Swap-A-Roo = Not for You?

[maplefemme]

Layaway purchases are final sale per the contract/layaway agreement the buyer signs. That being said, when all this went down 2 months ago, we apologized to the buyer profusely and asked what we could do to make it right. They requested a partial credit for the discrepancy in grading. The buyer didn't request a refund, so it wasn't discussed as an option. Had they asked for a refund at the time, we would have considered it. But they asked for a credit to keep the stone, and we made it so without hesitation.

The other point I'd like to make, since MF and her SO are quite upset about it, is again with regards to the 2.67. MF told us she was upset by the GIA report (rightfully so) and could she possibly trade it for the 2.67. We responded that absolutely yes, she could, but wanted to make sure that she understood it wouldn't be an even trade since the 2.67 was priced at $7k more than the purchase price of her stone. She then said she'd abide by whatever her SO decides, and for us to communicate with him directly. He emailed us and told us, in no uncertain terms, that he would NOT spend any more money for a different stone and he would just like a credit to reflect the lower grade. We interpreted this to mean not $7k, not even $1, therefore we never engaged him in any further discussion about the 2.67 or any other stone. He had outright rejected this option, so we offered him the partial refund he wanted and he said he was happy with that outcome.

WHAT?!
Erica, I have an email from Grace on the 18th of October, she discussed my options for trading in the stone in light of the GIA grade. In that email she also clearly stated that this sale was indeed FINAL because it was a layaway, however she would try her very best to make it a positive experience for me.
Now reading that had we asked for a refund you would have considered it, even after Grace telling me in no uncertain words that that was not possible, that the sale was final - I'm upset. Of coarse he wouldn't ask you for a refund, I was specifically told that same day that it was NOT an option!
On page 4 of this thread you wrote yourself "Because this piece was a layaway piece and a consignment sale, a refund was not an option" - now you write it is possible? I just didn't ask
If you are sincere in your offer to refund us for stone, then we accept your offer and I will have Victor remove it from the ring and courier it back to you insured.

 

[MissStepcut]

I'm really surprised by some fo the posts regarding maplefemme's situation.

Some of you might know that I'm having a ring remade because I'm unhappy with what my previous (very highly lauded here on PS) vendor produced. My new vendor is adapting his process to my needs by letting me into the procedure, and giving me final decision-making rights throughout, so that if I don't like something I see along the way we can change it before it's too late.

Even longtime PSers aren't infallible, and it's easy to overlook safeguards when the siren's calls of high praise and good reputation beckon with such urgency. It isn't that one party is in the right and the other is in the wrong, or even that one is moreright or wrong than the other - it's that maplefemme is, for whatever reason, a customer in a position that she doesn't want to be in, at the moment with no terribly promising options. I can sympathise with that, whether or not it's "her fault" (and I don't think it is, nor do I think JbEG behaved egregiously - it sounds to me like a case of the wrong combination of vendor/customer/merchandise...)

The older I get, the more I see that people (especially Americans) hate grey areas. They want one party or the other to be just wrong. Very few situations are so black and white. Some situations don't have a particularly satisfying resolution, and neither side is to blame, it's just unfortunate circumstances.

 

[armywife13]

I'm really surprised by some fo the posts regarding maplefemme's situation.

Some of you might know that I'm having a ring remade because I'm unhappy with what my previous (very highly lauded here on PS) vendor produced. My new vendor is adapting his process to my needs by letting me into the procedure, and giving me final decision-making rights throughout, so that if I don't like something I see along the way we can change it before it's too late.

Even longtime PSers aren't infallible, and it's easy to overlook safeguards when the siren's calls of high praise and good reputation beckon with such urgency. It isn't that one party is in the right and the other is in the wrong, or even that one is moreright or wrong than the other - it's that maplefemme is, for whatever reason, a customer in a position that she doesn't want to be in, at the moment with no terribly promising options. I can sympathise with that, whether or not it's "her fault" (and I don't think it is, nor do I think JbEG behaved egregiously - it sounds to me like a case of the wrong combination of vendor/customer/merchandise...)

Yes, really! A couple of you go on sanctimoniously about a refund offer and it's not a fact- you two made that up in your own heads, yet you feel so strongly you "yell" about it with all caps.

And this outrageous presumption that MP's SO spent too much- and that's supposedly the rot of his unhappiness- incredibly rude.

Those of you per any vendor who visciously attack anyone who has a problem do not do yourselves or the vendor you are so irrationally defending any favors.

I'm sorry, MF. You really didn't deserve those viscious posts. I believe the color of your stone was misreprented. It's too far off to chalk it off as an honest difference of opinion. But you couldn't have a refund because hey have "policies". Well, I won't nor will anyone I know give them my money in the first place. Can't keep it for a misrepresented sone when I never gave it to you. Told you the used GIA matching and said they didn't specifically use GIA standards. What a crock.

Wow, I don't recall yelling and using caps, but ok. As I stated above, I misinterpreted what was stated in a post by Erica on pg 4 about trading in for credit in the inventory. I already addressed that with MP and apologized for the misunderstanding, as did the other poster. So to me, it appeared things were settled. I don't understand your need to attack and put down others when apologies have been said and everyone has moved on.

 

[yssie]

The older I get, the more I see that people (especially Americans) hate grey areas. They want one party or the other to be just wrong. Very few situations are so black and white. Some situations don't have a particularly satisfying resolution, and neither side is to blame, it's just unfortunate circumstances.

The problem appears to be more of the pale yellow variety
Hey, it's 1:45.

Me, I've found that the older I get, the more people's shoes I walk in for one thing or another - and having been in a similar situation to Maplefemme's just a few weeks ago, and having had to make some difficult and expensive choices, I understand and sympathise with how it feels. The feelings are the same - and no less valid because of - the circumstances... I don't blame my vendor either, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm the one stuck with the (potential) problem

But who knows - maybe maplefemme will adore the ring when she does see it! And that'd make for a very happy ending all 'round

 

[maplefemme]

I agree, Yssie, it is tough when you aren't happy with the final outcome and have to make tough choices. Right now I just want to wrap this up amicably and hear back from Erica in regards to this discussion in her last post below:

(PS) Thank you for your support Imdanny I think there was a lot of confusion and assumptions, these things happen sometimes and I was able to clarify


Written by ericad » 07 Dec 2011 23:11:
Layaway purchases are final sale per the contract/layaway agreement the buyer signs. That being said, when all this went down 2 months ago, we apologized to the buyer profusely and asked what we could do to make it right. They requested a partial credit for the discrepancy in grading. The buyer didn't request a refund, so it wasn't discussed as an option. Had they asked for a refund at the time, we would have considered it. But they asked for a credit to keep the stone, and we made it so without hesitation.

The other point I'd like to make, since MF and her SO are quite upset about it, is again with regards to the 2.67. MF told us she was upset by the GIA report (rightfully so) and could she possibly trade it for the 2.67. We responded that absolutely yes, she could, but wanted to make sure that she understood it wouldn't be an even trade since the 2.67 was priced at $7k more than the purchase price of her stone. She then said she'd abide by whatever her SO decides, and for us to communicate with him directly. He emailed us and told us, in no uncertain terms, that he would NOT spend any more money for a different stone and he would just like a credit to reflect the lower grade. We interpreted this to mean not $7k, not even $1, therefore we never engaged him in any further discussion about the 2.67 or any other stone. He had outright rejected this option, so we offered him the partial refund he wanted and he said he was happy with that outcome.


WHAT?!
Erica, I have an email from Grace on the 18th of October, she discussed my options for trading in the stone in light of the GIA grade. In that email she also clearly stated that this sale was indeed FINAL because it was a layaway, however she would try her very best to make it a positive experience for me.
Now reading that had we asked for a refund you would have considered it, even after Grace telling me in no uncertain words that that was not possible, that the sale was final - I'm upset. Of coarse he wouldn't ask you for a refund, I was specifically told that same day that it was NOT an option!
On page 4 of this thread you wrote yourself "Because this piece was a layaway piece and a consignment sale, a refund was not an option" - now you write it is possible? I just didn't ask
If you are sincere in your offer to refund us for the stone, then we accept your offer and I will have Victor remove it from the ring and courier it back to you insured.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I think the mistake was not sending for the ring to look at before the final commitment to buy was made. If the vendor is the one I suspect, I think they have a 3 day return. You could have put it on a credit card to look at, returned it, and then put it on layaway. It is really important have an uncertified stone verified by a local jeweler at the very least since color is going to have a major effect on the pricing. The problem in this case aside from committing to a stone you hadn't seen was that it was on consignment and the seller really may not care whether you are satisfied or not. I hope others learn from it to never buy something without looking at it if there will be no return once you start a layaway. And it proves the importance of a grading certificate over a vendor opinion, definitely. I am so sorry this happened, though.

Diamondseeker, I agree with you, we made a mistake not having it shipped up to Canada to see it first, however, we didn't have $15,000 available to us to do so. I wouldn't have done this with an unknown vendor, but JbEG is so highly regarded here with not a bad review to be found with lots of similar transactions, we thought this would be safe.
I do take complete responsibility for my choice though, I should have not purchased a stone without a grading or seeing it first, regardless of the vendor's reputation, my fault for that I admit.

For everyone else, thank you, I don't feel so unreasonable now.
I never expected a straight switch, we would have paid some difference, but to see the stone I wanted to switch to, one who's price was so firm when I asked about making the switch; now go on sale, that really upset me, I feel very ripped off.

The stone originally belonged to, and was sourced by, JbEG. They sold it last year under the same specs. So even though the stone doesn't now belong to them, I feel it's still their resoponsibility as the person it belonged to trusted their grade too, its not her fault.
I just wish this wasn't for me E-ring, I do want to be proud of it...

I'm very sorry Maplefemme, that all just sucks. Purely in the interest of education for future consumers who might see this (I do think you should post a thread in RT about the peril of layaway), another option could have been to negotiate with the seller that the stone be sent to GIA prior to buying it and beginning layaway. Hindsight is 20-20, though.

And now that I have caught up... Maplefemme I hope you love the stone. I want to offer some comments about your concern about contrast with the melee. No matter the color of the melee VC uses, it will contrast with your stone. I hav ea thread somewhere comparing a M color VC (AGS graded) to my dream band with H-I color melee, I will see if I can find it shortly. There is a very noticable contrast. There would also be a contrast between melee of virtually any color and an I or J color stone, though more subtle. So when you see your ring, you will see contrast But you would have seen contrast with a true L-M stone as well, as my photos demonstrate. The contrastm IMO, is very pretty, and with your diamond being so low on the color scale it will look *beautiful* and *purposeful*. But I wantto prepare you for when you see your ring: If you notice contrast with the melee it is NOT solely because you diamond is lower in color than you had thought it would be. The contrast would have been very evident with an M color stone as well. So you were/are in for contrast no matter the actual color of your stone! So don't get upset all over again about this issue when you see your ring, please, imagining how different it might have looked if the stone was less tinted Open mind, m'dear!

ETA: Thread with photos showing M color cushion and H-I color melee. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/august-vintage-cushion-compared-to-a-bgd-round-brilliant.165243/page-2']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/august-vintage-cushion-compared-to-a-bgd-round-brilliant.165243/page-2[/URL]

 

[sapphirering]

I'm really surprised by some fo the posts regarding maplefemme's situation.

Some of you might know that I'm having a ring remade because I'm unhappy with what my previous (very highly lauded here on PS) vendor produced. My new vendor is adapting his process to my needs by letting me into the procedure, and giving me final decision-making rights throughout, so that if I don't like something I see along the way we can change it before it's too late.

Even longtime PSers aren't infallible, and it's easy to overlook safeguards when the siren's calls of high praise and good reputation beckon with such urgency. It isn't that one party is in the right and the other is in the wrong, or even that one is moreright or wrong than the other - it's that maplefemme is, for whatever reason, a customer in a position that she doesn't want to be in, at the moment with no terribly promising options. I can sympathise with that, whether or not it's "her fault" (and I don't think it is, nor do I think JbEG behaved egregiously - it sounds to me like a case of the wrong combination of vendor/customer/merchandise...)

Yes, really! A couple of you go on sanctimoniously about a refund offer and it's not a fact- you two made that up in your own heads, yet you feel so strongly you "yell" about it with all caps.

And this outrageous presumption that MP's SO spent too much- and that's supposedly the rot of his unhappiness- incredibly rude.

Those of you per any vendor who visciously attack anyone who has a problem do not do yourselves or the vendor you are so irrationally defending any favors.

I'm sorry, MF. You really didn't deserve those viscious posts. I believe the color of your stone was misreprented. It's too far off to chalk it off as an honest difference of opinion. But you couldn't have a refund because hey have "policies". Well, I won't nor will anyone I know give them my money in the first place. Can't keep it for a misrepresented sone when I never gave it to you. Told you the used GIA matching and said they didn't specifically use GIA standards. What a crock.

Well, Imdanny, I think you were referring to me. Given that I've already apologized to Maplefemme and she has graciously accepted, I'm quite ready to move on. Please believe me when I say that I'm more embarrassed about my behavior than I can express, especially at this late hour. I'm not defending myself- I just consider this a very publicly learned lesson.

 

[Gypsy]

Personally, when an item is THIS significantly not as described a return should be allowed, no matter what the vendor's usual policy. And I believe that should have been OFFERED to MF the minute she or her SO went back to JBEG and said... Your grading was THIS FAR off. There was no reason she should have HAD to ask (especially when she we was told it was non-refundable repeatedly). The response should have been, "We are so sorry. We are happy to take the stone back for a full refund. Or alternately we can give you a partial refund and you can keep the stone." One or two grades, okay. FOUR is bad. L-M to ST just ridiculous. And using GIA master stones and SAYING that you do, but then loupe-holeing to say that the STANDARDS are EGL standards regardless of the stones is frankly wrong.

The stone is gorgeous from the pics and the faceting is fabulous. But I too would have wanted a refund immediately.

The situation is unfortunate. And yes, steps could have been taken by both parties to avoid it. What I think should happen now is that the stone is sent to JBEG and a full refund issued.

 

[Laila619]

Personally, when an item is THIS significantly not as described a return should be allowed, no matter what the vendor's usual policy.

Yeah, I kind of have to agree, layaway policy or not. Maple agreed to purchase an L/M stone, not an S/T. Therefore, the policy technically shouldn't apply anymore.

 

[MissStepcut]

Personally, when an item is THIS significantly not as described a return should be allowed, no matter what the vendor's usual policy.

Yeah, I kind of have to agree, layaway policy or not. Maple agreed to purchase an L/M stone, not an S/T. Therefore, the policy technically shouldn't apply anymore.

But really, wasn't it the consignor who sold the item? The break in the chain of possession at least seems to muddy the waters here.

 

[Gypsy]

Personally, when an item is THIS significantly not as described a return should be allowed, no matter what the vendor's usual policy.

Yeah, I kind of have to agree, layaway policy or not. Maple agreed to purchase an L/M stone, not an S/T. Therefore, the policy technically shouldn't apply anymore.

But really, wasn't it the consignor who sold the item? The break in the chain of possession at least seems to muddy the waters here.

Not for me.

First JBEG charges for consignments-- so they aren't ebay just listing things (and ebay has buyer protection for exactly events like this that overrides a no refunds policy). And it's THEIR reputation and their business. So they should double check certain things, even from consigners. If the stone had been a CZ and the consigner claimed it was a diamond and JBEG listed it as a diamond-- is JBEG faultless? This isn't the difference between G and H color. L-M to ST is A HUGE leap that a GIA trained (and I think either Erica or Grace is GIA trained) eye should have spotted (even set) enough to say, hey... let's double check this before we list it. I've considered consigning and every place I have called says that they have to see the item and examine it to make sure the quality and the value is what I think it is and that the price they ask will have to be set based on the actual piece, not a random seller's fantasy of what the item is worth.

AND JBEG has a contract with their consigners. IN THAT CONTRACT it should say that - if there is significant misrepresentation found in a sold item, after the fact, and we are required to refund the seller and take the item back -- you will be liable for your time once again.

 

[Imdanny]

Personally, when an item is THIS significantly not as described a return should be allowed, no matter what the vendor's usual policy. And I believe that should have been OFFERED to MF the minute she or her SO went back to JBEG and said... Your grading was THIS FAR off. There was no reason she should have HAD to ask (especially when she we was told it was non-refundable repeatedly). The response should have been, "We are so sorry. We are happy to take the stone back for a full refund. Or alternately we can give you a partial refund and you can keep the stone." One or two grades, okay. FOUR is bad. L-M to ST just ridiculous. And using GIA master stones and SAYING that you do, but then loupe-holeing to say that the STANDARDS are EGL standards regardless of the stones is frankly wrong.

The stone is gorgeous from the pics and the faceting is fabulous. But I too would have wanted a refund immediately.

The situation is unfortunate. And yes, steps could have been taken by both parties to avoid it. What I think should happen now is that the stone is sent to JBEG and a full refund issued.

I agree completely. In fact thank you for expressing my thoughts more eloquently than I was able to express them.

 

[Maisie]

Personally, when an item is THIS significantly not as described a return should be allowed, no matter what the vendor's usual policy. And I believe that should have been OFFERED to MF the minute she or her SO went back to JBEG and said... Your grading was THIS FAR off. There was no reason she should have HAD to ask (especially when she we was told it was non-refundable repeatedly). The response should have been, "We are so sorry. We are happy to take the stone back for a full refund. Or alternately we can give you a partial refund and you can keep the stone." One or two grades, okay. FOUR is bad. L-M to ST just ridiculous. And using GIA master stones and SAYING that you do, but then loupe-holeing to say that the STANDARDS are EGL standards regardless of the stones is frankly wrong.

The stone is gorgeous from the pics and the faceting is fabulous. But I too would have wanted a refund immediately.

The situation is unfortunate. And yes, steps could have been taken by both parties to avoid it. What I think should happen now is that the stone is sent to JBEG and a full refund issued.

Excellent post! I completely agree. A refund should be issued and Maplefemme should be allowed to find a stone that really makes her heart sing!

 

[Maisie]

oops! double post!

 

[MissStepcut]

Not for me.

First JBEG charges for consignments-- so they aren't ebay just listing things (and ebay has buyer protection for exactly events like this that overrides a no refunds policy). And it's THEIR reputation and their business. So they should double check certain things, even from consigners. If the stone had been a CZ and the consigner claimed it was a diamond and JBEG listed it as a diamond-- is JBEG faultless? This isn't the difference between G and H color. L-M to ST is A HUGE leap that a GIA trained (and I think either Erica or Grace is GIA trained) eye should have spotted (even set) enough to say, hey... let's double check this before we list it. I've considered consigning and every place I have called says that they have to see the item and examine it to make sure the quality and the value is what I think it is and that the price they ask will have to be set based on the actual piece, not a random seller's fantasy of what the item is worth.

AND JBEG has a contract with their consigners. IN THAT CONTRACT it should say that - if there is significant misrepresentation found in a sold item, after the fact, and we are required to refund the seller and take the item back -- you will be liable for your time once again.

I agree with you for the most part (as in, you changed my mind), but I would add that JbEG's charging for commission only matters to me a little: they take photos, insure the items and incur other costs. So I don't think their income from consignments is, in itself, determinative.

That said, my understanding was that they sold the stone in the first place? I know this thread has eroded my confidence in their color grading. I would have expected them to be embarrassed by their bad grading both for the initial sale and again for the consignment, and that the embarrassment of their mistake would have led to a willing refund, both to maplefemme and then to whoever the consigner was (if he or she wanted it).

 

[makemepretty]

It's ridiculous to have a no return policy on a layaway that was so misrepresented. Especially since JBEG was the original grader of the diamond in question so it's completely, 100% their fault. You went by their word, their word was crap to put it bluntly. A refund should have been offered immediately and should still be offered. I think this has put a lot of consumers off trusting JBEG's honesty.

*guess I basically just said what Gypsy said, so I agree whole heartedly*

 

[Amys Bling]

[quote="Amys Bling|

I think PSers by nature are fickle- change their mind- want to have it all!! So its natural for things to change hands. As long as it was something that fit my budget- was a good deal- and something I realy wanted, I don't care who or how many others have owned it previously.

...are you referring to a piece jewelry or a bf/husband??[/quote]


Haha- maybe both...

 

[mrssalvo]

Personally, when an item is THIS significantly not as described a return should be allowed, no matter what the vendor's usual policy. And I believe that should have been OFFERED to MF the minute she or her SO went back to JBEG and said... Your grading was THIS FAR off. There was no reason she should have HAD to ask (especially when she we was told it was non-refundable repeatedly). The response should have been, "We are so sorry. We are happy to take the stone back for a full refund. Or alternately we can give you a partial refund and you can keep the stone." One or two grades, okay. FOUR is bad. L-M to ST just ridiculous. And using GIA master stones and SAYING that you do, but then loupe-holeing to say that the STANDARDS are EGL standards regardless of the stones is frankly wrong.

The stone is gorgeous from the pics and the faceting is fabulous. But I too would have wanted a refund immediately.

The situation is unfortunate. And yes, steps could have been taken by both parties to avoid it. What I think should happen now is that the stone is sent to JBEG and a full refund issued.

I couldn't have said this any better and completely agree as well.

 

[ericad]

This is really getting beyond ridiculous everyone. Really. As I've clearly stated since the beginning, this was a final sale purchase not contingent upon a 3rd party appraisal.

That being said, when MF initially emailed with the results of the GIA report she asked if we would consider allowing her to trade the stone for a different one (she didn't ask for a refund, the subject of a refund never came up). She asked for a different stone and we told her yes. We also told her that, though the sale wasn't contingent on an appraisal and was a final layaway sale, we would do anything it took to find a resolution they were both happy with. Again, there was no request for a refund. Her SO then emailed us to say he's not interested in a different stone and would like a credit back for the grading discrepancy and we agreed, reducing the price of the stone in accordance with the GIA report. Again, he did not ask for a refund. We complied with his request and adjusted the price to what all parties felt was fair for a near 3ct, GIA S/T colored diamond.

At no point along the way did either MF or her SO request a refund, or express to us that a refund was their preferred resolution.

Though it was a final sale, we were willing to look at and consider all options.

Now, it seems the consensus is that, as a vendor we should have insisted upon refunding their money even though they didn't ask for a refund? We are a business, and as such it's our desire for clients to keep their purchases. We complied with everything this client asked for. Our understanding was that they loved the stone despite the GIA report, and just wanted a price adjustment for the discrepancy in grading. We never had any reason to believe otherwise until this thread, 2 months after we closed the transaction.

Now, 2 months later, as a result of this thread we should, again, engage this client and insist upon a refund? MF emailed us earlier this week again requesting a trade, and discussed it with her SO. YET AGAIN, neither has requested a refund.

I understand the desire on a consumer forum to sympathize with and side with the consumer. I agree with that approach. But the things being represented on this thread are not black and white and there have been many inaccuracies posted.

This thread has taken a huge toll on Grace and I. We're giving serious consideration to whether we want to participate in the PS community any longer, not to mention serious thought as to where we take our business from here. To think that the general expectation is that, despite a contract and our offer to do anything to make the situation right for a client, then agreeing to a resolution that's their idea, it's still not enough. To think that small businesses nowadays are expected to essentially offer a no expiration, whenever you feel like it, refund policy where not only do we revisit closed transactions but we also reach out to clients and insist that they accept refunds even when they haven't asked for one is simply and utterly beyond me.

Though I know I'm not the sympathetic party in this mess, this thread has discouraged and upset me to a point where I simply can't participate any longer. MF and her SO are welcome to contact us privately and we will work with them towards a resolution that is fair for all parties. In fact, anyone who wants should feel free to do so, as we won't be revisiting this thread for updates.

I'm done.

 

[armywife13]

This is really getting beyond ridiculous everyone. Really. As I've clearly stated since the beginning, this was a final sale purchase not contingent upon a 3rd party appraisal.

That being said, when MF initially emailed with the results of the GIA report she asked if we would consider allowing her to trade the stone for a different one (she didn't ask for a refund, the subject of a refund never came up). She asked for a different stone and we told her yes. We also told her that, though the sale wasn't contingent on an appraisal and was a final layaway sale, we would do anything it took to find a resolution they were both happy with. Again, there was no request for a refund. Her SO then emailed us to say he's not interested in a different stone and would like a credit back for the grading discrepancy and we agreed, reducing the price of the stone in accordance with the GIA report. Again, he did not ask for a refund. We complied with his request and adjusted the price to what all parties felt was fair for a near 3ct, GIA S/T colored diamond.

At no point along the way did either MF or her SO request a refund, or express to us that a refund was their preferred resolution.

Though it was a final sale, we were willing to look at and consider all options.

Now, it seems the consensus is that, as a vendor we should have insisted upon refunding their money even though they didn't ask for a refund? We are a business, and as such it's our desire for clients to keep their purchases. We complied with everything this client asked for. Our understanding was that they loved the stone despite the GIA report, and just wanted a price adjustment for the discrepancy in grading. We never had any reason to believe otherwise until this thread, 2 months after we closed the transaction.

Now, 2 months later, as a result of this thread we should, again, engage this client and insist upon a refund? MF emailed us earlier this week again requesting a trade, and discussed it with her SO. YET AGAIN, neither has requested a refund.

I understand the desire on a consumer forum to sympathize with and side with the consumer. I agree with that approach. But the things being represented on this thread are not black and white and there have been many inaccuracies posted.

This thread has taken a huge toll on Grace and I. We're giving serious consideration to whether we want to participate in the PS community any longer, not to mention serious thought as to where we take our business from here. To think that the general expectation is that, despite a contract and our offer to do anything to make the situation right for a client, then agreeing to a resolution that's their idea, it's still not enough. To think that small businesses nowadays are expected to essentially offer a no expiration, whenever you feel like it, refund policy where not only do we revisit closed transactions but we also reach out to clients and insist that they accept refunds even when they haven't asked for one is simply and utterly beyond me.

Though I know I'm not the sympathetic party in this mess, this thread has discouraged and upset me to a point where I simply can't participate any longer. MF and her SO are welcome to contact us privately and we will work with them towards a resolution that is fair for all parties.

I'm done.

This whole situation has gotten out of hand, and will only truly get resolved with one on one discussions with MP, as you stated.

I hope you andGrace do stay, I know many of us enjoy having you on PS.

 

[Maisie]

I think the way forward here is to fix the situation that went wrong and make sure it never happens again moving forward. If Maplefemme and her SO thought for one minute a refund was possible I doubt they would have settled for a partial refund. This is her engagement ring. Its supposed to be a ring she can look at and cherish for years to come. I really don't think thats possible in this case.

She didn 't want or expect an S/T coloured diamond. You said it was an L/M in your listing. You are responsible for that. As far as I can tell Maplefemme doesn't want this diamond. You said long after the fact that you would have considered a refund if they had asked for one at the time. This was after you kept telling them a refund would not be possible after purchasing with layaway. Why would they think they could ask for a refund??

There is no need for you to stop posting on Pricescope. There are many vendors who have been in your situation over the years. They make the situation right and life carries on.

 

[ericad]

This was after you kept telling them a refund would not be possible after purchasing with layaway. Why would they think they could ask for a refund??

This is false. We never told her a refund would not be possible. You are mistaken. We never denied her a refund because the subject of a refund was never broached. Your assertion that we repeatedly denied them a refund is completely and utterly fabricated. Please stop repeating this false information.

 

[ericad]

I think the way forward here is to fix the situation that went wrong and make sure it never happens again moving forward.

Already done.

If Maplefemme and her SO thought for one minute a refund was possible I doubt they would have settled for a partial refund.

You're wrong. They never settled for anything. Their primary concern was with regards to insurance valuation and asked for a price adjustment, which we gave them. Never once did we indicate that this was the only option available to them. Again, you are spreading mistruths.

This is her engagement ring. Its supposed to be a ring she can look at and cherish for years to come. I really don't think thats possible in this case.

Agreed. This is a beautiful and amazing diamond and should be with someone who loves and cherishes it.

She didn 't want or expect an S/T coloured diamond. You said it was an L/M in your listing. You are responsible for that.

No arguments from me on that.

As far as I can tell Maplefemme doesn't want this diamond.

This has become clear only as a result of this thread. At no time in our discussions 2 months ago did she tell us this, and I'm sad to hear it.

There is no need for you to stop posting on Pricescope. There are many vendors who have been in your situation over the years. They make the situation right and life carries on.

We made it right 2 months ago, and have again offered to make it more right in every possible way both 2 days ago, and again this morning. The ball is in her court.

 

[decodelighted]

Erica,

Maybe you missed this.

If you are sincere in your offer to refund us for the stone, then we accept your offer and I will have Victor remove it from the ring and courier it back to you insured.

You keep saying they don't want a refund. They do. We're getting down to SEMANTICS. Did they *ask* for one? Or did you *offer*? If you're sincere about refunding to "make this good" then just do it already.

 

[marymm]

Per MF's post above, in a 10-18 email from Grace, she was advised the sale was FINAL - to me, that means no return is possible. If I was advised by a vendor that a sale was final but they would work with me to make me happy, I would not even consider that a full refund was an option open to me to request.

eta - clearly, now the customer is requesting a return/full refund - as a vendor, will you honor that request?

 

[ericad]

Erica,

Maybe you missed this.

If you are sincere in your offer to refund us for the stone, then we accept your offer and I will have Victor remove it from the ring and courier it back to you insured.

You keep saying they don't want a refund. They do. We're getting down to SEMANTICS. Did they *ask* for one? Or did you *offer*? If you're sincere about refunding to "make this good" then just do it already.

Deco, we emailed MF as soon as we saw her post and offered a refund and have yet to hear back from her.

 

[Maisie]

This was after you kept telling them a refund would not be possible after purchasing with layaway. Why would they think they could ask for a refund??

This is false. We never told her a refund would not be possible. You are mistaken. We never denied her a refund because the subject of a refund was never broached. Your assertion that we repeatedly denied them a refund is completely and utterly fabricated. Please stop repeating this false information.

So you do offer refunds on layaway items?

 

[ericad]

Per MF's post above, in a 10-18 email from Grace, she was advised the sale was FINAL - to me, that means no return is possible. If I was advised by a vendor that a sale was final but they would work with me to make me happy, I would not even consider that a full refund was an option open to me to request.

I've reviewed all correspondence between ourselves and the clients. This is a mischaracterization that's being taken out of context.

 

[decodelighted]

Erica,

Maybe you missed this.

If you are sincere in your offer to refund us for the stone, then we accept your offer and I will have Victor remove it from the ring and courier it back to you insured.

You keep saying they don't want a refund. They do. We're getting down to SEMANTICS. Did they *ask* for one? Or did you *offer*? If you're sincere about refunding to "make this good" then just do it already.

Deco, we emailed MF as soon as we saw her post and offered a refund and have yet to hear back from her.

Good to know. FWIW, I *do* see the shades of grey in the scenario & hope that it'll be educating all around. I don't think you and Grace are villans in this or even unsympathetic. I see you *trying*. And appreciate your responses in this thread.

 

[marymm]

Per MF's post above, in a 10-18 email from Grace, she was advised the sale was FINAL - to me, that means no return is possible. If I was advised by a vendor that a sale was final but they would work with me to make me happy, I would not even consider that a full refund was an option open to me to request.

I've reviewed all correspondence between ourselves and the clients. This is a mischaracterization that's being taken out of context.

From the information provided by the customer, she construed it to mean no return/full refund was possible, which is why she did not previously request a return/full refund.