What is this SCARINESS in my diamond that I thought I loved?? PIC
- Thread starter kristie
- Start date
- Status
lucyandroger
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,557
Chase, are you forgetting that Kristie inspected the diamond with an independent appraiser, was made aware of the visible inclusions, and then gave her approval of the item and finalized the transaction?
Are you a law student? I think you should be very careful about seemingly giving (faulty?) legal advice over the internet, especially as I''m sure you know, the law varies so much from state to state.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,624
If you think a mod needs to read a thread, it is always beneficial to use the REPORT CONCERN button and let us know.
I have already advised those posting to stay on topic and I will repeat it again. Stay on topic to help the OP otherwise the thread will be closed.
I have already advised those posting to stay on topic and I will repeat it again. Stay on topic to help the OP otherwise the thread will be closed.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,737
If this site is doing what it''s intended to do, we''ll never get to know the name of the seller.
In the scenario I''m laying out, the seller is aware that kristie has gotten outside help- putting her in a far stronger negotiating position.
Assuming this is the case, the seller makes a far more fair offer, and kristie would never reveal the sellers name.
What''s a shame ( IMO) is the vehemence with which people want to question the consumer here, or argue technicalities on behalf of the seller.
The main result of this is turning off kristie.
Who would not be insulted having their story questioned in such a manner? Does this type of behavior encourage other consumers to seek assistance- or scare them away because a question asked may get them attacked?
I honestly believe kristie was telling us the truth.
Then, there''s the attacks against Paul, and me.
elle- I say this with all due respect- and also secure in the feeling that your motivation is to assist the consumer- and other consumers reading this. I know your heart is no the right place, but you are not in a position to offer a valid contradiction to what Paul and I are saying.
Mainly that the reasons this seller is charging this $4000, as they were related to us by kristie, do not jibe with the realities of the diamond business.
Could krisite have made this all up? Of course- but it seems highly unlikely.
Even if she had made it up ( I really believe she did not) it would be informative to others.
Another thing:
Both Paul and I took a risk participating on this thread.
After all, consumers are anonymous, while tradespeople are not hiding their identities.
If you push out the professionals offering "behind the scenes knowledge" you lost a great deal of the value of this type of conversation.
JMO
In the scenario I''m laying out, the seller is aware that kristie has gotten outside help- putting her in a far stronger negotiating position.
Assuming this is the case, the seller makes a far more fair offer, and kristie would never reveal the sellers name.
What''s a shame ( IMO) is the vehemence with which people want to question the consumer here, or argue technicalities on behalf of the seller.
The main result of this is turning off kristie.
Who would not be insulted having their story questioned in such a manner? Does this type of behavior encourage other consumers to seek assistance- or scare them away because a question asked may get them attacked?
I honestly believe kristie was telling us the truth.
Then, there''s the attacks against Paul, and me.
elle- I say this with all due respect- and also secure in the feeling that your motivation is to assist the consumer- and other consumers reading this. I know your heart is no the right place, but you are not in a position to offer a valid contradiction to what Paul and I are saying.
Mainly that the reasons this seller is charging this $4000, as they were related to us by kristie, do not jibe with the realities of the diamond business.
Could krisite have made this all up? Of course- but it seems highly unlikely.
Even if she had made it up ( I really believe she did not) it would be informative to others.
Another thing:
Both Paul and I took a risk participating on this thread.
After all, consumers are anonymous, while tradespeople are not hiding their identities.
If you push out the professionals offering "behind the scenes knowledge" you lost a great deal of the value of this type of conversation.
JMO
whatmeworry
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,095
What is reasonable given the realities of the diamond business?
Chase035
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 191
Paul or Rock: Could you answer this question, it''s a good one and this voice has gotten drawned out, partly by my frustration with elle and others.
I honestly think this thread has damaged Kristie''s case, as the prevailing sentiment seems to conflict with the opinions of those with intimate knowledge of the industry, thus supporting the vendors response. Good to see Paul and Rock stick their neck out for this one. Tough situation to get involved in, no doubt.
elle_chris
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,511
First off Rockdiamond- I never said ANYTHING to Paul. I said it to you when you called them liars, and shady. A vendor who hasn''t even posted. Also, like I''ve said before, you have NO idea what kind of relationship this vendor has with his supplier, the terms of the sale with Krisite, or who this person even is. We''ve all agreed that 4k is too much. But let me remind you, we don''t yet know if this company is going to stand by it or not.
I was pretty much done posting as this thread went places (party my fault), where no thread should go, but seriously- you''re calling me out on insults you (a professional, right?) have made? wow, just wow.
I was pretty much done posting as this thread went places (party my fault), where no thread should go, but seriously- you''re calling me out on insults you (a professional, right?) have made? wow, just wow.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,628
It seems like people are saying store credit with a small restocking fee. If she wants a refund, no idea. Seems that may be contingent whether the stone can be returned to original wholeseller (unknown).
Personally I feel very sympathetic with the buyer. Other than not doing due diligence regarding return policies, she did what she was supposed to do (get appraisal before setting, etc) yet the outcome was not what she expected. If the seller stated this particular stone is eye clean, that is a misrepresentation. The defect seen in the photos is not a subtle, subjective one. It is not asking too much to expect the seller to be more of an expert in these kind of matters than a customer, and to serve them right by steering them away from a stone like this. The fact that the seller doesn''t just say no returns, but will accept the stone with a 4K hit to the buyer seems to indicate the seller is aware the stone is not what it has been represented or was sold for. I hope she gets some resolution.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,737
To make this more simple lets call the person selling the diamond to the consumer "the store" and the entity supplying the diamond to "the store will be called "the cutter"
If the store buys diamonds regularly,( has a relationship with the cutter) and needs to return a stone , after giving the "mazal" the cutter accepts the return. It''s not all that uncommon. We , in the biz, need to remember that breaking a "mazal" is something that you try to avoid at all costs- OR- you substitute other benefit for the cutter.
Such as- "Cutter, please take back this return,and exchange it for another" or even " Cutter, please take back this stone because we buy a lot of stones, and keeping it will put us in a bad position"
I have a lot of admiration for people like Paul- because I know how tough it is to be a successful diamond cutter- even if we''re only considering the business aspects. To achieve the success will require flexibility. That is really the norm in this trade when dealing with cutters. They have to make compromises to survive. A relationship with the cutter generally means the cutter sends the stone to the store on consignment.
It might be seen as a bad idea to buy an expensive ( $20K) diamond from a store with little diamond selling experience.
But for the purposes of conversation, say it was a seller with not a lot of diamond sales, and little relationship with the cutter.
To get the stone, they would have to outlay the money. Even if the funds came from the credit card, the store pays the cutter by check, or wire.
In this scenario the store laid out the cost of the stone.
Even a green seller who can do that will have the attention of the cutter.
Cutters need clients- especially those that pay well, or have capitol to work with.
Therefore, if this store who had laid out the money calls the cutter, he''s going to find a workable solution- not a $4000 one. He wants to keep this store as a customer
Or, let''s take the scenario where the store has a bad track record- a lot of returns.
In such a case, the store , having had a lot of experience with returns, would have likely made a policy clear at the point of sale. That''s assuming the store has integrity.
About a cutter being able to prevent a store from buying diamonds from other cutters: A physical impossibility.
Even if a store has a terrible reputation, there''s too any places selling diamonds -including many cutters and secondary sources- to rule out that someone will sell to them.
I remember when I was on the road. I knew certain stores had terrible credit. It was a well known fact when speaking to other salespeople- and there''s a book that gives credit ratings to retail jewelers.
There were many cases of stores with horrible ratings- yet they had diamonds in the showcase.
If the store buys diamonds regularly,( has a relationship with the cutter) and needs to return a stone , after giving the "mazal" the cutter accepts the return. It''s not all that uncommon. We , in the biz, need to remember that breaking a "mazal" is something that you try to avoid at all costs- OR- you substitute other benefit for the cutter.
Such as- "Cutter, please take back this return,and exchange it for another" or even " Cutter, please take back this stone because we buy a lot of stones, and keeping it will put us in a bad position"
I have a lot of admiration for people like Paul- because I know how tough it is to be a successful diamond cutter- even if we''re only considering the business aspects. To achieve the success will require flexibility. That is really the norm in this trade when dealing with cutters. They have to make compromises to survive. A relationship with the cutter generally means the cutter sends the stone to the store on consignment.
It might be seen as a bad idea to buy an expensive ( $20K) diamond from a store with little diamond selling experience.
But for the purposes of conversation, say it was a seller with not a lot of diamond sales, and little relationship with the cutter.
To get the stone, they would have to outlay the money. Even if the funds came from the credit card, the store pays the cutter by check, or wire.
In this scenario the store laid out the cost of the stone.
Even a green seller who can do that will have the attention of the cutter.
Cutters need clients- especially those that pay well, or have capitol to work with.
Therefore, if this store who had laid out the money calls the cutter, he''s going to find a workable solution- not a $4000 one. He wants to keep this store as a customer
Or, let''s take the scenario where the store has a bad track record- a lot of returns.
In such a case, the store , having had a lot of experience with returns, would have likely made a policy clear at the point of sale. That''s assuming the store has integrity.
About a cutter being able to prevent a store from buying diamonds from other cutters: A physical impossibility.
Even if a store has a terrible reputation, there''s too any places selling diamonds -including many cutters and secondary sources- to rule out that someone will sell to them.
I remember when I was on the road. I knew certain stores had terrible credit. It was a well known fact when speaking to other salespeople- and there''s a book that gives credit ratings to retail jewelers.
There were many cases of stores with horrible ratings- yet they had diamonds in the showcase.
whatmeworry
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,095
David,
Would cutters accept a store saying "I''m regretfully breaking mazal but here is $500 for your troubles"?
Would cutters accept a store saying "I''m regretfully breaking mazal but here is $500 for your troubles"?
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,737
It''s really about relationships.
I was trying to outline potential scenarios above.
When the store is a god customer, the cutter is going to work with them.
By that I mean accept the return with no penalty whatsoever.
I worked for, and with some very strict cutters- and even they would bend the rules at times to maintain relationships.
But part of the basis of what we''re talking about here is decency in business.
People, and companies that treat cutters with respect also treat consumers with respect.
It''s a two way street in both cases.
The part that''s difficult here is that a consumer is reporting what sounds like a lack of decency in business.
I disagree that krisite needs to come back for this thread to have value (although I hope she does)
Every consumer should make themselves aware of the return policy before they buy a diamond- if nothing else, this thread is a great reminder of that.
By reporting what she was told, it allowed us to hear things that previously, a store could say with much less risk of being called out.
I really hope that all the parties involved here read this this- and figured out how to make it work for their advantage.
For krisite, it''s getting a better settlement.
For the store, it''s learning the power of the internet- and that they can use this to their advantage, if they learn from it.
I was trying to outline potential scenarios above.
When the store is a god customer, the cutter is going to work with them.
By that I mean accept the return with no penalty whatsoever.
I worked for, and with some very strict cutters- and even they would bend the rules at times to maintain relationships.
But part of the basis of what we''re talking about here is decency in business.
People, and companies that treat cutters with respect also treat consumers with respect.
It''s a two way street in both cases.
The part that''s difficult here is that a consumer is reporting what sounds like a lack of decency in business.
I disagree that krisite needs to come back for this thread to have value (although I hope she does)
Every consumer should make themselves aware of the return policy before they buy a diamond- if nothing else, this thread is a great reminder of that.
By reporting what she was told, it allowed us to hear things that previously, a store could say with much less risk of being called out.
I really hope that all the parties involved here read this this- and figured out how to make it work for their advantage.
For krisite, it''s getting a better settlement.
For the store, it''s learning the power of the internet- and that they can use this to their advantage, if they learn from it.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 11,676
I thought this was a consumer advocate forum. I am a little shocked that it seems like so many people are on the side of the vendor over Kristie. Not that there are sides per se, but you know what I mean. The $4,000 restocking fee is outrageous.
clgwli
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2009
- Messages
- 902
+1
I am newer here and I just read this whole thread. Lucky to have Laila619 to post right at the end to quote. I am sad to see that kristie feels like she was run off too by posters. I am curious for the outcome myself.
From my personal opinion the sellers seem to be a bit below par in how they are dealing with this. I just hope they step up to the plate and get this resolved. And I hope that they list very clear return policies for those in the future.
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
yup.
I''d like to know if those posters can step into Kristie''s shoes for one minute, and consider whether they would be happy to either take a 4k loss or keep an ering diamond they didn''t love???
Paul and David - kudos for continuing to provide factual info on how the trade actually does work, not just speculation.
And, ha ha, I think this is the first thread ever I''ve agreed with RD
HUGE shout out and a thank you to Nancy Stacy....simply amazing appraiser
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/huge-shout-out-and-a-thank-you-to-nancy-stacy-simply-amazing-appraiser.136858/
I personally dont understand how she used an appraiser that she seemed to love and have full confidence in......set it and wear it and then abruptly decide she couldnt live with it---aside from the vendor being unwilling to take it back for a full credit or refund as a separate issue, I think the sequence of events and time period leading up to this has many of us confused.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/huge-shout-out-and-a-thank-you-to-nancy-stacy-simply-amazing-appraiser.136858/
I personally dont understand how she used an appraiser that she seemed to love and have full confidence in......set it and wear it and then abruptly decide she couldnt live with it---aside from the vendor being unwilling to take it back for a full credit or refund as a separate issue, I think the sequence of events and time period leading up to this has many of us confused.
whatmeworry
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,095
It sucks, I agree. But other people have tried to return a bought ring before and been disappointed.
The tale of caligirl08:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-experience-with-whiteflash.93355/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/vendors-psers-brainteaser-for-you-am-i-just-stupid.93619/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/comment-on-whiteflash-policies.90433/
The tale of caligirl08:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-experience-with-whiteflash.93355/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/vendors-psers-brainteaser-for-you-am-i-just-stupid.93619/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/comment-on-whiteflash-policies.90433/
NovemberBride
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 962
AJ,Date: 2/26/2010 11:41:28 PM
Author: arjunajane
yup.
I''d like to know if those posters can step into Kristie''s shoes for one minute, and consider whether they would be happy to either take a 4k loss or keep an ering diamond they didn''t love???
Paul and David - kudos for continuing to provide factual info on how the trade actually does work, not just speculation.
And, ha ha, I think this is the first thread ever I''ve agreed with RD
Actually, if I bought a diamond from a store that did not permit returns and changed my mind about the stone, or changed my mind after the return period was over, and then that store offered to buy it back from me for 80% of what I paid, I would be very happy. Why? Because there is nowhere else where I can get 80% of the purchase price back on my diamond. In fact, many of the reputable PS preferred vendors buy back their stones at less than 80% (I believe GOG is 70%) if you want to get rid of the stone for any reason after the return period has lapsed.
It seems that many on this thread are defending Kristie because they believe there was never any return period. I find it interesting that Kristie never came out and said that there was no return policy, so I am suspecting that perhaps there was one, but it has lapsed. Also, it makes no sense that there was no return policy, as she was allowed to take it to an independent appraiser. Obviously at that point she could have returned the stone, so there was some sort of policy in place, we just don''t knwo what it was.
I do feel for Kristie, and I hope she can reach a satisfactory result because everyone deserves to love their e-ring. But I do not believe that a store should have to take a loss due to someone''s change of heart. Would it be nice for them to do so? Yes. Does not doing so make them unscrupulous. No.
dancergrrrl3
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 70
Wow, I just got sucked into this thread for like an hour! Kristie, I''m new here and would love for your to come back and update us! Or just PM me! I would absolutely be sick about losing $4000!!!
FrekeChild
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 19,456
I also just spent entirely too much time reading this thread, but I wanted to let you know that PS does not have PMs.Date: 2/27/2010 1:10:25 AM
Author: dancergrrrl3
Wow, I just got sucked into this thread for like an hour! Kristie, I''m new here and would love for your to come back and update us! Or just PM me! I would absolutely be sick about losing $4000!!!
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
Date: 2/27/2010 12:37:49 AM
Author: NovemberBride
Date: 2/26/2010 11:41:28 PM
Author: arjunajane
yup.
I'd like to know if those posters can step into Kristie's shoes for one minute, and consider whether they would be happy to either take a 4k loss or keep an ering diamond they didn't love???
Paul and David - kudos for continuing to provide factual info on how the trade actually does work, not just speculation.
And, ha ha, I think this is the first thread ever I've agreed with RD
AJ,
Actually, if I bought a diamond from a store that did not permit returns and changed my mind about the stone, or changed my mind after the return period was over, and then that store offered to buy it back from me for 80% of what I paid, I would be very happy. Why? Because there is nowhere else where I can get 80% of the purchase price back on my diamond. In fact, many of the reputable PS preferred vendors buy back their stones at less than 80% (I believe GOG is 70%) if you want to get rid of the stone for any reason after the return period has lapsed.
It seems that many on this thread are defending Kristie because they believe there was never any return period. I find it interesting that Kristie never came out and said that there was no return policy, so I am suspecting that perhaps there was one, but it has lapsed. Also, it makes no sense that there was no return policy, as she was allowed to take it to an independent appraiser. Obviously at that point she could have returned the stone, so there was some sort of policy in place, we just don't knwo what it was.
I do feel for Kristie, and I hope she can reach a satisfactory result because everyone deserves to love their e-ring. But I do not believe that a store should have to take a loss due to someone's change of heart. Would it be nice for them to do so? Yes. Does not doing so make them unscrupulous. No.
November - it may not make them unscrupulous in your opinion - it just makes them a sh**ty vendor I would hope to never encounter, personally.
Since you mentioned GOG's policies as an example, they offer 75% buy-back, and 100% on a trade-up, no time limit.
I think that is where a big question mark in this thread lies - if OP is willing to drop more dollars for a more expensive, eyeclean stone, why can this vendor not simply give Kristie her full trade-in price?
It is a win-win for the vendor - not only do they keep their original profit, they make a second one! It is not, imo, a win for Kristie as she needs to throw good money after bad. But at least its not a drastic loss and she will potentially love her ering, kwim?
This is what makes no sense to me.
You will notice I am not entering into any debate about return policies, as you're correct in stating that no one has enough info to make an informed observation there (despite the many efforts to do so on both sides!).
Since you bought up GOG, I will share my personal experience with them - which goes to illustrate that, just because a policy in place to protect vendor and serve client; does not mean if the vendor has strong customer service principles they cannot work with you in a given situation.
I was well outside my 30 day return period with GOG and fell on *hard* times unexpectedly. I actually wanted to down-grade my ering stone - I approached Jon of course sheepishly, expecting he would think me asking way too much and refer me to his policies (and rightfully so!).
Not at all though - GOG worked with me tirelessly to find a new ering stone which I love to bits (more than my first), and also to put some funds back in my pocket during a very rough time in our lives. For this act of kindness and understanding, they have earned a life-long loyal customer and advocate.
Now, do I expect every vendor to behave the way Jon does? Of course not, that's what makes GOG so special.
But the extent to which these two stories (mine and Kristie's) are such polar opposites, I feel illustrates there is a lot of middle-ground where they could find an amicable conclusion.
If the vendor has a decent business acumen, they could have also seized this opportunity to be the "good guy" and received the resulting praise and of course, new clients, that would come with that. We've all seen it before, PS can serve as a make or break for vendors!
It does not need to be as black and white as the vendor is making it out to be, imho.
- Status
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 04/26
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)