Conned on ebay. I quit!

[soberguy]

I didn't mean it should not be on pricescope... I just wonder whether or not it should be in the Colored Stone Forum...

 

[Aoife]

I didn't mean it should not be on pricescope... I just wonder whether or not it should be in the Colored Stone Forum...

Now I understand what you are saying, but I still think this is the appropriate forum. The vendor deals in colored stones, and many of us on the CS forum spend little time on the other forums. Chances are good that if it isn't discussed here, the people who are most likely to purchase from RH would miss the whole controversy.

 

[minousbijoux]

Lately, I am logging on to PS multiple times a day in the hope that there will be an update from Kelpie saying that it has all worked out and she has been made whole (really wishful thinking, I know).

As an aside, part of the reason that so many of us have been responding to this thread is that this is a very clever scam and any of us could have found ourselves in the same position because of her association with PS. This isn't like the ebay vendor that holds an auction, is disappointed by the low winning bid, "sends" it and it is subsequently "lost" in the mail, causing the transaction to be cancelled. This is much more insidious, which is why we are all so concerned.

I wish you well, RH; based on what I've read, I think you have it hard enough living with yourself and your self-sabotage; you don't need anyone else to cause you grief.

 

[Ella]

We are allowing her to post with a new account so that she may reply to the accusations.

Please remember that the forum policies still are in place here. Posts that throw personal insults will be removed.

Last warning or this thread will be closed. Stick to the facts please.

 

[minousbijoux]

Duly noted - sorry if it came across as a personal insult.

 

[SB621]

I didn't mean it should not be on pricescope... I just wonder whether or not it should be in the Colored Stone Forum...

Of course it should be in the fourm it pertains too!!!!!! Whatever issues come up with vendors they are usually posted in the forum that the vendor markets towards. AKA if a pearl vendor has a problem you posted about it in the pearl forum.

 

[dragonfly411]

You know, I talk on horse forums as well. We see a LOT of horse dealing scammers. 99.9 % of the horse scammers that are uncovered, cry abuse and harassment and threaten law suits and police involvement. Please.

Kelpie. I'm sorry you are going through this. You really do need to contact a lawyer, and your local police department. PUSH your local police, and they will contact HER local police department. If you push and push them to stay on top of this, they WILL pursue it and you CAN and SHOULD take her to court for the money that is owed to you.

RH - You really need to just take responsibility and follow through with your contracts, and policies.

 

[Lottie]

People, or should I say scammers that create this kind of mess for someone who is simply trying to make a legitimate purchase, should always be pursued legally - they cannot be allowed to just get away with it. Ultimately it is theft and a shameful way to behave. I wonder if people like this let their families and friends know how they 'earn' their money.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

I am glad this thread has not been locked. This is a good reminder that internet gem dealers rely on their reputations to sell gems. I work hard for my money and have trusted Pricescope members to steer me toward reputable vendors. I urge the moderators of this forum to allow this thread to continue until a resolution has been achieved. If someone posts and inappropriate comment then I could see it being deleted. But I hope the thread remains intact until both the buyer and seller have resolved the issue.

 

[lavatea]

I would love for some of our fav vendors to chime in on how they would handle a similar situation (stone not coming back what it was sold as, buyer being the insurer even though she wasn't the actual shipper, etc). It seems to me that they would refund the money spent on the stone, but I'm curious how they would go about recouping the money for the damage done to the stone in transit (assuming real damage was done in transit which in this case I don't think has been proven).

 

[minousbijoux]

It would be interesting to hear from vendors, but if I were a vendor, I would be reading the thread, but might not feel comfortable inserting myself in the dialogue - they have too much to lose by risking alienating any readers.

 

[LD]

There was a perfect example of something similar. TGal bought a Padparadscha Sapphire that was sent to a lab for identification. I think it was synthetic. The vendor refunded her in full and on PS posted to say how embarrassed and sorry he was. He dealt with the situation with dignity.

 

[ruby59]

Hi Kelpie,

Insurance is a protection against damage or loss. When you purchased the gemstone RH was fine with sending it to a lab for verification. This shows me she was not trying to defraud you. it shows an unprofessional approach to selling her stones. The stone was not as she described. She agreed to accept it back from you and to give you a refund. You must send her the stone back as she sent it to you or the lab. She says she did not reeive it back as she sent it to you. That is the transaction. The whole transaction.

If the stone was damaged you must file the claim with the postal service getting the imformation from AGL, who acted as your agent in sending the stone back to her. You show them (USPS) your receipt for payment for the stone, as you are the insurer.
It is not up to you to appraise the item, or evaluate the circumstances of this, or to decide it is fraudulent. Insurance protects you.

If I were RH I would not give you your money back until you agreed to file the claim. As she now knows she cant keep the money and the stone so she is returning the stone to you. She received it damaged. Let the post office determine if they will pay the claim.
Its completely beyond me why you insured the item if you aren't going to use the insurance.

All the speculation on fraud here is only that. Kelpie you will the loser here. And you certainly succeeded in ruining RHs reputation.
I do not know what the truth is. It is the USPS that should determine the legitimacy of the claim --not the herd on PS.

I want you to get you money back Annette

Excellent post. I do feel sorry for the OP, but this thread has turned into a witch hunt with people taking assumptions and turning it into facts. OP seems very knowledgable. She should have looked at the stone more closely. If there was the slightest crack, she should have triple wrapped the stone and sent it back. When she sent it to a third party to be verified, it was still under her control. RH has every right to receive the item back in its original condition. Calling what RH did a fraud is stretching it in my opinion. It is not like she tried to sell a cz as a diamond. From what I am reading, even experts make mistakes identifying these stones.

And now people are airing RH's dirty laundry in public, sharing private emails, calling her bankrupt, and talking about her estranged husband and handicapped child. I do not blame her for cutting off communication. There is sufficient blame on both sides.

And I still do not understand why the OP has not made a claim with the post office. That is what insurance is for. And RH is totally correct in that while she can assist in the claim, only the OP can file it.

 

[lelser]

Speaking as a vendor, if it's allowed, I don't claim anything I can't prove. I'm a gemologist and have a small lab at home, so I test everything before it goes into inventory. If a sale is contingent on a lab test then it isn't "sold" until the test proves the claim. Postal insurance isn't the point here - the stone wasn't what was claimed and therefore from my perspective was never sold. If Kelpie'd gone off in a hiss and sent the stone back badly packaged I can see where a vendor might be upset, but she didn't pack it, and she never agreed to buy a non-cuprian tourmaline.

I've only once had things come back damaged and it was due to extremely poor packaging by the person returning them. My answer was to offer a partial refund, since he'd chosen not to insure the parcel and because I needed the grief less than I needed the money.

Cheers,

Lisa
www.lisaelser.com

 

[pregcurious]

Excellent post. I do feel sorry for the OP, but this thread has turned into a witch hunt with people taking assumptions and turning it into facts. OP seems very knowledgable. She should have looked at the stone more closely. If there was the slightest crack, she should have triple wrapped the stone and sent it back. When she sent it to a third party to be verified, it was still under her control. RH has every right to receive the item back in its original condition. Calling what RH did a fraud is stretching it in my opinion. It is not like she tried to sell a cz as a diamond. From what I am reading, even experts make mistakes identifying these stones.

And now people are airing RH's dirty laundry in public, sharing private emails, calling her bankrupt, and talking about her estranged husband and handicapped child. I do not blame her for cutting off communication. There is sufficient blame on both sides.

And I still do not understand why the OP has not made a claim with the post office. That is what insurance is for. And RH is totally correct in that while she can assist in the claim, only the OP can file it.

I will respond to the sections that refer to my post about buying a diamond and getting a CZ. The ebay listing, which I have actually looked at, stated that the stone was a "Paraiba tourmaline". A reputable lab inspected that stone and determined it was not even copper-bearing--no one is refuting that, not even the RH. Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond. I cannot say for sure because I have never seen it. While a non-copper bearing tourmaline is not worthless, the contract was for a Paraiba.

As for not understanding why the OP has not made a claim with the post office: The lab packed and returned the stone to RH--not the OP. The OP was not the one who used USPS or insurance--the lab did. The OP cannot make the claim with the postal service.

As for saying it is fraud, some people have said it is fraud. Others have not, and I have not. Many people have encouraged Kelpie to have a third party (FBI, Ebay, civil court, etc) investigate if fraud has happened, and she has confirmed that she is taking steps through official channels of her choice. I have encouraged others to flag that listing on Ebay to determine if there is something wrong, as Kelpie has presented. I think there is nothing wrong with that. If Ebay thinks the item has been accurately represented, then that is that.

As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.

 

[T L]

Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond.

Pregcurious, I think I can speak to this a bit as I have collected copper and non-copper bearing tourmalines for years. Some copper bearing tourmalines labeled as Paraibas can be less money than a super fine windex colored Afghan tourmaline. It depends on the stone. Some paraibas are not very neon, but labeled as such because they have the blue color. I personally would rather have a more neon non-copper bearing tourmaline than one that was less neon, although it had the copper bearing status, but that's just me.

I will say that a fine Brazilian Paraiba from the original strike will be worth the most. However, it's a blanked statement to say that non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, as there are many individual characteristics of each stone to consider when doing a comparison. Just wanted to make the clarification. Thanks.

In the end, even though there has been a lot of words going back and forth in this thread, I do hope that RH and Kelpie can come to a satisfactory resolution.

 

[pregcurious]

Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond.

Pregcurious, I think I can speak to this a bit as I have collected copper and non-copper bearing tourmalines for years. Some copper bearing tourmalines labeled as Paraibas can be less money than a super fine windex colored Afghan tourmaline. It depends on the stone. Some paraibas are not very neon, but labeled as such because they have the blue color. I personally would rather have a more neon non-copper bearing tourmaline than one that was less neon, although it had the copper bearing status, but that's just me.

I will say that a fine Brazilian Paraiba from the original strike will be worth the most. However, it's a blanked statement to say that non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, as there are many individual characteristics of each stone to consider when doing a comparison. Just wanted to make the clarification. Thanks.

In the end, even though there has been a lot of words going back and forth in this thread, I do hope that RH and Kelpie can come to a satisfactory resolution.

Thanks TL, I appreciate your post. I agree with it.

The point I am trying to get across in my last post is statement about Kelpie's situation: If you had 2 stones that had the same chacteristics, except for one being non-cuprian, and the other being a cuprian from Paraiba, the Paraiba would me worth much more. I think anyone takes my statement out of context of this situation, it appears odd. I realize that there are fine tourmalines that are not copper bearing that can be worth a lot of money, and I appreciate your pointing this out because that is not what I meant.

 

[T L]

Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond.

Pregcurious, I think I can speak to this a bit as I have collected copper and non-copper bearing tourmalines for years. Some copper bearing tourmalines labeled as Paraibas can be less money than a super fine windex colored Afghan tourmaline. It depends on the stone. Some paraibas are not very neon, but labeled as such because they have the blue color. I personally would rather have a more neon non-copper bearing tourmaline than one that was less neon, although it had the copper bearing status, but that's just me.

I will say that a fine Brazilian Paraiba from the original strike will be worth the most. However, it's a blanked statement to say that non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, as there are many individual characteristics of each stone to consider when doing a comparison. Just wanted to make the clarification. Thanks.

In the end, even though there has been a lot of words going back and forth in this thread, I do hope that RH and Kelpie can come to a satisfactory resolution.

Thanks TL, I appreciate your post. I think the point I am trying to get across in my last post is: If you had 2 stones that had the same chacteristics, except for one being non-cuprian, and the other being a cuprian from Paraiba, the Paraiba would me worth much more. I think that is what Kelpie is dealing with. Do you think that is accurate? I see that my comparison of a CZ to a diamond could be an exaggeration for this case (depending on the stone, which I am never seen).

Well, in that case, you would be paying more or the marketing name, so yes. However, as I said earlier in this thread (I think on page 2 or 3), I think $750 was a fair retail price for this stone being a non-copper bearing windex blue tourmaline, and Lisa concurred a couple of posts later. It certainly wasn't being sold for $20K, and that is probably how much a one carat neon windex blue paraiba from the original strike would cost. It would also be much more saturated than this stone as well, if I'm reading the photos accurately.

I think it would be fairer if RH said it was "suspected to have copper, due to the color," and I think people still would have paid $750 for it. It's not that outrageous of a price.

 

[ruby59]

Excellent post. I do feel sorry for the OP, but this thread has turned into a witch hunt with people taking assumptions and turning it into facts. OP seems very knowledgable. She should have looked at the stone more closely. If there was the slightest crack, she should have triple wrapped the stone and sent it back. When she sent it to a third party to be verified, it was still under her control. RH has every right to receive the item back in its original condition. Calling what RH did a fraud is stretching it in my opinion. It is not like she tried to sell a cz as a diamond. From what I am reading, even experts make mistakes identifying these stones.

And now people are airing RH's dirty laundry in public, sharing private emails, calling her bankrupt, and talking about her estranged husband and handicapped child. I do not blame her for cutting off communication. There is sufficient blame on both sides.

And I still do not understand why the OP has not made a claim with the post office. That is what insurance is for. And RH is totally correct in that while she can assist in the claim, only the OP can file it.

I will respond to the sections that refer to my post about buying a diamond and getting a CZ. The ebay listing, which I have actually looked at, stated that the stone was a "Paraiba tourmaline". A reputable lab inspected that stone and determined it was not even copper-bearing--no one is refuting that, not even the RH. Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond. I cannot say for sure because I have never seen it. While a non-copper bearing tourmaline is not worthless, the contract was for a Paraiba.

As for not understanding why the OP has not made a claim with the post office: The lab packed and returned the stone to RH--not the OP. The OP was not the one who used USPS or insurance--the lab did. The OP cannot make the claim with the postal service.

(answer) Ok, then why doesn't the lab file a claim with the Post Office? But that does not change the fact that RH still cannot file it.

As for saying it is fraud, some people have said it is fraud. Others have not, and I have not. Many people have encouraged Kelpie to have a third party (FBI, Ebay, civil court, etc) investigate if fraud has happened, and she has confirmed that she is taking steps through official channels of her choice. I have encouraged others to flag that listing on Ebay to determine if there is something wrong, as Kelpie has presented. I think there is nothing wrong with that. If Ebay thinks the item has been accurately represented, then that is that.

(answer) Ebay cannot tell the difference between a cz and a diamond, so no way are they going to get invoved with a stone that complicated. Anyway, the window of opportunity with ebay and paypal (45 days) has longed closed. And the FBI has bigger problems to take care of.

As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.

(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.

 

[ruby59]

I just wanted to add one more thing. You guys are a knowledgable bunch of people and are well versed in the value of diamonds and colored gems. How many times is it preached on here that you get what you pay for. That is especially the case with ebay. And from what I am reading, while RH was a fellow Pricescoper, she was hardly an authority. Caveat Emptor -- did the OP really think she was going to get a multi thousand dollar gem for $750?

 

[pregcurious]

Well, in that case, you would be paying more or the marketing name, so yes. However, as I said earlier in this thread (I think on page 2 or 3), I think $750 was a fair retail price for this stone being a non-copper bearing windex blue tourmaline, and Lisa concurred a couple of posts later. It certainly wasn't being sold for $20K, and that is probably how much a one carat neon windex blue paraiba from the original strike would cost. It would also be much more saturated than this stone as well, if I'm reading the photos accurately.

I think it would be fairer if RH said it was "suspected to have copper, due to the color," and I think people still would have paid $750 for it. It's not that outrageous of a price.

TL, I never meant to refute your statemnt. I think your statement is correct, if it was not cracked. Someone on here posted that the stone was originally cracked based on images from the Ebay listing. Someone else pointed that the lab would have noticed, and therefore it was intact. I have no way to knowing what is true. I was just trying to make a point with the CZ to diamond analogy that a cracked tourmaline would be worthless to me.

 

[T L]

Well, in that case, you would be paying more or the marketing name, so yes. However, as I said earlier in this thread (I think on page 2 or 3), I think $750 was a fair retail price for this stone being a non-copper bearing windex blue tourmaline, and Lisa concurred a couple of posts later. It certainly wasn't being sold for $20K, and that is probably how much a one carat neon windex blue paraiba from the original strike would cost. It would also be much more saturated than this stone as well, if I'm reading the photos accurately.

I think it would be fairer if RH said it was "suspected to have copper, due to the color," and I think people still would have paid $750 for it. It's not that outrageous of a price.

TL, I never meant to refute your statemnt. I think your statement is correct, if it was not cracked. Someone on here posted that the stone was originally cracked based on images from the Ebay listing. Someone else pointed that the lab would have noticed, and therefore it was intact. I have no way to knowing what is true. I was just trying to make a point with the CZ to diamond analogy that a cracked tourmaline would be worthless to me.

A cracked tourmaline may be worthless to you, but some people may still buy it for the price, have it recut, repolished, or just ignore the crack. Actually, many true paraiba tourmalines have internal fissues and cracks due to the heating they undergo. In the gem world, value can be very speculative. I have some cracked gems that are still worth something to me, and others as well.

As for the crack being there, not sure if it was a crack, a feather or some other type of inclusion. At this point, if we don't have the stone in hand, it's only an assumption, there needs to be solid proof to back that up.

 

[pregcurious]

As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.

(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.

You can email a mod to delete the information that you find offensive. I have done it before, and it is very easy.

 

[pregcurious]

Well, in that case, you would be paying more or the marketing name, so yes. However, as I said earlier in this thread (I think on page 2 or 3), I think $750 was a fair retail price for this stone being a non-copper bearing windex blue tourmaline, and Lisa concurred a couple of posts later. It certainly wasn't being sold for $20K, and that is probably how much a one carat neon windex blue paraiba from the original strike would cost. It would also be much more saturated than this stone as well, if I'm reading the photos accurately.

I think it would be fairer if RH said it was "suspected to have copper, due to the color," and I think people still would have paid $750 for it. It's not that outrageous of a price.

TL, I never meant to refute your statemnt. I think your statement is correct, if it was not cracked. Someone on here posted that the stone was originally cracked based on images from the Ebay listing. Someone else pointed that the lab would have noticed, and therefore it was intact. I have no way to knowing what is true. I was just trying to make a point with the CZ to diamond analogy that a cracked tourmaline would be worthless to me.

A cracked tourmaline may be worthless to you, but some people may still buy it for the price, have it recut, repolished, or just ignore the crack. Actually, many true paraiba tourmalines have internal fissues and cracks due to the heating they undergo. In the gem world, value can be very speculative. I have some cracked gems that are still worth something to me, and others as well.

As for the crack being there, not sure if it was a crack, a feather or some other type of inclusion. At this point, if we don't have the stone in hand, it's only an assumption, there needs to be solid proof to back that up.

TL, I really don't mean to argue with you about the stone at all. My statements all referred to the variety of claims on what this stone was or was not. I think we can both agree that the only people who know the truth are Kelpie, RH and the lab. I respectively accept your posts

 

[T L]

TL, I really don't mean to argue with you about the stone at all. My statements all referred to the variety of claims on what this stone was or was not. I think we can both agree that the only people who know the truth are Kelpie, RH and the lab. I respectively accept your posts

Pregcurious,
I apologize if I come off as argumentative in this thread. I don't feel you are argumentative with me at all. I just feel you are simply asking some questions, and I'm just answering them or making some clarifications.

As to your bolded statement, I totally agree.

 

[ruby59]

As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.

(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.

You can email a mod to delete the information that you find offensive. I have done it before, and it is very easy.

I do not find it offensive, but of course it is not my business that has been laid out here. What I am saying is that once something goes on the Internet, it can never be taken back. My point is that this could have been handled a little better. People were throwing out accusations and presenting them as facts. The only ones who know for sure are the OP, lab, and RH. And as we know, there are three sides to every story. So until then, is it fair to trash someone's reputation?

 

[LD]

As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.

(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.

You can email a mod to delete the information that you find offensive. I have done it before, and it is very easy.

I do not find it offensive, but of course it is not my business that has been laid out here. What I am saying is that once something goes on the Internet, it can never be taken back. My point is that this could have been handled a little better. People were throwing out accusations and presenting them as facts. The only ones who know for sure are the OP, lab, and RH. And as we know, there are three sides to every story. So until then, is it fair to trash someone's reputation?

I'm sorry but I disagree. RH sold a stone saying it was a Paraiba Tourmaline with a 150% refund guarantee if it wasn't. The lab confirmed it wasn't. RH has refused to refund and now has the money and the stone. All that is fact. RH has trashed her own reputation by her responses in this thread and her own actions.

 

[lavatea]

There was a perfect example of something similar. TGal bought a Padparadscha Sapphire that was sent to a lab for identification. I think it was synthetic. The vendor refunded her in full and on PS posted to say how embarrassed and sorry he was. He dealt with the situation with dignity.

I imagined that's probably how "our" vendors would deal with the first half of the situation. I am especially curious what they would do about the insurer/insurance/third party shipper debacle.

Thanks for your response, Lisa.

 

[ruby59]

As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.

(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.

You can email a mod to delete the information that you find offensive. I have done it before, and it is very easy.

I do not find it offensive, but of course it is not my business that has been laid out here. What I am saying is that once something goes on the Internet, it can never be taken back. My point is that this could have been handled a little better. People were throwing out accusations and presenting them as facts. The only ones who know for sure are the OP, lab, and RH. And as we know, there are three sides to every story. So until then, is it fair to trash someone's reputation?

I'm sorry but I disagree. RH sold a stone saying it was a Paraiba Tourmaline with a 150% refund guarantee if it wasn't. The lab confirmed it wasn't. RH has refused to refund and now has the money and the stone. All that is fact. RH has trashed her own reputation by her responses in this thread and her own actions.

If that were the entire situation, I would agree with you. However, the OP chose to send it to a 3rd party. Somewhere between it leaving the lab and being received by RH it was damaged. We know this because neither the OP nor the lab noted any cracks. Also, if you read the entire thread, you will see that RH tried to return the stone, but the OP has refused to accept it. RH attempted to contact the OP through ebay messaging, which is unreliable. RH tried to keep it business like, it is the OP and others who made it personal.

 

[Aoife]

If that were the entire situation, I would agree with you. However, the OP chose to send it to a 3rd party. Somewhere between it leaving the lab and being received by RH it was damaged. We know this because neither the OP nor the lab noted any cracks. Also, if you read the entire thread, you will see that RH tried to return the stone, but the OP has refused to accept it. RH attempted to contact the OP through ebay messaging, which is unreliable. RH tried to keep it business like, it is the OP and others who made it personal.

That's an interesting reinterpretation of the sequence of events, but leaves out the essential fact which others have alluded to (repeatedly): the sale was never finalized, because the conditions of the sale were never met. The sale was contingent on the stone being what the seller guaranteed it was. The stone was not what the seller represented it as. Therefore, the transaction was void.

It's not a matter open to interpretation. Those were the rules of the transaction as agreed upon by both parties, until one party (the vendor) decided to renege on the agreement, which flies in the face of any accepted business practice. Perhaps you would feel comfortable doing business with someone who feels free to renege on the terms of a contract, but I, and a lot of other posters on this thread would not.