Very negative JamesAllen.com experience

[MsP]

Your underlined portion is just ludicrous! So ONE experience - and it wasn't even a completed experience because they're STILL attempting to rectify this - out of all the positive experiences should mean they're never brought from again. That's a dumb statement.

I appreciate reading vendor feedback-- good or bad.

I think it takes a bit of courage to post negative experiences with popular PS vendors(mistake or not, it shed a poor light on a very exciting time). I myself have had a negative experience with another PS endorsed vendor (not JA) and chosen not to share because I expect so many of the poster replies to side with the vendor. I know how I was treated. I know how I felt.

OP, thank you for sharing your story. It is good to hear that JA is trying to make everything right.

 

[04diamond<3]

Your underlined portion is just ludicrous! So ONE experience - and it wasn't even a completed experience because they're STILL attempting to rectify this - out of all the positive experiences should mean they're never brought from again. That's a dumb statement.

I appreciate reading vendor feedback-- good or bad.

I think it takes a bit of courage to post negative experiences with popular PS vendors(mistake or not, it shed a poor light on a very exciting time). I myself have had a negative experience with another PS endorsed vendor (not JA) and chosen not to share because I expect so many of the poster replies to side with the vendor. I know how I was treated. I know how I felt.

OP, thank you for sharing your story. It is good to hear that JA is trying to make everything right.

Again, your experience was done and then you felt the way you felt, this guy is in the middle of his experience and the issue is being resolved. I'm not going to repeat what I said earlier but there's a difference.

 

[yssie]

Where's the "we're terribly sorry for the situation"? Where's the "please let us set up a time to talk by phone to discuss what we can do"?

Hi Yssie,

The email from Josh to the client contained both an apology and an outreach to work with him to locate a comparable diamond. Ducfrog chose to copy/paste only part of the text of that communication.

Regardless, we have reached out to ducfrog with what I believe is a fair resolution of this issue and are awaiting his response.

All the best,

Ah... I might have guessed.

My apologies to JA in turn, Jim, I'm glad to know that I was mistaken. I hope you and duc find a happy resolution

 

[Dreamer_D]

Huge difference between placing something on order and being given a shipping date, and being told that a vendor needs to receive full payment before attempting to order a stone.

I am not defending or commenting on this particular situation, but I do recall from some other threads something that adds context to this concern: Some suppliers consider any shipping of a diamond to a vendor to be a final sale. So the vendor in that situation would be committing to buy the diamond from the supplier if they order it. If that was the case, then payment from the consumer prior to ordering from the supplier would seem prudent practice to me. Then, the vendor limits the risk to a possible return, rather than accepting the risk of a tire kicker or a changed mind pre-payment (which I imagine is very common). Again, I don't know what happened in this case, but this type of policy is one I have heard before; that payment is due before a stone is ordered.

 

[yssie]

Huge difference between placing something on order and being given a shipping date, and being told that a vendor needs to receive full payment before attempting to order a stone.

I am not defending or commenting on this particular situation, but I do recall from some other threads something that adds context to this concern: Some suppliers consider any shipping of a diamond to a vendor to be a final sale. So the vendor in that situation would be committing to buy the diamond from the supplier if they order it. If that was the case, then payment from the consumer prior to ordering from the supplier would seem prudent practice to me. Then, the vendor limits the risk to a possible return, rather than accepting the risk of a tire kicker or a changed mind pre-payment (which I imagine is very common). Again, I don't know what happened in this case, but this type of policy is one I have heard before; that payment is due before a stone is ordered.

Also neither defending nor commenting on this particular situation - it occurs to me that while JA must have some way of getting hold of stones prior to payment given the three free ISs they offer, this might explain that limit..?

 

[ascari_2]

If you agree on paper to sell something to someone else and money is exchanged then you're on the hook for that. If, on the other hand, you say that you will take a person's money, then try to source the stone, and only then make the actual sale contingent upon you being able to get the stone, that's a different story.

 

[Enerchi]

My hope is that ducfrog will be pleased with alternatives that are offered from JA and that this resolves well. You are getting a lot of advice and support here and I'm glad to see that Jim has spoken and is working towards a positive outcome.

Best of luck

 

[Christina...]

If you agree on paper to sell something to someone else and money is exchanged then you're on the hook for that. If, on the other hand, you say that you will take a person's money, then try to source the stone, and only then make the actual sale contingent upon you being able to get the stone, that's a different story.

How exactly do you make something that isn't available suddenly available? I've had several experiences of ordering something (not jewelry related) online, paid for it, only to receive an email later that the item is no longer available. It sucks, and it's frustrating, but I associate the few times that it's happened to be the risk of shopping online. Even so, I continue to use the same online retailers because of the convenience and savings that it offers me. Would we feel this outraged if the OP had ordered a pair of jeans from GAP? I think the anger comes from the emotional aspect of the purchase, not that something like this could happen.

I do think that PSers are protective of their pet vendors, but I also agree with 04diamonds<3 that perhaps it was premature to have posted about the experience before trying to resolve the issue internally with JA. Had JA refused to work with OP to find a satisfactory resolution then I certainly feel that it warrants further action including making others aware of their experience. But I feel that it's only fair to allow a company the opportunity to correct an error before publicly outing them. Having said that, I would have felt the same frustration and anger that he felt upon hearing that the stone I thought I had purchased was not available. so I hope that JA will address the communication issue so that it doesn't happen again to any consumer on these boards or not.

 

[Maisie]

The part that made me a bit uncomfortable was where the OP said this:

"After calling them, I was told that I can buy another diamond that is slightly smaller but in similar condition for $1000 more."

In this case I don't think up selling was a good way to deal with the situation. I'm glad JA are making things right for the OP but that quote seems a bit off putting.

 

[YoungPapa]

The part that made me a bit uncomfortable was where the OP said this:

"After calling them, I was told that I can buy another diamond that is slightly smaller but in similar condition for $1000 more."

In this case I don't think up selling was a good way to deal with the situation. I'm glad JA are making things right for the OP but that quote seems a bit off putting.

Hi Maisie,

For posterity's sake, I will add the following.

We never asked the OP for any additional money. Our initial email simply stated the diamond was unavailable, we were sorry for the situation, and that a manager would be available the next business day to try and find a comparable diamond.

Any conversation about other diamonds occurred during phone calls/chats after 6:00pm EST, with CSR's that are fully qualified to discuss diamond details, but really don't have the authority to address such a serious and uncommon issue as what we're talking about today. Don't forget, unlike most other online retailers - we're open 24/7.

As of the writing of this email, however, I'm glad to report that I'm working with the OP towards resolution and (hopefully) a beautiful diamond in a beautiful ring will be delivered at the end of this week.

All the best,

 

[CopperTop]

I'm more interested in final experience as well, but I understand the frustration.

 

[ascari_2]

If you agree on paper to sell something to someone else and money is exchanged then you're on the hook for that. If, on the other hand, you say that you will take a person's money, then try to source the stone, and only then make the actual sale contingent upon you being able to get the stone, that's a different story.

How exactly do you make something that isn't available suddenly available? I've had several experiences of ordering something (not jewelry related) online, paid for it, only to receive an email later that the item is no longer available. It sucks, and it's frustrating, but I associate the few times that it's happened to be the risk of shopping online. Even so, I continue to use the same online retailers because of the convenience and savings that it offers me. Would we feel this outraged if the OP had ordered a pair of jeans from GAP? I think the anger comes from the emotional aspect of the purchase, not that something like this could happen.

I do think that PSers are protective of their pet vendors, but I also agree with 04diamonds<3 that perhaps it was premature to have posted about the experience before trying to resolve the issue internally with JA. Had JA refused to work with OP to find a satisfactory resolution then I certainly feel that it warrants further action including making others aware of their experience. But I feel that it's only fair to allow a company the opportunity to correct an error before publicly outing them. Having said that, I would have felt the same frustration and anger that he felt upon hearing that the stone I thought I had purchased was not available. so I hope that JA will address the communication issue so that it doesn't happen again to any consumer on these boards or not.

There may not be a way to get that exact item, but the seller could be required to fork up the difference between what the buyer paid to the seller initially and what the buyer will ultimately pay to obtain a comparable stone. As for your personal experience, yes it certainly happens and most of the time people take the same route that you took.

 

[nala]

I appreciate your post because I understand that sometimes people just want to express their frustration, which is why this forum is called RockyTalky. Posters should not be scolded for sharing their frustrations.

 

[jenani]

So I 'm new here, and dealing with a first purchase with JA. It is interesting to read the various posts and views of members. Some of the posts here scare me, but so far, not out of concern for JA. Of course, a 'bait and switch' of an e-ring stone is pretty pathetic, but there is zero evidence that went down in this case. [Hmm... actually, that said, I was steered to a particularly horrible EC ( no crown, for a bezel setting, and very glassy) and but for PSers I would have had a hack on my hand - thank g-d for pricescopers ! When I took time to connect over the phone with JA, SA Bernardo wasted no time in advising me to dump the EC already in pipeline, inscription and all, and find another stone and setting even if need be. He said in fact, that particular stone with the setting I selected, was totally wrong and also very wrong for me, given what he knew I wanted, and how clearly that stone was not going to be a performer in that setting. Bernardo quickly convinced me to go back to what had actually been my first choice, an aschher. Yes, now the price was going to jump 1500, and I was already over-budget with the incompatible EC. But, that is hardly a 'bait and switch' I mean, that price jump sure seems to be proportionally related to the increase in quality in stone I am getting. I hope. lol. Welcoming comments in my post about that stone now ]

Anyway back to this post: Re: JA being expected to cover OP's cost differential between stone OP hoped to secure and stone OP can actually purchase - no thank you. I sure do not want my chosen online vendor to be expected to pay the difference in this case, or any other case where an attempted purchase of a stone failed. It's not like OP set up a diamond escrow. If JA were to satisfy every customer that feels similarly slighted or shafted, by rewarding them with deeper discounts than other shoppers, like me, for example well, I'd be pretty annoyed. Such a policy would doom the good thing JA and others like JA have going, from which we all get to benefit via what sure seems to me to be low prices, consistent quality, variety. Sorry but I"m not willing to shoulder OP's cost differential because he was unlucky, or even because JA made an error. Everyone makes errors; most errors are harmless, as is this so long as OP got all $$/fees promptly refunded. A potential buyer is of course free to open and fund a "diamond escrow" as one would for real property. Oh wait, that costs OP money.... increasing OP's online buying experience .... but at least the cost is born by OP who is after all the one seeking 100% guarantees as to availability. Availability, it would seem, especially with diamonds, is likely always subject to Capitalism.

I feel so lucky to have found PS! You saved me from the prior EC fate (!) and I really like the education I am getting from all the thoughtful comments. But I just don't think it is either practical or reasonable to expect a vendor to cover a spread on a 'comparable' diamond in the case where despite attempts to purchase, no purchase occurs. So long as the buyer is "made whole" by refund of money and fees, the buyer has not been "wronged." If the OP really feels otherwise, escrow would be the way to secure the deal.

Jennifer

 

[ascari_2]

Anyway back to this post: Re: JA being expected to cover OP's cost differential between stone OP hoped to secure and stone OP can actually purchase - no thank you. I sure do not want my chosen online vendor to be expected to pay the difference in this case, or any other case where an attempted purchase of a stone failed.

This has to do more with what a seller is obligated to do by law.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Anyway back to this post: Re: JA being expected to cover OP's cost differential between stone OP hoped to secure and stone OP can actually purchase - no thank you. I sure do not want my chosen online vendor to be expected to pay the difference in this case, or any other case where an attempted purchase of a stone failed.

This has to do more with what a seller is obligated to do by law.

Ascari, we always appreciate your factual information!

I am sure James Allen will make this right. I am just still scratching my head as to why a stone previously sold is not taken out of the system immediately, though. I mean, can't they call and verify that the stone is definitely available before accepting payment?

 

[Regular Guy]

Having googled "voyeur," I'm not sure that's exactly what I am reading here, but if the shoe fits...

Although final satisfaction for ducfrog might be the end game of interest for most...personally....a transparent review of what action triggers what action in the buying process would be of greatest interest to me. There may or may not be any differential between vendors, and the volume of business may be the only variable of interest. But...that's not obvious to me.

Ira Z.

 

[jenani]

Anyway back to this post: Re: JA being expected to cover OP's cost differential between stone OP hoped to secure and stone OP can actually purchase - no thank you. I sure do not want my chosen online vendor to be expected to pay the difference in this case, or any other case where an attempted purchase of a stone failed.

This has to do more with what a seller is obligated to do by law.

Exactly - and while I'm a CA attorney, I don't know of any law that would require JA to pay the spread sans escrow

 

[ascari_2]

Anyway back to this post: Re: JA being expected to cover OP's cost differential between stone OP hoped to secure and stone OP can actually purchase - no thank you. I sure do not want my chosen online vendor to be expected to pay the difference in this case, or any other case where an attempted purchase of a stone failed.

This has to do more with what a seller is obligated to do by law.

Exactly - and while I'm a CA attorney, I don't know of any law that would require JA to pay the spread sans escrow

UCC 2-712 or expectation damages under typical contract law.

 

[newby310]

I do think that PSers are protective of their pet vendors, but I also agree with 04diamonds<3 that perhaps it was premature to have posted about the experience before trying to resolve the issue internally with JA.

With all the recommendations James Allen gets on this forum, I have no doubt that it is a good place to buy diamonds. But I can't help but wonder if James Allen is trying harder now to resolve this issue because he told his story here. Surely the OP is now being offered more than a "slightly smaller but in similar condition for $1000 more" diamond? (also wondering if "similar" means better, or worse)

 

[04diamond<3]

I do think that PSers are protective of their pet vendors, but I also agree with 04diamonds<3 that perhaps it was premature to have posted about the experience before trying to resolve the issue internally with JA.

With all the recommendations James Allen gets on this forum, I have no doubt that it is a good place to buy diamonds. But I can't help but wonder if James Allen is trying harder now to resolve this issue because he told his story here. Surely the OP is now being offered more than a "slightly smaller but in similar condition for $1000 more" diamond? (also wondering if "similar" means better, or worse)

That's none of our business. What's happening between the OP and JA should have stayed between them till the experience was done. What JA is doing or not doing now because of this thread is not our concern. Notice that the OP hasn't come back yet. JA has clearly gone to him to try to resolve this and we know that, but since then the OP is no where to be found.

 

[nala]

Even though the situation was not resolved, the OP posted here to express his feelings about his current situation. Isn't that what Rocky Talky is about? Sharing experiences before it is too late to do anything about them? Isn't that why many come here, and say, "I am glad I found this site before I made a mistake?"

 

[04diamond<3]

Even though the situation was not resolved, the OP posted here to express his feelings about his current situation. Isn't that what Rocky Talky is about? Sharing experiences before it is too late to do anything about them? Isn't that why many come here, and say, "I am glad I found this site before I made a mistake?"

IMO - no. There's a testimonials page.

 

[nala]

If that was really the case, the moderator would have moved this thread.

 

[nala]

and I think that is the point, the poster was going through an experience...and like you said, he was not finished with the process, so he couldn't leave a testimonial...

 

[04diamond<3]

I said "IMO" which means - in my opinion....obviously this is a moot point.

 

[ChrisES]

Hi folks,

First and foremost, my apologies to ducfrog. I've been in contact with him this morning and I'm confident that we'll resolve this issue to his satisfaction today.

As to some of the other comments that were made in the thread, I can only say the following: In all of 2012, we did not lose a single sale because a diamond was unavailable. In every single instance (of which there were only a few and represented a tiny fraction of our business), the customer walked away with a beautiful diamond and was very satisfied with the measures that we were willing to take to make them whole. Our systems aren't perfect, our people aren't perfect, but our business model is solid and the exceptional error is always treated seriously and with the best interest of the client as the primary goal.

I don't expect this forum to support my company because I'm a nice guy. I expect this forum to support my company because we are good people who always take care of our customers, especially when we make mistakes.

Thank you.

Jim, thanks for coming by. I haven't purchased anything from your company but definitely might in the future.

Where's the "we're terribly sorry for the situation"? Where's the "please let us set up a time to talk by phone to discuss what we can do"?

Hi Yssie,

The email from Josh to the client contained both an apology and an outreach to work with him to locate a comparable diamond. Ducfrog chose to copy/paste only part of the text of that communication.

Regardless, we have reached out to ducfrog with what I believe is a fair resolution of this issue and are awaiting his response.

All the best,

However, I just want to point out that I sincerely doubt that ducfrog only posted part of the e-mail he got out of any maliciousness. Rather, I imagine he was SO disappointed that he didn't fully process it and think through what James Allen would be able to do to get him taken care of. It might be something to learn from from a PR / customer service point of view -

We never asked the OP for any additional money. Our initial email simply stated the diamond was unavailable, we were sorry for the situation, and that a manager would be available the next business day to try and find a comparable diamond.

Any conversation about other diamonds occurred during phone calls/chats after 6:00pm EST, with CSR's that are fully qualified to discuss diamond details, but really don't have the authority to address such a serious and uncommon issue as what we're talking about today. Don't forget, unlike most other online retailers - we're open 24/7.

As of the writing of this email, however, I'm glad to report that I'm working with the OP towards resolution and (hopefully) a beautiful diamond in a beautiful ring will be delivered at the end of this week.

All the best,

- given how rare these situations are anyway, maybe you should consider having an emergency line where instead of an e-mail from whoever is on duty, someone with more authority makes a phone call.

Not trying to tell you how to run your business, just thinking about how, since it seems this is going to be resolved to (hopefully) everyone's satisfaction anyway, you could try to ensure that even these situations only lead to positive threads on PS and warm fuzzy feelings all around.

 

[flamingoezz]

If you look around there are tons of negative posts...custom rings gone wrong, sizes that are incorrect but the vendors swears they're right, etc.

EVERYONE makes mistakes. what is important is how they deal with it. If JA comes to an agreement with the customer that he's happy with, I wouldn't consider it a strike against them. I *might* consider ordering earlier if I was dealing with a deadline, but their products have been well loved here for a long time.

in my mind, a company that is right 95% of the time and bends over backwards to fix mistakes is better than a company that is right 99% of the time but won't admit fault in that rare error.

 

[04diamond<3]

If you look around there are tons of negative posts...custom rings gone wrong, sizes that are incorrect but the vendors swears they're right, etc.

EVERYONE makes mistakes. what is important is how they deal with it. If JA comes to an agreement with the customer that he's happy with, I wouldn't consider it a strike against them. I *might* consider ordering earlier if I was dealing with a deadline, but their products have been well loved here for a long time.

in my mind, a company that is right 95% of the time and bends over backwards to fix mistakes is better than a company that is right 99% of the time but won't admit fault in that rare error.

well said!

 

[Regular Guy]

I do think that PSers are protective of their pet vendors, but I also agree with 04diamonds<3 that perhaps it was premature to have posted about the experience before trying to resolve the issue internally with JA.

With all the recommendations James Allen gets on this forum, I have no doubt that it is a good place to buy diamonds. But I can't help but wonder if James Allen is trying harder now to resolve this issue because he told his story here. Surely the OP is now being offered more than a "slightly smaller but in similar condition for $1000 more" diamond? (also wondering if "similar" means better, or worse)

That's none of our business. What's happening between the OP and JA should have stayed between them till the experience was done. What JA is doing or not doing now because of this thread is not our concern. Notice that the OP hasn't come back yet. JA has clearly gone to him to try to resolve this and we know that, but since then the OP is no where to be found.

Well, there's 3 different points here to be made:

1) Re: "What's happening between the OP and JA should have stayed between them till the experience was done."

So, really, that's just your opinion. It was my opinion when I had minor problems many years ago...but...the fact is that Pricescope does exist. From the point of view of wanting to know, in a more pure sense, what JA would do of his own accord without interference, you're correct, but that's a laboratory thing. I thought it was a good idea, but the fact is...because of Pricescope, you CAN change reality in your favor when getting lemons.

2) re "What JA is doing or not doing now because of this thread is not our concern."

Well, sure, it may be. Future buyers will be interested what can happen when they, too, have a problem, and come to Pricescope as a consequence.

3) The 3rd point is still my point from above...from the point of view of a future buyer at JA, and is maybe consistent, strategically, with your point, 04Diamond.

It would be good to know, given any future fact pattern, in what order JA does things...what it actually means when they put a diamond on hold (have they verified it is available for purchase at the time they do that, and if not, are they doing some sub-set of that that usually works...i.e., exactly what is the sytem they are working with), and then, what additional, if any, verification goes on after money is received. And this, for any generic future purchase. Of course, other vendors, whether working with the same procedures, could comment as well.

If the system is generally so good, and has been worked out over so many years, that we needn't be concerned for this, and can trust it usually works, maybe that's our answer. But, if some vendors do behave differently than others on what is done when, it could be good to know.

Ira Z.