How Harish Chandra defrauds customers
- Thread starter Screwed
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,146
ScrewedByHarishChandra|1351378642|3293761 said:
No, they are implying that if you are in the trade you should have known better than to buy from this seller. Though I think you are likely yet another newbie who somehow managed to describe themselves as being in the jewelry trade when they are not.
Anyway, one big red flag on the listing was "approx X cts" everywhere it had the carat weight. Another was the fact that the appraisal value was different on almost every website that ring was listed on. I dunno, I'd think it was pretty obvious it was scammy.
I also don't think you have a legal leg to stand on re: getting a 5 ct ring out of this guy. I don't know what PP was smoking to suggest that.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,579
distracts|1351379088|3293767 said:
He's not in the trade, distracts. A lot of new posters here have that trade box checked accidentally in their profile for some reason. It looks like it is gone now.
But I 100% agree that the OP needs to get his refund and move on. I wouldn't want a 5 ct. diamond that cost $25k (if that is what it was) because it would have to be the ugliest 5 ct stone imaginable. You MIGHT be able to get a nice 2 ct stone for $25k.
Mico
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,245
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 926
It was a 4 ct champagne stone with 4 x .6 ct side stones. I agree that is an unreasonable price unless the stones are really ugly but (if the story is true) the OP was promised a 4 ct stone with 1.6 ctw of side stones and s/he didn't get it. People do sell all sorts of things for less than reasonable values for all sorts of reasons.
The legal principle is compensatory damages. Look it up. If the 4 ct stone doesn't exist, the aggrieved party is owed enough money to go out and buy one from someone else. "The buyer was stupid to have believed me, therefore I can cheat them," is not a defense. Whether or not s/he can practically get the money is another question. This is why we have lawyers.
The legal principle is compensatory damages. Look it up. If the 4 ct stone doesn't exist, the aggrieved party is owed enough money to go out and buy one from someone else. "The buyer was stupid to have believed me, therefore I can cheat them," is not a defense. Whether or not s/he can practically get the money is another question. This is why we have lawyers.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
The OP made the return (which was a good idea and I’m glad to see that it seems to be more-or-less working out) so I’m going to chime in. Hopefully it’ll be helpful to future readers, if not to the OP.
Here’s the known facts:
The seller claimed it contained an approximately 4 carat center stone with 4 side stones of approximately 0.40cts each.
Here’s the entirety of the verbiage from the ad under the headline “Big champagne diamond ring 5.60 ct. radiant diamond “:
There is one diamond in center of approx. 4.00 carats & 4 tapered baguettes in sides of approx. 0.40 carats each . Natural earth mined diamonds.
Total Stone Weight : approx. 5.60 carats
Stone Certificate: Comes with free STONE CERTIFICATE from GSL
Color : Champagne/brown
Clarity : VS1
It’s STILL unclear if this is actually true because of all of those ‘approx’s’ in there but the buyer took it to someone else who called the center stone 3.2carats and SI2 clarity. We don’t know who it was or what they did but I think it’s fair to guess that they did NOT remove it from the setting to actually weight it so it’s likely that this too is an approximation. No claim has been reported about the side stones, craftsmanship, color, or any other details. We have 2 datapoints being disputed from the above … center stone weight and center stone clarity.
We have no way of knowing which, if either is more reliable but most gemological training, including GIA teaches a margin for error of 1 grade on clarity, especially with mounted goods, and 10% on weight estimation are acceptable tollerances. ‘Approx. 4.01’ means 3.60 to 4.41 with that definition and 3.20 means 2.88-3.52. The clarity ranges differs at VS2- SI1. Our missing overlap is a 0.08ct range from 3.52 – 3.60. OK, so at least one of the graders made an error (possibly both) of at least 0.08cts on the weight estimation and at least one clarity grade at VS2-SI1. Nothing else is even disputed. That’s certainly grounds for a refund but I think the claim of serious damages here is weak. Is a 3.60/VS2 fancy brown really worth more in the ebay marketplace than an otherwise similar 3.52/SI1? Maybe, but that’s the case to make and it definitely has not been made or even attempted here. Do the appraisal fees and such constitute damages? Maybe, but probably not since they were unilaterally chosen by the buyer (which they SHOULD be by the way. That's much of the point of getting an independent appraisal). I didn't easily find the terms and conditions in the ad to see where shipping fees for returns are discussed but the implication is that they're the responsibility of the buyer and this is usually the case with ebay deals.
Then there’s that ‘appraisal’.
Somebody said it’s ‘worth’ $129,500. Apparently it cost less than that. Apparently also someone else said it was worth something completely different. It’s unknown whether this 3rd value is more or less than the transaction price but it seems clear that they were under the first number or we wouldn’t have seen the complaint. It doesn’t really matter. Which, if either, is right? We haven’t seen either of these appraisals. We have no idea what the standard of value is for either one but standard of value is one of the most important things to look at on an appraisal, way ahead of the value conclusion (#1 is the signature). It’s near certain that they’re importantly different between these two reports. The buyer relied on the first appraisal during the purchase as evidence of value present and the second appraisal as evidence that the first is incorrect. This is the heart of the complaint. There was supposed to be value present that presumably isn’t and they have been denied the benefit of their bargain. Someone is responsible. Who?
The choices here are the two appraisers, the seller, the buyer, or a combination of these. The assumption of the OP is that this falls solidly on the seller. The assumption of the seller is that it falls solidly on the second appraiser. The general consensus of the forum is that a significant portion falls on the buyer. So far everyone has given the first appraiser a free pass even though their report is at the heart of the dispute. We’re woefully lacking in information to make a rational choice here. Again, the two appraisals don’t seem to have a huge discrepancy about what it IS, only about what it’s WORTH so let’s contemplate that.
Any statement of value must contain an element of what it’s worth to whom, when, and under what circumstances to be of any use whatever. That’s the definition of value I’m talking about and it’s a key concept to valuation theory. An item can be worth a lot in a hotel gift shop in Japan and worth a lot less at a pawn shop in Detroit a month later. That’s the way marketplaces work. This difference is not evidence that the folks in Japan were ripping you off any more than it’s evidence of a bargain in Detroit. Either or both may be the case, we just don’t have evidence.
What was the marketplace being described on that first appraisal? Again, we haven’t seen it but I’m going to take a guess. Betcha it wasn’t ebay. I’m also going to guess that it wasn’t a specialty jewelry store in Australia. I may be wrong here, I’m just guessing. Did they accurately describe the subject marketplace? That is to say, were they somehow correct? That’s harder and I won’t guess here so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did. Others may not. I’m just pointing out that AT BEST they’ve supplied the correct answer to the wrong question for the OP’s use and it’s likely that their client (the seller or their supplier) asked a very different question. How about that second appraisal? We know even less here. Maybe it was about the appropriate market, maybe it was a reasonable estimation, and maybe it wasn’t. That’s for the client to decide. Presumably they talked to the appraiser at the time of the assignment and they discussed the marketplace to be considered. Presumably the buyer selected this particular appraiser to be their expert for some reason and far be it for to me to second guess that choice. As with the first, I’ll take their word for it that it was made rationally and that the appraiser correctly answered the questions at hand, whatever those happen to be. We don’t know who they were, what they were talking about, and we don’t even know their conclusion beyond that the OP was apparently unhappy about it. This does not make them ‘right’, it doesn’t make the first one ‘wrong’ and other than the 0.08cts and the VS2/SI1 issues discussed above, they aren’t even incompatible.
Here’s the known facts:
The seller claimed it contained an approximately 4 carat center stone with 4 side stones of approximately 0.40cts each.
Here’s the entirety of the verbiage from the ad under the headline “Big champagne diamond ring 5.60 ct. radiant diamond “:
There is one diamond in center of approx. 4.00 carats & 4 tapered baguettes in sides of approx. 0.40 carats each . Natural earth mined diamonds.
Total Stone Weight : approx. 5.60 carats
Stone Certificate: Comes with free STONE CERTIFICATE from GSL
Color : Champagne/brown
Clarity : VS1
It’s STILL unclear if this is actually true because of all of those ‘approx’s’ in there but the buyer took it to someone else who called the center stone 3.2carats and SI2 clarity. We don’t know who it was or what they did but I think it’s fair to guess that they did NOT remove it from the setting to actually weight it so it’s likely that this too is an approximation. No claim has been reported about the side stones, craftsmanship, color, or any other details. We have 2 datapoints being disputed from the above … center stone weight and center stone clarity.
We have no way of knowing which, if either is more reliable but most gemological training, including GIA teaches a margin for error of 1 grade on clarity, especially with mounted goods, and 10% on weight estimation are acceptable tollerances. ‘Approx. 4.01’ means 3.60 to 4.41 with that definition and 3.20 means 2.88-3.52. The clarity ranges differs at VS2- SI1. Our missing overlap is a 0.08ct range from 3.52 – 3.60. OK, so at least one of the graders made an error (possibly both) of at least 0.08cts on the weight estimation and at least one clarity grade at VS2-SI1. Nothing else is even disputed. That’s certainly grounds for a refund but I think the claim of serious damages here is weak. Is a 3.60/VS2 fancy brown really worth more in the ebay marketplace than an otherwise similar 3.52/SI1? Maybe, but that’s the case to make and it definitely has not been made or even attempted here. Do the appraisal fees and such constitute damages? Maybe, but probably not since they were unilaterally chosen by the buyer (which they SHOULD be by the way. That's much of the point of getting an independent appraisal). I didn't easily find the terms and conditions in the ad to see where shipping fees for returns are discussed but the implication is that they're the responsibility of the buyer and this is usually the case with ebay deals.
Then there’s that ‘appraisal’.
Somebody said it’s ‘worth’ $129,500. Apparently it cost less than that. Apparently also someone else said it was worth something completely different. It’s unknown whether this 3rd value is more or less than the transaction price but it seems clear that they were under the first number or we wouldn’t have seen the complaint. It doesn’t really matter. Which, if either, is right? We haven’t seen either of these appraisals. We have no idea what the standard of value is for either one but standard of value is one of the most important things to look at on an appraisal, way ahead of the value conclusion (#1 is the signature). It’s near certain that they’re importantly different between these two reports. The buyer relied on the first appraisal during the purchase as evidence of value present and the second appraisal as evidence that the first is incorrect. This is the heart of the complaint. There was supposed to be value present that presumably isn’t and they have been denied the benefit of their bargain. Someone is responsible. Who?
The choices here are the two appraisers, the seller, the buyer, or a combination of these. The assumption of the OP is that this falls solidly on the seller. The assumption of the seller is that it falls solidly on the second appraiser. The general consensus of the forum is that a significant portion falls on the buyer. So far everyone has given the first appraiser a free pass even though their report is at the heart of the dispute. We’re woefully lacking in information to make a rational choice here. Again, the two appraisals don’t seem to have a huge discrepancy about what it IS, only about what it’s WORTH so let’s contemplate that.
Any statement of value must contain an element of what it’s worth to whom, when, and under what circumstances to be of any use whatever. That’s the definition of value I’m talking about and it’s a key concept to valuation theory. An item can be worth a lot in a hotel gift shop in Japan and worth a lot less at a pawn shop in Detroit a month later. That’s the way marketplaces work. This difference is not evidence that the folks in Japan were ripping you off any more than it’s evidence of a bargain in Detroit. Either or both may be the case, we just don’t have evidence.
What was the marketplace being described on that first appraisal? Again, we haven’t seen it but I’m going to take a guess. Betcha it wasn’t ebay. I’m also going to guess that it wasn’t a specialty jewelry store in Australia. I may be wrong here, I’m just guessing. Did they accurately describe the subject marketplace? That is to say, were they somehow correct? That’s harder and I won’t guess here so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did. Others may not. I’m just pointing out that AT BEST they’ve supplied the correct answer to the wrong question for the OP’s use and it’s likely that their client (the seller or their supplier) asked a very different question. How about that second appraisal? We know even less here. Maybe it was about the appropriate market, maybe it was a reasonable estimation, and maybe it wasn’t. That’s for the client to decide. Presumably they talked to the appraiser at the time of the assignment and they discussed the marketplace to be considered. Presumably the buyer selected this particular appraiser to be their expert for some reason and far be it for to me to second guess that choice. As with the first, I’ll take their word for it that it was made rationally and that the appraiser correctly answered the questions at hand, whatever those happen to be. We don’t know who they were, what they were talking about, and we don’t even know their conclusion beyond that the OP was apparently unhappy about it. This does not make them ‘right’, it doesn’t make the first one ‘wrong’ and other than the 0.08cts and the VS2/SI1 issues discussed above, they aren’t even incompatible.
denverappraiser|1351431226|3294069 said:
OP is not very clear due to not being a native English speaker. I could not even begin to brainstorm for their benefit, not that they seem to want help only a platform to complain.
I am guessing this thread and user are still active because so many people are curious about the seller and the outcome of the situation? From the confrontational username to the exhausting self-quoting this whole thread is a trainwreck. Then to reply to kenny, canuk-gal, and stargurl78 in such a catty manner is just one more reason for me to post.
Though the OP has good intentions to warn us perhaps a reminder of forum policy is in order:
I agree to help and respect each other, stay positive, considerate, and supportive.
I agree to not participate in rudeness, personal attacks, or any unethical behavior
I agree to not sell things, shill or post ads, promotions or spam.
I agree to respect moderators: they're in charge to remove any post or cancel any membership as they see fit.
I agree to not post any private information including emails, personal pages, and usernames or IMs from other sites.
I agree not to post about cubic zirconia (CZ), moissanite, and any other diamond simulants.
HChandranomore
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Messages
- 1
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)