shape
carat
color
clarity

what would you do if you were mislead by a trusted PSer?

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by jetmal, Mar 15, 2019.

  1. marymm
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,679
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    by marymm » Mar 15, 2019
    A chip found under loupe versus a chip being eye-visible ... two different things: Diamonds accurately described/listed as eye-clean may well have a chip or other inclusion/blemish if inspected under a loupe.

    FWIW, if I were a buyer of a pre-loved diamond which had been listed as eye-clean and after receipt I chose to loupe it and found inclusions/blemishes that I did not see with my naked eye, that's not on the seller - in my book, the seller accurately described the condition of the diamond.

    jetmal, if it were me, and I had disclosed the tarnished area of the setting and described the diamonds as eye-clean, and my buyer chose to return the ring because under loupe inspection she found a chip, that's on her ... in my own mind her return shipping would fairly rest on her and I would feel no onus to share in that cost.

    I applaud the graciousness and true PSer spirit of both prinsad and jetmal - thank you ladies for sharing your experiences.
     
    Octo2005, doberman, soxfan and 9 others like this.
  2. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 15, 2019
    @jetmal
    I am on your side in this case, so my advise is to try to get a refund from the seller for this ring.
    If you paid with paypal, you have 180 days from the transaction date to receive a refund.
    You have a proof that you contacted the seller as soon as you received the ring, and obviously this ring have had accident, because the setting was damaged and diamond chipped.
    I also don't like the fact that the seller used old pictures in their listing. Seller have to disclose honestly the current condition of the item, seller should take actual and high quality close view pictures of the item.
    Somehow I do believe that the seller didn't noticed the damage on the ring, but this cannot be proof neither excuse to decline return and refund for "item not as described".
     
    nala and JT123 like this.
  3. Lookinagain
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    938
    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    by Lookinagain » Mar 15, 2019
    I honestly don't think there should be a "side" here. I think both people are telling the truth of the experience. I don't believe the seller intentionally mislead the OP. It seems to me that the seller didn't notice the staining and probably didn't have any idea of the chip. If I recall correctly these were Ebay diamonds. The chip could have always been there. The seller may not be as savvy as some PSer's, and may not have a loupe to be able to see what may be a chip. so to the seller, it was eye clean. The OP didn't have a loupe so to her was eye clean. Apparently others looked at it as well, but when the third purchase happened, that person saw a chip.
    The discoloration shouldn't be an issue because the OP saw it and decided just to have it polished out. It seems to be the chip that is the real issue and I can see how both missed it if they are not among the PSers who are well trained. I own two loupes but am not well trained and I think I might be able to miss something that others could see. That doesn't make me anything but uneducated. I think the lesson is that when you buy from sites such as DB and LT you take the seller as they are. They may inspect their piece the same way you would, or they may not, or they may not be capable of doing so the same as you. I would not assume everyone on those sites are knowlegdeable. I have seen plenty of people who just bought the wrong ring and have no experience, referred to those sites to sell a stone or a ring.
    I truly doubt that anyone who frequents this site regularly would intentionally mislead another. They don't come here just to sell but to be a part of a community and I think the community is probably more important to them.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
    Octo2005, Tekate, soxfan and 5 others like this.
  4. lovedogs
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,137
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    by lovedogs » Mar 15, 2019
    This isn't good advice. The item was as described (neither of them noticed the chip), and the discoloration wasn't known at time of sale. Buyer never asked for a refund, even after knowing about the discoloration. So trying to go via PayPal to get a refund makes no sense here.
     
    soxfan, D&T, bespokecarmel and 8 others like this.
    


    


  5. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 17, 2019
    Let buyer do his job and present to paypal all evidence of the ring's defects, that wasn't mention in the describtion, also that the ring was presented with old pictures, that didn't represent the current condition.
    Buyer detected the defect on the setting stright after receiving the ring and this is documented. The diamond chip is a logical result of some ring damage, that occured in the past. The setting damage was existing at the time of sale.
    Return and refund could be asked within the complete return period, not only at the time of receiving the item. There is no obligation the defect to be found at the time of sale, but of course as sooner the buyer react, as better. Paypal will decide if the buyer has the right to ask for refund. Buyer has chance to prove his claim.
     
  6. lovedogs
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,137
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    by lovedogs » Mar 17, 2019
    What are you talking about? The chip wasnt known by the buyer OR seller at the time of sale. In fact, it wasn't known until now--when the buyer sold to someone else.

    The buyer DIDN'T know about the chip, neither did the seller.
     
    soxfan, WhitePeonia, JT123 and 3 others like this.
  7. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 17, 2019
    Even only the setting damage is enough to claim a refund.
    The chip is just additional damage, that was found later.
     
  8. gm89uk
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,362
    Joined:
    May 26, 2015
    by gm89uk » Mar 17, 2019
    @EvaEvans this is truly bad advice. It just so happens the buyers are both here openly communicating and there is no blood shed, this is best case scenario. Why start a dispute? Otherwise, The buyer could claim there was no chip on shipping and can't accept the return of a faulty product. The seller has evidence of communication regarding the stain (which really is a non-issue to fix) and a return wasn't initiated then.

    The chip is a fault that no one will ever know accurately when it happened.

    This kind of wordplay and unjustifiable attempt to exercise rights is what can make the market place so toxic in the first place.
     
    Desertrose, Octo2005, Hivona and 15 others like this.
  9. lovedogs
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,137
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    by lovedogs » Mar 17, 2019
    Thank you. That's what I was trying (and failing, apparently) to explain.
     
    soxfan and gm89uk like this.
  10. yssie
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    19,593
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    by yssie » Mar 17, 2019
    Nah, you were doing just fine.
    I recognise this handle - this particular poster really isn't one for nuance.
     
    Desertrose, carbonfan, soxfan and 7 others like this.
    


    


  11. motownmama
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    6,974
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    by motownmama » Mar 17, 2019
    Good luck I hope you're able to sell and get the funds you need for your son!
     
    jetmal and rockysalamander like this.
  12. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 17, 2019
    @gm89uk
    I don't see the picture as you.
    I do not see "spot" on the setting, but severe setting damage. The chip on the diamond is exactly where the setting damage is. The logical tought is that this ring had an accident, that leaded to setting damage and diamond chip.
    As I understand, the buyer was convinced by the seller that the visible black spot on the setting is not something to worry about. The buyer trusted the seller and didn't check the ring with a jeweler on time. This is an error that the buyer did, but I explain this with the trust to PS seller and the minimal (in the initial opinion) damage on the ring setting.
    However, the situation changed when the buyer found out that the damage on the ring is much bigger - the discovering of the chip on the diamond!
    Chip on the diamond on newly made piece of jewelry is totally different of the small chips and abraions on an antique jewelry. The consequences of the discovering of the chip leads to significnt reduction of the ring value and make it more difficult to sell. As we can see, the second buyer of the ring returned the ring exactly because of the diamond chip.
    Then I see that the buyer fully changed his mind and now is regreting purchasing this ring. We can feel that the buyer regrets his overtrust to a PS seller in the title of this tread. However, buyer try to stay polite and even now she does not demand a refund.
    It's up to the buyer how she will decide to continue.
    But some people may see this case as an intentional seller's fraud.
    Recently I read another tread here that a PS vendor was misleaded by a PS buyer.
    Trust is OK, but when a lot of money is involved, that's a business.
     
  13. srke
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    May 10, 2017
    by srke » Mar 17, 2019
    Except we don't know that there was undisclosed damage to the setting. It could just be discolouration of the solder used to close the gap in the basket before the ring initially left DK.
    Did DK say there evidence the ring had been damaged?
     
    lovedogs and prinsad like this.
  14. the_mother_thing
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    5,109
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    by the_mother_thing » Mar 17, 2019
    @EvaEvans These are PRIVATE sellers; not businesses. And there is no way to know whether jetmal received the ring with a chip or not. It very well could have happened (unbeknownst to her) one of the couple times she wore the ring. Also, the ring was made using ‘pre-owned’ diamonds purchased by prinsad from ebay with no certs. While I’m saddened by the position this places jetmal in given the medical needs that required these funds, there is just no right answer here, and it really does seem as though too much time has passed to attempt to hold prinsad financially responsible. And I’m pretty sure paypal would say the same as well ... even if you have 180 days to file a claim, if the item was worn, it is possible it sustained damage during that wear. This is why most businesses won’t allow you to return something once the tags are removed. Lastly, we have no way of knowing if the purchase was made via F&F (e.g., no buyer protection) or not, so there may be no paypal recourse.

    I agree with whomever said all parties/owners to this ring’s life could be ‘right’ and no one intended any harm/deceit/etc. It’s already been stated that neither prinsad nor jetmal had a loupe, and they seem to have treated each other respectfully throughout this ordeal. Sadly, it’s a ‘lesson learned’ as others have stated upthread. And hopefully jetmal can recoup some of her funds through a sale once she decides to relist with disclosures or attempt to have repairs made/chip assessed.

    @jetmal above all else, I sincerely hope your son is doing well & recovering, and I’m sorry that this happened at a very unfortunate time. (Hugs)
     
    kipari, soxfan, jetmal and 5 others like this.
  15. lovedogs
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,137
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    by lovedogs » Mar 17, 2019
    I have absolutely no clue why you refuse to see the logical timeline here. Other posters have clearly said they've seen the same thing with soldering and discoloration.

    Discoloration ISNT damage. How in the world do you think a chip and discoloration are magically connected? What "accident" do you suppose happened here??

    And when you buy from a private seller on LT/DB, there's always a risk of the seller not knowing about issues with settings and stones, especially if the stones were from eBay.

    The irrational things you are suggesting are EXACTLY why most of us have a "no refund" policy. We are selling stuff from our own collections, and aren't Jewelers. I am always 100% honest about my stuff, but if I have no idea that there's an issue I can't be held responsible for that months later.
     
    Hivona, WhitePeonia, kipari and 6 others like this.
    


    


  16. TreeScientist
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,214
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    by TreeScientist » Mar 18, 2019
    Exactly. Most LT sellers state "no refunds" right on their listings. And they describe the items to the best of their knowledge and abilities. When purchasing from private sellers, there's always a risk involved regarding the condition of the used jewelry item. There could be a microscopic chip that no-one but a jeweler would notice. There could be surface scuffs/abrasions that were difficult to display in the photographs. There could be prong wear that, while invisible at the time of purchase, causes a prong to snap after two days in the new owner's possession.

    As anyone who has ever purchased ANY used item (car, home, boat, etc.) very well knows, there is always a risk when buying pre-owned, especially when doing so via a private sale. Of course there is also a very big reward for buying pre-owned via private sale in the form of much lower purchase prices. Most people who buy jewelry on LT are fully aware of, and fully accept, the potential risks of buying pre-owned, with the knowledge that they are also paying substantially less for the item compared to retail.

    Again, if you are risk adverse and/or it is a very high priced piece, the best way to proceed is to ask the seller to have a qualified appraiser (like @denverappraiser) act as an intermediary in the sale, in which the seller sends the item to the appraiser, the appraiser inspects the item and gives their opinion to the buyer, and if the buyer still wants the item after receiving the appraisal, then they send the payment to the seller and the appraiser sends the item to the buyer.

    Personally, with low-cost items of a few hundred to a thousand dollars, I'm willing to take the risk and trust the honesty of LT sellers and their pictures of the item, knowing full well that there is always a small chance of unknown structural damage being present. But if I was buying a used item for thousands of dollars off of LT, then I would insist on conducting the sale with an appraiser acting as an intermediary.
     
  17. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 18, 2019
    Any trade is a business, in fact.
    Even a long time have past, there is a reason paypal to offer 180 days return. Ebay minimum return period is 30 days. Even if a private sale is made, if you use a safe method to pay, you are protected.
    The defect on the setting is not of "normal wear", as I can see on the provided picture.
    The ring was hit severe, in my opinion.
    Many sellers does not offer returns, but if the item is not as described, this does not count.
    Paypal, not you, will judge and decide on the end.
     
  18. Wewechew
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    by Wewechew » Mar 18, 2019
    But buyer and seller have already decided not to go that route since everyone involved has decided no one did anything wrong.
     
    soxfan, lovedogs and kipari like this.
  19. JPie
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,806
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2018
    by JPie » Mar 18, 2019
    Is your opinion based on reading this thread in its entirety, or only on your layperson's interpretation of the photos?
     
    lovedogs and the_mother_thing like this.
  20. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 18, 2019
    Hmmm,
    I don't see only the "discoloration", but rough surface and modification of the bezel. That is not a result from "normal" wear.
    Ebay is also full of private sellers and escond hand items, still ebay provides seller and buyer protection.
    PS/LT does not provide any protection and they state this.
    I assume that in this particular case both seller and buyer acted honestly. But as I said, even if the seller wasn't aware of the ring damage, this does not exclude the possibility that the ring WAS damage prior the sale. The buyer reaction and provided facts makes me thing that the ring was damage prior the sale.
    Such case as this one will detract PS users to deal privately between them and with reason.
    I would suggest buyers always to use middleman (some jewelry appraisers here offer such service), or ebay and paypal payments for goods.
    PS users shouldn't relay on "trust" only.
     
  21. TreeScientist
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,214
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    by TreeScientist » Mar 18, 2019
    Hahaha good luck getting your money back on a damaged item 90 days after the sale. As @Wewechew already said, I'm not sure why we're even arguing about this anymore because the OP isn't going to go that route.

    But let's take a hypothetical scenario where a buyer did make a claim to PayPal on a damaged jewelry item 90 days after delivery. Please tell me @EvaEvans, how on earth would the buyer prove that the damage was not sustained during the 90 days that it was in their possession? PayPal would take one look at such a claim and say "No thanks, we're not getting in the middle of a he said she said."

    PayPal buyer protection does apply to private transactions, and it can be used to file a claim if the seller never sent the item at all, but when it comes to filing claims about the condition of a used item in a private sale, the buyer doesn't have a leg to stand on.
     
    prinsad, lovedogs and Wewechew like this.
  22. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 18, 2019
    Why this thread was opened, then?
    I have the impression that the buyer is looking for a solution.
     
  23. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 18, 2019
    I read the thread.
     
  24. Wewechew
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    by Wewechew » Mar 18, 2019
    You're right, the buyer opened the thread and asked everyone's opinions on the matter. Once she talked it through with everyone she decided not to do anything.

    Of course she is still within her right to open a case if she chooses. However, that would be one of those times that I would argue just because it's "legal" doesn't mean it's ethical. She should have pursued her case 3 months ago when she first got the ring and she knew with 100% certainty that the chip didn't happen under her watch.
     
    lovedogs likes this.
  25. JPie
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,806
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2018
    by JPie » Mar 18, 2019
    I'm surprised that you would still libel the seller with accusations of undisclosed damage. Sure, you're entitled to have an opinion, but that's an ugly thing to speculate on without proof.
     
  26. AdaBeta27
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    877
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    by AdaBeta27 » Mar 18, 2019
    Looking at the photos, it appears to my eyes that we are seeing opposite sides of the ring. I'm saying that because the photo that the original owner posted shows a left side sidestone bezel higher than the center bezel, but the OP's photo shows a right side bezel higher than the center bezel. If so, maybe that setting had a larger gap to be filled on one side vs. the other, and honestly, I am surprised that there was even a gap to be filled. As for the darkening, gold alloys and solders can respond differently to different body chemistries, or to hand lotions or other beauty or cleaning products. Or, oxidation can occur with time, as well. Solder can be removed and the repair or fill job cleaned up. I had a crack repaired in an antique platinum ring, and Bruno Fine Jewelers in PA did an excellent job. The soldering job on that DK ring, regardless of who did it, looks crude and sloppy. I think that setting could cleaned up a lot, but needs somebody skilled, patient, and very precise to do so. Chipped stones can be polished, and re-polished antique diamonds look spectacular.
     
    lovedogs likes this.
  27. EvaEvans
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    by EvaEvans » Mar 18, 2019
    Paypal return period is 180 days for a reason.
    If a payment was made as "payment for goods", the paypal protection count.
    The paypal protection does not depends if the sale is "private", or between company and a client.

    I know a case when a jewelry was returned after 3 months in possession of the buyer. The buyer's reason for return was "item not of original brand as stated". The jewelry had small scratches already but still paypal decided in favor of the buyer.
    I am really curious why you put all the guilt on the buyer. You blame the buyer that she delayed in her reaction. But I see the buyer insecure and too much trustful.
    I still believe that this ring was damage prior the sale.
    I am dealing with a lot of second-hand jewelry. I inspect all this jewelry under my loupe and sometimes I see defects from some damage, but owners deny to know about any damage.
    Sometimes even happened to me to return an appraisal to be written again, because a small diamond chip is not noticed by the appraiser and respectively, not mention on the appraisal.
    Even when dealing with good faith, not knowing some defect can happen.
     
  28. lovedogs
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    8,137
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    by lovedogs » Mar 18, 2019
    Sounds like the buyer was acting really shady in this instance. It's sad that PP decided in favor of a buyer like that.
     
    Wewechew likes this.
  29. Wewechew
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,180
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    by Wewechew » Mar 18, 2019
    At this point we are all beating a dead horse. OP knows she still has time to make a claim if she feels she should. But I think we all need to leave it alone unless any of the parties involved come back and request more input.
     
    Lookinagain, chamois and lovedogs like this.
  30. TreeScientist
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,214
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    by TreeScientist » Mar 18, 2019
    The point remains, where is the proof? In the case of the jewelry brand being not as described, that's fairly easy to prove: Show PayPal the original listing with the brand name and then show them an appraisal stating that the item is not from said brand (either different brand or counterfeit). The seller could still argue that the buyer switched the item, but in cases like this that are easy to document, the buyer would definitely have more of a leg to stand on.

    With damage-based claims, unless the buyer takes time-stamped pictures immediately after receipt of the package clearly showing the damage that was not described in the listing, there is no possible way to prove whether the damage was sustained before or after the sale. No. Possible. Way.

    Again, good luck trying to open a case like that with PayPal. I would really love to see you try.
     
    lovedogs likes this.

Share This Page