My unfortunate Whiteflash experience

[Kaleigh]

Date: 12/26/2005 10:55:35 PM
Author: 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.

I have to agree on this. I have stayed out of this since day one, but as far as I am concerned WF did nothing wrong here. I would say they were too nice in my book anyways.

 

[MissAva]

Date: 12/26/2005 10:58:36 PM
Author: 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.

I did not accuse him...I said he was irresponsible, which IMO breaking a promise is. I did not take everything Brian said to heart but I think Satrini ought to explain his line of thinking the way Brian was expected to. Of course that is just me.

 

[gailrmv]

This is a really interesting debate. It seemed that one of santriani''s major concerns was with the shipping costs and Brian mentioned that they abide by what Santriani stated was promised to him. It is interesting to debate the other points, but Santriani, has the actual situation in question been resolved to your satisfaction (as best as could be expected at this point)?

 

[aljdewey]

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


In another thread they held a stone for 3 weeks for someone.

Yes, they did....and as I recall, they weren't thrilled about that delay either....nor should they be. I wouldn't expect *any* vendor to be pleased with taking a premium stone off the market at the height of the selling season. A vendor's goal is to sell and move product....not to let it languish over it. Once you test drive the car, you either want it or you don't. How hard is it?

Also, let's not leap to conclusions that all situations are exactly the same....they aren't. In that instance you mention, the customer had at least expressed his desire to purchase the stone. That's vastly different from being undecided about the stone and tying it up.

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

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.

They weren't? How do you know that? Who are any of us to determine at what point a vendor is harmed or not?

Do you realize that most retail operations (not just jewelry) don't actually hit profitability for the entire year until the holiday season? So, if they don't "make hay" in the hot time, it can adversely affect their *entire* year's operation.

Considering that the heavy "season" for engagement jewelry is from roughly Thanksgiving until Valentines Day, I think it's of tremendous potential harm to any vendor to have a premium product tied up---particularly without commitment.

But, seeing that you're so cavalier about what does and doesn't harm others, then perhaps you'll be willing to send $11K of your hard-earned dough to one of the appraisers here, and let them hang onto your money for 3 weeks in the HEIGHT of your bill-paying time.....and then we can all sit here and opine about how you weren't really harmed. Same thing, right?

And yes, they could have called it back at any time.....and then someone would be bitching that they recalled the stone without giving the customer enough time to make a decision.....just like that other thread. Customer took more than 2 weeks, promising money and never delivering, and then bitching because they pulled the stone and sold it to a SERIOUS buyer.

The armchair quarterbacking in this thread is just WAY beyond the pale.

 

[belle]

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

the speculation you are creating in this thread is unreal.

why don''t you take your bias-blinders off and look at the whole picture..
wf sent a stone out..as in ''out''...in the hands of someone else..no longer under their own watchful eyes, but entrusted to the appraiser that the customer chose, which for one, is entirely different from holding a stone while it is in their possesssion. wf stated from the beginning that they did not want to prolong the process (understandable!) and yet, the consumer decides to (of all things) leave the country! what would you expect wf to do when they couldn''t get in touch with the consumer??? i see absolutely nothing wrong with them calling to see whether the stone was coming back to them or if it had been sent to mark morrell for setting. for you to continue to speculate about the contact that was made is ridiculous if not defamatory.

 

[Jelly]

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

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.

Brian,

Thank you so much for clearing up the story and giving Satriani his reimbursement. Since the time periods were not mentioned in the first post, it was hard to understand why you would be in contact with the appraiser. That just proves what an upstanding company WF is and how much they care to keep their customers happy.

 

[Jelly]

But, seeing that you''re so cavalier about what does and doesn''t harm others, then perhaps you''ll be willing to send $11K of your hard-earned dough to one of the appraisers here, and let them hang onto your money for 3 weeks in the HEIGHT of your bill-paying time.....and then we can all sit here and opine about how you weren''t really harmed. Same thing, right?

I think you hit the nail on the head!

 

[satriani]

Date: 12/26/2005 11:12:58 PM
Author: gailrmv
This is a really interesting debate. It seemed that one of santriani''s major concerns was with the shipping costs and Brian mentioned that they abide by what Santriani stated was promised to him. It is interesting to debate the other points, but Santriani, has the actual situation in question been resolved to your satisfaction (as best as could be expected at this point)?

gail,

you hit it 100% on target. This was the primary, and really the only, reason that I posted the details of my experience...THE RETURN Shipping Cost and how I was handled with respect to rectifying it. It appears to be headed for resolution based on Brian''s post and I will most certainly post an update when it is. Thank you for understanding the core issue (as well as others who mentioned this throughout).

For Matatora, belle and others who have fairly and rightfully brought to the forefront some serious questions and issues from the consumer''s side of things, specifically my actions, I will do my best in providing the specifics and apologize for the time spacing of my replies.

 

[RockDoc]

This is Rockdoc - back from being away for a few days.


Satriani ..... As a client, before I can comment about the subject of this thread, I need to have your permission to do so.

Client confidienciality is always strictly adhered to by me.

Rockdoc

 

[satriani]

To Brian

It''s obvious that Brian was either compelled or prompted to come to the defense of his own personal integrity despite my trying to paint him in a positive light earlier in the thread. In an effort to keep specific names out of my implications it appears that he got lost somewhere in the mix. Brian, in the one and only conversation we had, never spoke inappropriately about any vendors or their practices. I still stand behind my comments and criticisms 100%, but so we''re all clear, Brian had virtually nothing to do with the negative perceptions I received from WF. So my apologies Brian if you felt my harshest criticisms and accusations were directed your way because they weren''t. The field has been narrowed even further and I still make myself available to John Q. for specifics if they so desire.

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

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.

We will agree to disagree on some points here, and as a person who values feedback feel free to take, or not take, whatever constructive criticism about our meeting. Scint was always a priority and when I mentioned this I got a mini-lecture (no sarcastic tone here) about light movement and visual balance - nothing that specifically answered my question/concern, but rather some assurance of how ACA was giving me another variation of it. I''m sorry, but edge-to-edge light performance and minimal leakage weren''t top of my list (leakage with respect to new line standards). One of the first questions I asked was about 8* characteristics which are compared to New Line ACA''s and how both are said to have differences from other H&A cuts on the scint and contrast levels. Most of the response was a history and evolution of ACA line rather than to my specifics (again, not a bad thing but perhaps not as direct to my question as it could have been). There was absolutely no sun that day which you said was a little regretful since it was primarly conditions that focused on the brilliance of the diamond. We did the "under the desk" simulation, but with the phone calls you needed to take, the multiple office issues and staff questions, customers issues brought to your attention, and our mutual time concerns by the end of it, it could have been more optimal (BTW - the fact that he was being pulled in many directions didn''t upset me, it was just part of how things went). In hindsight, the problem for me, and perhaps other like-minded consumers, is that there was no non-ACA stones to use as a live reference. Had I been shown say something with overall looks and BScope results like this http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_18ct_k_vvs1_h%26a.htm right next to the WF stones I viewed, then I imagine any perceptions or preconceived notions would have either been debunked or brought to light right then and there. To say that some people "need" numbers and machines more than their eyes is almost certainly true. Do I "NEED" Bscope to tell me a diamond''s beautiful - No way. The problem is that I had nothing to reference against all these concepts I was being fed. My suggestion to Brian and John Q. would be to keep a similar type of H&A stone on hand with equal or better documented Bscope results and as the above link shows and then put the consumers eyes to the test if they start bringing up points similar to mine (in all lighting situations). You either put to rest any misconceptions and everyone''s happy or the customer sees a difference and identifies their preference. You get a fair and unbiased empirical observation. Any thoughts?

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.

Yes, Brian''s only concern and comments regarding my appraiser revolved around the turnaround time. He had a couple of other opinions which were the same as mine. The appraiser is a funny and quirky kind of guy (in a good way). I always told the appraiser this myself which he welcomed and got a kick out of every time. He is different but in my mind very, very competent. Again, it was others and not Brian who tried to detract my choice of appraiser.
I NEVER agreed to specifically ONE WEEK but I did agree that I wasn''t intending on keeping it tied up and insured you that my appraiser would have it done in 2-3 days. I also mentioned that I MAY be traveling through the appraisers state at this time, which I neither did nor could do. Brian went over the standard shipping policy, same as the website says, in his closing and while he encouraged me to fill out and sign the credit card authorization sheet. I obviously wasn''t comfortable in signing anything just yet and like I''ve said numerous times, I only thought of the shipping issue for a non-purchase after I was on my way home at which point I spoke with my WF rep, not Brian. Here''s more accuracy to the timeline:
Appraiser received stone on 12/7. By 12/9 (Friday at 7pm) I had recevied the last part of my data and pictures. Weekend - Discuss with appraiser during weekend. Play phone tag with WF till late 12/12 and yes we both made reasonable efforts to contact each other within that day. John Q. called later on 12/12, we spoke, he was positive and non-judgemental as I''ve mentioned before, gave me data, I agreed to look it over and come to a final decision. Check e-mail and get John Q. message next morning. A couple of hours later I get a call for a very serious and unforseen event that has me bolting to the nearest airport that will get me to out of the country and to the U.K. ASAP. I get back to the USA late 12/20, check messages and ultimately contact appraiser to send back diamond. 12/20 I send WF e-mail, apologize for my delay, spoke with my rep early the next day, and you know the rest.

Brian appears to be taking care of the matter and I will certainly be just as diligent in posting of follow-up to the solution as I have for the problem.

 

[Mara]

"My suggestion to Brian and John Q. would be to keep a similar type of H&A stone on hand with equal or better documented Bscope results and as the above link shows and then put the consumers eyes to the test if they start bringing up points similar to mine (in all lighting situations). "

______________

What if the vendor does not believe in the accuracy or reporting of BS? It may please a client to want to know BS scores but if the vendor doesn't believe in it, then you may not be the type of client for them.

Also, you mention that even though you saw stones with your own eyes, not having a comparison diamond there with BS results and this and that didn't make you happy. In reality...we tell people to choose with their eyes. If your eyes didn't love the stone, then do you really need BS results to know that? If the diamond is beautiful to you (or not beautiful!), then what does it matter?

WF also does comparison pepsi taste tests with non ACA or H&A stones...did you not see this comparison?

I would venture to say that most people when they see a diamond in person, they are able to know if their eyes prefer it....without comparison stones BUT for those who really want that extra comparison, there are vendors out there that do offer it.

Again, part of choosing the vendor that works best for your needs, just the same as an appraiser and whoever else you 'employ' for your needs while finding the right stone!

 

[satriani]

As to the questions about the appraiser:

Did I ever feel slighted or misrepresented at any point in time by my appraiser: NO
Based on the way he sharply responded to WF''s inquiry about the setting and notified me about it on our next conversation, I at no time felt that my evaluation was compromised or not in my best interests.
Have some other people brought any new issues to light: YES, without a doubt
Are any of them pertinent to my gripes or immediate concerns: NO.
Have they given me something to think about for the next time around: YES
And just to be clear on my side of things, the communication between WF and the appraiser was simply mentioned in passing on my original post and I even stated that since the diamond was still their (WF''s) property that I had no problem with them inquiring about the state of progress. What irked me about them knowing my disappointment ahead of time was that it immediately led to one of those infamous BScope lectures on that call. As to who said what to whom when WF contacted the appraiser the second time around - since it had virtually no effect on my decision it remains at non-issue for me at this point and I certainly don''t know what transpired during that conversation though Brian seemed to fill us in. For others, perhaps something more to contemplate. I''m sure my appraiser will call me at which point I''ll be sure to ask.

Keep in mind that as I started to express my waning interest in this diamond, WF did try to convince me on re-considering and continue to make the sale. Do I fault them for this? Of course not - SALES 101. But had I not been given more stuff to listen to and read before making a decision it would have probably been sent back the next morning by the appraiser. I could have said "NO, NO, NO, don''t want to hear it, I''m not buying" but having invested this much time and money up to this point and talking to John Q. the same day, it was worth taking in his thoughts and info before making the final decision. Of course, I had no idea I''d be leaving the country the next day either.

 

[Mara]

Also satriani, I asked this earlier, but I am still confused as to how you could have been on this forum for over a year now and not know that WF does not believe in the BS as an accurate tool nor use it?

If it was so important to you, then why go to a vendor that does not believe in the accuracy of it?

I assume GOG is the vendor that you wanted to use originally, if that is the case and the stone you found was no longer available, why not have Rhino just find you another stone? That way you could have stuck with the vendor most suited to your needs?

 

[satriani]

Date: 12/27/2005 2:17:47 AM
Author: Mara
''My suggestion to Brian and John Q. would be to keep a similar type of H&A stone on hand with equal or better documented Bscope results and as the above link shows and then put the consumers eyes to the test if they start bringing up points similar to mine (in all lighting situations). ''

______________

What if the vendor does not believe in the accuracy or reporting of BS? It may please a client to want to know BS scores but if the vendor doesn''t believe in it, then you may not be the type of client for them.

Also, you mention that even though you saw stones with your own eyes, not having a comparison diamond there with BS results and this and that didn''t make you happy. In reality...we tell people to choose with their eyes. If your eyes didn''t love the stone, then do you really need BS results to know that? If the diamond is beautiful to you (or not beautiful!), then what does it matter?

WF also does comparison pepsi taste tests with non ACA or H&A stones...did you not see this comparison?

I would venture to say that most people when they see a diamond in person, they are able to know if their eyes prefer it....without comparison stones BUT for those who really want that extra comparison, there are vendors out there that do offer it.

Again, part of choosing the vendor that works best for your needs, just the same as an appraiser and whoever else you ''employ'' for your needs while finding the right stone!

No, I was not given a non-ACA stone to compare against their ACA.
I think your Pepsi taste test analogy is a good one and right along the lines of what I was suggesting.
Someone like me come in to view and ACA diamond(s). They have a H&A similar to the link with comparable data on hand. When the discussion goes in to the topics and concerns like mine, they bring out the non-ACA diamond to compare. Without telling the customer this diamond had a triple VH BScope or showing them the report images, put them side by side (without telling or showing them which is which) and ask them to observe under the chosen conditions and give feedback on what they see, like, dislike, etc. about either diamond. Customer is blind to what the other stone is "supposed" to be other than a comparison. I would imagine that either the customer will see differences and prefer one over the other, see differences and like both, or see no differences and wonder "okay?". In any case, your able to have the consumer arrive at some tangible visual conclusions. The fact that WF doesn''t believe in the technology would only, in my opinion, serve to prove their arguments against BScope when the customer either chooses ACA as more pleasing or sees no difference. The only risk is the customer picking the non-ACA as more pleasing to them - and it''s a valid one depending on one''s point of view.

 

[satriani]

For the first 6-7 months my activity was very low and I mostly focused on general diamond information and vendor reviews. I probably spent a couple of hours every other week looking mostly at "Show Me The Ring" stuff and learning about the bascis like inclusions, color, settings, metals, etc. Later I started to come across more technical stuff such as HCA and BScope. I''d read through some of the debates and had seen mention of WF here and there but like you said, I had never really focused on buying a diamond from them anyway.

Only around August did my diamond search and PScope involvement get a little heavier. Even still, I was a fairly occasional lurker as I had found much of the info on GOG and Nice Ice to be sufficient in educating me (as you may have noticed from my actual PS membership data and number of posts.

I had finally saved up enough money to go after my diamond and the only one of interest to me had just sold. I did call and inquire but they gave me a realistic timeline for what I wanted which was around three weeks. Since I was on a timeline and trying to get this done before Christmas I ultimately called back WF to start asking some questions. I did this due to their persistence and follow-up after my initial call about a setting. I wrote earlier in the post how I felt that they were making a good effort to earn my business and with time now a factor, it was worth the follow-up phone call.

I knew their thoughts on BScope after the first diamond discussion. They also knew my thoughts and addressed them in various ways. Even if someone doesn''t buy into the BScope, I believe that it could gauge some important attributes that I was looking for. I always mentioned my plans for evaluation and the essence of what I was told and sold on throughout was that it should do fine (triple VH''s was never the expectation here, just not Medium Scint which surprised even WF). In the end BScope helped me define my taste and decide that a higher Scint score was more favorable to my eyes. I was never unhappy about lack of a non-ACA comparison stone on my viewing. Short version from prior post: I looked, I asked about level of scint, seller reassured that it had "different but equal" scint as other non-HCA stones of interest, they sold me on a concept, I bought into it, appraiser ran the test, I tried my best to see if Medium Scint was valid by doing local tests, I felt it was, ALL parties shocked at low score, history....

 

[satriani]

Date: 12/26/2005 11:18:16 PM
Author: belle

wf sent a stone out..as in ''out''...in the hands of someone else..no longer under their own watchful eyes, but entrusted to the appraiser that the customer chose, which for one, is entirely different from holding a stone while it is in their possesssion. wf stated from the beginning that they did not want to prolong the process (understandable!) and yet, the consumer decides to (of all things) leave the country! what would you expect wf to do when they couldn''t get in touch with the consumer??? i see absolutely nothing wrong with them calling to see whether the stone was coming back to them or if it had been sent to mark morrell for setting. for you to continue to speculate about the contact that was made is ridiculous if not defamatory.

Both you, Matatora and a few others bring up a valid point. Here''s the one and only time I will expand on this point for the sake of all sides and for those who are having to engage in a verbal sparring match on my account.

The call I received on 12/13 was to inform me that my best friend of 20 years, and more recently co-worker, passed away unexpectedly while visiting family in the U.K. A couple of us were notified by both family and empolyer about what occurred and were immediately on our way overseas. In addition to all the emotions that go hand in hand with such an event, I was actively involved with his personal arrangements for transport back to Texas as well as the minor details involved in rectifying the needs from our company in such an event (purely related to our industry''s legal guidelines and obligations).

No cell phone or immediate internet access in our particular location near England. Wouldn''t have mattered if we did because diamonds and WF were furthest from my mind. I did start to take care of the few loose ends upon arrival and return of the diamond was one of them that was taken care of during a flight layover. I didn''t give WF the details of this trip since it was still emotionally fresh and highly irrelevant to the situation. My WF rep called and left a message Monday evening (general follow-up), I sent an e-mail apologizing for the communication delay and mentioned that I was out of the country on personal and work related business. They were very understanding and not at all upset.

You notice that my responses have been lengthy and the time between them well-spaced. Believe or not, the time spent focusing on this thread has kept me busy and distracted in the free time when family and sleep aren''t readily available (as you can well see based on the time of this post). I especially like all the the valid points and spirited discussions that, for the most part, occupy the space in these forums. Even the WF faithful have kept the general focus on the primary issue - the principle behind the shipping dispute. Not the $65, the principle behind it. For that I am grateful and have learned much from everyone''s input.

My future fiance is now back in town and solace has come with her arrival. Having gone on such a rant about principle and integrity, I will certainly continue to comment whenever necessary and appropriate as time permits. Thanks for your interest/support and please be nice with each other. For now, sleep is on the horizon......

 

[solange]

I am so sorry for your loss and your emotional ordeal during what should have been one of the happiest times of your life.

It is certainly understandable that you were in a terrible emotional state (I've been there myself) and that diamonds were the last thing on your mind. In fact, this was probably not the time to be buying anything so meaningful because you were obviously distracted and very upset.

I did have a similar experience, before I found Pricescope. My husband was going to surprise me with a diamond for our Anniversary and a dealer in the Diamond District had found some stones for me to look at. He then told me about the stones and asked me to go there and make a selection. My husband became deathly ill during that time period and we did not know if he would live. He was in Intensive Care for days and our children were distraught.

I certainly did not want to be bothered with selecting an Anniversary present when there might have been no Anniversary. Perhaps my situation was different from yours but I did call the jeweler from the hospital that night and leave a voice mail that he should not have any stones sent in because I was not going to make the purchase at this time. Frankly I barely remember doing this because I was so distracted . I only remembered because the jeweler called to say he had gotten my message. He wanted to know how my husband was doing and if I had changed my mind and wanted to buy the stone since my husband wanted me to have it even if he did not survive. Just the call I needed at this time!

I certainly sympathize with your situation. However, what I do not understand is the issue of the $65. I do not doubt your word that this was the agreement that the rep at whiteflash made with you. But this, it seems to me, was predicated on the assumption that the stone would not be out for more than a week. Under the circumstances, although no fault of yours, you could not comply with that time frame. I know Brian is sending you the $65 which seems to be a major issue but under the circumstances, I would think that Whiteflash was entitled to keep the $65 since you were unable to comply with Brian's wishes to have the stone back in a week.

By the way, my husband recovered and we bought a gorgeous stone from Whiteflash.

 

[Jelly]

Hi Satriani,

I''m so sorry to hear about the loss of your best friend.

With such a big purchase, you deserve to feel 100% confident that the stone is right for you. Hopefully you will find that stone soon! Good luck!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 12/26/2005 4:17:43 PM
Author: strmrdr
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.

Storm,

At the beginning I might have agreed with you, and think that I did, while reserving judgement until all the facts were presented. Now we have heard from the second side, here is my take.

I believe Satriani''s side of the story, and I believe Brians. I think that Satriani''s understanding of our business realities is way less than the average Pricescoper''s, and after having a premium stone gone for several weeks I would have been contacting RocDock to see what the heck was happening too. I believe that for Satriani to not give appropriate instructions to Roc prior to leaving the country is an eggregious lack of responsibility that he would not have committed had he any clue about how our business works.

I can understand that he is dissapointed in the postage issue and there may well have been either a missunderstanding on the terms or the salesperson may have made a promise then not followed through, although I also believe that asking for a free ride is wrong, but then I am looking at it from a vendor''s point of view. Our margins are paper thin and paying the freight both ways on stones that are not bought takes a ridicules share of our profits, especially if it is done more than once or twice.

So while I see reason for dissagreements between them, I do not see that WF committed any serious breach of ethics, nor Roc either, assuming that what Brian said is true. He has had his stone disqualified by a suspect piece of equipment, for which he does not cut his stones to stand out in. He wanted his stone back and wanted to know what was happening, and went further over backwards by not asking Roc to send it back since no word was forthcoming from his client. He has even agreed to forgo the real cost of $65 that he normally charges his clients for returned stones. For this he is called to task?

I was not privy to the sales presentations, and will not comment on them. I just don''t like to see a good vendor bashed for what I see as normal communications. We all make mistakes from time to time, and it looks to me as if Brian is willing to stand by what his saleman may have said. Asking what is going on after a period of weeks when a period of no more than a week had been asked for seems fair enough to me.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

And as often happens I see a veritable ocean of further comments making much of what I said no longer relevant. I will now go back to my regularly scheduled three days off...

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/27/2005 1:32:44 PM
Author: Wink
And as often happens I see a veritable ocean of further comments making much of what I said no longer relevant. I will now go back to my regularly scheduled three days off...


Wink

Enjoy your time off :}

like i said earlier if it was just return my stone.. no problem.
But there is the matter of the results being shared, and the question about the setting unanswered.
Like I said earlier we arent likely to get all the ansers.
life goes on.

satriani is happy getting the money returned so thats that.
Unless new info comes to light thats the ending of the story.

 

[belle]

Date: 12/27/2005 2:06:41 PM
Author: strmrdr


like i said earlier if it was just return my stone.. no problem.

it was just that. no problem.

Date: 12/27/2005 2:06:41 PM
Author: strmrdr

But there is the matter of the results being shared, and the question about the setting unanswered.
Like I said earlier we arent likely to get all the ansers.
life goes on.

why do you keep saying the results were shared?

that is a big, very accusatory and unfair assumption.
there is no unanswered setting question... brian said that they called to ask if the stone was coming back or going on to mark morrell..a perfectly valid question after 2weeks.

 

[devientdrow]

Solange,
I was under the impression that the shipping charges agreement was worked out with another person, not Brian. Really if the customer did have a shipping agreement already in place and happened to have the diamond out longer than expected I don''t think that should override what had already been agreed to. From what i''ve read it wasn''t Brian saying I''ll drop the shipping charges for one weeks time. It was something discussed up front with a sales person and the meeting with Brian was something seperate.

I understand that people are fiercely loyal on this board, but truly this is a place for all opinion and expieriences good and bad. I always think that the customer should be given a bit of leeway considering they are....customers. Whiteflash is a reputable buisness and frankly without trying to start an all out war I am a bit tired of reading posts where people turn the tables and make it sound as if whiteflash are victims. They are a buisness! If someone is taking too long making up thier mind then they do what the need to do! I''m sure they have all type of policies and protocol for different situations and can hold thier own. I took this original post just as an expression of how this person FEELS not what is the gospel truth. Even Satriani stated that there were good points of his contact with WF and I don''t think anyone on this board would dispute them as being a great company. I''m just glad this place provided an outlet for the customer and vendor to have better contact and resolve thier issues. Hopefully Satriani will find a great diamond with a company he meshes better with. I know WF will have no problems selling that other diamond!

 

[Mara]

Devient you make a great point...neither a vendor OR a customer should never have to feel like they ARE victims, especially victims of the group forum mentality.

I think that ALL of our vendors here make an exemplary effort to go above and beyond for their consumers...not all of the consumers may mesh well with the vendors, for me that is the bottom line. I try to never jump to conclusions (read TRY!), and it can be easy to do on the forums when you only hear one side of the story at first, and usually a very passionate customer recount which stirs emotions in everyone.

I think it can be easy for someone to go into a customer's statement and pick and choose what suits them if they want to focus the discussion on key points, possibly to the detriment of the vendor. There is much loyalty here for some of the vendors but I personally always TRY at least to view both sides of the story...no one is ever blameless when there is a situation, even if it's just lack of communication, that is still an issue that needs to be worked on and I don't have a problem saying so. Vendors here can always strive to do better, be better, offer better product. That's part of running a business and dealing with the public (unfortunately!!).

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 12/27/2005 3:16:41 PM
Author: devientdrow


I understand that people are fiercely loyal on this board, but truly this is a place for all opinion and expieriences good and bad. I always think that the customer should be given a bit of leeway considering they are....customers. Whiteflash is a reputable buisness and frankly without trying to start an all out war I am a bit tired of reading posts where people turn the tables and make it sound as if whiteflash are victims. They are a buisness! If someone is taking too long making up thier mind then they do what the need to do! I''m sure they have all type of policies and protocol for different situations and can hold thier own. I took this original post just as an expression of how this person FEELS not what is the gospel truth. Even Satriani stated that there were good points of his contact with WF and I don''t think anyone on this board would dispute them as being a great company. I''m just glad this place provided an outlet for the customer and vendor to have better contact and resolve thier issues. Hopefully Satriani will find a great diamond with a company he meshes better with. I know WF will have no problems selling that other diamond!

Couldn''t agree with you more

 

[devientdrow]

Perfectly stated Mara!!!!

 

[satriani]

Date: 12/27/2005 3:16:41 PM
Author: devientdrow

I was under the impression that the shipping charges agreement was worked out with another person, not Brian. Really if the customer did have a shipping agreement already in place and happened to have the diamond out longer than expected I don''t think that should override what had already been agreed to. From what i''ve read it wasn''t Brian saying I''ll drop the shipping charges for one weeks time. It was something discussed up front with a sales person and the meeting with Brian was something seperate.

I understand that people are fiercely loyal on this board, but truly this is a place for all opinion and expieriences good and bad. I always think that the customer should be given a bit of leeway considering they are....customers. Whiteflash is a reputable buisness and frankly without trying to start an all out war I am a bit tired of reading posts where people turn the tables and make it sound as if whiteflash are victims. They are a buisness! If someone is taking too long making up thier mind then they do what the need to do! I''m sure they have all type of policies and protocol for different situations and can hold thier own. I took this original post just as an expression of how this person FEELS not what is the gospel truth. Even Satriani stated that there were good points of his contact with WF and I don''t think anyone on this board would dispute them as being a great company. I''m just glad this place provided an outlet for the customer and vendor to have better contact and resolve thier issues. Hopefully Satriani will find a great diamond with a company he meshes better with. I know WF will have no problems selling that other diamond!

THANK YOU DEVIEN - T - DROW!!!!!

You read, you understood, you summarized. Beautifully done and interpreted.

After following the last half of this thread it becomes apparent that some folks are simply skimming and not reading the details (very understandable given the length) or reading what they want to read. Thanks for the clarity.

And thanks to all for the sentiments, they are very much appreciated.

 

[satriani]

Date: 12/27/2005 2:49:00 PM
Author: belle

there is no unanswered setting question... brian said that they called to ask if the stone was coming back or going on to mark morrell..a perfectly valid question after 2weeks.

Just to be fair and clear, and because this continues to be such a hot point for dispute:

The WF call to my appraiser about the setting occured within the first day of the evaluation. The appraiser gave them no information and told them it wasn''t his place or policy to do so. The next day I decided to go with Mark Morrell and notified WF appropriately.

 

[MissAva]

Date: 12/27/2005 3:56:56 PM
Author: satriani

Date: 12/27/2005 2:49:00 PM
Author: belle

there is no unanswered setting question... brian said that they called to ask if the stone was coming back or going on to mark morrell..a perfectly valid question after 2weeks.

Just to be fair and clear, and because this continues to be such a hot point for dispute:

The WF call to my appraiser about the setting occured within the first day of the evaluation. The appraiser gave them no information and told them it wasn''t his place or policy to do so. The next day I decided to go with Mark Morrell and notified WF appropriately.

When will you allow Roc Doc to comment? Or why wouldn''t you?

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 12/26/2005 7:19:34 PM
Author: 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

To clarify the above.....

It is true I have a list, but the list is provided as a consumer service.

It provides the names of vendors who will submit stones for getting them checked and NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR THE STONE before purchasing it. Previous to this, consumers had to buy and pay for the stones they wanted to see.

So providing this information in the early days of internet purchasing helped a lot of people, as many had difficulty getting a refund or were charged a restocking fee.

IT IS NOT AN APPROVED LIST - and I''ve rejected some stones that have been submitted by those vendors when it was appropriate. So there is no bias. That is made clear on the website.

I am extremely dedicated to consumer protection and have been for many years. It was developed with spirit that the consumer could have one or more stones reviewed or even shown in person, without paying for one or even more than one stone.

Since most consumers generallly only have the funds to buy or pay for one stone, it was a good cooperation to affect a wider choice if they wanted.

I still work ONLY for consumers, so the sellers get no favors other than being listed and making a wider selection of stones available to consumers wanted the benefit of expert eyes and equipment to review their potential internet "sight unseen" purchases.

Rockdoc

Rockdoc