Swap-A-Roo = Not for You?

[kenny]

Erica, I honestly don't think anyone is questioning your or Grace's integrity. No worries there! It's PS, you know people are going to have opinions. It doesn't mean anyone thinks you're bad or shady!

I disagree with this. I think some posts have been very disparaging and unnecessarily harsh. An opinion can be stated without ripping someone to shreds.

... but readers with brains see right through childish whining and just write it off as, consider the source.

 

[missy]

I am so happy that this is resolved for both parties involved. Erica, I truly do not think the reputation of JbEG has been harmed in any way. In fact, I agree with the posters who want to buy something from your site right now LOL...but I think you already know that!

You and Grace are lovely people and good business people and this thread shows that. Glad we are not losing you guys!

 

[Laila619]

Well, I'm glad the situation is resolved, and hopefully there are no bad feelings.

Just for the future, if someone told me "the sale is final but we will do whatever to make this right," I would not think a refund was an option.

 

[ericad]

Well, I'm glad the situation is resolved, and hopefully there are no bad feelings.

Just for the future, if someone told me "the sale is final but we will do whatever to make this right," I would not think a refund was an option.

Please see page 9 for exact quotes, and read it in the context of the other quotes from that same email. What you've posted is a paraphrase and not exactly what we said to her. This is part of the problem and why the thread escalated the way it did - people spreading things like "repeatedly denied a refund" and your quote above as if they are factual quotes, and they are not.

 

[ericad]

Well, I'm glad the situation is resolved, and hopefully there are no bad feelings.

Just for the future, if someone told me "the sale is final but we will do whatever to make this right," I would not think a refund was an option.

Not picking on you, Laila, just trying to prove a point about how easy it is for a situation to be misconstrued. Here's another quote from the same email we sent her, "Its a beautiful stone, it truly is. And that is why I have no hesitations about taking it back and adding it to our current inventory."

Based on that quote, in combination with the other things said in the email (and without the benefit of reading MF's side of the correspondence), would you still think that we had denied her a refund? Would you assume that our mentioning of the layaway policy overrides this statement, which came later in the same email?

To be frank, the only reason we reiterated the layaway policy was so that MF would understand our willingness to break the policy in order to make the situation right. The consignment proceeds had already been remitted to our seller, so any refund we offer would be out of pocket for us because we would never unwind the consignment transaction - it's not the fault of the seller. So we were going quite a bit outside the confines of the agreement we had with MF - this is a first time a situation like this ever happened, so we did our best. I agree that we could have communicated more clearly. Bullet points listing all possible options would have prevented all of this from happening. We have learned a valuable lesson about the limitations of email correspondence!

 

[Maisie]

You being willing to take the stone back into your inventory could have meant (to MF) that you were willing to let her choose a different diamond from your stock. Especially if you said later in that email that you don't offer refunds for layaway items.

 

[iheartscience]

You being willing to take the stone back into your inventory could have meant (to MF) that you were willing to let her choose a different diamond from your stock. Especially if you said later in that email that you don't offer refunds for layaway items.

Regardless of MF's interpretation, IMO the onus was on MF and her SO to specifically request a refund, which I don't believe they did after reading this thread. I'm actually shocked they didn't request it at the time-I can't imagine being that unhappy with such a large purchase and NOT asking for a refund, regardless of a vendor's stated policies.

I've requested refunds outside of the return policy of a vendor/store many, many times. They were on a much smaller scale (for example, a pair of $200 shoes I wore a few times and the stitching starting coming undone), but I certainly didn't take the store's refund policy at face value.

 

[Maisie]

You being willing to take the stone back into your inventory could have meant (to MF) that you were willing to let her choose a different diamond from your stock. Especially if you said later in that email that you don't offer refunds for layaway items.

Regardless of MF's interpretation, IMO the onus was on MF and her SO to specifically request a refund, which I don't believe they did after reading this thread. I'm actually shocked they didn't request it at the time-I can't imagine being that unhappy with such a large purchase and NOT asking for a refund, regardless of a vendor's stated policies.

I've requested refunds outside of the return policy of a vendor/store many, many times. They were on a much smaller scale (for example, a pair of $200 shoes I wore a few times and the stitching starting coming undone), but I certainly didn't take the store's refund policy at face value.

I would have asked for a refund. I would not pay that much money for something I wasn't happy with. I wonder if some people just aren't as confident as others at this sort of thing. Maybe MF felt like she could ask for a refund after seeing what the reaction of others on this thread.

 

[ericad]

You being willing to take the stone back into your inventory could have meant (to MF) that you were willing to let her choose a different diamond from your stock. Especially if you said later in that email that you don't offer refunds for layaway items.

And that's my point. The language was ambiguous enough that I can now see how it could be misinterpreted. Grace and I know what was in our minds when she wrote the emails, what she was intending to communicate, so it's obvious to me. But I do understand how MF could have thought something else reading the same words from a different perspective. You're absolutely right.

 

[Maisie]

You being willing to take the stone back into your inventory could have meant (to MF) that you were willing to let her choose a different diamond from your stock. Especially if you said later in that email that you don't offer refunds for layaway items.

And that's my point. The language was ambiguous enough that I can now see how it could be misinterpreted. Grace and I know what was in our minds when she wrote the emails, what she was intending to communicate, so it's obvious to me. But I do understand how MF could have thought something else reading the same words from a different perspective. You're absolutely right.

Thats why I always prefer to phone a vendor to make absolutely sure we thinking the same thing. Email is ok but its nice to discuss things over a telephone call

 

[ericad]

You being willing to take the stone back into your inventory could have meant (to MF) that you were willing to let her choose a different diamond from your stock. Especially if you said later in that email that you don't offer refunds for layaway items.

Regardless of MF's interpretation, IMO the onus was on MF and her SO to specifically request a refund, which I don't believe they did after reading this thread. I'm actually shocked they didn't request it at the time-I can't imagine being that unhappy with such a large purchase and NOT asking for a refund, regardless of a vendor's stated policies.

I've requested refunds outside of the return policy of a vendor/store many, many times. They were on a much smaller scale (for example, a pair of $200 shoes I wore a few times and the stitching starting coming undone), but I certainly didn't take the store's refund policy at face value.

No thing, they did not ask for a refund. I can't post MF's emails, but basically she notified us of the GIA results and asked if we'd take the stone back in as a trade towards a different one. It was to this that we sent our first email acknowledging the GIA results, with the various bits I quoted. That email was a multi-paragraph stream of thought - we were mortified by the situation and scrambled to respond to her quickly and the goal of the email was to reassure her that we would make the situation right. Since her initial request was for a trade, that's the option we pursued, though we did encourage her to at least see her stone in person before making a trade. Their second request was for a partial credit, which we immediately issued. That was the last we heard of it until this thread.

It now seems that she didn't request a refund because she assumed that we'd assume that's what she'd want, even though she asked for a trade and never asked to return the stone, then she read the single sentence from our reply to her trade request, about the layaway agreement (which, as I said, was not intended to mean we would not offer a refund, it was to reiterate that DESPITE the agreement, we were willing to work with them to rectify the situation) and assumed that was us refusing the refund she had thought about but never asked for, and then she put her SO in charge of the final decision and he also didn't ask to return the stone, he asked for a credit.

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

I have steadfastly refused to keep up with this thread because, quite honestly, it was hurtful. I feel that often times, people tend to forget that there is a human being behind the screen name and avatar.

Having been MF's point of contact, and having what I felt was a great working (almost personal - as most of our transactions tend to be) with MF, I was just stunned to learn of this because all along, I seriously thought that I had given and provided what was asked of us. However, like Erica said, certain nuances are difficult, at best, to interpret especially given that every single statement is being analyzed after the fact. Should haves and could haves are simply that - could haves and should haves. What's done is done, and we are all moving on (as you can tell, Erica is now busy planning a setting for the diamond).

I sincerely thank those who contacted us privately to offer support and send cyber-hugs, as well as those who were brave enough to post in our defense here - that means a lot. While most business are really just businesses, its so much more than that for us (so cliched, I know!).

Thank you too to those who had some very good points to add to this discussion - we will take them to heart and will be implementing changes to JbEG policy at the beginning of the year. Lively discussions are the heart of PS, and I respect that.

MF, we continue to wish that you find the stone of your dreams - and may you wear your ring with much love, in great health, in loads of happiness for always. My best to T.

 

[Dreamer_D]

All the most beloved PS vendors have had a thread like this Erica. Not this exact issue, mind, but similar. How a vendor handles themselves when these sorts of situations tells us more about their reliabilty and trustworthiness than 100 positive threads. So though I am so certain it is painful, I am equally certain Erica that this thread has done no harm to your reputation. I am not an invested party -- not a client or a particular friend of MP (though she seems like a very nice person of course ) but I too think you handled yourself with grace in this thread, and I applaud the outcome.

I realize my winky face could look snarky. I meant it more like "I am sure she is a nice person " because she seems very nice.

 

[omc111]

While this thread is resolved, I feel that I have to make a few comments.

While I'm relatively new to posting on Pricescope, I've been around for awhile. This thread has amazed me. First that there was this level of public bashing of a vendor who, before this, has had no negative reviews. I'm shocked at the number of people who jumped on the bashing bandwagon without really understanding both sides of the story. And made judgments faulting the vendor. Maybe some of you should reread your posts before hitting submit so you can take a more objective look at what you are saying and if it is based in knowledge of the situation or knee jerk reaction and emotion.

I've used JbyEG for several transactions and have found them to be accomodating, reasonable, and very ethical in every way. I won't hesitate to use them again.

 

[mrssalvo]

It's been said time and time again that all the favorite vendors here have an issue arise at one point or another and it's how the vendor handles the situation that makes all the difference. I think JBEG has done everything in their power to right a customer who felt wronged, justifiably or not and that, in my opinion, is what makes a great vendor. I do understand why MP didn't come right out and ask for a refund, and I suspect if she would have started a thread saying, I bought a stone on layaway as L/M, it came back from GIA an S/T, there is no return...what should I do? 99% of the ps'er would have said to go ahead and ask for a refund anyway, myself included! Lots of misinformation in this thread and misunderstandings via emails etc. For JBEG to come here and explain their side, which many vendors do not do, take the heat, and offer to do what it takes to satisfy the client speaks volumes as to who they are, not only as a business but as people.

 

[Mara]

Chiming in late to say... to Deco's original Q... love FicklePickles! Usually just means that there are going to be great deals at some point later for the rest of us. But yeah if something makes the rounds like 7 times for example, I would think what's wrong with it... OR has it just not found the right owner yet. Could be either or both. It wouldn't keep me from considering it though.

On the other drama... so glad that things seem to be resolved, in reading it personally I thought it was unfortunate it had to transpire entirely on the boards rather than via a phone call as emotions can run high around these types of purchases especially with multiple third parties also adding two cents. I also thought that JBEG was getting unfairly portrayed in a bad light by some.

Ditto whoever else said that just because someone is a PS vendor doesn't mean that customers should not do their own research to ensure that they know exactly what they are getting--just as a general note. And also agree on the fact that almost every old stone I've ever seen with a cert online has an EGL cert. If someone doesn't think that's the way to go... would suggest not to buy an old stone with an EGL cert. More for me.

Based on the pics and video, don't think that JBEG will have an issue at all moving that stone, it looks really lovely. I would even bet some PS'er is eyeballing it right now, lol.

 

[maplefemme]

I want to make a last comment in regards....

Thank you to everyone who gave support and advice to both myself AND JbEG. We both misinterpreted each other and it led to a large misunderstanding in an important transaction for us both. However, there was no ill intent on either side, just hurt feelings and a reaction to defend each other's take on events, or at least our understanding of them.
We are all fallible, including myself and the ladies of JbEG, but I believe we mean each other no ill will.

Thank you again

 

[LALove]

It's been said time and time again that all the favorite vendors here have an issue arise at one point or another and it's how the vendor handles the situation that makes all the difference. I think JBEG has done everything in their power to right a customer who felt wronged, justifiably or not and that, in my opinion, is what makes a great vendor. I do understand why MP didn't come right out and ask for a refund, and I suspect if she would have started a thread saying, I bought a stone on layaway as L/M, it came back from GIA an S/T, there is no return...what should I do? 99% of the ps'er would have said to go ahead and ask for a refund anyway, myself included! Lots of misinformation in this thread and misunderstandings via emails etc. For JBEG to come here and explain their side, which many vendors do not do, take the heat, and offer to do what it takes to satisfy the client speaks volumes as to who they are, not only as a business but as people.

+ 1000!

Miss-communication, misunderstandings, errors and mistakes and even bad judgement calls are going to happen. That's just the way of life. What it really comes down to is "how was it handled"? I think both Grace & Erica handled this situation very professionally and with maplefemme's happiness in mind. I've done business with them in the past (and found them to exceed my expectations of a vendor) and will definitely continue to do so!

And maplefemme- I'm very happy that you got this resolved and can now find your perfect stone!

 

[Gypsy]

Erica and Grace, I don't think your reputation is harmed. And all vendors who are popular have slip ups and are called to the PS carpet. It is painful for all of them, but the best of them learn from it and move forward with grace. In FACT that way they handle the situation and the way they recover gives us CONFIDENCE in them and ENHANCES their reputation.

Mistakes are made. Crap happens. How you recover from them is what sets you apart.

My post was objective and one I would have made to any vendor in this case. I am glad the situation is being resolved. And I hope you continue to post here because A) I LIKE you guys and B) I really think you are a great addition to the forum.

 

[Amys Bling]

I am sorry for all that has gone on. Yes two sides. I hope all works out. I can't wait for pics!!!

I am a huge fan of OEC's and OMC's. Have a new ( to me ) ring posted in SMTB..

I have never ever seen a GIA cert for these stones. EGL is by and large the accepted lab for them. It's the standard, right or wrong, but that's the way it is..

agreed! can't wait for pics and I hope that both parties are happy!

Also- very true that old cuts are pretty much all EGL and as everyone states here on PS in thread after thread involding an EGL graded stone- their grading tends to be a few grades off. K/L to an Q-S is quite a jump- as like the OP I would have thought N-O-P to be closer to the actual GIA grading.

 

[Amys Bling]

You being willing to take the stone back into your inventory could have meant (to MF) that you were willing to let her choose a different diamond from your stock. Especially if you said later in that email that you don't offer refunds for layaway items.

And that's my point. The language was ambiguous enough that I can now see how it could be misinterpreted. Grace and I know what was in our minds when she wrote the emails, what she was intending to communicate, so it's obvious to me. But I do understand how MF could have thought something else reading the same words from a different perspective. You're absolutely right.

Thats why I always prefer to phone a vendor to make absolutely sure we thinking the same thing. Email is ok but its nice to discuss things over a telephone call

agree with Maisie- so easy to misinterpret something in e-mails and text messages.

 

[Amys Bling]

Erica & Grace- I have to say, I constantly drool over your inventory and dream of one of your creations. You handled yourselves well, and I wish both parties a happy resolution. MF I hope you get an ERIng you love- and E&G I don't think that stone will sit in your inventory for too long

 

[aljdewey]

On the original topic of buying a piece that's been around the block a few times: as a general statement, I'm happy to enjoy a good deal that comes about when someone outgrows or loses luster for an item. There are some people who collect and nearly never sell pieces in their collection, and there are serial traders who I think enjoy the thrill of the hunt more than the get. Nothing is wrong with either approach to me, but I'd be less likely to worry items being turned many times if it was with those serial trade folks. If I saw it pass through a few sets of hands that normally get and hold items, that's probably the only instance in which I'd feel it may be a red flag.

On the JBEG consignment topic, I disagree with so much of what was said. Any dispute with JBEG over the grading of the stone would only be relevant when they sold to the first buyer; that buyer had an inspection period during which he (or she) could verify with his or her own appraisal. Had it come up then, that's where JBEG would have had a responsibility.

In this most recent event, JBEG wasn't the seller but the consignment agent. The fact that they were also the original vendor to the first buyer is completely irrelevant; that transaction is closed, and they are now engaged in a different role in this sale. If the ring had been consigned through Pearlman's or another consignment agent, no one would expect Pearlman's to offer a refund for a stone there were merely the consignment agent for. For me, MF's dispute should have been with the seller (the former owner).

Beyond that, everyone is talking about grading in this thread as though there is some absolute right answer about assigning a grade, and that couldn't be more untrue. Grading isn't a science, and it's not an absolute. All it is is an opinion offered by an expert. The fact that GIA said they opine it's an S-T by their standards doesn't mean the stone is or isn't an S/T. All the grading report means is "by OUR standards, we think it's THIS." Further, it should be noted that while infrequent, labs *can* make mistakes too.

As someone else mentioned, the world is much larger than Pricescope. To think that the entire old cuts sector of industry should modify their choice of lab to suit a small sector of buyers isn't horribly realistic. EGL *is* the common lab standard for older cuts, and while it sounds great to say "oh, JBEG should raise the standard", that's not practical. That would be like saying "people should evaluate an 1929 antique car using the same standards applied to 2011 Ferraris or Bentleys." The fact that both are cars doesn't mean the evaluation criteria for each should be the same. More important, because most customers don't know anything about grading labs or varying stringencies; all they know is "wow, I can get this J stone for the same as their M stone, and J is better." They don't even know enough to realize that the EGL J stone may really be warmer than the GIA M.

For me, I feel it's a buyer's responsibility to be reasonably knowledgeable about the product being purchased. Someone buying an antique stone needs to know that most are offered at EGL grading standard metrics and that most don't come with grading reports at all.

It's always the buyer's responsibility to make sure they're getting what they expect. I bought a used car recently, and I made the sale contingent upon a satisfactory report from my mechanic. The dealer drove the car to my mechanic's shop an hour away, and only after it passed muster did we have a deal. I paid for the $75 inspection, but it protected me from a loss I couldn't absorb myself if the car wasn't what I thought. In MF's situation knowing that layaways weren't eligible for refund, I think it was on her to ask for a satisfactory GIA report (possibly at her expense) to happen prior to placing it on layaway.

I'm glad for MF and for JBEG that it looks like a happier resolution is on the horizon, and I really hope that MF finds just the right stone to make her happy. MF, you've gotten some hard-earned knowledge from this experience that I think will serve you really well as you keep looking for your stone, and I can't wait to see what you pick.

 

[movie zombie]

^^^^^^^

 

[ericad]

With regards to EGL versus GIA, Grace and I did initially start out by using only GIA for our stones. Though we sold many as uncerted, when we did send a stone in for a report, we sent to GIA. But over and over again we felt this put us at a disadvantage. Pricescopers understand that a GIA M is equal to an EGL K, but to try to explain that to someone who isn't lab savvy simply sounds like a sleezy sales pitch. So instead of fighting it, we decided to go with the flow and are now using EGL, and our pricing is adjusted accordingly based on lab.

It's simply so much easier for us and for our clients to make apples to apples comparisons. Even among experts there's no hard and fast rule about the amount of grading discrepancy between the labs. Our experience is that for stones lower than GIA K, EGL is roughly 2 color grades higher. As you go up in the color scale, the distance between EGL and GIA narrows. We've had dual certed stones before. Once an EGL M that came back a GIA O/P. Another was an EGL H that was a GIA I. Our experience is that EGL is fairly consistent with GIA with regards to clarity, apart from their SI3 designation. They are more lenient with fluorescence (we had a GIA strong blue come back an EGL medium blue, for example.) So there are inconsistencies for sure, but no formula for conversion of specs from one lab to the other. Just because I tell someone that our GIA M stone is comparable to another vendor's EGL K, doesn't necessarily make that a precise comparison when every color grade can mean a price difference of hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

If the tide among antique dealers ever begins to turn towards GIA, we will be among the first adopters. But for now, it really doesn't benefit us, and winds up confusing our clients.

 

[maplefemme]

On the original topic of buying a piece that's been around the block a few times: as a general statement, I'm happy to enjoy a good deal that comes about when someone outgrows or loses luster for an item. There are some people who collect and nearly never sell pieces in their collection, and there are serial traders who I think enjoy the thrill of the hunt more than the get. Nothing is wrong with either approach to me, but I'd be less likely to worry items being turned many times if it was with those serial trade folks. If I saw it pass through a few sets of hands that normally get and hold items, that's probably the only instance in which I'd feel it may be a red flag.

On the JBEG consignment topic, I disagree with so much of what was said. Any dispute with JBEG over the grading of the stone would only be relevant when they sold to the first buyer; that buyer had an inspection period during which he (or she) could verify with his or her own appraisal. Had it come up then, that's where JBEG would have had a responsibility.

In this most recent event, JBEG wasn't the seller but the consignment agent. The fact that they were also the original vendor to the first buyer is completely irrelevant; that transaction is closed, and they are now engaged in a different role in this sale. If the ring had been consigned through Pearlman's or another consignment agent, no one would expect Pearlman's to offer a refund for a stone there were merely the consignment agent for. For me, MF's dispute should have been with the seller (the former owner).

Beyond that, everyone is talking about grading in this thread as though there is some absolute right answer about assigning a grade, and that couldn't be more untrue. Grading isn't a science, and it's not an absolute. All it is is an opinion offered by an expert. The fact that GIA said they opine it's an S-T by their standards doesn't mean the stone is or isn't an S/T. All the grading report means is "by OUR standards, we think it's THIS." Further, it should be noted that while infrequent, labs *can* make mistakes too.

As someone else mentioned, the world is much larger than Pricescope. To think that the entire old cuts sector of industry should modify their choice of lab to suit a small sector of buyers isn't horribly realistic. EGL *is* the common lab standard for older cuts, and while it sounds great to say "oh, JBEG should raise the standard", that's not practical. That would be like saying "people should evaluate an 1929 antique car using the same standards applied to 2011 Ferraris or Bentleys." The fact that both are cars doesn't mean the evaluation criteria for each should be the same. More important, because most customers don't know anything about grading labs or varying stringencies; all they know is "wow, I can get this J stone for the same as their M stone, and J is better." They don't even know enough to realize that the EGL J stone may really be warmer than the GIA M.

For me, I feel it's a buyer's responsibility to be reasonably knowledgeable about the product being purchased. Someone buying an antique stone needs to know that most are offered at EGL grading standard metrics and that most don't come with grading reports at all.

It's always the buyer's responsibility to make sure they're getting what they expect. I bought a used car recently, and I made the sale contingent upon a satisfactory report from my mechanic. The dealer drove the car to my mechanic's shop an hour away, and only after it passed muster did we have a deal. I paid for the $75 inspection, but it protected me from a loss I couldn't absorb myself if the car wasn't what I thought. In MF's situation knowing that layaways weren't eligible for refund, I think it was on her to ask for a satisfactory GIA report (possibly at her expense) to happen prior to placing it on layaway.

I'm glad for MF and for JBEG that it looks like a happier resolution is on the horizon, and I really hope that MF finds just the right stone to make her happy. MF, you've gotten some hard-earned knowledge from this experience that I think will serve you really well as you keep looking for your stone, and I can't wait to see what you pick.

Thank you, you are right, I have learnt a lot, in fact, I think it would be a great thread to start to give advice on consignment/layaway purchases.
I made a number of errors. I assumed when told the stone was graded for color against a GIA Master stone set, that it was graded to GIA standards, not then adjusted to EGL standards...a wrong assumption.
I agreed to purchase a stone without a grading report, in the midst of the purchase I asked if I could pay to have it sent to GIA, not to question it's grade, but for my own records for insurance purposes. I wanted a lab graded stone so it would be replaced with a lab graded stone. I was told no problem, but the stone had to be paid off in full before it could be sent to GIA or taken out of the setting.
Again, something I should have requested before agreeing to buy the stone and had to purchase contingent on said report.
I had asked on PS opinions on which lab I should send it to, I tried to make an educated choice. I got responses from very seasoned PSers ranging from; "no point in getting a grading report, period, for an old cut" to "send it to EGL, it will get better grades so you will have gotten a better deal" to others who have purchased old cuts and said "send it straight to GIA, as they have, they'd never consider using EGL to grade their old cuts".
I'd still request a GIA report on an older cut because I question whether GIA is overly stringent on old cuts or if EGL is overly slack.
It seems everyone on PS is against EGL because they are overly generous and inconsistent with their grading, yet it seems it's a benefit to not to use GIA if you want something to sound a little better than it really is, just my observation and opinion.

I learned a great deal, yes, and I'm happy it's resulted in an amicable resolution for everyone involved....

 

[maplefemme]

Hello Erica, I have contacted Grace a couple of times this afternoon as I need some important security information before noon tomorrow in order to proceed, if you can please assist and let her know the details are in her email.

Regards...

 

[ericad]

Hi MF, I know she saw your email and will be replying with the info shortly. Thanks!

 

[TravelingGal]

Glad things are getting resolved.

I did learn something from this thread...I don't think I would want to be involved in a transaction with a vendor that was so personally involved in their transactions. I just want to deal with a business. Not to say they don't have their days too where things don't get somewhat personal, but when things get so emotional that a vendor practically does a GBCPS, well, really not my thing. And I think I don't really want to deal with a preloved owner too, for the same reason that preloved stuff tends to be personal (and with good reason, of course). Just what I got from this thread. No one's the villain; no one is terrible, shady or anything else. Just business style, I suppose.

I think ebay may be the safest option. I keed, I keed.

 

[maplefemme]

Hi MF, I know she saw your email and will be replying with the info shortly. Thanks!

Thank you!