by Elly Rosen
Fluorescent diamonds that appear "bluish" in natural daylight are
often referred to as "blue white." But in past decades, the blue-white
designation was reserved for stones of the finest color. Now, because
the term is sometimes abused and used to describe "off-color" goods
that also happen to have the right fluorescence, there are those in
the trade who consider the use of the term blue-white to be unethical.
There are diamonds, however, that do not show silver or cape colors
-- colorless white diamonds -- that also show a bluish fluorescence
in daylight. For such diamonds, is the term unethical? Is such a
diamond worth more or less?
These questions open up an area in which appraisers and merchants
need to communicate effectively. Otherwise, the result will be harm
to merchants' reputations, and to their sales.
Descriptive terminology is one of those areas where some "gemological
appraisers" might be inclined to shoot from the hip and might, through
overzealousness, indict an honest merchant. Meanwhile, there might be
no other problem than the appraiser's lack of familiarity with terms
used during the course of a sale, or because his different view of its
"proper" use.
Appraisers must remember that they have certain opinions and make
certain judgement calls regarding gems and jewelry quality, grading
and descriptive terminology, but those who use different terms - or
similar terms differently -- are not automatically wrong -- or worse,
dishonest! Professional appraisal or gemological standards and
ethical procedures do not necessarily mesh with merchants' sales
methodology.
The biggest real problem is the danger is that another merchant, a
gemological lab or an appraiser will transmit his own view to a recent
purchaser in a manner that creates the impression that the seller was
"less than honest," even if such is not the case, and even if this
implication was totally unintended.
Use of the term "Blue White" and the role of "fluorescence" in
assessing diamond grade, quality, desirability and "worth" is a
classical example of an issue over which legitimate sales are killed
needlessly.
The FTC's Guides
In the Federal Trade Commissions revisions to its Guides for the gems
and jewelry trades, which became effective May 30, 1996, the FTC
elected to retain old language, with some modifications:
"Sec. 23.14 Misuse of the term `blue white.'
"It is unfair or deceptive to use the term `blue white' or any
representation of similar meaning to describe any diamond that under
normal, north daylight or its equivalent shows any color or any trace
of any color other than blue or bluish."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing Up Common Misconceptions
- It is UNTRUE that the term "blue white" is no longer used
[legitimately by the trade.
- It is UNTRUE that use of the term is prohibited or
considered deceptive.
- It IS TRUE that a colorless-white diamond that also exhibits
a blue color may be called "blue white."
- it IS TRUE that a colorless-white diamond that exhibits a
"bluish" color may be called "blue white"
[this latter scenario would most often be caused by
particular fluorescence in the diamond being excited by
the ultra-violet component of natural daylight
- it IS TRUE that use of the term to describe a diamond that
shows other [lower colors IS PROHIBITED
[this was always the primary deceptive use of concern to
the trade and to the FTC -- that diamonds of lesser color
grade -- top-silver to cape -- were described as "blue
white" on the rationale that the color was present due to
fluorescent
excitation. This was obviously used to exploit the public's
belief that "blue white" was superior.
Clarity of Color Description
It would therefore seem that we would be doing our job properly if we
did what we are supposed to do -- provide information that is the
basis of financial decisions to be made by customers, clients and
third parties who rely on our statements.
When faced with such classical areas of confusion among sellers and
buyers, our role should to carefully word our verbal statements and
written descriptions in a manner that will clarify misconceptions and
unintentional ambiguities, rather than to add sand to already muddied
waters. How do we do it? Just EXPLAIN generally confusing terms
relevant to the sale or assignment, perhaps with boiler-plate
glossary items.
In the case of "blue white," we might simply explain that the diamond
before us is of a type that could be truthfully described as "blue
white." Or, in the case of a Confirmation of Fair Purchase Price
(CFPP) appraisal, or a consumer fraud assignment where "blue white"
had been improperly used, we might simply explain that the use of
this term for the stone before us was improper and (possibly) in
violation of FTC Guides.
Fluorescent Diamonds Are Not Always Worth Less
Here's where things could really get difficult. It is not
necessarily true that diamonds exhibiting
fluorescence are worth less, despite what price guide writers
decide.
There is a reason that some segments of the trade still use the
term "blue-white" and that some segments of the consumer community
still believe that "blue-white" is worth more: Because to them it is
more desirable.
When discussing the legitimacy or legality of trade terminology, or
trade practices, we should provide information on realities of the
market. Not realities of our personal feelings or the arbitrary,
across-the-board, impression given by some laboratories or price
"guides".
What we have here is a very big, "It depends!" If fluorescence
makes a particular stone worth less, well then, it is worth less.
However, even then, if it should happen that we are dealing with a
stone with fluorescent properties that result in a desirable, truly
"blue white" stone, then it is possible that the seller, and the
particular buyer, might consider such a stone more desirable than one
which does not possess the fluorescence. That buyer might be willing
to pay a premium for the seller to find them such a stone -- a stone
whose color is even better when in natural daylight!
If we are to debate ethics, it is hardly our role as merchants,
gemologists or appraisers to tell the buyer that such a stone is less
desirable. It is considered less desirable, perhaps, only because
some lab detemined that because this would bring more "uniformity" to
an arbitrary grading system, or because some gemological education
programs need for a uniformity to teach the inexperienced. Standards
should properly address the exceptions. Education programs should
teach realities of the marketplace -- not attempt to change the
marketplace to suit the program.
To the extent that, regardless of the reason, the market does pay,
and charge, less for fluorescent stones, this is the usual reality in
assessing their market value. But we must always avoid arbitrary
application of such variable elements.
So, at the very least, it would usually be improper to employ any
across-the-board 10-15% "below Rap" for any fluorescent stone. We
need to know the role of fluorescence for stones of that particular
type, and perhaps for that particular quality of stone. And we need
to consider that we might be dealing with a buyer to whom fluorescence
is worth more.
As an analogy, we might consider, that not all "D" color diamonds
are equal. There are "D" colors that are much more colorless than
other "D" colors, and some such stones might well bring a premium in
transactions between reasonably knowledgeable buyers and sellers.
As a kid, when I spent summers at the NYC Diamond Dealers Club
(DDC) with my father, diamond importer/dealer Ephraim Rosen, I was
surrounded by knowledgeable dealers. They knew when to demand a
premium for such a stone, long before anyone had heard of a "D" color
as the top grade of the grading scale. And, they still do. Such is
also the case with some fluorescent diamonds.
-ER
Elly Rosen is a freelance gemological appraisal principles
consultant in Brooklyn, N. Y. His new Appraisal Information Services
(AIS) offers subscriptions for: appraisal consulting; the Monthly
Appraisal Reporter and gemological appraisal supplement; appraisal
report "boiler-plate" and formats for various types of appraisals as
well as an audio tape lecture series on appraisal issues and a
glossary of professional appraisal terminology.
Mr. Rosen was one of the principle developers and instructors of
the Certified Appraiser of Personal Property program (CAPP) and has
written new and advanced appraisal courses for the American Gem
Society's Jewelers Education Foundation (AGSJEF). He is also a member
of the JVC's ATF and was one of the principal developers of the new
JVC Guidelines.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: As an adjunct to this article, Mr. Rosen has agreed to
accept telephone questions on the subject, within reason, from RDR
subscribers. He can be reached at (718) 692-1975. Mr. Rosen is also
available to answer questions in the RapNet "Appraisals" conference
and via RapNet e-mail to his RapNet user id EROSEN or via InterNet
EMail to erosen@rapnet.diamonds.com.
|
|
|
|
|