Whiteflash Diamond Mix-Up

[theshirlgirlNS]

This thread is definitely taking a turn for the better!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Did somebody just say "earrings?"

Go for it!

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

I have just received WF ACA stone that I have been waiting for a while. 2.527ct I, VS1 and it was a perfection. Then I checked the stone up close and started seeing feather/needles and it made me a bit uneasy. I prefer clarity over color and am willing to pay premium for VS1 so that is why I felt uneasy about seeing inclusions. Then I checked the AGS certificate and saw that it says 2.572 I, SI1. SI1? So I called WF and told them about the wrong certificate sent, questioning my stone as well. They assured me that the stone is mine, just the certificate got mixed up. They added that three people had checked the stone and there was no way that three people would make the mistake. Well, I checked the stone myself with my microscope and the numbers did not match. It turned out, it was not, indeed, my stone. So I called WF again and they confirmed that they have my purchased stone and that I received the wrong stone. I was shocked and in disbelief (I was going to drive to David Klass to have it set tomorrow), so I am glad I caught the mistake before. It was, however, the same size and same color, so I can see how one could make a mistake. I just did not think that three people would. I also took so many pics and videos of "my" stone, all excited - so excited. It did not feel all that great to delete them all knowing it is not my stone.

The reason I am writing is that I would like to ask @Texas Leaguer if he could check my stone himself to make sure that the correct one will be sent to me. I do not have any other way to contact him except this forum and wanted to do so before WF sends out the stone.

I also want to add that I am not writing this to criticize WF. I do believe it was an honest mistake and Vera was very apologetic and responsive. She sent me a prepaid label to ship the wrong stone back to them and they will be sending my stone once they receive the wrong one. I do believe WF will take care of me and their mistake but I wish their QC would improve. I already shipped the wrong stone back to WF.

Lastly, I want to mention that WF was very generous because they agreed to take my CBI stone for a trade-in and I am grateful for it. I was going to do (and will do) a reveal once this all gets sorted out because I received an excellent assistance from WF when I was picking my stone.

Oh my, @daisygrl! I am so sorry this has happened. I’m glad you inspected it thoroughly and caught the mistake. I can’t believe the certificate numbers are almost identical with also having identical color and weight. Went through 3 QC checks and still missed it. Wow! I’m glad you got it all sorted out before you brought it to DK.

Hope you get your stone soon and can’t wait to see the final product. I’m sure it will be gorgeous!!!

 

[Dmndsr4evr11]

Speaking as someone who just bought a 4.05ct H VS1, when there was also a 4.05ct H VS2 on the site.....

I'm just gonna head off and check my diamond.....

I think this post is making us all want to check our AGS number and make sure they match .

 

[snowballs mom]

Maybe vendors could consider including a closeup of the AGS numbers on the stone along with their glamour shots...

 

[LLJsmom]

@daisygrl I am glad it got resolved, and @Texas Leaguer jumped in to explain. It does make me think I have to check my AGS number on the stone once set. I never do. I just trust.

I am so sorry you had to go through this. So glad you're a smart cookie and checked.

@Texas Leaguer , thanks for explaining. I totally can see why it was missed. Those two AGS numbers are nuts. And believe it or not, I can totally see why even if checked by 3 people, it can be missed. I work with numbers all day, and trust me when you look at this stuff all day every day, you can get NUMB.

Here is my suggestion to prevent this from reoccurring. Have two people do the final check verbally, like how submarines verify emergency action messages. One person would read the codes out loud and another person would read it out loud too. Ok, I have watched Crimson Tide one too many times. It would be worth the time and effort to prevent an accident like this from ever occurring again.

 

[yssie]

Maybe vendors could consider including a closeup of the AGS numbers on the stone along with their glamour shots...

Love this idea. 100%.

 

[marymm]

Maybe vendors could consider including a closeup of the AGS numbers on the stone along with their glamour shots...

How would this help ensure the correct diamond is actually shipped to the purchaser? Or is this suggestion relating to something else?

 

[snowballs mom]

Depending on the setting, the inscription would be visible to photograph and could easily be compared to the certificate. It would be helpful to the customer to not have to pull out a loupe and try to read it. While I have not tried to verify the inscription on any of my stones, I am not getting any younger and I expect it might be difficult for me to read it with my progressive trifocals...

 

[marymm]

If you are trying to verify your diamond is the correct diamond, you have to physically examine your diamond, find and read the inscribed certificate number and match that to the certificate number of the diamond you actually purchased ... relying on a vendor photograph would not be helpful for verification purposes.

In this instance, here the vendor pulled the wrong diamond and its QA process had 3 staffers matching the wrong diamond to the wrong diamond's certificate number -- which did match -- yet the essential step of matching the pulled diamond to the customer order form was skipped and/or lacksdasically performed by 3 separate WF staffers -- and this was the necessary step which would have revealed the wrong diamond had been pulled.

All these comments about "my goodness, the numbers were so close" are ridiculous -- why have QA is no one is actually going to perform their job with care and diligence ... and really, only one of them had do their job right ... so unprofessional and inexcusable and disappointing ... and so frustrating for customer ... and we all can see how this could have spiralled into something much worse, if the customer hadn't been on the ball and hadn't kept contacting WF.

I guess I'm closer to a dime than my two cents, but there it is.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

One of the Whiteflash core values is to be accountable. We understand that making a mistake will result in criticism that is warranted. Sometimes the criticism can be harsh and unforgiving. We’re not here to make excuses, though some circumstances are worth mentioning by way of explanation of how certain errors might come about. It is informative for consumers to understand the things that can happen despite a company’s commitment to best practices.

But whether it is misreading a string of digits written on a faceted girdle, some sort of confirmation bias that perpetuates a mistake through an otherwise well designed multi level QC system, staffing challenges related to a pandemic, or any other extenuating circumstance, it all tends to seem like excuse making.

We will learn what we can from this event and try to use it to improve our performance, whether it is through changes to our procedures or better training or both. The feedback we get here is an important aspect of this process and we highly value it. Even when it is harsh.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Laser Inscription is a modern development that has greatly aided manufacturers, dealers, and retailers in controlling their diamond inventory. And consumers benefit by having a way to self-verify their diamond. Imagine how many innocent mistakes occurred in the time before inscriptions as diamonds moved around between and within various companies in the supply chain.

So, while we have this valuable tool today, (I agree with @marymm) it does not absolutely guarantee that mistakes won’t happen. It just means that mixups should be rare.

The idea that photographing the inscription will somehow remove the possibility of an error may seem reasonable on the surface, but in practice it is not a panacea and may actually cause more harm than good. There are a number of variables that make photographing inscriptions challenging enough that they will not be perfectly legible on a fully consistent basis, and would therefore be potential sources of doubt rather than certainty. One of the main reasons is that high quality diamonds tend to have faceted girdles with the inscriptions written onto a curved and uneven surface. In some cases this can make I’s look like 7’s and 3’s look like 8’s for example. To accurately read an inscription it is sometimes necessary to look at certain digits in the string at a different angle so that the digit is perpendicular to the line of sight. Also, the height of the girdle is a limiting factor for the size of the inscription such that a 1.00 ct diamond typically has a significantly larger inscription making it easier to resolve than a .30 ct. Black inscriptions tend to be easier to see than inscriptions in diamonds that have been steam cleaned and offer only an engraving seen in “relief” which may even be more dependent on precise viewing angle.

Then of course you have the question of when the photo of the inscription was done and if it was done by the same person packing the diamond or at a different stage in the QC process. And the reality is that most merchants do not have a photo department or even the capability to do imaging of inscriptions, so any advantage that a photo of the inscription might provide would only be available through select vendors.

I think the best general takeaway from this thread is that experienced diamond consumers who can self-verify their diamond purchases should always do so upon receipt. Those who do not feel confident in self-verification should seek an outside evaluation from a qualified, independent expert. Even if you do not need a full appraisal, you may be able to request a lower cost, basic verification.

 

[hnhn]

One of the Whiteflash core values is to be accountable. We understand that making a mistake will result in criticism that is warranted. Sometimes the criticism can be harsh and unforgiving. We’re not here to make excuses, though some circumstances are worth mentioning by way of explanation of how certain errors might come about. It is informative for consumers to understand the things that can happen despite a company’s commitment to best practices.

But whether it is misreading a string of digits written on a faceted girdle, some sort of confirmation bias that perpetuates a mistake through an otherwise well designed multi level QC system, staffing challenges related to a pandemic, or any other extenuating circumstance, it all tends to seem like excuse making.

We will learn what we can from this event and try to use it to improve our performance, whether it is through changes to our procedures or better training or both. The feedback we get here is an important aspect of this process and we highly value it. Even when it is harsh.

I think you should give some credit back to OP for her stresses over WF neglected .

 

[Rockcollector]

Texas leaguer, I think you have handled this situation with class and dignity. It must not be easy at times, especially here lately. Hang in there!

 

[lissyflo]

Texas leaguer, I think you have handled this situation with class and dignity. It must not be easy at times, especially here lately. Hang in there!

Honestly, in this case it’s the OP who’s been the class act. WF have made a serious mistake and are rectifying it - that’s as it should be, rather than being notably laudable. The OP has been seriously calm and classy; I think I would be spitting nails if this had happened to me. The first (three) errors are bad, but for no-one to have properly checked before (incorrectly) responding to the OP when she outright informed them that she’d been sent the wrong stone beggars belief.

The most concerning part for me is how the mistake would have been rectified if OP hadn’t spotted it. It’s all well and good saying WF would ultimately have noticed and corrected the error, but if they’ve sent out a stone that doesn’t match the order then potentially/presumably there’s no verifiable, traceable record of where that stone has gone to enable them to correct it?

 

[Rockcollector]

Honestly, in this case it’s the OP who’s been the class act. I think I would be spitting nails if this had happened to me. The first (three) errors are bad, but for no-one to have properly checked before (incorrectly) responding to the OP when she outright informed them that she’d been sent the wrong stone beggars belief.

Yes she has. I was just pointing out that it wasn’t Texas Leaguer who made the mistake, but he has to shoulder the blame because of his employee’s mistake. I’m glad it was taken care of.

 

[lissyflo]

I think the best general takeaway from this thread is that experienced diamond consumers who can self-verify their diamond purchases should always do so upon receipt. Those who do not feel confident in self-verification should seek an outside evaluation from a qualified, independent expert. Even if you do not need a full appraisal, you may be able to request a lower cost, basic verification.

I'm not sure if you meant to state this as bluntly as you did, but paraphrasing it reads as 'you should obtain (and bear the cost of) an appraisal to ensure we've sent you what you ordered and paid for', which doesn't fit at all with what I perceive as WF's reputation. Given WF's stellar customer service history, will you be offering to arrange this independent verification as part of shipping to the customer, maybe shipping from you to the third party and then on to the customer as a single, seamless process without stress to the customer? Who bears the cost of this recommendation is also problematical given that sending out the correct stock item is the retailer's responsibility. Obviously anyone should seek to verify their purchases, but seeing this as active advice from a vendor to ensure someone gets the specific item they paid for gives it a very different perspective.

The reason I ask is that I often see WF recommended on PS as the easy, no-thought-required option for newbies, where you can place your order and be sure that what you receive is a world class stone. I think for most newbies the thought of adding in the cost, time, inconvenience and stress of shipping an expensive stone to an appraiser after purchase would be overwhelming and make them reconsider using WF. For someone who's an inexperienced, one time diamond purchaser, finding an appraiser and dealing with shipping what is possibly their most expensive non-housing asset could be unwanted additional stress and inconvenience and would dissuade them from the purchase. If it is a necessary part of the purchasing process per WF advice, that should be factored in when recommending stones on here to newbies in particular.

 

[theshirlgirlNS]

Here's an idea: when I received my BG 5 stone ring, it came with a mini hearts and arrow viewer. Why not include an inexpensive jewelers loupe with any diamond purchase so the buyer can not only verify the diamond (even a newbie should be able to locate and read girdle inscription with a little practice), but also periodically check their set stone for damage? I have zero jewelry skills, but I've been able to do this fairly easily.

Just a thought...

 

[LLJsmom]

Here's an idea: when I received my BG 5 stone ring, it came with a mini hearts and arrow viewer. Why not include an inexpensive jewelers loupe with any diamond purchase so the buyer can not only verify the diamond (even a newbie should be able to locate and read girdle inscription with a little practice), but also periodically check their set stone for damage? I have zero jewelry skills, but I've been able to do this fairly easily.

Just a thought...

I thought a loupe is always included with a diamond purchase from WF.

 

[theshirlgirlNS]

I thought a loupe is always included with a diamond purchase from WF.

Maybe it is now? I’ve not received one in the past.

 

[daisygrl]

I thought a loupe is always included with a diamond purchase from WF.

I have not received a loupe but I have my own and a microscope that I use most frequently. I have only received H&A viewer and Ideal Scope (2 in 1).

 

[LLJsmom]

I have not received a loupe but I have my own. I have only received H&A viewer and Ideal Scope (2 in 1).

Hmmm. Maybe I forgot. Yeah maybe you’re right. I get confused. I’ve got so many loupes I don’t know where they came from. Yeah then. Include a loupe, but at least 20x. Hey, if you’re gonna do it…

 

[Mlh]

Fwiw, I just went to the local jeweler and asked if they could read me the number on the diamond. They were happy to do it for me.

 

[Lookinagain]

Fwiw, I just went to the local jeweler and asked if they could read me the number on the diamond. They were happy to do it for me.

That was going to be my suggestion as I think most local jewelers will do this as an accommodation. No need to send it off to an appraiser when you can't check it yourself.

 

[Bonfire]

I have not received a loupe but I have my own and a microscope that I use most frequently. I have only received H&A viewer and Ideal Scope (2 in 1).

I never even received a H&A viewer with mine, darn.

 

[Lookinagain]

I never received a H&A viewer with mine, darn.

I don't think I have either, but I've only purchased studs (and upgraded them once) from WF. Maybe that's why.

 

[prs]

As the former owner of an ISO9001 certified manufacturing Company I see the need for a number of corrective actions.

1. Determine how the wrong diamond was pulled from the safe in the first place. This is the root cause of the issue and has to be fixed.

2. Determine how the wrong diamond passed thru the QA chain and wasn't caught. Retraining likely needed.

3. Determine how and why the customer's initial call about the issue was so easily brushed off. It is a problem if Customer Service doesn't immediately write up all customer complaints and pass them to the QA department to be investigated and answered in a timely manner. Always best if a first response is given by QA directly to the customer within 24 hours.

 

[daisygrl]

I never even received a H&A viewer with mine, darn.

I received two (for two stones). Maybe one is yours? If you want one and you purchased a loose diamond from WF, contact them, they might send you one.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

As the former owner of an ISO9001 certified manufacturing Company I see the need for a number of corrective actions.

1. Determine how the wrong diamond was pulled from the safe in the first place. This is the root cause of the issue and has to be fixed.

2. Determine how the wrong diamond passed thru the QA chain and wasn't caught. Retraining likely needed.

3. Determine how and why the customer's initial call about the issue was so easily brushed off. It is a problem if Customer Service doesn't immediately write up all customer complaints and pass them to the QA department to be investigated and answered in a timely manner. Always best if a first response is given by QA directly to the customer within 24 hours.

@prs ,
Thank you for that feedback. That is precisely how we are approaching this internally.

We have established some of the causal factors involved and have a plan for corrective actions involving both a potential system improvement and additional training.

Your item #3 is of particular importance to fully understand internally. In a sense there are two separate issues here. First is the initial customer-reaching error. Second is a response to a customer concern that should have resulted in action but did not. We are still exploring the details of that interaction.

Thank you again for your analysis. It is spot on.

 

[daisygrl]

@prs ,
Thank you for that feedback. That is precisely how we are approaching this internally.

We have established some of the causal factors involved and have a plan for corrective actions involving both a potential system improvement and additional training.

Your item #3 is of particular importance to fully understand internally. In a sense there are two separate issues here. First is the initial customer-reaching error. Second is a response to a customer concern that should have resulted in action but did not. We are still exploring the details of that interaction.

Thank you again for your analysis. It is spot on.

@Texas Leaguer , I do not want people to get in a trouble - that was never an intention of this thread as I was very happy to be a part of WF the minute I saw my diamond necklace (my first WF purchase). However, I would like to mention how flexible my associate Michelle was. When I called her regarding the tracking number for the second diamond, she said I would receive it in couple of hours (that would be 6:00pm your time). I did not receive the usual automatic WF response about shipping and tracking # and assumed Fedex did not pick up the package and the stone would be shipped on Monday. However, Michelle checked her emails (must have been around 7:00pm on Friday so she was off the clock by this time) and saw I did not receive the email with a tracking#. She contacted Vera who provided Michelle with the Fedex tracking and Michelle herself emailed it to me later that evening because she knew I was waiting for it. If it had not been for Michelle's thoughtfulness, I would not have had an idea the package was coming for Saturday's delivery. I spoke with her on Monday and thanked her for it.