Internet vendors & questionable diamonds

[chinluvr]

Over a month ago we started looking for a diamond. After looking at some diamonds at various local jewelry stores, I stumbled upon Pricescope. We couldn''t believe the offerings and the prices. As luck would have it, we had a local jewelry store get in a stone that turned out to be one that was advertised on Pricesope by several different vendors. The price was substantially less than what the jewelry store wanted. We were thrilled by our good fortune. We called one of the vendors and told the vendor we wanted the stone but we wanted it sent to GIA to be recertified and laser inscribed before we received it. We paid for the stone plus an additional $300 for the recertification and laser inscription. About a week or so later, we received the stone with the new GIA cert from the NY owner of the stone (not the internet vendor we bought it from) and to our horror the new cert showed that the stone was chipped! Now remember we had seen this stone at the local jewelry store and it wasn''t chipped. Somewhere between that store, the NY owner of the stone and GIA the stone must have gotten chipped, ALTHOUGH we were told by GIA when we called them that the original cert reflected the stone was chipped. I had viewed a copy of the cert at the local jewelry store and on a vendor''s website prior to buying it and it didn''t mention chip in the comments section. Well, we called the internet vendor that we bought the stone from and they were wonderful about refunding our money and even the $300 we had paid for the new cert and inscription. So what is my post about? This diamond is now back on Pricescope with several internet vendors trying to sell it at the same weight and price as before. (The NY owner told the internet vendor that we had bought it from to tell us he could polish out the chip and not loose much weight) So why is it on Pricescope at the same weight? In addition, the cert that''s being shown on some of the internet sites is the old cert - not the one that reflects the stone is chipped. I feel someone is being duped, probably the internet vendors by the NY owner of the stone but eventually the buyer of this stone is going to be duped unless they have it looked at like we did. Well now we''re back to looking but we won''t be able to get a stone and have a ring made in time for our 25th anniv. because of all this mess. SO BUYER BEWARE! Comments from internet vendors appreciated!

 

[pricescope]

Chinluvr, would you please post what the stone was exactly and the vendor you were working with?

 

[chinluvr]

WHY?

 

[DavidEmslie]

Yeah some venders are kinda wierd about product, if it is not stocked, one must be careful, I recently had an issue with a watch design that was discontinued, the wholesale price to stores was $450
yet online you can still find it for $280 to $150.
Keep in mind there is normaly a $1200 watch.

It was rather disturbing that all the companies with these great deals were always out of stock...well obviously the design was discontinued...or they never stocked it in the first place. I have to admit, its a great way to make all the prices seem good, have some too good to be true but always be out of stock. Then have a mark up on whats real. This happens with a lot of products, diamonds included. I guess the moral of this story is, cheapest is not always the best. And once in hand in this above case is worth the extra to have. Sorry to hear of your problems.

 

[pricescope]

----------------
On 4/14/2004 11:10:25 PM chinluvr wrote:

WHY?----------------

Because I would like to email them and ask to comment on the situation you describe.

 

[chinluvr]

Sorry Leonid, I didn't see that you are Pricescope until I had already sent my WHY? reply. I have no complaint with the internet vendor that sold us the diamond. He promptly refunded our money as I stated. We were "only" out $120 to send the chipped diamond back to the NY owner and lost time. The vendor was Abazias. Oscar from Abazias wanted us to send it back to the NY owner rather than to him. Abazias never saw this stone beforehand. What I can't believe is that Abazias is advertising this stone for sale again - well maybe Oscar will tell anyone interested in the stone that it's chipped. I would only hope they would be that ethical. The other internet vendors listing that stone on Pricescope probably don't have a clue. It's a 3.18 ct. Marquise, H color, SI1 clarity - so you should be able to see it advertised on Pricescope.
We still can't figure out who's telling the truth about the stone. GIA said the original cert reflected the stone was chipped but the NY owner of the stone (and yes I know who it is because I shipped the stone back to him)said the stone was not chipped even up to the point where we provided him with the new GIA cert. He even told Oscar this. Then when he got the stone back with the new cert, he said "well, it must have been chipped by GIA." I don't think we'll ever really know the answer but I'm sure GIA and the NY owner know who's telling the truth. That's why I said that internet vendors are probably being duped too. What a mess, huh?

 

[aljdewey]

Yanno, if I didn't know better, Leonid, I'd say I smell an "uprising" from a concerted "jihad", if you will.




Call me crazy, but I just find it SOOOO incredibly coincidental that so many newly registered posters have had the tremendous fortune to stumble onto PS....just after the season of their discontent with online vendors......just in time to share their slings and arrows. How very odd. How very random. What a co-ink-ee-dink!




N'cest pas?

 

[valeria101]

ASSUMING this is the stone in question... it sounds like quite a few sellers would want it out of their inventory!

Since the sale was not finalized, it sounds likely that the stone remained listed on it's initial location (database). With 7 sellers isting it, the error is liekly nicely residing ont he upper level, whatever that is.

Sure enough, at least Abazias knows about this and the owner. I wander wether Abazias can take the stone out if the original database has not had it removed/updated. This is not for me to answer though... If it wasn't for this thread, the stone woudl have kept going in and out shops, chip and all!

I wish I could see the original cert (the one which did not mention the defect) somewhere, but none of the sellers seems to list it.

Regardless of who did what, I hope you will find the perfect MQ

. I hope PS will work a bit of magic again to sort this one out!

 

[pricescope]

Aljdewey, we're overreacting.

The question is very reasonable and I guess this can happen and a diamond simply was turned back on, or wholesaler didn't update the information posted in the web for his diamond. I don't think any e-taler can control it. It is always good to check a diamond bought in the internet or retail with independent appraiser.

 

[chinluvr]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 5:40:17 AM valeria101 wrote:

ASSUMING this is the stone in question... it sounds like quite a few sellers would want it out of their inventory!

Since the sale was not finalized, it sounds likely that the stone remained listed on it's initial location (database). With 7 sellers isting it, the error is liekly nicely residing ont he upper level, whatever that is.

Sure enough, at least Abazias knows about this and the owner. I wander wether Abazias can take the stone out if the original database has not had it removed/updated. This is not for me to answer though... If it wasn't for this thread, the stone woudl have kept going in and out shops, chip and all!

I wish I could see the original cert (the one which did not mention the defect) somewhere, but none of the sellers seems to list it.

Regardless of who did what, I hope you will find the perfect MQ

. I hope PS will work a bit of magic again to sort this one out!

----------------

Valeria 101, the sale was finalized. We wire transferred the money to the vendor and the diamond was taken off PS the next day. The diamond was put back on PS within a few days of being returned to the NY owner of the stone. At first Abazias did not have a listing for this stone on PS, then within a day or two of the stone showing up on PS I noticed Abazias also had it listed. One of the vendors (I don't remember which one)had a copy of the orig. cert. on their website when the stone came back on PS. Now the cert. is not anywhere to be found. I guess somebody realized that showing that orig. cert. would be false advertising since the new cert. states there is a chip on the diamond. Yes, Valeria, you would think these internet vendors would not want this stone listed for sale by them but I'm not sure they know the facts about it (except for Abazias).
Another post to my post complained about my complaining but I think this matter is a serious one that any newbie such as myself should be aware of when buying sight unseen from an internet vendor. I'm glad we had enough forethought (smarts, savvy, whatever you want to call it) to have the stone checked out before we actually received it from the internet vendor. When you're plunking down almost $20k for a diamond, I think any reasonable person would do the same. If the internet vendor doesn't own the stone and doesn't look at it beforehand (just has it drop shipped to you)then they are trusting the owner of the stone. I've only seen one internet vendor who states that they never drop ship and every stone is brought in house and inspected before going to the consumer. This is a policy I personally find attractive.
Somewhere I read, and it may have been by someone on PS, TRUST BUT VERIFY. I think this is a good rule of thumb even if you're buying the stone from a local retailer. I'm not against buying over the internet and hopefully we'll find a stone that is everything it is advertised to be but we will always be somewhat skeptical and want independent verification.

 

[pricescope]

-------
Somewhere I read, and it may have been by someone on PS, TRUST BUT VERIFY. I think this is a good rule of thumb even if you're buying the stone from a local retailer. I'm not against buying over the internet and hopefully we'll find a stone that is everything it is advertised to be but we will always be somewhat skeptical and want independent verification.
----------

Chinluvr, great summary.

 

[fire&ice]

I'm a little confused. You saw this diamond at a jewelry store? And, they, "the jewelry store", did not state that it was chipped; nor, did you notice?

I seriously doubt that the diamond was chipped in transit. It was probably chipped from the beginning, especially since GIA stated such.

No one told you this diamond was chipped. I think trust but verify could be in any situation; as, the chip was not disclosed until GIA found it. Could be an honest mistake. Marquise points look subject to chipping.

It is quite disturbing that this same stone is back in inventory. Maybe the owner can comment. Maybe it was a very small chip that would not result in weight loss.

 

[chinluvr]

With all this talk about this post, why haven't I heard anything from an internet vendor???? Have I hit on a touchy subject for them? Doesn't one of them want to try and defend themself?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 9:37:52 AM chinluvr wrote:

With all this talk about this post, why haven't I heard anything from an internet vendor???? Have I hit on a touchy subject for them? Doesn't one of them want to try and defend themself?----------------

They may not know this thread exists.

 

[pricescope]

I emailed Oscar asking to comment. I also shall run an update tonight. Will see whether some changes have been made.

 

[chinluvr]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 9:37:09 AM fire&ice wrote:

I'm a little confused. You saw this diamond at a jewelry store? And, they, 'the jewelry store', did not state that it was chipped; nor, did you notice?

I seriously doubt that the diamond was chipped in transit. It was probably chipped from the beginning, especially since GIA stated such.

No one told you this diamond was chipped. I think trust but verify could be in any situation; as, the chip was not disclosed until GIA found it. Could be an honest mistake. Marquise points look subject to chipping.

It is quite disturbing that this same stone is back in inventory. Maybe the owner can comment. Maybe it was a very small chip that would not result in weight loss. ----------------

Yes, we saw this stone at a local jewelry store with a copy of its cert. I jotted down the GIA cert number and came home and found it advertised on PS. The stone did not appear chipped to us when we saw it and the local jeweler did not indicate to us that he saw a chip. When we got the stone from the NY owner after it had been recertified, we couldn't tell from the GIA plot exactly where the chip was so we took it to a local jeweler and he put the stone under the microscope and showed us that the chip (actually 2)was on the left edge right above center. Now this stone did not have an ex. thin girdle. Since we have started looking at diamonds again (locally and internet), another local jeweler showed us a stone that was also listed on PS. As soon as he showed it to us and stated its specs (3.02 MQ, VS2, I color, along with its l,w,d), I told my husband that I had seen it on PS (out of earshot of the jeweler, of course). I couldn't believe that the local jeweler wanted 40 percent more than the advertised price on the internet! I never told the local jeweler that I had seen it advertised on the internet for fear they would show us the door. I'm honestly glad there is a place like PS to compare diamonds and help us know when a local is being too greedy. I wish this site had existed 10 years ago when my husband upped my diamond for our 15th anniv. We knew nothing about diamonds then and paid way too much considering its quality (although it does sparkle and I love it anyway). Now that we've been educated through this forum and others like it, we'll always want verification that it is what it is stated to be. There's just too many greedy, unscrupulous or uneducated sellers out there.

 

[chinluvr]

Fire & Ice, you do make a valid point by stating that it could have been an honest mistake but even if it was I would have been the loser if we had not had it checked out first. Your comment about maybe the chip could be polished out without losing weight brought a question to my mind, i.e., wouldn't the orig. and the recert. no longer apply to this stone or is it acceptable to do such a thing and still use one of the certs? Just asking. Thanks.

 

[fire&ice]

I guess my point is that regardless of where you bought the stone it was not represented as chipped - even at the 40% markup B&M jewelry store. And, he physically inspected the stone. That said, in defense, he may not have known it was chipped. I doubt whether one would think to look. This is a great case for having the diamond independently appraised.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 10:15:42 AM chinluvr wrote:

Fire & Ice, you do make a valid point by stating that it could have been an honest mistake but even if it was I would have been the loser if we had not had it checked out first. Your comment about maybe the chip could be polished out without losing weight brought a question to my mind, i.e., wouldn't the orig. and the recert. no longer apply to this stone or is it acceptable to do such a thing and still use one of the certs? Just asking. Thanks. ----------------

I don't know. But, I have had glass chips polished out with little effort. Logic would dictate that the stone should have been recerted though.

At the end of the day, I can't help but think this is one big computer clitch. It gets entered (whether intentional or mistakenly)into the data base & is picked up on polygon - and the info gets picked up without thought. When you go to some of these sites, they list 50,000 diamonds.

 

[Nicrez]

Chinluvr, THings like this happen a lot. We went to see s stone that was "owned" and physically located at a store in NYC. We saw the EXACT diamond for sale on-line. Naturally, we would prefer the on-line one, as the store guy quoted us $16K+ for this stone and on-line it was $12,400! Now THAT'S a mark-up if I ever saw one!

We decided to get info from the on-line side to see if it was the same stone. At this point, we had slowly become notorious in the shaped stone industry in NYC for our extensive search, so when we rechecked online, the price went up in a matter of a day by $1K, and this was before the price increase of RAP sheet prices that happened a month after this incident.

It left a sour taste in our mouths, and we didn't get that stone.

Still, we decided that online shopping is STILL better than shopping in person, becuase the price difference and the amount of information given to you on-line, versus in person is so much greater. It just demands a bit more care and third party testing to ensure your investment is what they say it is. I love anyone who sells anything and says they should be trusted. When someone has to tell me that, I know I should be wary.

I personally trust only the people who have nothing to gain from this sale, and the trust of a vendor is earned by each successful transaction they make with me, and with each attempt to be honest and sincere. They help me, I trust them more...each person has their threshold. Mine tends to be very low on the trust scale, but that goes from B&M to online.

That's why Price Scope is such a useful tool. Online vendors listed here are subject to MUCH more scrutiny in a fishbowl of clients than most B&M stores. If you get ripped off at Tiffany's, how many people can you tell on the street to make them stop? You would have to picket or write an article in the NYTimes. BUT if you had a problem with an online vendor, a quick post here can hit hundreds of eyes in a day, who tell their friends, who tell their friends. I would still rather operate in a community like this where the vendors I use have more public feedback and rely more heavily on these posts for their livelihood...

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 9:37:52 AM chinluvr wrote:

With all this talk about this post, why haven't I heard anything from an internet vendor???? Have I hit on a touchy subject for them? Doesn't one of them want to try and defend themself?----------------

There are 2 things to be learned here.

1. If you choose to purchase from an Internet vendor who does not see or inspect the product *before* the purchase you risk this plus a plethora of other things that could have been wrong with the stone. Abazias is not the only vendor who does this but ALL INTERNET VENDORS who sell in this manner offer the same risk factor. A risk I would not personally take with my money. I happen to think highly of Abazias and I'm sure he is a great guy to do business with but when Inet business is conducted in this manner these are the chances one takes.
2. Even if a vendor *does* inspect the stone ... who do you want doing the inspection? Some people are content with a pair of eyes even if they have little to no experience. Some people prefer a more experienced set of eyes and some prefer that plus a more objective technical analysis for a more unbiased view of the stone and it's characteristics. You'll find all types here.

If I were a consumer, to me ... the person I choose to do business with is just as important (if not moreso) as the product being purchased and I would INSIST on some kind of objective exam of the diamond including a thorough exam of clarity, color and cut before I dropped my hard earned money. When asked, I would never councel that a person purchase a diamond in the manner you have done.

I don't think you'll find too many responses from Internet vendors chinluvr because this is an occurence that thankfully is not an everyday incident and alot of companies do not care to let you know what could possibly go wrong with the transaction. This isn't anything anyone plans on.

Recently it was requested on another thread that an article be written on the buying procedure of a diamond via the net. I had written this showing many natural and unnatural pitfalls that could occur during an Internet purchase. This is one that should have been included.

BTW I love your doggie!

So cute! Mojo sends a big wuff too.

Best regards,

 

[fire&ice]

I'm still confused. Chinlvr said she viewed the stone w/ a jeweler who had the stone on memo. Shouldn't that jeweler have noticed the chip?

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 4/15/2004 4:34:24 PM fire&ice wrote:

I'm still confused. Chinlvr said she viewed the stone w/ a jeweler who had the stone on memo. Shouldn't that jeweler have noticed the chip? ----------------

This is why I emphasize *whose eyes* a person is trusting F&I. You'd be amazed how many jewelers do not inspect the diamond for clarity characteristics such as this.

 

[DiamondExpert]

chinluvr:

With all due respect, it seems possible that instead of beliving that "the stone was chipped" somewhere along the way, and the possible reality that "the stone has a chip", is a problem here.

You yourself state that, "GIA said the original (my emphasis)cert reflected the stone was chipped...", but yet you believe that at some point the stone was misrepresented to you, and that the "chip" had materialized AFTER the original cert was issued.

Did you see only a copy of the original cert, or the actual original? Many times copies are incomplete, and difficult to read due to faxing and photocopying.

The fact that neither you or the local jeweler noticed the chip during your inspection does not mean that it was not there at that time because you were not looking for it...in fact, the original GIA cert "says" it was there according to your conversation with GIA.

It would be of interest to see both originals (the original and new certs), because it's possible that nothing changed with the diamond, and the confusion has arisen from the possibility that on the original cert the chip was indicated, NOT as a note, but as only part of the plot, and in the re-cert it was made a note of.

Otherwise, one would have to conclude that GIA was wrong about the original cert. I'm not saying that graders don't make mistakes from time to time, and I'm sure they have chipped a stone or two over the years, but what would be in it for them to knowingly mislead you?

As for polishing the chip out, it is very possible that this could be done without changing the weight if it is small enough. After all it is sometimes possible to facet a girdle on a round stone without changing the official weight. For example, if you have a stone of 0.518ct., it is officially 0.51ct., and you would have 0.009ct. to play with before having to call it 0.50ct.

Finally, I have to agree that there is not substitute for a "hands/eyeballs-on" approach to selling stones of any type...something we ahear to.

 

[Rhino]

I was thinking that too Gary. If it was noted/mentioned on the original report either ...

a. the jeweler knew about it and did not tell
b. the jeweler just didn't bother looking at it to see
c. the jeweler got a faxed or photocopy of the original, could not tell from that and did not personally inspect the stone

Blame can't be laid at the original jeweler who had the stone where she saw the diamond since he is not the one who sold the diamond to her or took responsibility for the care of this client. Yes he should have been aware of the problem with this stone and told the client when he was showing it but I can't answer for whomever this was.

On another note good to cya there Gary. Hope things are well on the homefront.

Peace,

 

[mini]

Thank you, Leonid, for bringing this post to our attention. We hope that Abazias.com can shed some light on the situation currently being discussed. As Chinluvr mentioned, she had viewed the diamond previously at a jeweler but purchased via the internet because of the great prices. We had the owner send the diamond to GIA to be inscribed and recertified to state this as she had wished. The diamond was sent directly to our customer as per request, only to find that it had, unfortunately, suffered a chip at some unknown point.

The owner of the diamond, who has been more than accommodating and was equally shocked to learn of the chip, offered to polish the diamond and have it certified for a third time by GIA. Some fancy shaped diamonds, such as Princess and Marquise, are more susceptible to minor chipping, which polishing can usually correct with little affect on the diamond or its weight. Understandably, Chinluvr no longer had an interest in this diamond because of the chip and the disappointment it caused, so the owner accepted the return of the diamond and we refunded Chinluvr immediately.

The owner of the diamond has already re-polished the diamond and it is currently at GIA being recertified. We believe that the confusion lies in that the diamond is still listed in the database under its previous measurements and has yet to be updated with the results from the recertification. Because it is still in the owner’s database as such, it is therefore offered by many vendors who list his inventory. Once it is returned from GIA, the information on this diamond will be updated. The diamond may have lost a little weight in the re-polishing and may return as a 3.17ct., but the results have not been confirmed at this point. Some of our selections are controlled by an outside database whose updates are not at our discretion. Unfortunately, with so many selections, there will occasionally be a listing that has not been properly updated.

We hope that this clarifies the situation up to this point. We are always happy to have the diamond sent to our office, to examine it previous to purchase and even provide pictures if they wish. We also highly recommend that each diamond be taken to an independent appraiser to verify the quality of the diamond in accordance with the certificate. We do try to avoid incidents such as these, but sometimes they are unavoidable. Chinluvr was very unfortunate in her experience and for that we are very sorry. We hope that she did not come away from this with a negative feeling for either us or purchasing over the internet. It was an unusual occurrence and we hope that her search from this point on goes smoothly and she finds her dream diamond at a dream price.


Sincerely,

The Abazias Staff

 

[chinluvr]

Let me be perfectly clear. Our dealings with Oscar and Audrey at Abazias exceeded our expectations for service. We would recommend them without hesitation. The explanation given about the stone still being listed sounds reasonable to us. It was unfortunate that this happened on our very first purchase over the internet but we learned quite a bit from the experience.

 

[mhtv]

"Call me crazy, but I just find it SOOOO incredibly coincidental....."

"call me crazy"??

ok.

and just another typical knee-jerk false accusation just because you don't like the implications of the original post.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 4/16/2004 4:29:11 PM mhtv wrote:





'Call me crazy, but I just find it SOOOO incredibly coincidental.....'

'call me crazy'??

ok.

and just another typical knee-jerk false accusation just because you don't like the implications of the original post.
----------------

and your reply is just another typical knee-jerk response to what you clearly cannot comprehend.

I said NOTHING about content of the post.....nor did I say I took issue with it in any way. My comment reflected that I doubt the authenticity of the post, not the content.

We can now return to *your* regularly scheduled myopic programing, M.

 

[pqcollectibles]

This was a great learning thread. Thanks to Chinluvr, Abazias, and the pros that contributed we all learned a lot!