My unfortunate Whiteflash experience

[WinkHPD]

Date: 12/26/2005 7:25:52 AM
Author: strmrdr
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.

Whoa, are you suggesting we should send stones worth thousands of dollars to people we DON''T know? If you want a stone sent to someone I don''t know, then full payment up front will be required. Period. There are only a handfull of competent appraisers currently in the internet world and most of us vendors know most or all of them. If not knowing an appraiser becomes part of the equation, then soon I will not have ANY appraisers that I could send a stone to.

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?

That is a huge part of why the brilliance scope has been rejected by EVERY major laboratory. Don''t like the result, do it again, get a different reading. Turn the stone a little, get a different reading. Keep going until you find the best reading for that stone. How special. (if you are reading huge sarcasm into the last two words you are perceiving my meaning very well.)

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.

I think it fair here that we also know who the appraiser was. White Flash is being questioned about their ethics and propriety but I have not seen any one ask who is the appraiser. If his actions were incorrect, then his name should also be known. I do not think that he should have been discussing results with anyone not paying his fee, but I can understand how it would be possible to do so without even thinking of the appearance since obviously he did not change the facts to suit the vendor, nor does it look as if he was asked to do so. Many of us are friends and often friends have conversations that could be deemed inappropriate when looked at under a microscope that we did not even think about at the time. If you have never had a conversation with a friend, then realized a day or two later that maybe you should not have said this or that, then feel free to throw rocks at this vendor, who has. (I would make a horrible secret agent, I am much to open and often do not think having a friendly conversation is a bad thing.)

However, in this case, knowing that the client wanted a high scintillation reading and telling the vendor, sorry, you did not get it, was probably in questionable to poor judgement even to an open guy like me. This is the illusion that has been given so far, it would be nice to know if the illusion and the reality are the same. I am guessing that no collusion was intended and I am pretty certain that no facts were changed.

Still, as long as we are discussing one side of the issue, let''s include the other too.

Wink

 

[MissAva]

For those saying that they think they know whom the appraiser in question is, do they post here? If so why have they not chimed in?

 

[strmrdr]

Good morning Wink,
Good point it would not be a good idea for a vendor to send diamonds to an appraiser no one has ever heard off and isnt qualified.
But it is the responsibility of the vendor and the appraiser both to make sure no undue influence is used or that even the appearance of it is not made.

The appraiser can come out in the open and explain or satriani can name the appraiser. While we all pretty much know who the appraiser is at this time is it right for someone else to name them?
I dunno so ill wait and see what happens.

The bottom line here and I think you agree is that multiple phone calls gives the appearance of influence and is wrong.
Was it intended to be that,,, only the person making the calls knows.

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 12/26/2005 11:35:03 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 12/26/2005 7:25:52 AM
Author: strmrdr
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.

Whoa, are you suggesting we should send stones worth thousands of dollars to people we DON''T know? If you want a stone sent to someone I don''t know, then full payment up front will be required. Period. There are only a handfull of competent appraisers currently in the internet world and most of us vendors know most or all of them. If not knowing an appraiser becomes part of the equation, then soon I will not have ANY appraisers that I could send a stone to.

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?

That is a huge part of why the brilliance scope has been rejected by EVERY major laboratory. Don''t like the result, do it again, get a different reading. Turn the stone a little, get a different reading. Keep going until you find the best reading for that stone. How special. (if you are reading huge sarcasm into the last two words you are perceiving my meaning very well.)

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.

I think it fair here that we also know who the appraiser was. White Flash is being questioned about their ethics and propriety but I have not seen any one ask who is the appraiser.

I asked! Why would a vendor contact a appraiser? I''d like to hear from both sides on this one.

 

[MissAva]

Date: 12/26/2005 12:08:32 PM
Author: strmrdr
Good morning Wink,
Good point it would not be a good idea for a vendor to send diamonds to an appraiser no one has ever heard off and isnt qualified.
But it is the responsibility of the vendor and the appraiser both to make sure no undue influence is used or that even the appearance of it is not made.

The appraiser can come out in the open and explain or satriani can name the appraiser. While we all pretty much know who the appraiser is at this time is it right for someone else to name them?
I dunno so ill wait and see what happens.

The bottom line here and I think you agree is that multiple phone calls gives the appearance of influence and is wrong.
Was it intended to be that,,, only the person making the calls knows.

IMO you either name both, or you do not name either. If we are being fair, but I am not sure we can be without all of the facts.

 

[strmrdr]

Matatora,
Im 99.9999% certain who the appraiser is because only one appraiser I know of has a b-scope.
But if that .0001% is the case it would not be a good thing to name him.
Agree?
Lets give the involved parties some time.
kewl?
I understand why you want to know.

 

[BrianTheCutter]

Several have asked for clarification from us.

In our 12/2 meeting the customer was shown 4 diamonds that he had requested as well as others, both ACA Classic and New Line. We spoke for 45 minutes.Then we saw diamonds in natural daylight, office light and pinpoint diode showing scint. Emphasis was not placed on on scint as a priority. The customer expressed desire for a diamond with edge-to-edge light performance and a minimal leakage ideal-scope image. Other methodologies were discussed and I stated my beliefs that over-technical analysis is unnecessary, particularly when sitting there viewing diamonds in front of you. I did not disparage any other vendor or their diamonds.

After selecting a diamond the customer named a PS appraiser. Especially at this time of year, premium diamonds are in-demand. That appraiser is busy, and I had concerns about timeliness and turnover of the stone. I expressed that I did not want it tied up for more than a week and put forward names of PS appraisers who have a track record of fast turnaround as additional options. He acknowledged my urgency and said he might be traveling to the appraiser’s state himself with intention of picking up the diamond. That satisfied my concern. I offered to send it to his appraiser that same day to move the process along. On 12/5, Monday afternoon, the customer called wanting the diamond sent. We sent it on 12/6. The week passed… The following Monday 12/12 we had not received any feedback or communication from customer or appraiser. We could not reach the customer and we left a message. At closing time on 12/12 we contacted the appraiser to see if there was a delay due to his holiday schedule. He told us he had completed his report the prior week. He emailed it to the customer before the weekend and had already spoken with him. Knowing that the appraisal was complete and the report had been delivered, the salesperson asked if the appraiser knew whether our diamond would be going to the client or returning to us. The appraiser didn’t know.
He mentioned possible customer concern about the BScope result, but no details were discussed. The following day, 12/13, after several misses, we spoke with the customer.The salesperson referred him to JohnQ who is more versed on what BScope does. John made accurate deductions by viewing the ideal-scope image and knowing BScope’s biases. No one here had details other than a passing mention of BScope. John got specific report details from the customer. He closed by offering to send information and told the customer that, knowing the different vendors involved, his decision would be a good one no matter which way he went… From 12/13 to 12/19 there was no feedback or communication. The diamond was entering its 3rd week off the market, so with no response from customer we called the appraiser on 12/19 wanting to know what was happening. It was sitting in his vault. On 12/20 the customer emailed us back. He had been out of the country. He contacted the appraiser to send our diamond back. We received it on 12/22.

People are spending time with their families on this holiday so the appraiser may not have read this or be at leisure to post.

We do not presume to tell any clients what they see. This customer was very confident in his selection. We do find that tests like BScope are suggestive, meaning they may convince people that they see what they ‘think’ they are supposed to see. This happens with clarity as well:
People don’t see an inclusion with their eyes until they look at a plot and then state they can easily see the inclusion. It’s because now they know it’s supposed to be there, so their mind adapts to the information. The customer viewed six stones, some classic, some new line, and his eyes picked the new line when there wasn’t any ‘data’ to influence his perceptions aside from ideal-scope. Any of the classics would have performed better on BScope for scint, but in all cases we will go with the customer’s eyes. When the report indicated something other than what his eyes told him it influenced how he perceived the diamond. We realize that some people need the comfort level of such reports, just as some people need ‘mind clean.’ We will respect that.

Our shipping policy is on the website, and I outlined it in our meeting.
Of course it’s possible that our salesperson made the verbal error the customer has indicated. We are human. In this instance I will overlook the policy and reimburse his $65.

The customer’s satisfaction is of prime importance. Satisfaction in his case includes comfort in a BScope report and that is fine. We sincerely hope the negative perceptions he received are not repeated. Regardless, we’d like to get back to the business of providing beautiful diamonds to our customers.

 

[Mara]

I don't have a problem saying that I think that the appraiser mentioned here is RocDoc because he has a BS and also the stone was mentioned to have a tiny bit of strain which another RD tip off that can be controversial as well.

I don't have a problem saying I think it was Bill because I don't think he was in the wrong here...

Personally, I can see the varying degrees of how people may be concerned just what INDEPENDENT means but Wink mentioned what I had already been thinking which is, the industry is small and especially here on PS people know each other and speak to each other, so one's 'independent' may be implied that the two vendors never have contact with each other, but on the other hand I don't see it as being quite so stringent. I don't have a problem with my appraiser and vendor talking to each other, as long as I am the one paying the bill and that results aren't being skewed to please me or my vendor...which I don't think is the case here.

Possibly one way to get around this in the future is to have the appraiser ask the consumer if they feel it's appropriate to have any contact with the stone vendor should they call. Possibly some consumers (aka me) would not care if my vendor called to check in on a stone or discussion was made re: my thoughts on the stone.

Wink makes a good point about sending a stone to someone you don't know, that seems like it'd be loaded with a whole other set of Q's...Brian makes a good point about waiting a week for a check-in from the consumer before contacting the appraiser..etc. Bottom line for me is that I generally tend not to look for what could be the WORST possible scenario when it comes to trusted PS vendors (all of them)...as I think we have a great bunch here regardless of technical discussions or difficulties and I doubt that any PS vendor or appraiser would engage in a sort of nefarious behavior.

 

[strmrdr]

Mara you are far more trusting than I am.
While I might give a PS vendor/appraiser the benifit of the doubt they dont get a pass.
If I had been the customer complaints would be being made with the appropriate people inside the industry and out.
But since im not the truth and an explaination will have to do unless satriani decides to persue it.
At the very least a very bad impression was given.
Unless one dont believe satriani there is no excaping that.

 

[strmrdr]

Howdy Brian,
Hope you had a good holiday season.
Couple questions:
Where you the one that talked to the appraiser on any occasion about this diamond?

There are several inconsistencies between your version of events and
the expressed perception of satriani on how events happened.


Is this acceptable for a WF employee to ask an appraiser about a setting the client was considering or is it your belief it never happeded?:

"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". "

 

[strmrdr]

On a different subject would you care to address this Brian?

"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. "

 

[MissAva]

Date: 12/26/2005 3:00:27 PM
Author: BrianTheCutter

Several have asked for clarification from us.

In our 12/2 meeting the customer was shown 4 diamonds that he had requested as well as others, both ACA Classic and New Line. We spoke for 45 minutes.Then we saw diamonds in natural daylight, office light and pinpoint diode showing scint. Emphasis was not placed on on scint as a priority. The customer expressed desire for a diamond with edge-to-edge light performance and a minimal leakage ideal-scope image. Other methodologies were discussed and I stated my beliefs that over-technical analysis is unnecessary, particularly when sitting there viewing diamonds in front of you. I did not disparage any other vendor or their diamonds.

After selecting a diamond the customer named a PS appraiser. Especially at this time of year, premium diamonds are in-demand. That appraiser is busy, and I had concerns about timeliness and turnover of the stone. I expressed that I did not want it tied up for more than a week and put forward names of PS appraisers who have a track record of fast turnaround as additional options. He acknowledged my urgency and said he might be traveling to the appraiser’s state himself with intention of picking up the diamond. That satisfied my concern. I offered to send it to his appraiser that same day to move the process along. On 12/5, Monday afternoon, the customer called wanting the diamond sent. We sent it on 12/6. The week passed… The following Monday 12/12 we had not received any feedback or communication from customer or appraiser. We could not reach the customer and we left a message. At closing time on 12/12 we contacted the appraiser to see if there was a delay due to his holiday schedule. He told us he had completed his report the prior week. He emailed it to the customer before the weekend and had already spoken with him. Knowing that the appraisal was complete and the report had been delivered, the salesperson asked if the appraiser knew whether our diamond would be going to the client or returning to us. The appraiser didn’t know.
He mentioned possible customer concern about the BScope result, but no details were discussed. The following day, 12/13, after several misses, we spoke with the customer.The salesperson referred him to JohnQ who is more versed on what BScope does. John made accurate deductions by viewing the ideal-scope image and knowing BScope’s biases. No one here had details other than a passing mention of BScope. John got specific report details from the customer. He closed by offering to send information and told the customer that, knowing the different vendors involved, his decision would be a good one no matter which way he went… From 12/13 to 12/19 there was no feedback or communication. The diamond was entering its 3rd week off the market, so with no response from customer we called the appraiser on 12/19 wanting to know what was happening. It was sitting in his vault. On 12/20 the customer emailed us back. He had been out of the country. He contacted the appraiser to send our diamond back. We received it on 12/22.

People are spending time with their families on this holiday so the appraiser may not have read this or be at leisure to post.

We do not presume to tell any clients what they see. This customer was very confident in his selection. We do find that tests like BScope are suggestive, meaning they may convince people that they see what they ‘think’ they are supposed to see. This happens with clarity as well:
People don’t see an inclusion with their eyes until they look at a plot and then state they can easily see the inclusion. It’s because now they know it’s supposed to be there, so their mind adapts to the information. The customer viewed six stones, some classic, some new line, and his eyes picked the new line when there wasn’t any ‘data’ to influence his perceptions aside from ideal-scope. Any of the classics would have performed better on BScope for scint, but in all cases we will go with the customer’s eyes. When the report indicated something other than what his eyes told him it influenced how he perceived the diamond. We realize that some people need the comfort level of such reports, just as some people need ‘mind clean.’ We will respect that.

Our shipping policy is on the website, and I outlined it in our meeting.
Of course it’s possible that our salesperson made the verbal error the customer has indicated. We are human. In this instance I will overlook the policy and reimburse his $65.

The customer’s satisfaction is of prime importance. Satisfaction in his case includes comfort in a BScope report and that is fine. We sincerely hope the negative perceptions he received are not repeated. Regardless, we’d like to get back to the business of providing beautiful diamonds to our customers.

 

[mepearl53]

The question stands! Did you or not have contact with the appraiser?

 

[Mara]

Date: 12/26/2005 6:44:05 PM
Author: mepearl53
The question stands! Did you or not have contact with the appraiser?

Bill, up above Brian already said that WF had contact with the appraiser.

 

[solange]

When I bought my stone from Whiteflash, my appraisal experience was very different.
It was a rather large, relatively expensive stone and although the appraiser was listed, Lesley did not know him except that he was reliable and she could have a stone sent to him. I spoke with Lesley one day and by the next morning I called and the appraiser already had received the stone by overight express. Lesley told me that Whiteflash would pay for one shipment charge and the rest was up to me.
She was very polite but emphasized that this was a desirable stone and it could not be held up for more than a day or two. SHe was not going to ship it unless I was prepared to go and see it within that time fame.I went to the appraiser that day and approved the stone. He told me if I wanted to take it with me,Whiteflash said iI could pay for the stone through him. Whiteflash made no push about settings. They said they had settings on their site but I could have it set anywhere I wished.
I decided to buy the stone and have it shipped back to Whiteflash for a setting. At this point, I had not paid for the stone. It still belonged to Whiteflash.
However, the appraiser did not get around to sending the stone out as promised on the next day. Lesley asked if I would mind if she called him about sending the stone back since they had not received it and I said I had no objections.
Since the stone is still the property of the vendor until you pay, I think they have a right to know the disposition of their property, whether the customer has decided to purchase or not and just when it is being returned or, perhaps it has even been stolen or lost. It is rare but these things do happen. It seems this stone was kept out of circulation for a rather long time, considering the season.
If anything, the appraiser gave the purchaser information which made him decide against the stone so there could have been no collusion.And I do not think Whiteflash makes enough on an $11,000 stone to risk such bad publicity by doing this.
It is not clear to me, despite all the details, just who was responsible for keeping this stone out 3 weeks--the appraiser or the customer. I think that, after the first few days of delay, Witeflash had every right to know if their stone was sold and if not, expect to receive it by overnight express for next day delivery to them. i too woud be persistant if $11,000 of my merchandise was being held so long without payment.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 12/26/2005 12:54:29 PM
Author: mepearl53
I asked! Why would a vendor contact a appraiser? I''d like to hear from both sides on this one.

I do not know anything about rockdoc''s current practice, but in the past he had a list of "approved vendors". A vendor would agree to send him a gem before the consumer had to pay for it and, in return, rockdoc kept that vendor on a list of "approved vendors" on his website. This appealed to the consumer because he could get appraisals before having to buy a stone. On the other hand, it created a link between vendor and appraiser that some thought made the appraiser incapable, by definition, of being independent. He was advertising vendors by having them listed on his website!

Deb

 

[Mara]

Deb you make a good point...

Personally I think that the real issue here is what really is an independent appraiser?

To me it might be different things to different people. I don't think that there is one right way or one wrong way.

Some may want that connection between their appraiser and the vendor so that they feel more comfortable that yes the two know of each other and respect each other and their products, some vendors may feel more comfortable sending a stone pre-payment to an appraiser they know, etc...but some may not want ANY association at all between the two at absolutely any cost. Some appraisers may not want that contact at all with a vendor as well. I think my local appraiser does not take stones sent directly from the vendor without a form of additional payment or some sort of agreement....others may not require either of those things.

Luckily for us on PS and elsewhere, there are so many appraisers and vendors out there that everyone seemingly can find one and the other that works for them and be pleased with their selection. For me this would be something else that the consumer would need to look into when purchasing, figuring out their own comfort level and making sure that their two vendors of choice were able to play by those rules. If not, find another vendor or appraiser etc.

 

[satriani]

Just popped in to check and it seems as though I should provide some further clarification on a few points and make some personal statements in order to address the other issues and questions that have spawned in the progression of this discussion. Statements will be forthcoming.

 

[mepearl53]

Why?

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 12/26/2005 7:23:33 PM
Author: Mara
Deb you make a good point...

Personally I think that the real issue here is what really is an independent appraiser?

To me it might be different things to different people. I don''t think that there is one right way or one wrong way.

Some may want that connection between their appraiser and the vendor so that they feel more comfortable that yes the two know of each other and respect each other and their products, some vendors may feel more comfortable sending a stone pre-payment to an appraiser they know, etc...but some may not want ANY association at all between the two at absolutely any cost. Some appraisers may not want that contact at all with a vendor as well. I think my local appraiser does not take stones sent directly from the vendor without a form of additional payment or some sort of agreement....others may not require either of those things.

Luckily for us on PS and elsewhere, there are so many appraisers and vendors out there that everyone seemingly can find one and the other that works for them and be pleased with their selection. For me this would be something else that the consumer would need to look into when purchasing, figuring out their own comfort level and making sure that their two vendors of choice were able to play by those rules. If not, find another vendor or appraiser etc.

I have been following this discussion with great interest and I would like to tell you how my system works. It''s really not complicated.

Vendor calls me to tell me that Joe Smith would like to view a diamond. He will arrange for an appointment to view the diamond with me.
Vendor sends me the diamond. I do not open the box until the client arrives for the appointment. The client opens the box. I tell the client before he opens the package that I do not want to know anything about the diamond (shape, weight, color, clarity, etc.). I know what package to give the client because in most cases the last name is referenced on the outside shipping label. If not, I ask the vendor what name I should expect to see on the return address. I do my complete analysis on the diamond...review with client...client decides to purchase or not purchase, or maybe needs a few days to think about it. I have the client arrange this directly with the vendor. I do not get involved. In any event the diamond is never released until the client has paid for the diamond. I have the client call the vendor with their decision. I try to minimize my contact with the vendors and I have never met any of them personally. We have a relationship of trust and respect for one another. This process allows me to remain unbiased at all times. I have had the pleasure of receiving shipments from 80% of the vendors on pricescope. I have found each vendor to be respectful, professional and trustworthy.

As for the issue of independence...I try to remain independent AND impartial at all times. An appraiser chooses how they conduct their own business. This is just an informal glimpse of how I handle a shipment. I expect there to be differences of opinion on practices and procedures.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[solange]

The problem here seems to be that the diamond was out for some time without a commitment one way or the other.
I think that after a reasonable time has elapsed with no payment or decision, the vendor has a right to call the customer, and if unreachable, the appraiser, to determine what is going on with the stone? Is it on or off the market at the busiest time of year?
Until the stone is paid for, it is the vendor''s property and Brian said he told the client that he did not want the stone out of circulation for more than a week.
For this reason, the client drove a distance to the appraiser to get it appraised quickly. Why did it take so long for Whiteflash to get their property back? Whose responsibility was it for holding up the return? Was the client undecided or did the appraiser hold onto the stone too long after it was clear that it was not a sale?
Whatever the reason, the stone was out quite a while and could not be shown or offered to anyone else.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 12/26/2005 8:43:16 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant
I have been following this discussion with great interest and I would like to tell you how my system works. It's really not complicated.

Vendor calls me to tell me that Joe Smith would like to view a diamond. He will arrange for an appointment to view the diamond with me.

(snip of following steps)

I appreciate your sharing how you handle appraising a stone. I have a problem with the vendor setting up an appointment for a consumer, however. In my opinion if the vendor calls the appraiser to make appointments, the appraiser owes some allegiance to the vendor who is, after all, the source of his referrals!!!

Deborah

 

[MissAva]

Perhaps I am looking at this in the wrong way, but it seems to me that WF is the wronged party. They were promised that the stone would not be out for any longer then a week, in reality it was 16 days....If I were them I would be livid that any customer left the country and made themselves unreachable without a final decision.
I cannot decide what exactly that inaction was, but at the very least it was highly irresponsible and may have cost WF the sale of that diamond.
Satriani why is it that you choose to withhold your decision from Whiteflash, thus preventing them from relisting that stone?

 

[kenny]

Opps

Started new thread.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 12/26/2005 9:57:39 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 12/26/2005 8:43:16 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant
I have been following this discussion with great interest and I would like to tell you how my system works. It''s really not complicated.

Vendor calls me to tell me that Joe Smith would like to view a diamond. He will arrange for an appointment to view the diamond with me.

(snip of following steps)

I appreciate your sharing how you handle appraising a stone. I have a problem with the vendor setting up an appointment for a consumer, however. In my opinion if the vendor calls the appraiser to make appointments, the appraiser owes some allegiance to the vendor who is, after all, the source of his referrals!!!

Deborah

Sorry...let me clarify.."He" refers to the client. The client sets up the appointment with me not the vendor.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/26/2005 10:14:32 PM
Author: Matatora
Perhaps I am looking at this in the wrong way, but it seems to me that WF is the wronged party. They were promised that the stone would not be out for any longer then a week, in reality it was 16 days....If I were them I would be livid that any customer left the country and made themselves unreachable without a final decision.

I cannot decide what exactly that inaction was, but at the very least it was highly irresponsible and may have cost WF the sale of that diamond.

Satriani why is it that you choose to withhold your decision from Whiteflash, thus preventing them from relisting that stone?

In another thread they held a stone for 3 weeks for someone I dont see that they were harmed by 16 days.
They could have called and said to the appraiser send our stone back at any time and been with in their rights as the stones owner.
Instead they chose it appears to ask the appraiser to bug the customer about a setting decision?!?
As well as who knows what else.
As well as multiple other contacts.
If the content of all the calls was return our stone please we wouldnt be having this discussion.

 

[MissAva]

Date: 12/26/2005 10:44:24 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/26/2005 10:14:32 PM
Author: Matatora
Perhaps I am looking at this in the wrong way, but it seems to me that WF is the wronged party. They were promised that the stone would not be out for any longer then a week, in reality it was 16 days....If I were them I would be livid that any customer left the country and made themselves unreachable without a final decision.

I cannot decide what exactly that inaction was, but at the very least it was highly irresponsible and may have cost WF the sale of that diamond.

Satriani why is it that you choose to withhold your decision from Whiteflash, thus preventing them from relisting that stone?

In another thread they held a stone for 3 weeks for someone I dont see that they were harmed by 16 days.
They could have called and said to the appraiser send our stone back at any time and been with in their rights as the stones owner.
Instead they chose it appears to ask the appraiser to bug the customer about a setting decision?!?
As well as who knows what else.
As well as multiple other contacts.
If the content of all the calls was return our stone please we wouldnt be having this discussion.

So you take Satrini 100% at his word and ignore everything Brain said? I think there are two sides to every story and so far neither appraiser or WF has confirmed Satrini''s assumptions.

 

[Mara]

Date: 12/26/2005 10:44:24 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/26/2005 10:14:32 PM
Author: Matatora
Perhaps I am looking at this in the wrong way, but it seems to me that WF is the wronged party. They were promised that the stone would not be out for any longer then a week, in reality it was 16 days....If I were them I would be livid that any customer left the country and made themselves unreachable without a final decision.

I cannot decide what exactly that inaction was, but at the very least it was highly irresponsible and may have cost WF the sale of that diamond.

Satriani why is it that you choose to withhold your decision from Whiteflash, thus preventing them from relisting that stone?

In another thread they held a stone for 3 weeks for someone I dont see that they were harmed by 16 days.
They could have called and said to the appraiser send our stone back at any time and been with in their rights as the stones owner.
Instead they chose it appears to ask the appraiser to bug the customer about a setting decision?!?
As well as who knows what else.
As well as multiple other contacts.
If the content of all the calls was return our stone please we wouldnt be having this discussion.

So because they did not call and say 'send back our stone ASAP' and instead tried to find out if the customer was still interested in the stone and what the thoughts were, rather than just be heavy-handed about demanding it back, then they are in the wrong? Surely, they are the monsters here.

I mean how much more of this has to be hashed out? The customer and the vendor didn't mix well in the end. The appraiser talked to the vendor. Some would find that unacceptable. Others may not. Bottom line was the customer didn't take the stone, no one from WF complained about that or how long the customer had it out, in fact WF didn't complain at all. However, I find it interesting that the focus of the thread is all about how WF did wrong by 'bugging' people, talking to the appraiser, sending the stone out for weeks when they should have called it back, etc etc.

When in fact there ARE two sides to the story....and much of it is based on opinion as we are just listeners to the story.

If I were WF I wouldn't even come back to this thread because it seems like the focus is just about how they did something wrong because stories don't mesh and how they talked to the appraiser and so and so says this and that, etc etc. Who is to say who is right or wrong? It's so objective.

For what is worth, I feel BOTH parties were at fault here in terms of miscommunication but anything further than that I can't subscribe to.

 

[aljdewey]

There has been considerable discussion regarding appropriateness of contact between vendors and appraisers....and to what degree this possibly compromises the integrity or "independent"-ness of the appraiser.

The spirit and purpose of having an independent appraiser is to ensure the appraiser has no vested interest in the outcome of his results. This means he does not gain anything by producing a favorable report, and he doesn''t lose anything by producing a less than favorable report. As long as communications between the vendor and appraiser don''t compromise this, there shouldn''t be a problem.

I don''t see this as being much different than judges who speak with lawyers. Judges are expected to be impartial in their decision-making. It isn''t necessary to bar ANY communication between those parties to achieve that. It means that certain *types* of communication (i.e. discussing a specific case both are involved in outside of the courtroom) shouldn''t occur, but it doesn''t mean NO professional courtesy type discussion should occur.

From a strictly purist standpoint, I believe an appraiser should divulge information about the results of his evaluation only to the party who paid for those results....the customer. However, I think it''s wildly unrealistic to leap to a presumption of undue influence just because an appraiser and vendor discussed results after the fact (post-evaluation). At that stage, the results have already been provided to the customer, and disclosing them to the vendor doesn''t alter the results or make them susceptible to influence in any way.

I personally think a vendor is absolutely entitled to contact any party who holds their unpaid-for property to discern details of disposition. As a customer, if I want to tie up a stone for 3 weeks, then I should be willing to do it by tying up *my* funds.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/26/2005 10:48:40 PM
Author: Matatora

Date: 12/26/2005 10:44:24 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/26/2005 10:14:32 PM

Author: Matatora

Perhaps I am looking at this in the wrong way, but it seems to me that WF is the wronged party. They were promised that the stone would not be out for any longer then a week, in reality it was 16 days....If I were them I would be livid that any customer left the country and made themselves unreachable without a final decision.


I cannot decide what exactly that inaction was, but at the very least it was highly irresponsible and may have cost WF the sale of that diamond.


Satriani why is it that you choose to withhold your decision from Whiteflash, thus preventing them from relisting that stone?

In another thread they held a stone for 3 weeks for someone I dont see that they were harmed by 16 days.

They could have called and said to the appraiser send our stone back at any time and been with in their rights as the stones owner.

Instead they chose it appears to ask the appraiser to bug the customer about a setting decision?!?

As well as who knows what else.

As well as multiple other contacts.

If the content of all the calls was return our stone please we wouldnt be having this discussion.

So you take Satrini 100% at his word and ignore everything Brain said? I think there are two sides to every story and so far neither appraiser or WF has confirmed Satrini's assumptions.

So you take Brians word 100% and ignore everything else and acuse Satrini of malice in withholding the stone so WF couldnt sell it.
Forcing me to comment on it and point out they could have recalled the stone at any time.

full circle on that one ()

Without proof otherwise I find the consumers story plausable therefore until proven otherwise thats the way I see it.

edit: mara see above, it answers your question you posted at the same time I was typing this post.
An acusation of malice was made that was groundless amd I was pointing that out.