Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
Hmm.
Thoughts. Not that anyone asked for them. And not all of them are original to the thread.
Fox, you should have gotten an independent appraisal first thing. Or called your insurance company. The jeweler you spoke to may easily have been baised. Clearly you''ve been after NSC like a dog with a bone, and here''s a tip to help you with conflict resolution: Legal threats, threats to report to BBB, Jewelers counsel, etc... should generally all be final resorts. From your own accounting over pages and pages on this forum it sounds like you jumped the gun a bit. Those things are EXHAUSTING. As neatfreak said, sending your ring to an independant appraiser, then if they collaborated your suspicions, dropping the whole mess in your insurance''s lap, would have been the best course to resolution. If the appraiser did not collarborate your story, then you should probably have just looked into a different style ring more suited to your lifestyle and habits, paid for it, and moved on with life.
I think the problems looks like more of a design flaw than a poor casting issuse. I have a setting of vaguely similar design and have looked at quite a few settings like mine and Fox''s. If the head sits up to high, as someone said, it get''s caught and will rip the whole thing off. That said, Ritani''s endless love halos have similar designs, NO gallery wires for bracing, and do come in palladium. So I think it''s possible to have this style done right, and that this is just not an example. of that.
I would be extremely ticked if my ring broke 3 times in the first 12 months I''d owned it. I would have just picked a new setting the second time though, instead of getting it repaired. Either a new design, or the same design, new ring. And would have expected the vendor to accomodate me, AS LONG AS MY REQUEST WAS BACKED with an independant appraisal that confirmed a flaw, design or manufacure, in the setting.
I don''t think NSC has gone ''above and beyond'' yet. Had the independent appraisal stated that it was a wear and wear or customer related fault, then yes... their actions would have been above and beyond. As it stands I think they are just to blame for this situation as Fox is. They should have said at one point: "Look send it to an independant appraiser, here''s a list. If it comes back our fault we will do what we can to make it right, including offering you a refund on your setting and paying ofr the appraiseral. If it comes back that it is your fault, you pay for the appraisal, and do what you like. If it comes back uncertain, we''ll split the appraisal costs with you and negotiate a mutually acceptable compromise." I think its ridiculous to risk your company''s reputation on 2K max worth of costs when there was an alternative.
I think that, from my personal experience, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. And everything in between. I think there are naturally litigious people, and I think Law School, law students, and recent law school grads IN MY EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION tend to jump to legal action quickly withour realizing the position those threats put the other side in. I think that if a customer comes to you with a reasonable request, backed by credible evidence and is polite, most reputable jewelers (and I do feel that NSC is generally reputatable) would listen. I think that if a customer, however correct in their facts, walks in the door screaming " My local jeweler, who wants to sell me a new setting, said this is crap and I''m going to sue you or.... bleep, bleep, bleep...." this is not inclined to make anyone want to deal with that customer. And I suspect this is why NSC has requested the stone back. They are ''firing'' Fox as a client and do not want ANY connection with her because no trust that she will act in good faith. Say the stone chips coming out of the bezel? Will she blame them and claim it was chipped by THEM? I don''t see a problem with their caution, and actually I think it''s wise of them.
I generally think both parties have made mistakes. Blatant ones, IMO, and have both backed themselves into a corner.
I think Fox coming on here was her newest way of trying to force NSC''s hand because she thinks she''s right, and I think NSC coming on here was to show that they would not be bullied when they believe they are in the right.
Thoughts. Not that anyone asked for them. And not all of them are original to the thread.
Fox, you should have gotten an independent appraisal first thing. Or called your insurance company. The jeweler you spoke to may easily have been baised. Clearly you''ve been after NSC like a dog with a bone, and here''s a tip to help you with conflict resolution: Legal threats, threats to report to BBB, Jewelers counsel, etc... should generally all be final resorts. From your own accounting over pages and pages on this forum it sounds like you jumped the gun a bit. Those things are EXHAUSTING. As neatfreak said, sending your ring to an independant appraiser, then if they collaborated your suspicions, dropping the whole mess in your insurance''s lap, would have been the best course to resolution. If the appraiser did not collarborate your story, then you should probably have just looked into a different style ring more suited to your lifestyle and habits, paid for it, and moved on with life.
I think the problems looks like more of a design flaw than a poor casting issuse. I have a setting of vaguely similar design and have looked at quite a few settings like mine and Fox''s. If the head sits up to high, as someone said, it get''s caught and will rip the whole thing off. That said, Ritani''s endless love halos have similar designs, NO gallery wires for bracing, and do come in palladium. So I think it''s possible to have this style done right, and that this is just not an example. of that.
I would be extremely ticked if my ring broke 3 times in the first 12 months I''d owned it. I would have just picked a new setting the second time though, instead of getting it repaired. Either a new design, or the same design, new ring. And would have expected the vendor to accomodate me, AS LONG AS MY REQUEST WAS BACKED with an independant appraisal that confirmed a flaw, design or manufacure, in the setting.
I don''t think NSC has gone ''above and beyond'' yet. Had the independent appraisal stated that it was a wear and wear or customer related fault, then yes... their actions would have been above and beyond. As it stands I think they are just to blame for this situation as Fox is. They should have said at one point: "Look send it to an independant appraiser, here''s a list. If it comes back our fault we will do what we can to make it right, including offering you a refund on your setting and paying ofr the appraiseral. If it comes back that it is your fault, you pay for the appraisal, and do what you like. If it comes back uncertain, we''ll split the appraisal costs with you and negotiate a mutually acceptable compromise." I think its ridiculous to risk your company''s reputation on 2K max worth of costs when there was an alternative.
I think that, from my personal experience, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. And everything in between. I think there are naturally litigious people, and I think Law School, law students, and recent law school grads IN MY EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION tend to jump to legal action quickly withour realizing the position those threats put the other side in. I think that if a customer comes to you with a reasonable request, backed by credible evidence and is polite, most reputable jewelers (and I do feel that NSC is generally reputatable) would listen. I think that if a customer, however correct in their facts, walks in the door screaming " My local jeweler, who wants to sell me a new setting, said this is crap and I''m going to sue you or.... bleep, bleep, bleep...." this is not inclined to make anyone want to deal with that customer. And I suspect this is why NSC has requested the stone back. They are ''firing'' Fox as a client and do not want ANY connection with her because no trust that she will act in good faith. Say the stone chips coming out of the bezel? Will she blame them and claim it was chipped by THEM? I don''t see a problem with their caution, and actually I think it''s wise of them.
I generally think both parties have made mistakes. Blatant ones, IMO, and have both backed themselves into a corner.
I think Fox coming on here was her newest way of trying to force NSC''s hand because she thinks she''s right, and I think NSC coming on here was to show that they would not be bullied when they believe they are in the right.
300x240.png)