My unfortunate Whiteflash experience

[satriani]

Okay, I’ve got time and I’m pretty sure this is going to be VERY long-winded (like watching the Godfather trilogy in one sitting long) so my apologies in advance for those who decide to read through it. I’ll try to be as fair and as thorough as possible.

I’ve been in and out of this forum for well over a year now (almost constantly in the past couple of months) reading up on just about everything as I finally saved-up enough to go after that stone to “knock her socks off”. I’ve always read the feedback on vendors which is why I feel compelled to share my most recent experience with Whiteflash. Unfortunately the overall experience left me feeling both uneasy and frustrated by the end of it all. While it was one primary issue at the end of this experience that brought me to this, it also made me reflect on a few things I didn’t appreciate along the way.

Originally I was set on purchasing a diamond from another popular vendor on this site and I almost did until it sold before I could reserve it. While I waited for their inventory to replenish I found my way to Whiteflash and started to browse. I read the feedback – good and bad – and decided to give them a call. Here’s the general breakdown:

PRE-APPRAISAL PERIOD: When asked about my preferred vendor vs. Whiteflash, I mentioned my preference for the multiple photos, analysis, reports, etc. on the other site which weren’t available with Whiteflash - all of which tend to be very important for the first-time internet diamond purchase. I was immediately transferred to a higher-up expert who gave me the full lecture on ACA. Thrown in were subtle and not so subtle shots at the other vendor’s site and theories as to why they “need” all of that info and why it’s not all that relevant. Then I expressed my personal interest in Brilliance Scope Analysis as part of my overall criteria…..WOW. It was like being a Dallas Cowboys fan in Philly. WF doesn’t like it, gave me the history of their experience with it and spent a significant amount of time on every other call refuting it. I eventually traveled to WF in Houston and met with Brian to view some diamonds. I listened to the tutorial which ran a bit long so the actual viewing time was a lot more limited than planned (we were both on a tight timeline and he was pretty busy). Brian is a nice guy – very strong opinions, very passionate about his work, very informative and pretty funny during moments of casual conversation. A primary concern of mine was to have a diamond with a good amount of scintillation, something I mentioned during every conversation. The viewing conditions were more in favor of brilliance, but after a convincing discussion on “Total Visual Balance” I figured it was worth a shot. I had my appraiser of choice in mind and they definitely weren’t excited about it. They made some alternative recommendations for their appraisers of choice, but I made it clear that I was set on my own (he is on the Pricescope list, very well respected, and they actually have a working relationship with each other in case any are wondering). As I begin to contemplate the process on my way home I get the call from my Whiteflash rep. Now this is a KEY moment because a big part of my decision to send the diamond to the appraiser was predicated on the answers to my questions. After repeated assurance that the stone would at least meet if not exceed my appraisal expectations, I go through every scenario and focus our attention to shipping costs and logistics. Despite assuming the best-case scenario, I had to consider the fact that the appraisal might show me something I wouldn’t approve of. TWICE I asked about the shipping costs associated if I decided not to purchase the diamond after appraisal, twice. And yes, twice I was told that I would only be responsible for the Return Shipping back from the appraiser to WF. This was the only way I would go forward with the process. You’re probably going to ask if I read the shipping policies on their website: YES, and this is precisely why I specifically asked that question and voiced my concern and hesitation. If I was going to absorb the cost of appraisal and return shipping for a diamond that wasn’t satisfactory to me, I didn’t want another $65 added on top of that. Now do I understand why they would charge shipping both ways if I didn’t purchase? Of course I do, and it makes perfect sense. So the thought of $320 spent with nothing to show for it loomed large for me until I was told “that would not be the case”. Am I aware that other vendors have this policy? Yep, and they also have all of the data I was looking for which equates to a more basic and lower cost appraisal for their stones (and I mentioned this as my reason for not pulling the trigger in the WF stone). Either way I always stand to lose some money if I weren’t satisfied, but in this case it was much more. Everyone was assuming the best from the diamond at this point and when my concerns and requests were verbally satisfied I decided to move forward.

THE APPRAISAL: Appraiser receives the diamond, does the initial evaluation and sends me some data. Some strain, a little fluorescence, but I decide to go forward. Some variances between Sarin reports, which is to be expected, but it did change the complexion of the analysis if you decide to start use something like HCA. I was more interested in the fact the he ran it a few times before he got results that he was happy with. Still not terribly worried at this point, but a little surprised. Next was the Brilliance Scope analysis – this is where I started to get bummed out. Good color and brilliance, not so good scintillation. Even he was a little surprised. Scintillation was essentially “Medium” throughout. He ran it quite a few times and re-calibrated and checked the placement just to make sure. Same results every time, although the best one showed a small move that was mostly Medium and started to creep into the High category. He knew I was disappointed and tried to focus attention on the spectral colors and nice brilliance, but being the straight shooter he is the best he could say about scintillation was that it was decent. Anything well into the High category would have been sufficient, but as it stood now it didn’t appear to have that balance that I kept hearing about nor the qualities that were more important to me. Last were the digital photos under various lighting conditions which did little to change my mind and somewhat reaffirmed the prior data. This isn’t an ugly diamond by any means, it just wasn’t very as impressive as others I had seen. Throughout this process WF was as much in contact with my appraiser as I was and were probably getting a bit nervous because they already knew that I wasn’t happy with my results when they called to get my thoughts. I even took it a step further before making the final decision as you will soon read (if you’re still with me at this point).

DECISIONS: WF had always told me they prefer to set their own diamonds and weren’t totally pleased when I decided to go with a custom setting and not any of their own. They tried to make a case but soon dropped the issue when I said it would be made by Mark Morrell (who had already agreed to take my diamond after the appraisal was done). Before making a final decision I decided to try something I should have thought of earlier. I found a list of local jewelers who carry BrillianceScope Reports on some of their diamonds and decided to put my eyes to the test. If I couldn’t physically see a performance difference between various diamonds with my own eyes, then it made no sense for me to worry about the BScope results for my diamond. I looked at several diamonds in two different locations. All were H&A super ideals (a couple were also brand name) and compared side-by-side. I asked them to pick out stones with both Medium Scintillation results and High to Very High results. I let the salesperson put them in whatever order he wanted and told him not to show me the reports just yet or tell me which was which. It took a matter of seconds to see the obvious difference and I was able to pick out the Mediums every single time. Two stores, seven diamonds, same observations and results. That settled it for me. It too a long time to save the $11K for my diamond and I certainly wasn''t ready to compromise. My next conversation was with my WF rep, who upon confirming my concerns with the stone, immediately went from disbelief to somewhat offended to very defensive. I got an earful. “But I have an ACA and it’s gorgeous…and no one cuts them any better…there’s no way performance isn’t optimal….you can’t make a good decision using BrillianceScope….what’s the problem”…..etc. In between every question I tried to give an explanation but was effectively cut off with more direct statements or questions. Before I could explain my reasons I was told John Q. would call me to further explain ACA, BScope and other matters. I’ve got only high praise and respect for John Q. who was the only guy who LISTENED first and then was able to give me the clearest, most unbiased explanations and opinions. He was also surprised about the Scintillation and agreed that it was unusual for an ACA to be that low. He agreed that taste and preference are very important as well. He was also glad to hear that I went and used my eyes to make sure that my perception of BScope results were in fact tangible and not just theoretical. He stood behind ACA 110%, but conceded that it was possible that I could be unhappy with this particular diamond (especially without the 10-day review since it was going straight to Mark M.).

BACK TO WHITEFLASH/THE MAIN ISSUE: I was given some articles to read and told to think about it for a couple of days. Ultimately I called my appraiser and asked him to ship it back to WF. Later that day I received a message from WF saying that they would be calling the appraiser for the diamond if I hadn’t done so already and charging me $65 for the RETURN shipping. Since my appraiser included the cost of shipping back to WF in his invoice I naturally notified my WF rep and asked that they not charge for the Return shipping since it had already been taken care of. The next day I get an e-mail stating how they would be charging me for the INITIAL shipping since I wasn’t purchasing the diamond. This was a problem. All that time and all those questions to avoid this situation and here it was. I called WF, finally got in touch with my rep and immediately asked why I was being charged after I had been told otherwise at the onset of this process. She politely told me that it was their policy and started to point out all the other online vendors who do the same. I then asked her to recollect our vivid discussion and her reassurance that I would not have to worry about the initial shipping. “Well, it’s our policy but if you have any feedback we’re happy to have it…in the meantime, maybe we can pick out some Expert Selection stones that may suit your taste and possibly have you evaluate them and see if we can’t find what you’re looking for.” Uh……….no direct answer to my question and a sales pitch. No thank you. I told her I was extremely bothered by this at which point she was going to have someone in charge speak with me later. Eventually we were put in touch and here’s how it went. I told her what I had issue with – the Initial Shipping charge. She started to ask some questions but continuously cut me off mid sentence EVERY SINGLE TIME. It seemed like we were both speaking at the same time for virtually most of the conversation. Here’s what really got me upset. I told her about what I was verbally told before sending off the diamond. “I’m sorry you perceived it that way, but that’s not our policy because…” at which point I got lectured like a 10-year old on why that isn’t good business sense to absorb these costs and to imagine the cost if they sent out dozens of stones at the requests of any non-interested buyers. I may only be an average schmuck with a few college degrees, but I think I get it. Q: So why was I told that I wouldn’t have to worry about the initial charge if I decided to move forward with the appraisal? Twice no less. Was I told what I needed to hear in order to seal the deal? A: “Well, maybe she misunderstood you or wasn’t clear with her answer so perhaps we should look to address this more specifically in the future”. I also told her about the e-mail order sheet which was also ambiguous to my situation in its wording and led me to believe that everything was still copasetic. She read it and agreed, MORE THAN ONCE, that it could be construed differently but chalked it up to the fact that her sales rep used a standard order template that was incorrect for my situation. So they tell me that they may have inadvertently given the wrong impression in the beginning, and while perfectly clear to her, my contingent order sheet was a bit misleading for my process and situation. So now what? I was asked again about my concerns with the stone. Went over the minor issues from the appraisal which was interjected with her disapproval for certain points that my appraiser focused on. “You know what, I like the guy but I just don’t agree with his points on these matters and it just isn’t relevant.” “The BrillianceScope is not a good technology nor does it give you an accurate assessment of what’s truly important”. I then explained my visual observation experiment at my local diamond stores. “Well….okay”. I’m sitting there being schooled, once again, on how I’m turning down the Mercedes of diamonds, and concerning myself with issues that need not concern me and how I’m placing faith in a bunk technology that only exists to sell certain types of diamonds. While praying for John Q. at this point I re-focused back to the shipping. General reply: “I’m really sorry you’re in this situation, but we’ll definitely look into refining how we convey this information in the future for situations like yours. Good luck on your search and I hope you find your diamond”.

HINDSIGHT/FINAL THOUGHTS: Bottom line, it’s all about business. Despite the best of intentions and expectations, I should have insisted for the verbal agreement to be put in writing or officially documented at some point. MY FAULT. Technicalities can be killer. I will add that they technically flubbed on the final process as well (that’s for another time).
Could have saved some money by doing the BScope first and then the rest of the appraisal if satisfied with the results. I got to emotional and caught up in the marketing hype and just assumed that it would perform to my satisfaction. I was thinking assurance rather than validation. Instead of looking forward and making plans I should have satisfied my curiosity and ultimately exposed a major concern early on. No regrets on the appraisal. It gave me everything I wanted to know and more.
With perhaps the exception of my final conversation, at no point were the people at Whiteflash ever rude or disrespectful towards me. On the contrary, they almost kill you with kindness. Even during my last conversation, the person delivered the bad news with kind words and sympathy. I feel that I should once again point out John Q. who was the only one that who seemed to get it – true customer service and support in all situations. The only guy who chose to never interrupt, listen and speak as a person and not a salesman. On a few occasions when my rep was unavailable I was also helped by a woman named Denise who was always so incredibly nice and helpful. Since I was always asked by WF to provide feedback, here you go:
Please try to do a better job of listening. Even if you don’t agree on subjective matters, most people don’t care to be talked down to.
Don’t speak negatively about your competitors from this site. All is fair in competition, but it’s always in bad taste to praise someone as a friend and then take shots at their methods and way of doing business.
I was repeatedly told about WF pride in customer satisfaction and integrity, and you certainly have the following to back it. But I feel in this case you certainly over-promised and under-delivered instead of the other way around. Technicalities aside, we agree that erroneous communications were made on your part, inadvertent or otherwise. I’m in sales too, and I see it far too often. Do whatever, say whatever, close the deal, and hope there’s no mess. I guess even the good ones can get messy at times. I doubt this will mean anything to WF at this point and will probably be soon forgotten beyond this post, but I truly hope this never happens again.
The End

 

[strmrdr]

Im not going to comment on WF''s actions because it will lead to a huge fight.

But:

wth
"Throughout this process WF was as much in contact with my appraiser as I was and were probably getting a bit nervous because they already knew that I wasn’t happy with my results when they called to get my thoughts. "

Why was he talking to WF?
That is clearly a conflict of interest.
Your paying him and he shouldn''t have been talking about the results to anyone but you.
Under those conditions how could you know any report wasn''t contaminated by the vedors interest if they had come back good.
Something isnt right there.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Satriani,

You have written a lot here, both factual and perceptual. Your words do indeed 'mean something.'

I recall speaking with you, and I appreciate the praise you voiced for me above. I do try to listen. I am still trying to listen, and I hope to keep your respect, if not your praise: After such a weirdly unhappy experience, I don’t expect it to be forthcoming.

I’d like to ID fundamental issues here. I’m not disregarding the perceptual content, just setting it aside for a moment to understand the synopsis:

- After a year on PS you were set on purchasing a diamond from another PS vendor but it sold before you could reserve it. The other vendor has different assessment devices than WF, which you said you prefer. While waiting for the other vendor to replenish you decided to give us a call. You voiced a desire for an option we do not support (BScope) but the other vendor does. We discussed philosophical differences a few times. Those discussions may have put you off, but you still made a live appointment with Brian. In that meeting you found an ACA diamond you delighted in. You chose it and sent it for an appraisal. After hearing the Scint result on BScope your interest declined. More discussions about BScope ensued and ultimately you elected not to get the diamond. Separate from the above, you also feel misled about shipping charges to/from appraiser for that diamond.

Even shorter:

- You came to us. We disagreed about BScope. You selected a diamond in-person. You sent the diamond for appraisal. You heard the scint score on BScope and were not satisfied with it. We continued to disagree about BScope. You decided against the diamond. There is now a further disagreement about shipping charges.


Assuming I have the essence right… After you had been here a year, anticipating a purchase from a vendor who supports BScope, there may have been an up-front clash of philosophy when you shifted to WF. Further, you were shifting to WF while waiting for the other vendor to replenish, so you were not 'sold' on this company. To us, when someone hires a vendor he/she is hiring that vendor’s expertise. When you came in to WF we thought our expertise would be sufficient for you, even regarding BScope. After you met with Brian you selected the diamond with your eyes, which was the most important test in our minds. Meanwhile, one of the most important tests in your mind, the BScope, was yet to come. I imagine you could easily have encountered surprise from WF personnel when a score on a machine in another state made the decision for you, after you’d already seen the diamond a week before 'live.'

That is no excuse though. I think we failed to properly qualify you as a customer. At some point before sending the diamond for appraisal we should have realized how much faith you were putting into BScope and adjusted our expectations accordingly, or recommended that you use the vendor you had built your BScope and other expectations around. You said (above) that doing the BScope first would have saved you money, since if it did not pass the BScope test you would not have gone on. It sounds like we did not see the forest for the BTrees.


As for perceptions: At various points in your Godfather saga (nice

) you said we were ‘taking shots’ at others, ‘weren’t excited’ about the appraiser, ‘getting nervous’ about results, ‘weren’t totally pleased,’ about the setting, went from ‘disbelief to offended to defensive…’ and other descriptions about the WF state of mind. I’m not sure if you’re talking about the same WF where I work. If the planets aligned so that every time you called we were thusly troubled (with the exception of me & Denise), I sure hope they go back to their normal orbits before next week. I don’t think I could work in that place.

In all seriousness, I can’t change the perceptions you have formed, but I can offer perspective:

‘taking shots’ We believe in our chosen philosophies. We do not use BScope (or select diamonds based on 60/60, for example). Others who use them will defend them. Pros here do not always see eye to eye, but expostulating on beliefs isn’t taking shots. If our passion came across negatively, please accept apologies. I do remember our phone call. After giving my critique about BScope, you identified your other vendor. I recall complimenting you on the choice and telling you that you’d be well-served no matter what decision you make.

‘weren’t excited about appraiser’ A customer’s appraiser choice is always respected. We have high regard for the one you chose, as a professional and a first class person. In the big picture, the expertise and competency offered by notable PS appraisers is a cool drink of water in a big dry diamond world, so we secretly feel good when any are selected, but we remain neutral. As for being in contact ‘throughout the process,’…That would go against our practices and the appraiser's. What gave you that impression?

‘weren’t pleased about setting’ We make clients aware of our design and setting work as a matter of course, but we have no hesitation sending to other designers. If you look around you will see many examples of our diamonds set into rings sourced elsewhere.

We are a happier place than the one you perceived. I don’t know the exact words or tones of voice you heard but I do know our people. There is wonderful Esprit de Corps here.

Date: 12/24/2005 1:53:16 AM
Author:satriani

While it was one primary issue at the end of this experience that brought me to this, it also made me reflect on a few things I didn’t appreciate along the way.

I'll investigate the shipping charge communications for ambiguity and get back to you.

I hope I have listened well enough to understand what may have occurred. To me, the bottom line is that you didn’t like the Brilliancescope report on the diamond, and we all may have gone too far trying to meet somewhere in the middle due to different priorities and expectations.

On behalf of WF I would like to express regret regarding these negative impressions. When all is said and done I hope you will have wound up with the diamond that is best for you - which is what is most important.

 

[JohnQuixote]

The Technical

Since Satriani put forward his BScope information, here is some insight into our philosophy.

Due to its repeatability and attempt to separate white and colored light, which are always seen together, we’re not too hot on Brilliancescope. We had it for a year but rejected it, as did the major grading labs. As Marty Haske has observed, you can design a cut to maximize its returned performance metric, but that cut is not of the visual balance we prefer. The other H&A diamonds Satriani viewed in that store, where he coordinated BS scores with his eyes, were cut similarly to each other, but they were not cut the same way as the ACA in question in their pavilion configurations & brillianteering, so the comparison is not apples to apples.

ACA New Line (also Eightstar) diamonds have notably different crown facet relationships and pavilion construction than many conventional diamonds. The BS does not favor them. The scint in diamonds with those particulars is more broad, fluid and well-tuned for soft lighting conditions. The BS prefers the more concentrated ‘needle-like’ quality of return from diamonds with longer lower girdle facets, especially ones that are well-tuned to bright lights.

In quality terms, the broadfire, colorful scint is not ‘worse’ than the concentrated scint of diamonds cut in a mainstream way, it’s just of different character. When our clients view the two styles together, they can see those slight character differences once we elaborate on them. They also confirm that both styles are at equal levels of beauty, and are perfectly happy with either. We trust the taste and opinions of many experts and thousands of customers more than the Brilliancescope.

Each machine, Brilliancescope, Isee2, ImaGem, gives somewhat different results for diamonds depending on the company that designed it. We always say mechanical reports are interesting pieces of the puzzle, but not to be relied on as absolute. Consumers have indicated a desire to have these kinds of reports, and we believe they are fine kept in perspective.

 

[strmrdr]

Knowing that anything I say here is going to be put under a 300x microscope and disected for hidden meaning I wanted to be more awake before responding.

It is very clear that WF and satriani did not mesh, which is required to form a relationship for a purchase of this nature.

When someone buys from WF they are buying into the WF philosopy and the people(Brian).
Was the WF sales person shocked that that even after meeting with Brian that this customer didnt buy in. You can bet on it.

Did the bad blood between wf and the other vendor spill into it.
It is possible.

Did it get into a long drawn out disagreement on the b-scope.
That part I dont question at all because Iv had those conversations with John here on the board.
Would someone at WF be not as diplomatic about the b-scope as John, by the sounds of it yes.

Hopefully this will be discussed and it wont be repeated.

........................

The billing issue, there was a communication error here someplace.
Im inclined to take the consumers side on this one.
If past history is any indication WF will resolve this and life goes on :}
.........................


The appraiser alleged contact with WF is really troubling to me and this needs to gotten to the bottom of.
Out of the whole thing I find this most troubling.
That there was enough going on for a consumer to get that impression is troublesome to me.
We relly on the appraisers to represent us the consumers in the sale.
This needs to be looked into.

..........................

satriani,
What a rough situation for you.
I hope that the other vendor gets something in soon that is what your looking for then you can put this behind you and just enjoy your new bright shiny :}

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 12/24/2005 10:12:44 AM
Author: strmrdr

.........................


The appraiser alleged contact with is really troubling to me and this needs to gotten to the bottom of.
Out of the whole thing I find this most troubling.
That there was enough going on for a consumer to get that impression is troublesome to me.
We relly on the appraisers to represent us the consumers in the sale.
This needs to be looked into.

..........................

Do we know there was contact?

 

[strmrdr]

The Technical,
This is in responce to John's post above, for the sake of readability im not going to quote it.

I view the b-scope as a diamond personality assessment tool more than a cut quality tool.
This is reflected in the grades it gives to different super-ideal diamonds.
Used for that use it is an excellent piece of the buying puzzle.

Wf strives for a certain look in there diamonds.
That look didn't mesh with this client.
He preferred the same diamonds I would if buying for myself :}
In this case that particular WF product wasn't a good fit for the client and he could see the difference in the diamonds personality.

Im wondering if it was a newline diamond?
An aca classic would have been a better fit.

It makes the vendors jobs harder but this thread proves that some consumers can see and even prefer the sometimes small difference in super-ideal diamonds personality.
I know I can and do and from the evidence satriani is another one that can.

 

[Regular Guy]

Bleacher Bum report #2...

Satriani, nice closing analysis on figuring out what you might do differently next time. Given the myriad of variables, seems a little focused on the relatively modest charge for shipping, in comparison to the other hefty charges you were picking up to do the analysis, but vis-a-vis dotting i''s and crossing t''s, obviously part of your thing.

John, nice follow up piece on the technical. To you and Storm, though, I personally think there''s too much thought that you should be part of the WF club to join: "I think we failed to properly qualify you as a customer..." but, as you close that paragraph, you fluff it out nicely, and we can realize consumers are allowed to buy from you, whether or not expectations will harmonize or not. Also, I will add that, while I can contemplate no answer to Satriani''s empirical observations...

Date: 12/24/2005 1:53:16 AM
Author:satriani

I found a list of local jewelers who carry BrillianceScope Reports on some of their diamonds and decided to put my eyes to the test. If I couldn’t physically see a performance difference between various diamonds with my own eyes, then it made no sense for me to worry about the BScope results for my diamond. I looked at several diamonds in two different locations. All were H&A super ideals (a couple were also brand name) and compared side-by-side. I asked them to pick out stones with both Medium Scintillation results and High to Very High results. I let the salesperson put them in whatever order he wanted and told him not to show me the reports just yet or tell me which was which. It took a matter of seconds to see the obvious difference and I was able to pick out the Mediums every single time. Two stores, seven diamonds, same observations and results.

...and giving some nod to them could provide a good purpose, if only to give it the nod.

Final nod actually goes to both Satriani and particularly Kenny (I looked for a recent post from him, and could only find ones from the summer), who are heroes of empirical observation to me. Appraisers who succeed at setting up studios for empirical observations, and clever people who can enhance systems where consumers can more readily compare the best options to each other...that''s where my praise is especially directed.

Happy holidays, still!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/24/2005 10:39:17 AM
Author: mepearl53

Date: 12/24/2005 10:12:44 AM

Author: strmrdr


.........................



The appraiser alleged contact with is really troubling to me and this needs to gotten to the bottom of.

Out of the whole thing I find this most troubling.

That there was enough going on for a consumer to get that impression is troublesome to me.

We relly on the appraisers to represent us the consumers in the sale.

This needs to be looked into.


..........................

Do we know there was contact?

not for sure yet.
satriani was given the impression there was.
Its a huge issue that consumers need answers on.

 

[satriani]

Date: 12/24/2005 11:52:56 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/24/2005 10:39:17 AM
Author: mepearl53

Date: 12/24/2005 10:12:44 AM

Author: strmrdr


.........................



The appraiser alleged contact with is really troubling to me and this needs to gotten to the bottom of.

Out of the whole thing I find this most troubling.

That there was enough going on for a consumer to get that impression is troublesome to me.

We relly on the appraisers to represent us the consumers in the sale.

This needs to be looked into.


..........................

Do we know there was contact?

not for sure yet.
satriani was given the impression there was.
Its a huge issue that consumers need answers on.

Hey everyone,

Just came back in and decided to check on this post. I''ve got some things to do, but I will most certainly have a response for the questions and thoughts posted here today. Thanks and now back to that Christmas rush.

 

[belle]

Date: 12/24/2005 1:53:16 AM
Author:satriani

PRE-APPRAISAL PERIOD: When asked about my preferred vendor vs. Whiteflash, I mentioned my preference for the multiple photos, analysis, reports, etc. on the other site which weren’t available with Whiteflash

quite a lengthy analysis satriani, but it seems you could have saved your time, money and frustrations if you would have stopped here. you went into this journey with expectations that could not be met therefore this was a ventrure that was doomed to fail. your attempt was commendable but obviously using your eyes to choose among superideals is not enough. you are one who needs the photos, analysis, reports etc. to tell you that a diamond is beautiful. from your statement above, you knew this from the beginning and the process just confirmed that fact. chalk it up to experience and move on. you know what you want and i''m sure you will find what it is you are looking for soon.
best of luck!

 

[Mara]

I agree that the working relationship with a vendor, any vendor, is very important when you are shopping. There are some vendors you just click with and others you do not, we see it with designers and the like as well on here all the time. If there is one thing that we all can realize here is that most people in this industry are pretty passionate about what they believe in, you may not have to agree at all, but respect is important.

I do agree with the thought that you should work with whomever best satisfies your need for information and makes you feel most comfortable with your purchase. The BS is a hot and heavy topic....and satriani, if you were hanging around here for a year then you would know that there is the vendor or two that really believes strongly in BS and then the vendor or two that really strongly does not believe in BS. If that was part of your 'test' then you probably should have probably stuck with the initial vendor knowing that WF does not use the BS as a tool for selecting stones or measuring performance.

But that said...to me the only real issue here which cannot just be chalked up to not working with the right vendor to fit your personality, is the miscommunication on the return shipping charge. That's a valid issue. I would have gotten that in writing, not verbal, but I'm sure WF will take care of it. Hopefully now that you got this all off your chest, you can go back to your original vendor and have them find a stone for you that satisfies all your criteria and be happy about it. Good luck!

 

[elmo]

Just wondering, whether WF may have thought they told the customer that if the diamond not appraise as described on the lab report that they'd pick up return shipping. Of course that guarantee wouldn't include bscope, but was an assumption about this made by the consumer?

I always assume that shipping is my responsibility if I don't keep something. I think it's pretty reasonable and customary policy unless someone sends you the wrong stone, treatment is detected or stone is damaged, etc. Write it off as the cost of experience.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 12/24/2005 10:39:17 AM
Author: mepearl53

Date: 12/24/2005 10:12:44 AM

Author: strmrdr


.........................



The appraiser alleged contact with is really troubling to me and this needs to gotten to the bottom of.

Out of the whole thing I find this most troubling.

That there was enough going on for a consumer to get that impression is troublesome to me.

We relly on the appraisers to represent us the consumers in the sale.

This needs to be looked into.


..........................

Do we know there was contact?

Date: 12/24/2005 1:53:16 AM
Author:satriani

THE APPRAISAL: Throughout this process WF was as much in contact with my appraiser as I was and were probably getting a bit nervous because they already knew that I wasn’t happy with my results when they called to get my thoughts. I even took it a step further before making the final decision as you will soon read (if you’re still with me at this point).

Hopefully satriani can further explain this...

 

[Kareen357]

It has been my experience that "shipping is included, but only once. Meaning that if the stone is shipped from WF, for example, to the appraisor, that is one, or if the stone is shipped to the customer, that is one, but if the customer refuses to keep the diamond under the vendors return policy, usually the customer pays the return. Again, that is the "usual" situation.

In this case WF knew there was another vendor they were competing with. No one can blame WF to be a little "salesey", please excuse the expression, could not think of another term, so maybe, just maybe the salesperson at WF went out on the limb, and in this case was confident the customer would keep the stone, and offered the return shipping thinking they would never need it.

Perhaps the salesperson at WF could weigh in on this.

 

[portoar]

Well, WF does say right on the website, 100% refund, less original shipping cost. It is right there in writing. I returned diamonds to WF and got a 100% refund on the diamonds less the original shipping -- just as the website says.

 

[Kareen357]

Portoar

You may be 100% correct.

I would still like the rep from WF to weigh in. Did they offer a different deal this time?

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 12/24/2005 5:27:10 PM
Author: portoar
Well, WF does say right on the website, 100% refund, less original shipping cost. It is right there in writing. I returned diamonds to WF and got a 100% refund on the diamonds less the original shipping -- just as the website says.

It is my understanding that he original poster knew this which is why he asked twice about it before having the stone sent to an appraiser because WF didn''t provide all the info he wanted he felt he wanted an appraiser to see it before buying. Whomever he spoke with apparently lead him to believe he would only be responsible for the return shipping in this situation and he even said he should have had them put the agreement in writing..

 

[Jelly]

What sounds the most fishy to me was the appraiser/Whiteflash relationship.

"I had my appraiser of choice in mind and they definitely weren’t excited about it. They made some alternative recommendations for their appraisers of choice, but I made it clear that I was set on my own (he is on the Pricescope list, very well respected, and they actually have a working relationship with each other in case any are wondering). "

Did they say why they weren''t excited about your appraiser? You''re making it sound as if WF knew their stone would get a bad report. Very interesting.

"Throughout this process WF was as much in contact with my appraiser as I was and were probably getting a bit nervous because they already knew that I wasn’t happy with my results when they called to get my thoughts. I even took it a step further before making the final decision as you will soon read (if you’re still with me at this point). "

What in the world were they in contact about?!

" She started to ask some questions but continuously cut me off mid sentence EVERY SINGLE TIME. It seemed like we were both speaking at the same time for virtually most of the conversation. Here’s what really got me upset. I told her about what I was verbally told before sending off the diamond. “I’m sorry you perceived it that way, but that’s not our policy because…” at which point I got lectured like a 10-year old... "

That''s horrible, I''m sorry you had to go through all of this.


"This isn’t an ugly diamond by any means, it just wasn’t very as impressive as others I had seen."

Hopefully you''ll find your dream stone with the Brillance Scope Image that performs well.

 

[satriani]

Sorry about the delay, but as promised I will start to address some questions and try to provide further clarification on certain issues brought up throughout this post. I just came back from a family Christmas Eve party and had way too much chocolate cake and caffeine so I''m definitely not hitting the sack for quite a while. And now to the posting.......

 

[satriani]

I''ll attempt to add a bit more clarity and perspective to some of the issues and observations you''ve noted.

Date: 12/24/2005 8:44:48 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

- After a year on PS you were set on purchasing a diamond from another PS vendor but it sold before you could reserve it. The other vendor has different assessment devices than WF, which you said you prefer. While waiting for the other vendor to replenish you decided to give us a call. You voiced a desire for an option we do not support (BScope) but the other vendor does. We discussed philosophical differences a few times. Those discussions may have put you off, but you still made a live appointment with Brian. In that meeting you found an ACA diamond you delighted in. You chose it and sent it for an appraisal. After hearing the Scint result on BScope your interest declined. More discussions about BScope ensued and ultimately you elected not to get the diamond. Separate from the above, you also feel misled about shipping charges to/from appraiser for that diamond.

Even shorter:

- You came to us. We disagreed about BScope. You selected a diamond in-person. You sent the diamond for appraisal. You heard the scint score on BScope and were not satisfied with it. We continued to disagree about BScope. You decided against the diamond. There is now a further disagreement about shipping charges.

The journey to Whiteflash:
While lurking in Pricescope for about a year I did indeed focus my attention on another vendor and started making inquires with them about 5 months ago. I had given just about every site the "once over" as well. While in that process of trying to secure a stone from the other vendor, my initial contact with WF was in regards to some brand name e-ring settings you had on your site and in your gallery. Naturally the sales rep asked some questions and inquired about my serach and preferences in diamonds, vendor, etc. Over the next month, about four e-mails and a few voice messages from the rep as follow-up and requests for possible assistance in my diamond search. I eventually respond as I find out that my first vendor won''t be getting more inventory for a few weeks and timing has become an issue (engagement plans). Impressed with the persistence from WF I feel they want to earn my business and seem willing to help me find what I''m looking for. From here:
When asked about BScope, I mentioned that I found it useful for my overall evaluation. Always listened to WF''s take on it whenever they felt it necessary, but never got into any debate other than saying I would always use it to evaluate the Scint personality of the diamond. Lots of convincing from WF in that I would probably be satisfied with an equal-but-different type of beauty that would also satisfy my scintillation criteria "most likely HIGH but not VERY HIGH, lots of big flashes instead of little ones". I narrow the search, view it live in limited conditions and circumstances not anticpated, discuss scintillation concerns, receive confident reassurance, get a call from the rep, explain my hesitation and overall needs, more reassurance, shipping conversation is clarified and agreed upon, I move forward... (please don''t let the paraphrasing come across as frustration, I''m just trying to keep some parts concise).

Assuming I have the essence right… After you had been here a year, anticipating a purchase from a vendor who supports BScope, there may have been an up-front clash of philosophy when you shifted to WF. Further, you were shifting to WF while waiting for the other vendor to replenish, so you were not ''sold'' on this company. To us, when someone hires a vendor he/she is hiring that vendor’s expertise. When you came in to WF we thought our expertise would be sufficient for you, even regarding BScope. After you met with Brian you selected the diamond with your eyes, which was the most important test in our minds. Meanwhile, one of the most important tests in your mind, the BScope, was yet to come. I imagine you could easily have encountered surprise from WF personnel when a score on a machine in another state made the decision for you, after you’d already seen the diamond a week before ''live.''

No up front "clash" though WF always made it a point to mention their philosophy and I chose to listen. Your folks spin a good yarn. Add passion to that and I WAS sold on the value of what WF had to say about finding me a beautiful diamond that met my criteria, hence your expertise. Beliefs notwithstanding, if I thought you could deliver a diamond to suit my needs then anything else said by WF regarding philosophies was just smoke in my opinion. The only true clash occurred in the end with the shipping. As before, viewing probably wasn''t according to plan. My eyes, and lack of side-by-side reference, high performing, non-ACA stone did raise some questions which were addressed with confidence and reassurance that satisfied my immeditate concerns. The machine in the other state first pushed me to seek live empirical analysis, confirm whether my choices were consistent with the printed analysis, and yes, ultimately help to finalize my decision. Though not "apples to apples" it probably helped to more closely define my preferences.

That is no excuse though. I think we failed to properly qualify you as a customer. At some point before sending the diamond for appraisal we should have realized how much faith you were putting into BScope and adjusted our expectations accordingly, or recommended that you use the vendor you had built your BScope and other expectations around. You said (above) that doing the BScope first would have saved you money, since if it did not pass the BScope test you would not have gone on. It sounds like we did not see the forest for the BTrees.

You know, and I truly mean this in the best and most complimentary way, if you had spoken with me at the very beginning I probably would have never even come close to considering an ACA stone. Best case, MAYBE a Classic ACA would have stood a chance if you felt it appropriate.

‘taking shots’ We believe in our chosen philosophies. We do not use BScope (or select diamonds based on 60/60, for example). Others who use them will defend them. Pros here do not always see eye to eye, but expostulating on beliefs isn’t taking shots. If our passion came across negatively, please accept apologies. I do remember our phone call. After giving my critique about BScope, you identified your other vendor. I recall complimenting you on the choice and telling you that you’d be well-served no matter what decision you make.

‘weren’t excited about appraiser’ A customer’s appraiser choice is always respected. We have high regard for the one you chose, as a professional and a first class person. In the big picture, the expertise and competency offered by notable PS appraisers is a cool drink of water in a big dry diamond world, so we secretly feel good when any are selected, but we remain neutral. As for being in contact ‘throughout the process,’…That would go against our practices and the appraiser''s. What gave you that impression?

‘weren’t pleased about setting’ We make clients aware of our design and setting work as a matter of course, but we have no hesitation sending to other designers. If you look around you will see many examples of our diamonds set into rings sourced elsewhere.

We are a happier place than the one you perceived. I don’t know the exact words or tones of voice you heard but I do know our people. There is wonderful Esprit de Corps here.e I have listened well enough to understand what may have occurred. To me, the bottom line is that you didn’t like the Brilliancescope report on the diamond, and we all may have gone too far trying to meet somewhere in the middle due to different priorities and expectations.

''taking shots'' I''m trying to stay as vaguely specific and diplomatic as possible, but let me try to narrow it down. I spoke with about 6 different people from Whiteflash in the course of this experience. Of the six, I only had meaningful discussions with four. Of the four, I only spoke with two on multiple occassions (which didn''t include John Q. and just to be clear, you were never ever in this ''taking shots'' category). It was primarily one person whom I always seemed to be put in contact with whenever the rep felt it necessary for a higher up to give their 2c or opinions. And when I say ''take shots'' I do literally mean very non-professional comments and not passion or philosophical differences. As a salesperson, my frame of mind always appreciates good salesmanship - I love it. I am very wililng to provide you with more specifics if you prefer (PM).

''appraiser'' I''ll address the more serious points in a seperate post. Opinions were given on each discussion of appraiser selection, suggestions were made and it always ended with "but you are free to choose who you prefer". As mentioned in the prior paragraph, the less than appealing banter was more evident with a specific individual(s) and really apparent in the end.

''setting'' No problems here. you made a final push, I declined, we moved on. Just an observation as part of the entire experience.

I hope I have listened well enough to understand what may have occurred. To me, the bottom line is that you didn’t like the Brilliancescope report on the diamond, and we all may have gone too far trying to meet somewhere in the middle due to different priorities and expectations.

On behalf of WF I would like to express regret regarding these negative impressions. When all is said and done I hope you will have wound up with the diamond that is best for you - which is what is most important.

Sounds about right. It really just comes down to the issue of what eventually happened with the shipping and the events that occurred in trying to rectify it. It was a matter of principle and trust that upset me most. I think everyone anticipated "the norm" for the evaluation as even you and the appraiser were surprised and the unusual ACA results (for BScope that is). If not for the principle of the matter in the end, things would have ended on cordial terms and me starting my new search with absolutely no regrets. Thanks for the sentiments John.

 

[satriani]

Date: 12/24/2005 11:52:56 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/24/2005 10:39:17 AM
Author: mepearl53

Date: 12/24/2005 10:12:44 AM

Author: strmrdr


.........................



The appraiser alleged contact with is really troubling to me and this needs to gotten to the bottom of.

Out of the whole thing I find this most troubling.

That there was enough going on for a consumer to get that impression is troublesome to me.

We relly on the appraisers to represent us the consumers in the sale.

This needs to be looked into.


..........................

Do we know there was contact?

not for sure yet.
satriani was given the impression there was.
Its a huge issue that consumers need answers on.

Here are the events and details that led me to this conclusion:

Upon receiving my preliminary appraisal data via e-mail, I called the appraiser per his instructions to review what was sent. Towards the end of that conversation he mentioned that I may want to call Whiteflash because they had called him earlier in the day to see whether or not he knew if I had decided to go with their e-ring setting. He then told me that his comment to WF was "I don''t know. You should probably ask him since that''s not for me to answer". Then sometime the next day I called WF to notify them of the appraisal progress and told my rep that I would not be choosing their setting and going with a Mark Morrell design instead (they were still in contention when I sent out the diamond, but I ultimately was able to find out that my girlfriend went GA-GA over a couple of Mark''s designs).

By the time the whole BrillianceScope Analysis was done and presented to me, the weekend had just rolled around. At this point it was only the appraiser and I who had gone over the results. My WF rep and I played phone tag for a little over a day but she left a pretty standard message "Just calling to see where things are and check on thoughts about the diamond". I had also been in touch with the appraiser again after he sent some final images to review. At this point he mentioned in the conversation that WF had called to check on the progress (no specific names or times were given). That didn''t bother me since it was their diamond and we (WF and I) had still not touched base just yet. When I call and get in touch with my rep, the conversation starts off with the usual pleasant chit-chat (non-business related). Then after a couple of minutes I was asked "So, tell me what you''re thinking so far. I understand that you''re not too happy and disappointed with your BrillianceScope results". I immediately knew there was some contact and was a little irked that this was already known on their end. Just so I''m clear: I had not discussed my results with anyone at WF up to this point. But I wasn''t thinking much of it since WF had effectively gone into the shocked and defensive sales effort I mentioned in the original post.

John Q. - just to put a time stamp on it for your reference, it was during this conversation where the rep stopped and asked if she could have you call me and share your perspective on ACA, BScope, etc. (the only one-on-one discussion we had).

Hope this explains the how and why behind these conclusions and statements.

 

[strmrdr]

I can understand being irked.
I would have been irked about the first call and demanded to know what was discussed.
Giving them the results would have made me furious.

This brings into question the the results of the testing and how it was presented.
The questions left unanswered are:
How many times did they talk?
What was said?
What effect did what was said have on the results and presentation if any?
Was the appraisal truly independent or was it influenced?
We will likely never get those answers.
The actions on both parties leaves it open to those questions.
Im rather ticked because that appraiser makes a lot of noise about being independent yet this happened.

This is important: at any time did you give the appraiser permission to discuss anything with the vendor?

 

[Mara]

For me, personally, just because an appraiser is independent IMO does not mean they can never speak to the vendor...I guess I take that more to mean that you contract them and you are the client but I don''t know if they are required to take some sort of vow of silence to never share thoughts with the vendor should they call? Or are they?

With this particular appraiser, from the hints given in this thread, I think I know who it is and if that is the case...I can see why WF may be in contact with them, because they know him and they fraternize on the forum etc and possibly know that he uses the BS which they don''t necessarily agree with etc. Maybe they were curious as well.

Plus obviously the appraiser didn''t skew results to give the consumer what they wanted to see (or the vendor), so to me that''s still a valid independent appraisal.

I thought it was interesting that in the original post something was said along the lines of the appraiser ran the stone a few more times...aka like hoping for a different result or a changed result, really what would that accomplish?

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 12/25/2005 11:35:25 AM
Author: strmrdr

The actions on both parties leaves it open to those questions.
Im rather ticked because that appraiser makes a lot of noise about being independent yet this happened.

Perhaps the science of double-blindedness, and the nature of what it means to be independent is what's behind the question...all associated with the slippery slope that may or may not be very slippery.

All manner of things could be mentioned and considered...(Leonid, here's where I wish I had my strike-through)...

- one appraiser's claim to independence, and active encouragement of diamonds being sent to him in advance of payment
- another appraiser's equal and active claim to independence, and also, vocal disdaining of the practice of having diamonds sent to him prior to payment, calling it silly, with respect to the obviating of this putting the seller and himself into contact with each other, and his then associated suggestion that buyers instead are better served by buying the diamond, and then never revealing who their seller is, and bringing it to him only then for evaluation...all the while accepting the practice as due diligence for conducting business
- one popular seller having no practices on the books to my knowledge about drop shipping, such that they may be willing to drop ship them to the buyer directly without having seen them, themselves, but however, will have it sent to them first if asked for this service...and on the other hand, who has taken the high road on this practice of not using an appraiser as an intermediary, representing a change in their past practice, and as a corollary, extended their viewing period from 10 - 30 days to accommodate.

- and then you have this situation, where the named seller, WF, has colluded (?) or at least communicated with the appraiser of choice, and where the only reason such a communication was even possible might have been because they sent the diamond to the appraiser with no payment having been made in advance to the seller, and with the diamond ultimately not having been purchased, no payment ever having gone to WF in the bargain.

What does "no payment" get you? How important is "single or double blind" practices? What is it worth to the buyer to have the advantage of not having had to make payment in advance of a purchase?

In this case, I don't think Satriani found these to be onerous issues, and really only seemed to be concerned about those areas where people misspoke (although, in light of the non-payment for the diamond issue, one can see where proportionately, the shipping costs represent a much higher portion of his actual costs in this exchange).

In fairness, Storm, yesterday I found your concerns to be convincing, and I'd considered making a post that would suggest WF could be out of hot water if they talked about amending their practices. Of course, they still may or may not wish to do that, but having slept on it, I find the broader questions, helpfully raised by you, more raise questions about the nature of this slippery slope that can attach to this practice of collusion between sellers and appraisers. In Sitriani's case, as he experienced and assessed it, the benefits he chose to seek in the appraiser, he found, and so you get no "proof in the pudding," if you will. Broadly, I'd guess that if you're mainly looking to confirm things like the diamond is a diamond, eliminating potentials for fraud and the like, the slippery slope phenomena probably shouldn't hurt all so much. Alternately, if the buyer is looking for both the more subtle and likely issues of "how well cut is this diamond," presuming the buyer and appraiser are able to agree in advance of their engagement on a set of terms (and even thresholds) that both can agree to, it is possible here (edited to say) that such agreements can at least help to serve to remove some of the slipperyness of the slope.

Then again, the buyer relationship with even the appraiser is not single blind...the appraiser knows the buyer wants the appraiser to like the diamond, and so you get confounds with this info, too. Frankly, this may be the largest one, and it may even supersede the slipper slope problem. And, yet, this cannot be eliminated.

Storm you sometimes say, GIGO...garbage in, garbage out. Evaluating the confounds, their associated problems, and the trade-offs born in assuming them. That may be the key.

In this specific case, it's at least unclear that anything should have happened differently than it did. I'm not sure that, as a function of public policy on this issue, anything should change at all. But, since the discussion's come up, and I did have this insight, I wanted to share.

Happy boxing day.

 

[strmrdr]

Ira, Mara having read and considered your posts for me it comes down to a few things.

1: Could the appraisal or how it was presented been affected by the contact between the appraiser and the vendor.

The answer there has to be yes.

2. Does this pass its the right thing to do test.
Is it right for a vendor to call an appraiser working for the client multiple times during the appraisal process and for the appraiser to take such calls?

Quoting John from above:
"As for being in contact ‘throughout the process,’…That would go against our practices and the appraiser''s."

Why would it be againt the rules? Because it gives the impression that the appraiser is not indepandant and not totaly working totaly for the client.

3. If it was a vendor other than WF what would your feeelings be?

4. how woul you feel paying for an independant appraisal that may not be so independant.
If anything the 2 parties knowing each other makes the case worse because that increases the chance for there being some influence.

5. did the appraiser change data.. NO I dont believe so.
Did it have an effect on how the data was presented, having read the clients take on the report and knowing how hot this appraiser is about the b-scope I find that as mara''s impression is that: "appraiser ran the stone a few more times...aka like hoping for a different result or a changed result," combined with "He knew I was disappointed and tried to focus attention on the spectral colors and nice brilliance" makes me question it.
The communication between the vendor and the appraiser opens the door to that question.
Makes you go hmmmmm dont it?

What influence did communication with the vendor have on that part of the discussion that was different enough to get remembered and reported on.
Maybe none but can anyone guarantee that?

Would it have been better is said communication never happened?
I dont think anyone can say it was a good thing that it did happen.

 

[Regular Guy]

Hey, Storm, you may have read what I wrote, even considered some of the incidental points I raised, and are clearly sensitive to "communication behaviors."

But, you haven''t commented on the core of my thought...which has pretty singularly to do with the relative impact of the buyer''s evaluation of the diamond being done in advance of the buyer taking even ostensible ownership of it.

Of course, not having re-read Satriani''s post, I''m dead sure of this. If it''s not the case, some of dialogue he had with WF about who the appraiser would be, etc., seems more than unnecessary.

Anyway, I''m recommending you give some additional thought to this "funding" relationship, and it''s potential problems, at the outset...almost regardless of whether any words are actually exchanged between the buyer and seller at all!

 

[strmrdr]

Ira,
There are some pitfalls with it being done that way yes but the bottom line is the appraiser is supposed to be working for the client not the vendor even in those situations.
If anything that the client was relying on a pre-purchase independent review makes the slope wet black ice.
Therefore both the vendor and the appraiser should be extra cautious about giving the appearance of influence.

Does that address your question in the way you were looking for?

 

[Regular Guy]

Storm,

I think I'm just trying to put the whole question into some perspective, and as well, allowing an extent that the vendor may rightly choose not to be emasculated in the process of being evaluated, while no money has changed hands.

Maybe you can see better the web of interconnectedness, to make my analogy moot...but I think it can be helpful to want to ask, for example, if the crown pavilion relationship is primary to looking at the effects of minor facets.

Obviously, there are places to consider the relative impact of some relationships....as for example...when a man and woman are living together, and the man is beating his wife. That they are married, in that instance, would clearly be less relevant to the concern that the woman is being beaten, and so, the marital relationship should, in good conscience, offer no substantial protection.

Maybe your raising a similar question? Should the fact that WF owns the stone give them any greater rights than if they didn't own the stone? Certainly, they have necessary points of contact, to make the stone receiving and returning possible. Beyond that...surely it matters, as you say. Still, if you're concerned about these sorts of things, and again, it's you raising the point, not particularly Satriani, I say best to remove the context in which influence can happen, and take control of things you are empowered to take control of.

Generally, it's important to understand the order of operations, those things that make a greater and lesser difference, and go for "lowest hanging fruit." It's to that end I've entered this discussion. Maybe it's best practice for seller and appraiser to minimize their discussions...but if you're concerned about such things, there may just be bigger fish to fry.

My appraiser didn't speak too helpfully to me about cut, and I had our seller send it directly to him, largely to save on sales taxes. Did I suffer for that relationship? Possibly. A greater concern could also have been that a) I didn't know my seller used a technology for measuring that I might have questioned to a degree, and b) I didn't realize that the appraiser I used couldn't have measured the crown & pavilion angles even if I asked them to, to confirm that part of the diamond's performance.

Everything is important, to an an extent. We pull things out to make things clear, and to offer helpful information and education. To my mind, the main point in consideration and concern about a circumstance where an appraisal may be tainted, is to not use the seller's dime in the process. In this case, while I wouldn't necessarily disagree that limiting communications could help, the details of this aren't exactly defined here, it it clear that when payment is intended to be made after there's agreement to accept the diamond, some amount of communications are only functional, and although setting up rules for this could be helpful, for my money, the more interesting and pertinent question, along these lines, does have to do with who is funding the operation.

But, yes, since JohnQ agrees with you and all, there is validity here. It's just not that interesting a point, I don't think. Anyone very concerned about this should understand that they should take ownership first, and seek an appraisal, blind of the seller, to an appraiser. Further, and even more importantly (I think Satriani has this right, frankly), they should know what criteria they are seeking to have met in the evaluation. For this important aspect, I think the main author here did what he needed to, mostly, to get the results he was looking for. Points here about communications are a bit "fru-fru" from that point of view.

And, since I don't think you're, at heart, a fru-fru kind of guy, Storm, I do write this with both concern and affection.

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 12/25/2005 12:56:58 PM
Author: Mara
For me, personally, just because an appraiser is independent IMO does not mean they can never speak to the vendor...I guess I take that more to mean that you contract them and you are the client but I don''t know if they are required to take some sort of vow of silence to never share thoughts with the vendor should they call? Or are they?

With this particular appraiser, from the hints given in this thread, I think I know who it is and if that is the case...I can see why WF may be in contact with them, because they know him and they fraternize on the forum etc and possibly know that he uses the BS which they don''t necessarily agree with etc. Maybe they were curious as well.

Plus obviously the appraiser didn''t skew results to give the consumer what they wanted to see (or the vendor), so to me that''s still a valid independent appraisal.

I thought it was interesting that in the original post something was said along the lines of the appraiser ran the stone a few more times...aka like hoping for a different result or a changed result, really what would that accomplish?

Who is this appraiser? And Ira, even though Storm and I have had our differences, his point is valid. As with the GIA situation, who represents who?