Poll: Is it ethical/do you feel comfortable having a jeweler recreate a ring you like but can''t aff

[starfire]

Aljdewey,

One tiny flaw in your logic. John did only pay $60 in your last scenario, and is trying to exchange the spread for $200 credit. This sounds somewhat fraudulent.

But, I suppose the person who loses out in this scenario is Jane...

----------------
On 7/22/2004 2:31:18 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 7/18/2004 2:45:19 PM Patty wrote:

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

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

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

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 7/22/2004 2:49:51 AM mm wrote:





But i think the issue is the 'jane' buys the spread from the outlet store for $60, and returns it to PB for store credit of $200.

PB presumably never got $200 from the original sale, instead it only got the $60 it made through the outlet sale, and have had to fork out an extra $140.

Yes, it is a flaw in the main store/outlet store system (that they don't mark/alter the outlet product so it can't be returned), but whether you choose to expoit the flaw or not is up for debate here I guess.
----------------

Wrong......on several counts. First, because Jane was the original purchaser....paid the $200. Second, because Mara's initial comment was "buy it from eBay" (NOT from an outlet) and return it. In order to buy it from Ebay, it presumably comes from someone who paid full retail for it ($200).

My scenario had nothing to do with the outlet conundrum.......never did. It was limited only to those people who were bashing a secondary consumer's right to return something for full store credit and how that differs from the primary consumer's right to do so. Outlets may have come up subsequently in the thread, but they were *never* part of the scenarios I gave., (Edited to note: Mara did mention it could happen).

However, several other retailers are smart enough to prevent this. LL Bean cuts the tags of its outlet merchandise to distinguish what is outlet sale and what is full price. It's not rocket science to recognize the need as a retailer to close this loop.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 7/22/2004 3:10:25 AM starfire wrote:





Aljdewey,

One tiny flaw in your logic. John did only pay $60 in your last scenario, and is trying to exchange the spread for $200 credit. This sounds somewhat fraudulent.

But, I suppose the person who loses out in this scenario is Jane...


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

I'm sorry, but there is no "flaw". If John Smith is willing to purchase an item for $60 and take the time/effort to exercise the return policy the store provides, he isn't fraudulent. He has bought something at a discounted rate from a seller (jane) who is WILLING to take a reduced payment so she can get cash (because she doesn't WANT the store credit), and he is exercising the return policy on the item provided by the vendor.

While he has only had to pay $60, he has purchased something that is WORTH $200. Have you ever watched an episode of Antique Roadshow? There are tons of folks on there who find stuff worth thousands.....and they all say "Gee, I bought this painting at a yard sale for $200......didn't know it was a PICASSO ORIGINAL." Does that make them fraudulent too? They paid the price the seller (the garage sale vendor) asked for it. If it's worth more and the vendor doesn't charge an appropriate price (or knows it's worth more but is placing priority on liquidation rather than recovering full value), how does that make the purchaser fraudulent? Same for pawn shops.......buy for less than it's worth and resell for more.

Unless the vendor specifies that the return for full credit provision is ONLY available to the initial purchaser, then it's not fraudulent.

 

[foundnemo]

----------------
On 7/22/2004 3:14:20 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 7/22/2004 2:49:51 AM mm wrote:



But i think the issue is the 'jane' buys the spread from the outlet store for $60, and returns it to PB for store credit of $200.

PB presumably never got $200 from the original sale, instead it only got the $60 it made through the outlet sale, and have had to fork out an extra $140.

Yes, it is a flaw in the main store/outlet store system (that they don't mark/alter the outlet product so it can't be returned), but whether you choose to expoit the flaw or not is up for debate here I guess.
----------------

Wrong......on several counts. First, because Jane was the original purchaser....paid the $200. Second, because Mara's initial comment was 'buy it from eBay' (NOT from an outlet) and return it. In order to buy it from Ebay, it presumably comes from someone who paid full retail for it ($200).

My scenario had nothing to do with the outlet conundrum.......never did. It was limited only to those people who were bashing a secondary consumer's right to return something for full store credit and how that differs from the primary consumer's right to do so. Outlets may have come up subsequently in the thread, but they were *never* part of the scenarios I gave or of Mara's initial examples.

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

This has become off topic and I've tried to stay away, but here's my take:

What is a "return"? According to dictionary.com and I agree, it is "To go or come back, as to an earlier condition or place." So, buy a thing from store A, return to store A. Buy a thing from eBay seller, return to eBay seller. I don't consider buying something from eBay seller, and getting credited from store A a "return". It is manipulating store A's system. Just because something's on eBay doesn't mean someone had paid full retail for it. How do you know that person didn't get it from an outlet or stole it? Buying something with the intention of returning it after use? Also taking advantage of the good old American refund system. People can call it being smart and creative shopping, I guess.

I share in CaptAubrey's faith on rationalization.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If they call me a "Cut Nut", what would they call you guys?

 

[Mara]

Just PlainNuts I guess, Garry!

Off topic ones.




FN wrote:


" According to dictionary.com and I agree, it is "To go or come back, as to an earlier condition or place."




Yes, but the dictionary does not specify who returns the product. Earlier is quite vague.




So according to your scenario of returns which you agree with, Jane could not get the spread as a GIFT from Auntie Melodie and 'return' it? Then what would it be? /idealbb/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif




See the flaw in vague defintions? Stores should take note and as I have said from the beginning, be specific in policies and procedures. It's their bottom line.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/21/2004 8:05:56 PM Superidealist wrote:

fire&ice wrote:
Define copy?

If you don't already know in your heart if you are asking for a copy of a designer piece, no definition, no matter how carefully crafted, will sway you.
----------------

Quite frankly, I think it is the person buying the designer ring that is buying a copy of a former design. Me, I only buy period jewelry.

So, that's my definition of a copy.

 

[Superidealist]

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/22/2004 11:19:45 AM Superidealist wrote:

I couldn't disagree more.----------------

With what? If it was my statement about the designer being the copy - then -

If you are so unwielding in your stance, a true purist would look only to the period in which today's copies are birthed (if not stolen) from.

One only has to look at the Georg Jensen market for a peek. The period designs created in the proper period command the most amount of money. Any thing else is regarded as a copy of the original design. An original design taken out of context of the period could be viewed as a copy of a style.

Your logic is in a vaccum. I've been dealing with copies all my career. Even period craftspersons knocked off others designs. And yes, some of them better.

I'm done with this dopey debate. There's a bigger picture out there. I've never been one to view things in the black & white. I find it arrogant to try.

 

[Superidealist]

fire&ice wrote:
With what?

With your implication that all designer pieces are copies of earlier works.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/22/2004 11:41:50 AM Superidealist wrote:

fire&ice wrote:
With what?

With your implication that all designer pieces are copies of earlier works.----------------

Well, all I can go back to is having handled thousands of items, I've yet to see something truly unique.

I'm baffeled as to why you believe these "new" designers are so unique. But, then, don't take the word of a copyright attorney (who specializes in the field) or a jewelry historian. It's not an implication -but a fact of design. Also, you can add a registered Architect to the list of people that knows nearly all design has precident.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of people making out and out copies. It's not very inspirational at the very least.

 

[Superidealist]

If you look back at all my comments in this thread and the earlier thread on Diamond Talk, you will see that I have been consistent in my use of the term "copy" to mean an exact copy down to the smallest detail. You seem to be using the term to indicate a piece that merely references earlier designs.

I agree, many designer pieces are not so different from much of what else is out there. This is not synonymous with their having been copied from earlier designs detail for detail. Those that are not exact replicas of earlier pieces are unique designs.

 

[Greg]

If there's nothing unique in jewelry design, then how did Gary's company win "20 odd design awards at no small effort and expense?" Why are they be working so hard to win these awards, if all they're doing is copy something that's already been done. Why, if jewelry design is such a derivative, non-creative field, are there jewelry design awards in the first place?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/22/2004 1:03:12 PM Greg wrote:

If there's nothing unique in jewelry design, then how did Gary's company win '20 odd design awards at no small effort and expense?' Why are they be working so hard to win these awards, if all they're doing is copy something that's already been done. Why, if jewelry design is such a derivative, non-creative field, are there jewelry design awards in the first place?----------------

I understand now where Superidealist is coming from. I don't necessarily agree though. Our major difference is I do see the past just as relavent as today. It's just that these designers are replicating a style. I'm of the view that it really isn't their own to begin with. And, that's a very devil's advocate stance.

But huh? I guess my only comment would be that some designs inspire more than others. A more appropriate angle - a nicer blend of color, etc.

But, then they have awards for everything these days. What one chooses to deem awarding is all relative.

 

[Greg]

Off topic, on the subject of returning items purchased on eBay to retail stores. I've gotta give my two cents, I actually think, that although a bit odd, it would be okay as long as you are honest about it. That means full disclosure. No lying by omission.

For curiosity's sake I called two J. Crew stores and asked if it was okay. At one store the manager said "No. Absolutely not." If I took an eBay purchase to him, it would be deceptive & wrong. Another manager, though (after a long pause), said "I guess...okay." There would be nothing wrong with taking the item to him. That would be a fair and honest transaction.

 

[hoorray]

I agree that it is a matter of honesty. If the store will take it back, knowing the full story, that's their choice. If you have to lie (implicitly or directly) to get them to take it back, that's where I think it is unethical.

 

[Mara]

I find it somewhat hypocritical that some feel that if you tell the "truth" about how you got the product, suddenly it's okay. I thought that it was abuse of the policy regardless? But now if it's honestly done, it's okay? No longer abusing the policy? Absolution from a random store employee who was probably not trained correctly in the first place?

Greg, the fact that you got two different answers from store managers is not surprising. This is another problem prevalent with large retail chains. Their employees aren't even trained to give the same answer when asked the same question. So if one doesn't do it, the other one will. Perpetuation of confusion for the customer..I can't tell you how many times I have called to ask something and gotten one answer, called to ask another store, same chain, and gotten another answer. When I told them what Store #1 said and that I was confused, they would say..well we were told differently, just come to our store and we'll take care of it.

If I return something, regardless of where I got it, I would just say I am returning this item and do not have a receipt. They don't ask why I don't have a receipt, the employee doesn't really care. They ask me why I am returning it. I am truthful about it. I say 'I don't want it' or 'I already have it'. They tell me they can only give me store credit, I say that's fine.

At this point, I find it interesting that after many pages of discussion on this, that now with added 'stipulations' (aka being honest or telling them where you got it which is just RANDOM) it's now *okay* to do. So as long as the store knows what you are doing, it's acceptable.

 

[Greg]

Mara,

I've never commented on the topic before, so coming from me, it's not that random. I'm not speaking for anyone else on this thread. It was just my humble opinion (and lop's).

Personally, I feel that an honest transaction takes place when both parties are well informed about all the pertinent information. Since the origin of the item in question made a difference (at least to one manager),it counts as pertinent information. How an item makes its way from point A to point B matters to a lot of people. To others, it doesn't. But if it might make a difference, both parties should know the whole story.

I talked to the managers of the stores (not random employees) and they each had different views of the policy. One acted to the letter of the policy (she wouldn't take the return), the other acted to the spirit of the policy (he would take it). I think that as the people managing their respective J. Crew stores, its up to them to interpret their policy, not me. I would respect them enough to handle the transaction the way they saw fit.

 

[Mara]

To me it doesn't make a difference (point of origin), so I would not even bring it up. Throws a wrench into the plan if both people are not on the same page, eh?!

Secondly, random employees usually perform the returns with a manager's signature. I can't think of one time that I been asked a question other than the ones I noted above. The manager hardly even looks at the slip when they sign.

Again, company policies. You note the JCrew manager followed the letter of the policy. The other the spirit. If it is written out somewhere that they should not be taking those items back, in my opinion the one who is not following the letter is the one perpetuating the confusion. If the policy IS there, then it should be followed and more questions asked, no?

As fascinating as I find discussing the intricacies of confusing corporate policies and non-policies...my last post was really to show that there will ALWAYS be *degrees* of acceptability..and everyone is going to have that different threshold where they feel most comfortable. Right?!

 

[Jolie]

On a side note, allowing returns without receipt is just bad policy, and I don't understand why stores allow it. A while ago, a store where my sister worked had a problem with several employees who were buying items at the employee discount, then giving them to friends to return at full retail, and they would pocket the difference. When the employees do this often enough, there is quite a lot of money stolen from the store. Also, I'm guessing an employee could buy an item at the employee discount, then turn around and sell it at somewhere between the discount and full retail price. The person who bought it in good faith at the in-between price may be perfectly innocent. But I don't understand why a store wouldn't try to protect itself by having tighter return policies.

I think it comes down to a combo of the store's policy and the buyer's intent. If the buyer works for the store, and the store has an employee policy to follow (such as, "employees can only puchase items for personal use), then the employee turns around and makes a profit off the item, I think that would be wrong. But if person buys an item at discount in good faith, and the store gives full refunds even if the item has no receipt and the store is aware that its items are sometimes purchased at an outlet or e-bay, then I think its up to the store to tighten its policies. In this day and age, I would think a store is fully aware that its items might turn up on e-bay or elsewhere. But if a store does require receipts, and I get a friend who works there to return my item for full retail without a receipt, that's wrong. So I think it's a combo of the person's intent and the store's policy.

 

[mepearl53]

I also have to dissagree that all design is recycled. With the advent of technology in the late 20th century new design is exploding. One only has to look at the works of Eddie Sakamoto, Steven Kretchmer, and Whitney Boin to name a few. Technology has given us a totally new field to express art that has not been available in past periods.

 

[mepearl53]

And, now that Georg Jensen is begining to do away with the designs of the past they are bringing in new wonderful fresh design. Look at their Fusion, Magic, and Cave designs. These are wonderful new young designers expressing themselves in ways we have never seen.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/22/2004 4:14:21 PM mepearl53 wrote:

And, now that Georg Jensen is begining to do away with the designs of the past they are bringing in new wonderful fresh design----------------

That is simply not true. They retire designs all the time. But, they aren't stupid as to not keep *their* look that is associated with them. And, they have always had great new designs - nothing new to the firm. It just isn't their mainstay as styles change. One has to look not further than Koppel & Torun for fresh interesting *period* design. Those, I own. But, who knows their new fate as a muti-conglomerate owned by Royal Copenhagan. But, I am glad to hear that they still hire contempory designers. It does give a fresh face. I hope the quality will be up there.

I hear what you are saying about technology. That is why I took the stance of it isn't the design. It's the process that can be more unique. As reference to Gemlok & Rolex. ....And it still doesn't account for Tacori & the likes.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 7/22/2004 2:08:37 PM Mara wrote:

I thought that it was abuse of the policy regardless? ----------------

That's my issue with the whole issue. In the end, my feeling is that it isn't fair. But, I don't think your headed for the Brink either.