What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GEORGIA
I hope this is the correct place to post this.
Recently I purchased a ring mounted with a color change sapphire. The ring came to me accompanied by a lab report from GemResearch Swisslab and signed by Dr A. Peretti FGG FGA. The conclusions stated in the report were Natural Color Changing Violetish-Blue Sapphire, No indication of thermal treatment, Burma origin. Report number GRS2008-061485. The stone was examined by Dr Peretti unmounted.
On this information I sold the ring to a client. Since the GRS report was on the gem as unmounted the client requested a second report from a reputable lab as mounted in the ring. I agreed to this. Both the client and I agreed to send the ring to American Gemological Laboratories. This was done and the ring and report were sent directly to the client by AGL upon request from me. The report stated its findings as Natural Color-Change Sapphire, Ceylon type, No gemological evidence of heat, and under the comments, “Oil is used to reduce the visibility of fissures.”
As you can see there are two profound discrepancies between the reports. The GRS report states, “Gemmological testing revealed characteristics corresponding to those of a natural color-changing violetish-blue sapphire from: BURMA (Myanmar),” while the AGL report states “Locality type: Ceylon-Type.” Further, there is no mention of oil treatment on the GRS report.
The conclusion of oiling by the AGL report and the absence of such treatment on the GRS report caused my client to reject the ring and demand a refund. I also believe that my professional reputation may have been damaged as a result of these discrepancies.
I have been advised by a colleague that I may have legal recourse in this case. Thus my post. Can anyone tell me what, if any, recourse I may have and how I should pursue it?
Thanks,
Jason
I hope this is the correct place to post this.
Recently I purchased a ring mounted with a color change sapphire. The ring came to me accompanied by a lab report from GemResearch Swisslab and signed by Dr A. Peretti FGG FGA. The conclusions stated in the report were Natural Color Changing Violetish-Blue Sapphire, No indication of thermal treatment, Burma origin. Report number GRS2008-061485. The stone was examined by Dr Peretti unmounted.
On this information I sold the ring to a client. Since the GRS report was on the gem as unmounted the client requested a second report from a reputable lab as mounted in the ring. I agreed to this. Both the client and I agreed to send the ring to American Gemological Laboratories. This was done and the ring and report were sent directly to the client by AGL upon request from me. The report stated its findings as Natural Color-Change Sapphire, Ceylon type, No gemological evidence of heat, and under the comments, “Oil is used to reduce the visibility of fissures.”
As you can see there are two profound discrepancies between the reports. The GRS report states, “Gemmological testing revealed characteristics corresponding to those of a natural color-changing violetish-blue sapphire from: BURMA (Myanmar),” while the AGL report states “Locality type: Ceylon-Type.” Further, there is no mention of oil treatment on the GRS report.
The conclusion of oiling by the AGL report and the absence of such treatment on the GRS report caused my client to reject the ring and demand a refund. I also believe that my professional reputation may have been damaged as a result of these discrepancies.
I have been advised by a colleague that I may have legal recourse in this case. Thus my post. Can anyone tell me what, if any, recourse I may have and how I should pursue it?
Thanks,
Jason
