Conned on ebay. I quit!

[LD]

That quote is not out of context, it was posted with the link to the entirety of it's original thread. That then is full context. That the quote is by rockhugger and is specifically about returning stones, in particular an alleged Paraiba, when they turn out not to be what they are purported to be, even when chipped makes it extremely relevant to this situation. That she goes on to say essentialy that one need not even return the stone when it turns out not to be what was claimed is pertinent, relevant and significant.

You say that you, "don't wish to be a part if a community or purchase from those that support such behavior and I will be urging others in my trade to follow", but you joined Pricescope only a few hours ago presumably only to respond to this one thread, since all your posts have been made here. Threatening to leave and to boycott a group that does not even know you is shilly.
Thank you for allowing me to say my part.

Thank you VL! Couldn't agree more!

 

[SB621]

That quote is not out of context, it was posted with the link to the entirety of it's original thread. That then is full context. That the quote is by rockhugger and is specifically about returning stones, in particular an alleged Paraiba, when they turn out not to be what they are purported to be, even when chipped makes it extremely relevant to this situation. That she goes on to say essentialy that one need not even return the stone when it turns out not to be what was claimed is pertinent, relevant and significant.

You say that you, "don't wish to be a part if a community or purchase from those that support such behavior and I will be urging others in my trade to follow", but you joined Pricescope only a few hours ago presumably only to respond to this one thread, since all your posts have been made here. Threatening to leave and to boycott a group that does not even know you is shilly.
Thank you for allowing me to say my part.

Thank you VL! Couldn't agree more!

+2!! I personally hope PS doesn't close this thread as I find it to be informative.

 

[Laila619]

Hi Again,

LD, I respect your knowledge of gems and if that were the issue, i would certainly comcede any disagreement I may have had.
However, you keep repeating the misrepresentation of the stone as being the primary contract. My understanding, as Kelpie had stated several times that there was a meeting of the minds (Gem transaction terms) over the sale of the stone. Everything was fine until it was stated the stone was damaged. Now the contract is void--not before because they had agreed to the way the transaction was to be carried out. The effect of the damaged stone supercedes the original intent of both parties to the transaction. You must send back the item in the original condition. I can't conceive of a diamond dealer, who advertised the clarity and color were F. VVS and when sent to a lab, the grading didn't match. The seller agrees to take it back, only when it arrives he finds a chip on one of facets.
He refuses to take it back. I believe this happens. You know the rest. Back it goes, or the buyer sends it ro their insurer, hopefully they have one.

Next, Last year I send 2 rubies to AGL, and a yellow diamond to GIA. i remember clearly thinking when I received them back, within a week of each other, that the packaging was not very good on one of them.. I just don't remeber which one. I thought, god, iget better packaging from Jerry Newman & Jason than from these labs. One came in a soft envelope, one came in a hard box. Not great packaging. Also, Kelpie lives in Tanzania. Who says they take care of gemstone packages. There is so much room for possible damage, I'd like people to comsider other factors.

TL , of course is right in that the tread has gone on way too long. For myself, I am angrier now at PS for their total lack of judgement in keeping a thread like this open. I'm embarrassed it is in colored stones.

It will not be settled here. Please close the thread.


I

Smit - I understand your reasoning and that you believe the contract wasn't just about the wording in the original advert but in pure law terms it IS the initial terms that set the contract. That wording also laid out a 150% guarantee and that refunds would/could be made. So, the basic contract was for a Paraiba Tourmaline. I'm sorry to keep banging on about this but all the other issues have confused this horrible situation. Essentially the contract became null and void when the stone was reported by the laboratory as NOT being what it was sold as. The damage is a secondary (and unfortunate end) to the misselling. There is another solution for RH though. Why doesn't she go back to her supplier (who presumably sold it to her as a Paraiba Tourmaline) and ask for her money back from them? She then won't be out of pocket because should be refunded what she paid - that's all that she's out of pocket.

See, I think what Smit and others are saying is that the refund is now secondary to the damage. Refunds are made when the item being returned is in its original condition.

Here's an example, Target has a return policy that says if I'm not happy with something, I can return it. Does that mean I can go in there with an item my child broke or scribbled on with a marker and say I want a refund? I doubt they will take it back.

I think if the stone had come back in its original condition, Kelpie would have been given an immediate refund. This isn't poor Kelpie's fault at all, it's really the lab's fault for packaging the stone so badly. Next time, the seller/owner should be the one to send it to the lab, not the buyer. Kelpie's in an awful and frustrating situation, but the insurance claim is the only real thing that can be done right now. Let the post office sort it all out.

 

[T L]

There are mainly two camps of people in this thread.

1) The people that think Kelpie should get a refund regardless of the stone's supposed damage by the lab (AGL)
2) The people that think Kelpie should not get a refund because the stone was sent to the seller damaged by the lab.

I think both camps have legitimate concerns however, no one here is going to convince the first camp to join the second camp or vice versa. Everything is being repeated over and over again. As Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

 

[lavatea]

Hi Again,

LD, I respect your knowledge of gems and if that were the issue, i would certainly comcede any disagreement I may have had.
However, you keep repeating the misrepresentation of the stone as being the primary contract. My understanding, as Kelpie had stated several times that there was a meeting of the minds (Gem transaction terms) over the sale of the stone. Everything was fine until it was stated the stone was damaged. Now the contract is void--not before because they had agreed to the way the transaction was to be carried out. The effect of the damaged stone supercedes the original intent of both parties to the transaction. You must send back the item in the original condition. I can't conceive of a diamond dealer, who advertised the clarity and color were F. VVS and when sent to a lab, the grading didn't match. The seller agrees to take it back, only when it arrives he finds a chip on one of facets.
He refuses to take it back. I believe this happens. You know the rest. Back it goes, or the buyer sends it ro their insurer, hopefully they have one.

Next, Last year I send 2 rubies to AGL, and a yellow diamond to GIA. i remember clearly thinking when I received them back, within a week of each other, that the packaging was not very good on one of them.. I just don't remeber which one. I thought, god, iget better packaging from Jerry Newman & Jason than from these labs. One came in a soft envelope, one came in a hard box. Not great packaging. Also, Kelpie lives in Tanzania. Who says they take care of gemstone packages. There is so much room for possible damage, I'd like people to comsider other factors.

TL , of course is right in that the tread has gone on way too long. For myself, I am angrier now at PS for their total lack of judgement in keeping a thread like this open. I'm embarrassed it is in colored stones.

It will not be settled here. Please close the thread.


I

Smit - I understand your reasoning and that you believe the contract wasn't just about the wording in the original advert but in pure law terms it IS the initial terms that set the contract. That wording also laid out a 150% guarantee and that refunds would/could be made. So, the basic contract was for a Paraiba Tourmaline. I'm sorry to keep banging on about this but all the other issues have confused this horrible situation. Essentially the contract became null and void when the stone was reported by the laboratory as NOT being what it was sold as. The damage is a secondary (and unfortunate end) to the misselling. There is another solution for RH though. Why doesn't she go back to her supplier (who presumably sold it to her as a Paraiba Tourmaline) and ask for her money back from them? She then won't be out of pocket because should be refunded what she paid - that's all that she's out of pocket.

See, I think what Smit and others are saying is that the refund is now secondary to the damage. Refunds are made when the item being returned is in its original condition.

Here's an example, Target has a return policy that says if I'm not happy with something, I can return it. Does that mean I can go in there with an item my child broke or scribbled on with a marker and say I want a refund? I doubt they will take it back.

I think if the stone had come back in its original condition, Kelpie would have been given an immediate refund. This isn't poor Kelpie's fault at all, it's really the lab's fault for packaging the stone so badly. Next time, the seller/owner should be the one to send it to the lab, not the buyer. Kelpie's in an awful and frustrating situation, but the insurance claim is the only real thing that can be done right now. Let the post office sort it all out.

Were pictures taken of the poor packaging? Was the damage to the stone clearly documented in association with said packaging? Kelpie could try to help RH with an insurance claim (I'm still a little fuzzy how Kelpie, who didn't package or ship the stone, is the person responsible for making the claim but that doesn't really seem to be in dispute so I guess that's the way postal insurance with a 3rd party works) but NOT UNTIL RH QUITS HOLDING HER REFUND HOSTAGE! And I'm sorry, but repackaging the supposedly damaged packaging and mailing it internationally just reeks of fishy activity. I'm not saying RH is trying to pull a fast one, b/c how the heck would I know one way or the other. I'm simply stating what it LOOKS like given her behavior. Either way I wouldn't want to do business with her.

I think the idea of an escrow type account is a fair one. RH can put Kelpie's refund in the account (then Kelpie knows the money is liquid and forthcoming). Kelpie files the insurance claim or makes the necessary contact so that RH can do it. Kelpie gets her money back - irregardless of the postal insurance's findings regarding stone value or actual damage to stone. I don't love the idea since it still partially makes Kelpie's refund contingent on the insurance claim, but I think it's probably the quickest, above-board way to get her money. Which I guess is still the point.

Oh, and I see no reason to lock this thread until Kelpie follows up with the final resolution. If you're in the camp that wants the thread to be locked, just stop reading/posting to it.

 

[LD]

Hi Again,

LD, I respect your knowledge of gems and if that were the issue, i would certainly comcede any disagreement I may have had.
However, you keep repeating the misrepresentation of the stone as being the primary contract. My understanding, as Kelpie had stated several times that there was a meeting of the minds (Gem transaction terms) over the sale of the stone. Everything was fine until it was stated the stone was damaged. Now the contract is void--not before because they had agreed to the way the transaction was to be carried out. The effect of the damaged stone supercedes the original intent of both parties to the transaction. You must send back the item in the original condition. I can't conceive of a diamond dealer, who advertised the clarity and color were F. VVS and when sent to a lab, the grading didn't match. The seller agrees to take it back, only when it arrives he finds a chip on one of facets.
He refuses to take it back. I believe this happens. You know the rest. Back it goes, or the buyer sends it ro their insurer, hopefully they have one.

Next, Last year I send 2 rubies to AGL, and a yellow diamond to GIA. i remember clearly thinking when I received them back, within a week of each other, that the packaging was not very good on one of them.. I just don't remeber which one. I thought, god, iget better packaging from Jerry Newman & Jason than from these labs. One came in a soft envelope, one came in a hard box. Not great packaging. Also, Kelpie lives in Tanzania. Who says they take care of gemstone packages. There is so much room for possible damage, I'd like people to comsider other factors.

TL , of course is right in that the tread has gone on way too long. For myself, I am angrier now at PS for their total lack of judgement in keeping a thread like this open. I'm embarrassed it is in colored stones.

It will not be settled here. Please close the thread.


I

Smit - I understand your reasoning and that you believe the contract wasn't just about the wording in the original advert but in pure law terms it IS the initial terms that set the contract. That wording also laid out a 150% guarantee and that refunds would/could be made. So, the basic contract was for a Paraiba Tourmaline. I'm sorry to keep banging on about this but all the other issues have confused this horrible situation. Essentially the contract became null and void when the stone was reported by the laboratory as NOT being what it was sold as. The damage is a secondary (and unfortunate end) to the misselling. There is another solution for RH though. Why doesn't she go back to her supplier (who presumably sold it to her as a Paraiba Tourmaline) and ask for her money back from them? She then won't be out of pocket because should be refunded what she paid - that's all that she's out of pocket.

See, I think what Smit and others are saying is that the refund is now secondary to the damage. Refunds are made when the item being returned is in its original condition.

Here's an example, Target has a return policy that says if I'm not happy with something, I can return it. Does that mean I can go in there with an item my child broke or scribbled on with a marker and say I want a refund? I doubt they will take it back.

I think if the stone had come back in its original condition, Kelpie would have been given an immediate refund. This isn't poor Kelpie's fault at all, it's really the lab's fault for packaging the stone so badly. Next time, the seller/owner should be the one to send it to the lab, not the buyer. Kelpie's in an awful and frustrating situation, but the insurance claim is the only real thing that can be done right now. Let the post office sort it all out.

Were pictures taken of the poor packaging? Was the damage to the stone clearly documented in association with said packaging? Kelpie could try to help RH with an insurance claim (I'm still a little fuzzy how Kelpie, who didn't package or ship the stone, is the person responsible for making the claim but that doesn't really seem to be in dispute so I guess that's the way postal insurance with a 3rd party works) but NOT UNTIL RH QUITS HOLDING HER REFUND HOSTAGE! And I'm sorry, but repackaging the supposedly damaged packaging and mailing it internationally just reeks of fishy activity. I'm not saying RH is trying to pull a fast one, b/c how the heck would I know one way or the other. I'm simply stating what it LOOKS like given her behavior. Either way I wouldn't want to do business with her.

I think the idea of an escrow type account is a fair one. RH can put Kelpie's refund in the account (then Kelpie knows the money is liquid and forthcoming). Kelpie files the insurance claim or makes the necessary contact so that RH can do it. Kelpie gets her money back - irregardless of the postal insurance's findings regarding stone value or actual damage to stone. I don't love the idea since it still partially makes Kelpie's refund contingent on the insurance claim, but I think it's probably the quickest, above-board way to get her money. Which I guess is still the point.

Oh, and I see no reason to lock this thread until Kelpie follows up with the final resolution. If you're in the camp that wants the thread to be locked, just stop reading/posting to it.

Lavatea when I suggested the escrow or third party type solution, I was thinking that Kelpie's only obligation (if she is the insurer - and I'm as unsure as you about that) would be to make the claim. Whether the postal system pays out or not is not her responsbility and totally out of her control so the refund should only be contingent on her making the claim - not the outcome. Apologies but that was always in my head and I realised after reading your post that I hadn't actually written it down!

 

[Pandora II]

I've kept pretty much out of this so far, but here is how I read the situation:

a) Kelpie buys stone from RH on condition that the stone is cuprian. RH agrees to this.
b) Kelpie has stone sent to her - I presume to check if she liked it before spending the $ for the lab report.
c) Kelpie sends stone to AGL.
d) AGL deems that the stone is not copper-bearing.
e) Kelpie contacts RH to say that she is returning the stone as it is not as described. RH agrees a refund.
e) AGL ships the stone back to RH
f) RH receives the stone and states that it has been damaged between leaving her hands and returning and feels that the damage likely occurred during the shipment from AGL due to the poor packaging.
g) RH has refused refund until insurance claim is settled

We do not know what is available in terms of documenting the stone. RH obviously has the photos she took in order to sell the stone. AGL will have taken photographs of the stone for their report. RH has photos of the stone after she received it. We don't know if she has photos of the packaging or if Kelpie has additional photographs.

Regarding the insurance - AGL were acting on behalf of Kelpie when they shipped the stone back to RH. If the stone was sold for $750 (which it has been agreed by a number of people in a position to have a respected POV may well be a reasonable value for a non-cuprian windex-blue tourmaline) then I am presuming that Kelpie insured the stone for that value.

Had AGL shipped the stone back to Kelpie and it arrived damaged, then I presume that she would expect to receive $750 from the insurance company to cover her loss.

Had RH arranged for the stone to be shipped to AGL andd it arrived damaged then I'm not sure what the protocol is. Many gem dealers/jewellers have their own insurance cover and in an event like this then they would at most reimburse the cost/partial cost of the gem, not the potential sale-price. However, postal insurance may provide different colour.

If it had been a straight forward series of events then my take would have been that RH should have agreed the refund and also asked Kelpie to initiate the insurance claim during the initial conversations following the report from AGL and shipping of the stone. Kelpie would be acting correctly to file the insurance claim, RH would be sensible in the interests of her professional reputation and good business practice - especially in light of her claims of a 150% guarantee etc - to risk the potential $750. She should have an insurance policy that will protect her initial investment anyway.

In the case of a very expensive stone then I see no issue with using an escrow agent to manage the situation.

However, what does strike me as a little odd is that Kelpie and RH had a reasonable amount of initial correspondance following receipt of the lab report. During this and the weeks between then and Kelpie opening this thread, there appears to have been no mention of the damage to the stone from RH.

How long do AGL take to return a stone? I can't believe that it is multiple weeks?

This is where I think the whole thing has gone very wrong.

Had it been a case of:

a) AGL report says non-cuprian
b) Kelpie says she is returning stone
c) RH agrees to refund
d) AGL ships stone
e) RH receives stone, notes damage and immediately contacts Kelpie (whether or not she had received communications from Kelpie)
f) Kelpie files insurance claim/RH issues refund
g) Insurance company assesses validity of claim and makes their decision.

Then we wouldn't be in this position. RH has done herself no favours by dropping the bombshell of the damage here in this thread, many weeks after the transaction.

ETA: If AGL really do take multiple weeks to ship then that could explain the time gap...

Lessons for the future:

a) Ask multiple questions of the vendor.

b) If sale is contingent on the result of a lab report then ask the vendor to ship the stone to the lab for you.

c) They who are selling a lot of 'Paraiba Tourmaline' and who claim that they are a GIA Gemologist (not that they are a GG or is that my imagination?) - in order to reassure customers that the person selling the stones knows a thing or two - might want to step away from their microscope and invest in/become friends with someone with a spectrometer that can pick up the absorbtion bands that indicate copper.

 

[Imdanny]

I'm learning a lot from this thread too. As consumers we need to hear about times things go wrong as well as right. I ask PS not to close this thread. There could be updates and I want to hear them. Thank you.

 

[Rae~]

I am hoping PS doesn't close this thread. Surely it will die its own death eventually, either with or without a resolution? Why close it when people are still responding?? Plenty of threads have "the same things said over and over again" in them, and as long as the comments are not rude, I guess I just don't see the problem with leaving it open.

I am also still holding out a tiny shred of hope that rockhugger / Gemsrock2010 / Kate Klein comes to her senses (IMHO) and refunds Kelpie, and would love to see this thread updated with that result.

I would also hope that Kelpie explores all options - including contacting AGL and finding out what they normally do re insurance claims in situations such as this.

But I do NOT believe the refund should be contingent on first receiving the insurance claim. *I* believe they are two separate issues.

Unfortunately, to my eyes gemsrock2010 has not acted in a manner that gives me any faith that she will follow through on the refund, even if the insurance claim went through. Such is the damage to her reputation, from my perspective. I would certainly not consider buying from her at this point, although a resolution would go far to restoring some faith in her business practices.

 

[ruby59]

I am hoping PS doesn't close this thread. Surely it will die its own death eventually, either with or without a resolution? Why close it when people are still responding?? Plenty of threads have "the same things said over and over again" in them, and as long as the comments are not rude, I guess I just don't see the problem with leaving it open.

I am also still holding out a tiny shred of hope that rockhugger / Gemsrock2010 / Kate Klein comes to her senses (IMHO) and refunds Kelpie, and would love to see this thread updated with that result. I would also hope that Kelpie explores all options - including contacting AGL and finding out what they normally do re insurance claims in situations such as this.

But I do NOT believe the refund should be contingent on first receiving the insurance claim. *I* believe they are two separate issues.

Unfortunately, to my eyes gemsrock2010 has not acted in a manner that gives me any faith that she will follow through on the refund, even if the insurance claim went through. Such is the damage to her reputation, from my perspective. I would certainly not consider buying from her at this point, although a resolution would go far to restoring some faith in her business practices.

Is this really necessary?

 

[PrecisionGem]

I have been watching this thread with curiosity to see how it's all going to play out.

ONe of my thoughts is, the longer any claim is put off off on insurance the harder it is going to be to collect. I have only made one claim with the US postal service, and that was for a lost parcel. After the 21 day or so waiting period, there we no questions asked, they sent me a check for the insured amount. So the first question is, what was the parcel insured for? Then you will need some kind of proof the item was damaged in shipping. I think this is going to be pretty hard to do.

Normally when AGL sends me stones, the are packaged in a very large box considering the contents, and seem very safe to me. Was the box damaged? If the box wasn't damaged, I think it's going to be very hard to accuse the post office of causing an inclusion in the stone that some people see, and some don't.

You don't need to prove to the post office what the stone is worth, the sales receipt is plenty, as long as the insurance amount was at least equal to the value you are looking to recover.

I would hope there are good pictures of the packaging and any damage to it, otherwise I think this is going to be the biggest issue. Would have been much simpler if the stone was just lost in transit.

 

[ruby59]

I agree with the above poster. The time to make a claim is immediately after it happens. So much time has gone by that it would be almost impossible to prove where and when the stone was damaged. I also did not realize that the OP lived in Africa. I do not know how modern a city that is and anything about their postal system, but it is conceivable that is where the damage occurred.

Right now, imo, the only way to finally resolve this is for each party to accept 50 percent of the blame and assume 50% of the liability.

 

[kelpie]

I agree with the above poster. The time to make a claim is immediately after it happens. So much time has gone by that it would be almost impossible to prove where and when the stone was damaged. I also did not realize that the OP lived in Africa. I do not know how modern a city that is and anything about their postal system, but it is conceivable that is where the damage occurred.

Right now, imo, the only way to finally resolve this is for each party to accept 50 percent of the blame and assume 50% of the liability.

I do live in Africa but the stone never left the hands of the US postal service during its transit. Also, AGL photographed the stone after I sent it to them and they surely would have noted if it was cracked girdle-to-girdle when doing the report. If there was any damage it happened after it left AGL. I personally believe that AmethystGuy produced some convincing evidence that whatever damage was (or was caused by) a natural inclusion that was already present.

This is all very very complex as I don't feel I have sufficient insurable interest to file the insurance claim since I was not the shipper or the recipient or privvy to the condition RH received it in. I have offered to facilitate communications with AGL/USPS after I receive a refund. I don't believe the condition RH alleges the stone is in is relevant to the fact that she defrauded me and owes me a refund. I also believe a fair value for a non-cuprian stone is much much less so I am not willing to commit insurance fraud despite assurances by the pros that that is the ballpark of what stones are going for. Just because someone is asking for that price doesn't me a knowledgeable buyer would pay it if they knew all the facts. We are talking about an ebay stone here which does not command the same premium a respected precision cutter's stone might fetch. And again, this is not just about the value but the fact that I don't know what happened to that stone after it left my hands.....

*edits for grammar

 

[Apatite0007]

I am hoping PS doesn't close this thread. Surely it will die its own death eventually, either with or without a resolution? Why close it when people are still responding?? Plenty of threads have "the same things said over and over again" in them, and as long as the comments are not rude, I guess I just don't see the problem with leaving it open.

I am also still holding out a tiny shred of hope that rockhugger / Gemsrock2010 / Kate Klein comes to her senses (IMHO) and refunds Kelpie, and would love to see this thread updated with that result. I would also hope that Kelpie explores all options - including contacting AGL and finding out what they normally do re insurance claims in situations such as this.

But I do NOT believe the refund should be contingent on first receiving the insurance claim. *I* believe they are two separate issues.

Unfortunately, to my eyes gemsrock2010 has not acted in a manner that gives me any faith that she will follow through on the refund, even if the insurance claim went through. Such is the damage to her reputation, from my perspective. I would certainly not consider buying from her at this point, although a resolution would go far to restoring some faith in her business practices.

Is this really necessary?

No it's not. To those accusing me of being "shilly" as it was put. Just another example of assumptions and accusations with out fact that this thread is filled with. The moderators can trace my IP address, I am not an old poster. But I am a gemstone and diamond collector along with many of my friends and colleague and have enjoyed purchasing from pricescope vendors in the past. I have seen too many of these mudslinging and vendor attacking threads be allowed on this website to feel comfortable purchasing from those who support such behavior. It doesn't matter how I feel about what this vendor, NSC, Richard Wise, or the others who have been subject to this treatment in the past did to make a customer unhappy, but the excessive use of mudslinging, and accusations with out fact has left a sour taste in
my mouth for anyone who supports what this site is quickly becoming known for. I refuse to support such behavior with my money and from speaking with others, I know I am not alone. Good luck to both Kelpie and Gemsrock2010 with whatever you choose to do. I support you both and hope things can be resolved like adults and professionals.

 

[Laila619]

I agree with the above poster. The time to make a claim is immediately after it happens. So much time has gone by that it would be almost impossible to prove where and when the stone was damaged. I also did not realize that the OP lived in Africa. I do not know how modern a city that is and anything about their postal system, but it is conceivable that is where the damage occurred.

Right now, imo, the only way to finally resolve this is for each party to accept 50 percent of the blame and assume 50% of the liability.

I do live in Africa but the stone never left the hands of the US postal service during its transit. Also, AGL photographed the stone after I sent it to them and they surely would have noted if it was cracked girdle-to-girdle when doing the report. If there was any damage it happened after it left AGL. I personally believe that AmethystGuy produced some convincing evidence that whatever damage was (or was caused by) a natural inclusion that was already present.

This is all very very complex as I don't feel I have sufficient insurable interest to file the insurance claim since I was not the shipper or the recipient or privy to the condition RH received it in. I have offered to facilitate communications with AGL/USPS after I receive a refund. I don't believe the condition of the stone is relevant to the fact that she defrauded me and owes me a refund. I also believe a fair value for a non-cuprian stone is much much less so I am not willing to commit insurance fraud despite assurances by the pros that that is the ballpark of what stones are going for. Just because someone if asking for that price doesn't me a knowledgeable buyer would pay it if they knew all the facts. We are talking about an ebay stone here which does not command the same premium a respected precision cutter's stone might fetch. And again, this is not just about the value but the fact that I don't know what happened to that stone after it left my hands.....

You were considered the "shipper" though according to the lab.

Also, if RH can produce a receipt showing what she paid for the stone, then that is sufficient for the insurance claim, because that's what it cost her. The insurance claim has nothing to do with what the stone may be worth.

 

[SB621]

I agree with the above poster. The time to make a claim is immediately after it happens. So much time has gone by that it would be almost impossible to prove where and when the stone was damaged. I also did not realize that the OP lived in Africa. I do not know how modern a city that is and anything about their postal system, but it is conceivable that is where the damage occurred.

Right now, imo, the only way to finally resolve this is for each party to accept 50 percent of the blame and assume 50% of the liability.

Did you actually read any of the 12 pages on here where all your questions are actually answered and already debated?
And further more Africa is not a city, it is the second largest continent (First being Asia) with over a billon people living there. Sorry don't mean to jump down your throat but it is a pet peeve on mine when people do this.

As far as a 50/50 I think that is crazy and would never work in business. You can't actually think that a business or a paying customer would accept this.

 

[kelpie]

So basically the stone isn't as described and RH agrees. But she doesn't want to pay it out of pocket....she wants the postal service to pay for HER MISTAKE based on the condition of the stone (let's leave out the source of the damage or if there is any damage for a moment). If the stone damage was not a issue she would be totally obligated to pay me out of pocket and I don't have any confidence at this point that she would do that or even has the money to. She only raised the issue of the damage in this thread after I sent her three "what's up" emails over the course of a week following her receipt of the stone and still no refund.

 

[Pandora II]

I agree with the above poster. The time to make a claim is immediately after it happens. So much time has gone by that it would be almost impossible to prove where and when the stone was damaged. I also did not realize that the OP lived in Africa. I do not know how modern a city that is and anything about their postal system, but it is conceivable that is where the damage occurred.

Right now, imo, the only way to finally resolve this is for each party to accept 50 percent of the blame and assume 50% of the liability.

I do live in Africa but the stone never left the hands of the US postal service during its transit. Also, AGL photographed the stone after I sent it to them and they surely would have noted if it was cracked girdle-to-girdle when doing the report. If there was any damage it happened after it left AGL. I personally believe that AmethystGuy produced some convincing evidence that whatever damage was (or was caused by) a natural inclusion that was already present.

This is all very very complex as I don't feel I have sufficient insurable interest to file the insurance claim since I was not the shipper or the recipient or privy to the condition RH received it in. I have offered to facilitate communications with AGL/USPS after I receive a refund. I don't believe the condition of the stone is relevant to the fact that she defrauded me and owes me a refund. I also believe a fair value for a non-cuprian stone is much much less so I am not willing to commit insurance fraud despite assurances by the pros that that is the ballpark of what stones are going for. Just because someone if asking for that price doesn't me a knowledgeable buyer would pay it if they knew all the facts. We are talking about an ebay stone here which does not command the same premium a respected precision cutter's stone might fetch. And again, this is not just about the value but the fact that I don't know what happened to that stone after it left my hands.....

I'm afraid that that is ridiculous. If people in the trade here are prepared to say that they think that a non-cuprian tourmaline of the colour indicated in the photograph is worth that much then that should carry significant weight.

Had the stone been a cuprian then you would have paid a bargain price.

There are plenty of respectable dealers of all kinds of things - including gemstones - that sell on ebay as well as in the B&M stores or private websites. Just because something is on eBay doesn't mean that the quality is necessarily bad or the price cheap. To give an example, I have collected English antique silver for many years and buy quite a few pieces from eBay. The B&M dealers who I know use eBay as a way of establishing the market price these days.

This is aside to the issue of whether there are photos of the packaging/damage etc, and also to some of the ins and outs of this particular case.

I am just stating that you judging the value of the stone as x when a number of qualified professionals with years of experience have stated y is crazy. Insurance companies employ specialists to determine values correctly, all you need to do is provide evidence that you paid $x for the stone and insured it for that amount.

 

[kelpie]

Maybe it would help if RH should what she paid for the stone and as long as the markup is reasonable (in business school we often assumed profit margin is between 2% and 12%) then that could settle some issues. But RH also bought it on the assumption that it is cuprian. Anyway, I know she is reading this and I welcome her to offer documentation on what the stone cost her.

 

[kelpie]

I agree with the above poster. The time to make a claim is immediately after it happens. So much time has gone by that it would be almost impossible to prove where and when the stone was damaged. I also did not realize that the OP lived in Africa. I do not know how modern a city that is and anything about their postal system, but it is conceivable that is where the damage occurred.

Right now, imo, the only way to finally resolve this is for each party to accept 50 percent of the blame and assume 50% of the liability.

I do live in Africa but the stone never left the hands of the US postal service during its transit. Also, AGL photographed the stone after I sent it to them and they surely would have noted if it was cracked girdle-to-girdle when doing the report. If there was any damage it happened after it left AGL. I personally believe that AmethystGuy produced some convincing evidence that whatever damage was (or was caused by) a natural inclusion that was already present.

This is all very very complex as I don't feel I have sufficient insurable interest to file the insurance claim since I was not the shipper or the recipient or privy to the condition RH received it in. I have offered to facilitate communications with AGL/USPS after I receive a refund. I don't believe the condition of the stone is relevant to the fact that she defrauded me and owes me a refund. I also believe a fair value for a non-cuprian stone is much much less so I am not willing to commit insurance fraud despite assurances by the pros that that is the ballpark of what stones are going for. Just because someone if asking for that price doesn't me a knowledgeable buyer would pay it if they knew all the facts. We are talking about an ebay stone here which does not command the same premium a respected precision cutter's stone might fetch. And again, this is not just about the value but the fact that I don't know what happened to that stone after it left my hands.....

I'm afraid that that is ridiculous. If people in the trade here are prepared to say that they think that a non-cuprian tourmaline of the colour indicated in the photograph is worth that much then that should carry significant weight.

Had the stone been a cuprian then you would have paid a bargain price.

There are plenty of respectable dealers of all kinds of things - including gemstones - that sell on ebay as well as in the B&M stores or private websites. Just because something is on eBay doesn't mean that the quality is necessarily bad or the price cheap. To give an example, I have collected English antique silver for many years and buy quite a few pieces from eBay. The B&M dealers who I know use eBay as a way of establishing the market price these days.

This is aside to the issue of whether there are photos of the packaging/damage etc, and also to some of the ins and outs of this particular case.

I am just stating that you judging the value of the stone as x when a number of qualified professionals with years of experience have stated y is crazy. Insurance companies employ specialists to determine values correctly, all you need to do is provide evidence that you paid $x for the stone and insured it for that amount.

I get you, but I have purchased a nearly identical precision cut stone in color and weight from one of the respected vendors who responded in this thread (I am not trying to drag him in) anyway, it was under $200.

 

[Pandora II]

How long ago was that though? Prices have gone up hugely in the last year.

(I bought a 2ct blue sapphire in 2008 in Sri Lanka, I bought another in April this year of a very similar colour but this one was heated, the first was unheated. I paid nearly 5 times the price - and that was buying it from the exact same dealer).

There is also a range of prices amongst vendors - what Palagems charges for a stone may be completely different from what any one of the PS vendors may charge. Doesn't mean the stone is better or worse. You might have got a great deal on that stone.

 

[Pandora II]

So basically the stone isn't as described and RH agrees. But she doesn't want to pay it out of pocket....she wants the postal service to pay for HER MISTAKE based on the condition of the stone (let's leave out the source of the damage or if there is any damage for a moment). If the stone damage was not a issue she would be totally obligated to pay me out of pocket and I don't have any confidence at this point that she would do that or even has the money to. She only raised the issue of the damage in this thread after I sent her three "what's up" emails over the course of a week following her receipt of the stone and still no refund.

This is where I think the biggest problem is coming from.

Do you know when AGL shipped the stone back to RH?

If she has left considerable time between the stone arriving and informing you (as the shipper) of the damage then she cannot hold you responsible if the post-office decides that the claim is out of time or that she didn't keep sufficient evidence.

In this situation, the recipient needs to be instantly on the ball to get it sorted asap.

Have you been in touch with AGL at all?

 

[kelpie]

This was purchased 5 months before the stone in question. I think it was priced very competitively (as an afghan non-cuprian) but certainly not like he is giving them away at a quarter of what they are worth. The stones are so similar in dimension and color and both have inclusions. One was precision cut and one was a good native cut. This is why I feel like a have a solid basis for knowing it can't be worth $800.

And as to when AGL shipped the stone and RH sprung the damage on me in this thread it was about 2 weeks, I could get exact dates. RH received the stone Sept 12 and you can read her first mention of the damage in this thread if you look back. I haven't been in touch with AGL. I have offered to be a facilitator for whatever claim RH wants to pursue after I receive the refund.

 

[LD]

Kelpie - am I right in saying that many many many pages ago (before RH responded in this thread - I think) you said that you had compared the stone with the one you already own and the colours were very similar however the one from RH didn't glow? If yes, I would hesitate to put a value on it because the colour/glow/performance of the stone will affect the value.

I totally agree with you that RH should only be compensated for the amount she has lost - i.e. the price she paid for the stone. With that in mind, you know I've supported you right through this thread and continue to do so but would you be prepared to meet RH in the middle and make the insurance claim for the amount RH paid for the stone (contingent on her providing proof of course) if the refund is deposited with a neutral third party? Unfortunately if you wait for her to refund you first I think this will be a stale-mate. Would you consider being flexible?


ETA: Sorry - we were cross posting and you've already answered the first paragraph!

 

[Addnamehere]

Kelpie, you were told in emails that you paid close to the price I paid for the stone, and very little profit was made. You made an offer on the stone (It was for sale for $999.99) and you made an offer for $750.00. I accepted it because I have been holding on to the stone for a while. I am not going to say exactly what I purchased the stone for (I will say it is BELOW your estimated profit margin). I will however, supply your sales receipt along with the amount I purchased the stone for to any claim investigator who comes to me asking for it. I have gathered plenty of evidence from sellers of windex blue tourmaline to calculate the value of the stone, and the price you paid for a non cuprian windex blue tourmaline is BELOW market value. I have found ROUGH material selling for 1k-1500k for 3-4ct (would yeild a 1-1.5ct stone). Faceted and markup it would of course sell for more. I am also more then willing to supply that information to whoever comes to me asking for it as well.
Whatever price you paid for your other tourmaline was a fantastic price (although the saturation from the photos looks more like a mint then windex blue FROM THE PICTURES YOU PROVIDED), and I guarantee you will not find another for the same price in todays market. Windex blue-green tourmaline rough, cuprian or not are becoming very very hard to find.

Edited to add: I will supply Kelpie the price I paid for the stone via private email. I am not posting my purchase prices on a foum, because quite honestly and excuse me for being blunt, its not anyone other then Kelpie, myself, and the claim investigators business. Please send me an email kelpie and I will be happy to give you that information so you can file a claim. I will be more then happy to recover only my cost of the stone.

Edit 2: As for me valuing the stone. I googled the values, took me 1/2 hr. You are more then welcome to do the same. Also I am sure others who buy tourmaline rough will agree.

 

[LD]

RH I don't feel you're in a position to comment on the stone's worth as you have a vested interest.

You are only out of pocket for the sum YOU paid for the stone. That is what you should get back. I understand you may not want to post that information on this board but to categorically state that you will not provide it is not helpful AND based on what you typically used to buy stones for, my opinion is that you bought this stone as a bargain for very little and have made a huge profit on it. Kelpie is $800 out of pocket. How would you feel if somebody did this to you?

 

[Addnamehere]

I would have filed the claim because I understand damage does happen when shipping long distances and been happy with my refund

ETA: I also would have been on the phone with AGL THAT DAY asking why the package was shipped so poorly. I have done alot of research on that as well, and the way my stone was packaged vs. how others was packaged is way way off. Even if they did put it in the baggie( the baggie that was with it in the box), and the stone somehow wiggled out of the baggie, the fact the baggie was thrown in the box with no padding, ur tape is unaceptable. And me personally would have had a huge issue with that as the buyer.

 

[kelpie]

This is my other stone. I wouldn't call it mint. I have seen them together and I could have made a pair of earrings out of them they were so close.

 

[Addnamehere]

That is a beautiful stone keplie, and you got a fantastic deal on it. I am sure the chip/natural on the back had a huge play in its price as well. I could never have purchased your stone whole sale for the price you paid.

I still have not received your email requesting the wholesale price of the stone kelpie. As soon as you send that (so it is documented through email) I will send it to you.

 

[ruby59]

I agree with the above poster. The time to make a claim is immediately after it happens. So much time has gone by that it would be almost impossible to prove where and when the stone was damaged. I also did not realize that the OP lived in Africa. I do not know how modern a city that is and anything about their postal system, but it is conceivable that is where the damage occurred.

Right now, imo, the only way to finally resolve this is for each party to accept 50 percent of the blame and assume 50% of the liability.

Did you actually read any of the 12 pages on here where all your questions are actually answered and already debated?
And further more Africa is not a city, it is the second largest continent (First being Asia) with over a billon people living there. Sorry don't mean to jump down your throat but it is a pet peeve on mine when people do this.

As far as a 50/50 I think that is crazy and would never work in business. You can't actually think that a business or a paying customer would accept this.

Yes, I have read the entire thread. And if you had bothered to as well, you would have seen TL's excellent post, where she said there are two camps of thought, and people are going to believe what they believe. You and I are obviously not going to come around to the same way of thinking.

Thank you for the geography lesson, but I am sure I already knew Africa was a continent. Without going back through the entire thread, I could not recall where in Africa the OP lived. And while I believe you that it is the second largest continent, it is still considered 3rd world. Parts of it are modern, other parts underdeveloped. That is why I asked about specifically where the OP lived.

As far as a business accepting this, you are not talking about Walmart who will take back anything. Large companies may be able to do this, but a small company would go broke. They have to draw the line somewhere.