What is this SCARINESS in my diamond that I thought I loved?? PIC

[kristie]

^^^Nope, not yet......I have it scanned from an email, but the actual report.....no.
It ironically, "Just came in today."

 

[susimoo]

Date: 2/24/2010 11:03:37 PM
Author: kenny
You can reveal their name.

You have power.


You are a good person and would never harm them - unless it is in self defense.


You can keep quiet.

The price of your silence just happens to be $4200.

My, what a coincidence.

After reading this very tense update that actually made me burst out laughing!!!


Kristie,

Everyone is on your side. I hope today brings the satisfactory conclusion you so deserve!!

Thinking about you all the time and running to my computer to check the updates.

Darn the time difference!!!

 

[arjunajane]

Kristie -

do a CC chargeback, get all your money back, move on and buy from a reputable vendor - and also, *please* post the vendors name on this thread, so that we can all avoid ever using them.
This 4k business is BS.

It is not "evil" to do a chargeback, it is protecting your interests as a consumer - which clearly the vendor''s only priority is protecting theirs.

Ditto Kenny - a bad review on PS holds a significant amount of "people power" - why would you even mind if you burnt your bridges with these people??

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 2/24/2010 11:40:31 PM
Author: kristie
^^^Trust me......I have beat it to death like a proverbial dead horse.......they REFUSE to go back on the mazal. They send it would be the END of their relationship with that cutter/dealer.....and then that cutter would tell EVERYONE else that they went back on the mazal of ONE diamond and it would be the end of their business......seriously, I am not making this up.

this is not your problem. Sorry, it''s just not.
Sounds to me like they may have a shaky rep already, and are paranoid this could be their proverbial coffin nail...
again, not your concern.

 

[Maisie]

Hello mystery vendor,

By now I am sure you are following this thread. There are over 3300 potential customers who are following this thread with great interest. Wondering if you are going to do everything you can to help your customer. She hasn''t revealed your name, but she could at any time. Step up and be the good guy. Surely there is something more you can do to assist this lady?

 

[NovemberBride]

Kristie, I am very sorry this happened to you. That said, while it is certainly good business practice to do so, I do not believe the vendor is obligated to allow you to return the stone. Also, I don''t think you''d have much luck with a cc chargeback. A chargeback is for a situation where there was fraud or some other wrongdoing. Not because you decided you no longer want an item you purchased and the vendor''s policy does not allow you to return it, which is what happened here. Unless you are planning to lie, the cc company won''t grant the chargeback. It''s an expensive lesson, but frankly I''d be grateful they''re offering you anything back, some vendors would not do so.

 

[NovemberBride]

Kristie, I am very sorry this happened to you. That said, while it is certainly good business practice to do so, I do not believe the vendor is obligated to allow you to return the stone. Also, I don''t think you''d have much luck with a cc chargeback. A chargeback is for a situation where there was fraud or some other wrongdoing. Not because you decided you no longer want an item you purchased and the vendor''s policy does not allow you to return it, which is what happened here. Unless you are planning to lie, the cc company won''t grant the chargeback. It''s an expensive lesson, but frankly I''d be grateful they''re offering you anything back, some vendors would not do so.

 

[Maisie]

But there as never a returns policy shown anywhere. I know the OP should have asked but isn''t it the vendors responsibility to make customers aware of their policies?

 

[Amethyste]

Date: 2/24/2010 10:03:57 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 2/24/2010 10:01:26 PM

Author: kristie

My original 2.68 was $22,800 out of pocket with a simple mounting.


The price difference they are asking for the 2.52 is an additional $13,937.....


BUT, they will not give me back my $22,800 towards the 2.52....only about $18,500 towards it.


So the actual total for the 2.52 would be $31,937-ish.

Not a bad out of pocket amount, but I would still go elsewhere. They don't deserve your money based on how they have acted.


You need to send a link to this thread and tell them that you will reveal their name however they plan to act -- if they step up and do right, they get good press, if they act poorly then they get bad press. This is a lot of money. Play hard ball.

THat's the thing though, they are keeping some her her money for her to "go away". It is highly unfair to NOT credit the full value of her stone to upgrade to another one with the same vendor, ESPECIALLY after such a short time... thats my opinion.

DO A CHARGEBACK!!!!!! That is the only way you will recover your money. You have documentation that you have tried to resolve this matter and it is legal to do a chargeback and it's there available for consumers for good reasons. It is up to the company to decide if your request is justified, but it would help your situation if you at least try to recover your potential loss, and walk away to another vendor to get the diamond that "honks" to you

 

[bgray]

I keep thinking that there more to the whole story--something doesnt add up

 

[elle_chris]

I dunno, while I understand your frustration Krisitie- I think ultimately, this is a case of buyers remorse. You did everything right including viewing the stone with your appraiser, the inclusions were explained to you, and it doesn''t sound like the vendor misrepresented the stone in any way. You purchased it after seeing it, had it set, then decided you didn''t want it. You didn''t inquire about the return policy or get anything specific in writing.
While I''d be mad too, especially if I had to take a 4k loss, there''s nothing you can fault this company for doing.

Regarding the exchange- again, you never asked them about their returns so I''m going to assume you never asked them about exchanges as well. There is nothing they did wrong aside from crappy customer service.

Either way, hoping you can come to some sort of an agreement with this vendor.

 

[Laila619]

Date: 2/25/2010 8:12:16 AM
Author: bgray
I keep thinking that there more to the whole story--something doesnt add up

How so? You mean because of the fact that the vendor won''t even give the full credit back?

Not wanting to give a cash refund is believable, but it is weird that they won''t give her store credit for the entire purchase price.

 

[Collee]

SO sorry for the continued frustration and aggravation.

Stay strong and positive. Exhaust ALL your resources and remain calm (easier said than done). $4,000 is A LOT of money and you should not be forced to have to suffer such a great loss.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I think that there is one simple rule in retail, and that is that you should never try to sell anything to a consumer that you would not want to sell to yourself.

With this, I do not mean that somebody owning a McDonald''s-franchise should only eat McDo, but at the very least, if you sell something, you should at least want to stock it, if necessary, and gladly sell it to another customer.

In this case, with the vendor even refusing a full store-credit, and claiming that he will sell it at a loss to another wholesaler, it gives the impression that the vendor-retailer himself finds that he does not want to own this stone and that he overpaid his supplier.

Such occasions are inherent problems of a retailer, organized as a drop-shipper, and they will also occur with other retailers, representing virtual supply. As such, the fact that a customer wants to return a stone, four days after she receives it, happens and it is a normal consequence of the way in which the retailer set up his business-model.

A well-organized retailer will fix it, and understand that it is an inherent cost of his way of doing business.

Another retailer might abuse such a situation to cash in 4K on the back of the consumer. The question then is: At what point does such a system become organized fraud?

Granted, this is an exaggerated reaction. The thing is, however, that such bad behaviour of one retailer reflects badly upon the whole business.

Live long,

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 2/25/2010 9:03:56 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I think that there is one simple rule in retail, and that is that you should never try to sell anything to a consumer that you would not want to sell to yourself.


With this, I do not mean that somebody owning a McDonald''s-franchise should only eat McDo, but at the very least, if you sell something, you should at least want to stock it, if necessary, and gladly sell it to another customer.


In this case, with the vendor even refusing a full store-credit, and claiming that he will sell it at a loss to another wholesaler, it gives the impression that the vendor-retailer himself finds that he does not want to own this stone and that he overpaid his supplier.


Such occasions are inherent problems of a retailer, organized as a drop-shipper, and they will also occur with other retailers, representing virtual supply. As such, the fact that a customer wants to return a stone, four days after she receives it, happens and it is a normal consequence of the way in which the retailer set up his business-model.


A well-organized retailer will fix it, and understand that it is an inherent cost of his way of doing business.


Another retailer might abuse such a situation to cash in 4K on the back of the consumer. The question then is: At what point does such a system become organized fraud?


Granted, this is an exaggerated reaction. The thing is, however, that such bad behaviour of one retailer reflects badly upon the whole business.


Live long,

agree very strongly with everything you have said Paul; this is the kind of behaviour which gives jewellers "snake oil sales-men" reps, and this kind of treatment of a customer has no place in today''s diamond trade, imho.
As a vendor who behaves ethically and in the interests of the client, this kinda thing would peeve me off!

This also makes me think of that recent thread, the question whether vendors miss the ''good old days'' - clearly this is one vendor that is still living and trading there, as if it''s the wild west.

We can only hope sellers like these adapt and shape up - or clear out.

 

[elle_chris]

Normally, I''m always on the side of the consumer. In this case though, Kristie has another thread that was posted on the 9th. In that thread the stone was already in her possesion and she had seen it with her appraiser. Kristie herself said that the inclusions were visible in a shaded area.

On the 21st she decided she can''t live with it. That''s not four days. That''s at least 11 days from her first thread assuming it was purcahsed on the 9th, and not before. Whiteflash who''s known for excellent customer service, allows 10 day returns for stones that are not in house. I don''t believe this is an unreasonable policy. It gives the consumer enough time to see the stone and have it appraised.

What''s enough time for a consumer to change their mind? 15 days, 20 days, a month?

I do think if they don''t want to refund the full amount, then at least do an exchange for the full value of the current stone. But, they''re not obligated to. Crappy customer service? Oh yeah. Shady business practice? I don''t think so.

 

[NovemberBride]

Date: 2/25/2010 4:47:12 AM
Author: arjunajane
Kristie -

do a CC chargeback, get all your money back, move on and buy from a reputable vendor - and also, *please* post the vendors name on this thread, so that we can all avoid ever using them.
This 4k business is BS.

It is not ''evil'' to do a chargeback, it is protecting your interests as a consumer - which clearly the vendor''s only priority is protecting theirs.

Ditto Kenny - a bad review on PS holds a significant amount of ''people power'' - why would you even mind if you burnt your bridges with these people??

Aruna, No, it is not evil to do a chargeback where appropriate, but a chargeback is not appropriate in this case. There was no fraud, the customer changed her mind. Even if there was no return period (and OP has never clarified whether there are no returns or whether she is just past the return period). Let''s say I buy a designer dress for $10,000 from a boutique that does not offer returns. I like the dress, it looks great on me under the store lights and in their mirror. I get home and try on the dress a few days later and realize that I actually hate the dress. Nothing is wrong with the dress, I thought I liked the way it looked, but now I''ve changed my mind. WOuld you argue that I have a right to do a chargeback if the store won''t waive their policy for me. If you do, I think you have a gross misunderstanding of the protection offered by credit card chargebacks.

I think this is a poor business practice and I would not choose to do business with this vendor, but I don''t think OP has much recourse here.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Elle,

On page 3 of this thread, the OP states that she received the stone in hand on the 19th.

Live long,

 

[elle_chris]

Paul- Kristie received the stone set on the 19th. But in her earlier thread dated Feb. 9th, the stone(loose)was already in her possesion.

eta: link to thread on the 9th: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/think-i-found-it-its-not-a-3-ct-but-close-enough-questions.136021/

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

NovemberBride,

I agree, but this is not a store-situation. A distant sale has totally different rules.

With people buying online and not exactly knowing what they will receive, it is normal that the product delivered will sometimes not satisfy the desires of the customer.

This risk increases with people SELLING online and not exactly knowing what they are selling. Then, that risk becomes an inherent cost of this way of doing business.

Live long,

 

[bgray]

Date: 2/25/2010 10:38:40 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
NovemberBride,


I agree, but this is not a store-situation. A distant sale has totally different rules.


With people buying online and not exactly knowing what they will receive, it is normal that the product delivered will sometimes not satisfy the desires of the customer.


This risk increases with people SELLING online and not exactly knowing what they are selling. Then, that risk becomes an inherent cost of this way of doing business.


Live long,

Agreed. However we cant overlook the facts: she had it appraised and said she was keeping it. Then changed her mind.

 

[Amethyste]

I also wanted to share my internet purchase and how it was handled. I bought my pear stone over Ebay. I have talked to the seller at least 3 times over the phone, and she really did not have a return policy nor really wanted to have one available. Once sold, it was sold. I didn't think it was a fair policy since this is a HUGE purchase and the buyer should be allowed some time to inspect, have the stone looked over and to make sure what is sold matches the GIA cert. After telling her that most people wouldn't even consider purchasing something of this nature without some sort of return policy.
Also, there was the color. I have never seen a W-X colored diamond, but I knew I liked them tinted but wanted to have at least 3 days to return the ring/diamond if the color didn't please me. I wanted to be covered for a period of time JUST BECAUSE whne you look at a diamond per example at your appraiser, they all have different lighting environment and situation, that can be great while you are in there examining the stone, but then can be TOTALLY different once you have been wearing it for several days in other lighting situation: The known "evils" once you thought you could handle, are no longer after a period of wear and you should be able to return the purchase within the agreed timeframe.

I had sent her an email, and she replied that she agreed to my terms. I felt i was covered somehow, but still, the transaction made me really nervous since I was dealing with an individual rather than a commercial institution. Who knows, she could have vanished in the event I wanted to return the ring/stone. But in my case, it all turned up fine, but I do understand the high risk of doing internet transactions. You can do 100 and all go fine, then one can happen and be a total nightmare...

My suggestion to you, is to always get something in writing to protect yourself. Practice C - Y - A ( COVER YOUR A$$ )!Assuming things can only complicate things, especially when they turn sour in the end, and have nowhere to go...

After being burned on a $3,000 transaction on Ebay for a sapphire ring that was shipped in an empty box, I learned the hard way, and how people can be cruel without regards to other people's feelings.


If indeed the vendor did not have ANY sort of return policy on their website or pointed out to you in writing, if put in your shoes, I'd file a claim with the BBB first, then I'd really pressure them to return the diamond and give you back your money - a 5% restocking fee, which is a standard fee for most retailers...

I understand that OP said she'd keep it, then changed her mind. The problem is that in her case, there are no definite return period or policy. Even if they offer 20 days, at 5 she said she'd keep it, then at 18 decides to return it for whatever reason, she still can. I really feel for you

What a bad situation to be in, so much money at stakes!

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 2/25/2010 10:37:33 AM
Author: elle_chris
Paul- Kristie received the stone set on the 19th. But in her earlier thread dated Feb. 9th, the stone(loose)was already in her possesion.

eta: link to thread on the 9th: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/think-i-found-it-its-not-a-3-ct-but-close-enough-questions.136021/

Yes, I would suggest posters might want to go back and read Kristie''s previous posts about the transaction. She stood right next to her appraiser and they discussed the clearly visible inclusions. In fact she posted about them showing up as black on the idealscope. She decided to finalize the purchase, the supplier set the diamond and sent it on. Two weeks later she''s wearing it and has buyer''s remorse.

It would be "nice" if the supplier gave a full refund, but by no means is it required. There was no attempt to hide the inclusions, nor did Kristie suddenly see them for the first time 2 weeks later.

 

[luvmyhalo]

There are even some car companies that will let you drive a new car for 30 days and return it if you don''t like it! And without losing any money! A friend bought a Mercedes, drove it around for a while. Said, "Eh, don''t really like it." They took it back and they negotiated a new deal on a different car.

I don''t know much about what the markup is on a stone of this size. I can''t wrap my head around the jeweler keeping $4,000 on top of whatever profit he made from the original sale. Something definitely is NOT adding up!

Kristie, I keep checking back to see if you''ve heard from them. I''d imagine it''s hard to concentrate on much of anything until this is sorted out. Uggghhh!

 

[Rockdiamond]

There''s a lot of issues at play here.
While it''s true that "buyer beware" is an important rule for shoppers to follow, this is a unique situation.
As Paul mentioned- a mail order sale is quite different than a walk in purchase made at a jewelry store.
I''m not a lawyer, but I believe that sellers shipping merchandise have to allow for some sort of inspection period.
It might only be true if it was shipped USPS- but that''s really not the point here.

Kristie deserves to be dealt with honestly.
This story about dealers not being able to get out of a deal- and how their reputation will be forever spoiled in the diamond business is total bull-crap.
Clearly, if they had interest in their reputation they would not be acting in the way they already have.

If a store offers 14day money back guarantee, they have every right to refuse a return on day 15.
How long will such businesses last? Is it wrong to encourage decency in business?

A chargeback sounds so convenient, but it''s not all that simple either.
First the stone would have to be returned. This means the seller will have to agree to at least accept the return.


Look at the difference in price between a SI2, and an I1, and it''s easy to see why the owners of this stone want the sale to stick- it''s probably a near impossible stone to sell at the price.

Regardless, I think, as a pro consumer site, that offering Kristie advice, and not putting the blame on her shoulders is the way to go.

 

[kristie]

On the 9th is when I saw the LOOSE stone at the appraiser. It was sent BACK to the vendor to be set.

It was sent BACK to me on the 19th in the setting......hopefully, that clears things up there. I was out of town from the 19th through the 21st....I could not start this thread until I was back at home at my computer.

When I viewed it on the 9th (as per in my other thread) the black twinning wisps were ONLY visible in a direct bright diamond grading light with my hand shaded over it NOT in the other regular room lighting at the appraiser.

Once I had it on my hand and "out in the world" so to speak, I realized that a LOT of different lighting situations made the wisps look black.

Please do not insinuate that I have worn it for two weeks or something and then had buyers remorse when that is not it at all.

Bgray......there is truly nothing more to this situation than what there is and what I have laid out.

I am hopefully slowly reaching an amicable solution for all. They ARE saying to allow them the chance to make me happy by letting me view the 2.52 in person. If I like it, then they said we will discuss financial aspects.....I am trying to be optimistic and hoping for the best.

I really do NOT want to give them any more of my business, but it APPEARS they are maybe trying to make this right after my email that I sent mentioning this thread. However, they are adamant I look at the 2.52 and we will go from there. I am hoping that they will wind up giving me at least my full purchase price as a trade towards the new one.

The 2.52 will probably not be here until Tuesday.

The reason that they do not want this 2.68 is because they did not buy it for their personal inventory and they probably know it is a crap diamond that no one would want.

By the way, after seeing a copy of the GIA report, it is from 2006 and this diamond is supposedly brand new and not a trade in......meaning since 2006, no one wanted it!!! Ugh.....It looks PHENOMENAL in the right lighting and horrible in the wrong lighting!

The seller says that the $4k amount is the loss I have to take because now they have to turn around and sell it to another dealer/vendor at a "price that cannot be refused."

I came on here for advice and support and some posters have been attacking me without fully reading my posts and trying to "catch me" in some kind of slip up.....which they will not because I have told nothing but the honest truth.

 

[bgray]

Note: I meant we just cant know everything as third party observers........not a slight on you or them. edited per your recent post. thats GREAT!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 2/25/2010 11:32:23 AM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 2/25/2010 10:37:33 AM
Author: elle_chris
Paul- Kristie received the stone set on the 19th. But in her earlier thread dated Feb. 9th, the stone(loose)was already in her possesion.

eta: link to thread on the 9th: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/think-i-found-it-its-not-a-3-ct-but-close-enough-questions.136021/

Yes, I would suggest posters might want to go back and read Kristie''s previous posts about the transaction. She stood right next to her appraiser and they discussed the clearly visible inclusions. In fact she posted about them showing up as black on the idealscope. She decided to finalize the purchase, the supplier set the diamond and sent it on. Two weeks later she''s wearing it and has buyer''s remorse.

It would be ''nice'' if the supplier gave a full refund, but by no means is it required. There was no attempt to hide the inclusions, nor did Kristie suddenly see them for the first time 2 weeks later.

Yeah, 2nd PP. Rereading posts uncovered Kristie did see the inclusions and mentioned they were obvious under certain lighting conditions. Also, there was a comment from her about it being nearly impossible to find an eye clean SI2. Why was the diamond sent back to be set if it was understood that the inclusions would be seen?

 

[kristie]

MC, will you please read my response just two posts up? Thanks

Additionally, my post regarding SI2's was made after I had this debacle with this stone.....

I do not get it, I mentioned the ONE lighting situation I could see the inclusions in and that was in a DIAMOND GRADING LIGHT that is super bright and if I shaded my hand over it, they appeared......that was it.

Please do not change my words I wrote. I said I could only observe them in that one very specific lighting condition.....gosh, why is it necessary to attack people on here? It is not as if I am bashing the vendor's name directly and no one even knows who it is, I only came to get advice and now people are making things up when they must have barely skimmed over what I wrote in earlier posts.

Peace.

 

[elle_chris]

Kristie- You saw the stone at your appraisers on the 9th. You knew the inclusions were visible. You decided to keep the stone and have it set.

You received the ring on the 19th and decided that the inclusions were visible in more lighting situations than you initially thought. Wanted to return it. They don't want it. This wasn't an in house stone. They did not misrepresent it, and you never inquired about their return policy.

So why does everyone think this vendor so shady? Because of the 4k? They know it's a hard stone to sell and the only way they can get rid of it is to sell it cheaper than it was sold to them. That means they have to eat the 4k for a stone that you agreed to purchase AFTER viewing it at the appraisers more than 10 days ago. Where's the personal responsibility here for making this decision? A decision that was made on visible inclusions in an SI2 stone without asking about the inspection period, returns, or exchanges.
I don't mean to go off on anyone but I'm seeing this from a totally different percpective.


That doesn't mean that they shouldn't work with you to make you happy, and it's a good start that they're asking you to look at another stone. Hopefully, this one works out, and they'll budge on the 4k.