr AiRecording on this subject which opened AiS-GJ™2013 with the program's first session on Corrective Gemology for Valuation.
[Author’s note (modified for this 2014 AISociety.com publishing):
Q&A Intro - Recutting formulae just don't work
Q: A client brings in a ring she inherited from her mother for an insurance replacement appraisal. It has an old-European-cut diamond center stone in a relatively common platinum Art Deco setting. We were taught to appraise such cuts by estimating their new weight if they were recut to Ideal proportions. Shouldn’t the stone be appraised for what it is currently?
A: Yes, it should. Unfortunately, many appraisers were taught or have been led to believe the opposite is true. This kind of thing should be discussed with the client first, and the client should always make the decision when there is more than one option. However, if we are to make any assumption, it seems more appropriate to assume we should appraise what is sitting before us: an old-European-cut diamond ring, not a modern or Ideal Cut.
Does a 'Modern Cut' live inside an 'Old Cut'?
Maybe, but it isn't there now!
[Author’s note: The accompanying illustration is for an imaginary modern cut inside of an old-European or transition cut. All of the considerations of this Q&A become even more extreme if the existing stone is the more classically cushion-shaped “old-mine” cut.]
More and more gemological appraisers are beginning to realize this misguided notion of appraising an old cut as though it were already recut to modern proportions simply does not work. It’s fine as a teaching tool, but not useful for real-world valuation.
We will touch on some of the many things wrong with this “traditional” practice. The most fundamental problem: it’s rare that a given old cut will sell for the same amount as its “modern recut equivalent.” They sometimes sell for less and sometimes for more, depending on quality, setting and various elements affecting buyers and sellers at auction or other markets.
When I took my diamond grading class with the Gemological Institute of America in the late-1970s, we were taught a diamond, even a modern cut, is to be valued by deducting percentage points for whatever elements of cut cause it to deviate from Tolkowski’s Ideal Cut proportions. Again, this was fine as a tool for teaching relative value of cut parameters, but it rarely results in accurate real-world selling prices for the existing stone.
If this procedure doesn’t work, why do so many do it? When I was using this approach in the late 1970s – before professional appraisal education – I did it because I didn’t know of any other way. It seemed convenient and logical to hypothetically turn the diamond into a modern cut, something I could value. It’s a fair assumption this is why people use this method. It serves as a substitute for actual knowledge of the market for old goods, but maybe it’s time we consider it a poor substitute. If it’s the only alternative, then perhaps we would be better off accepting what we don’t know and leaving it to those who do.
Formulas and price guides do have a limited place in valuation, when used properly as an adjunct to market knowledge. But when they are used as a substitute for market knowledge, they are used improperly.
The same applies to many scenarios where the appraiser arbitrarily decides to value any gem material as though it has already been cut into something else. The worst abuse I’ve seen was with donation appraisals of the late 1970s and early 1980s. For example, a 13-lb. brown topaz crystal that cost $750 was given a fair market value of over $1 million. The basis of this “value” was that the already irradiated crystal could be turned blue by heating and then cut into any number of faceted blue topaz stones.
The crystal was valued at what those hypothetical cut stones would sell for. Four “experts” gave testimony supporting this argument. The primary foundation for the argument was that “it is tradition in the jewelry world to value gemstone materials based on their potential yield.” The court did not accept this argument and decided on a fair market value of $750. I should stress this was not an isolated incident. Once the ball gets rolling on misconceptions, they develop lives of their own.
It should be obvious that when the question is the fair market value of the existing item, the appraiser’s opinion must be based on what a similar item sells for. However, the replacement objective of insurance appraisals is more complex. Alternatives are available and should be discussed with the client before proceeding.
Alternate forms of the property need to be considered in insurance scenarios because insurers offer different options in their policies (or contracts):
Either policy type might include a clause limiting the insurer’s liability to the cost of repairing or replacing the item. Therefore, whether it’s an old couch, a refrigerator or antique or period jewelry, our client might need the replacement cost for a comparable “used” item or for a new or modern equivalent. In most states, the client can pay a few dollars more in premium and get “old” replaced with “new.”
This is the client’s decision, and he or she should be aware of the arbitrary approach of the appraiser based on a lack of familiarity with the right market. If we as appraisers are not familiar with the most relevant market for the item, we should explain that to the client, say we can do an appraisal for only one approach and indicate the report will be limited for that intended use only.
If the client is unsure what policy he or she might get and needs the numbers to help make the decision, the appraisal should be written for both scenarios, providing replacement cost for the existing item and for a hypothetical “new” one. This is where the confusion really arises. Most “gemological appraisals” would be written to replace a 1.35-ct. G VS1 old-cut diamond with, let’s say, a 1.10-ct. “equivalent” modern cut. Why? What makes that “equivalent”?
The theory is that if we replace with a modern stone, we have to imagine it as recut (by reducing the size, we would figure on a total stone value that is equivalent to the total stone value of the existing old cut). The argument behind the theory is that we can’t write the appraisal for replacement with a more costly stone. However, this appears to be a misguided imperative based on misguided motivation. It seems more logical that the “modern equivalent” of a 1.35-ct. G VS1 old cut is a 1.35-ct. G VS1 modern cut.
Does it cost more? Of course it does! That’s what the various forms of full-value policies are all about and why premiums are higher. Even when writing insurance appraisals for replacing an old cut with a modern equivalent, there appears to be no need or justification for recutting formulas.
Recutting formulas do have uses for gemologists and appraisers: if the client wants to find what the stone might recut to, evaluating options for recutting damaged stones or providing the value of loss in insured damage appraisals. (However, federal casualty loss appraisals are different.)
The previous discussion addressed the valuation problem. But it’s far from the only one that results from such arbitrary “modernization” of property based on the decision of an appraiser. We should touch on at least a few others:
Some appraisers have suggested appraisals for old cuts should be written for a modern cut of the same diameter of the existing stone. They argue that if a stone was then lost, it would be easy to replace the stone in the existing ring. This doesn’t seem to make sense because we aren’t appraising the old-cut in a vacuum. If it’s an existing old style piece, we appraise the whole thing for replacement with a comparable period piece or we appraise the whole thing for replacement with a modern equivalent. We wouldn’t appraise the ring for replacement “as is” and the stone differently. Also, with this approach, the replacement would end up improperly cut with a loss of internal reflection and brilliance.
Some appraisers have complained they can’t find prices for old cuts. This usually means the appraisers have to become more familiar with the market for such items. Such stones sell regularly at auctions, for example, and there are a growing number of dealers who handle old cuts.
AiSCV-GJV Alumni & Enrolled Candidates:
Course AiRecording Update Is in the AiCloud
This subject is the opening topic of the AiSCV-GJS Gems & Jewelry Diploma Program's 1st-session; Corrective Gemology for Valuation - 1.
AiSCV-GJV enrollees and alumni can access the full 2-hour udio-visual AiRecording of that AiS-GJ Gems & Jewelry Valuation & Appraisement course opening "Cerrective Gemology session at the AiSCV-GJV diploma title program AiCloud Tab by clicking on the ink below. That should open the AiRecording into the AiCloud viewer where it can also be downloaded:
AiCore gorup Q&A-Discussion of the subject is included in the AiRecording which includes: