WWYD if someone gave you a returnable gift that...

[MichelleCarmen]

I don't see the big deal. If the MIL absolutely insisted on taking it in herself (which I cannot really imagine since it has already been given to the OP), then OP can just loosen a link or something. I surely would try to switch it.

maybe i misunderstood this post.

mc, i gave my explanation here.

oops, okay!

Just as a side note, the OP had to use another name to post for privacey reasons and because of a "lurker." Does this mean the MIL may read PS. Just a thought. Has the OP ever mentioned PS to her MIL?

 

[decodelighted]

I am truly amazed that so many people seem to:

a) EXPECT that they *will* and *should* ENJOY gifts they are given

and

b) Feel ENTITLED to control how others spend their money in order to squelch their own NEUROSES.

Giving "good" gifts isn't everyone's talent. And not everyone is concerned with getting the ultimate superior value & quality of an item at all costs.

None of you complainers would get a single gift from me in the future -- that's for sure!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I am truly amazed that so many people seem to:

a) EXPECT that they *will* and *should* ENJOY gifts they are given

and

b) Feel ENTITLED to control how others spend their money in order to squelch their own NEUROSES.

Giving "good" gifts isn't everyone's talent. And not everyone is concerned with getting the ultimate superior value & quality of an item at all costs.

None of you complainers would get a single gift from me in the future -- that's for sure!

Hey, I'm not complaining! Bring on the gifts...

 

[rosetta]

I was 99% sure that this was from your MIL. I've got a sneaking suspicion that she may be of Asian origin as well.

I think it would be a tactical error if you threw this one back in her face.

Look, it cost you no money. It was a gift. The quality hardly matters, and your standards are certainly not the vast majority of the public's standards anyway. It's not likely that $10k gifts are coming your way on a regular basis anyway. Sounds like it was a gift for a major occasion yes?

I like really beautifully made leather goods. I've had some designer purses given to me which cost $$$ but the leather is not up to scratch at all. Did I give it back and ask for something better quality but cheaper? No. Coz it would be like saying "look, I know that you want to spend $1000 on me, but let ME tell YOU how to spend that money cos I know SOOOO much more about this stuff than you do!"

Er no. I don't think I'd come up smelling of roses in that case.

I would only really tell very close family about a poor quality present, coz I know that they won't react badly.

My MIL is lovely, but I'm not running that risk with her. No way!

 

[Circe]

I dunno, Deco.

On the one hand, I think I and my husband would both feel good about *ourselves* if we followed your philosophy ... but we'd be condemned to a lifetime of lying to *one another* about how HAPPY we were with things we were only lukewarm about. Given the policy of honesty, sure, sometimes we feel a little chagrined when we get it wrong - but we're getting closer and closer to getting it right.

(And I speak as a woman who just got a set of flying trapeze lessons for Mother's Day. While fatter than she's ever been before. Heart, right place: foot, in mouth.)

Regarding the OPs problem (first world problem, indeed - hey, own it!), I think I'd recommend the middle road: I wouldn't come straight out and say, "My god, woman, the quality - OR LACK THEREOF!" I might be seriously tempted to bend back a prong and call up MIL to say that while the gift was sooooooooooo thoughtfully chosen and beloved, this one was defective ... and perhaps suggest a dealer who sold an identical thing where OP knew the quality. An identical thing that cost less, btw, just so as to not look greedy.

Alternately, I think I'd suggest telling your husband to just act really enthusiastic and beg to go shopping with mom, and have HIM steer her in the right direction in the future, and just eat it on this one piece ....

 

[TravelingGal]

I am truly amazed that so many people seem to:

a) EXPECT that they *will* and *should* ENJOY gifts they are given

and

b) Feel ENTITLED to control how others spend their money in order to squelch their own NEUROSES.

Giving "good" gifts isn't everyone's talent. And not everyone is concerned with getting the ultimate superior value & quality of an item at all costs.

None of you complainers would get a single gift from me in the future -- that's for sure!

Really it depends if you're taking the view of the giver or the receiver. I agree if I were in the OP's shoes, I would enjoy it and live with it.

But thinking of myself as a giver, boy, I would really want the person to enjoy the gift. It would not offend me in the slightest if the receiver wanted the best value for my money. Not at all.

 

[crown1]

I dunno, Deco.

On the one hand, I think I and my husband would both feel good about *ourselves* if we followed your philosophy ... but we'd be condemned to a lifetime of lying to *one another* about how HAPPY we were with things we were only lukewarm about. Given the policy of honesty, sure, sometimes we feel a little chagrined when we get it wrong - but we're getting closer and closer to getting it right.

(And I speak as a woman who just got a set of flying trapeze lessons for Mother's Day. While fatter than she's ever been before. Heart, right place: foot, in mouth.)

Regarding the OPs problem (first world problem, indeed - hey, own it!), I think I'd recommend the middle road: I wouldn't come straight out and say, "My god, woman, the quality - OR LACK THEREOF!" I might be seriously tempted to bend back a prong and call up MIL to say that while the gift was sooooooooooo thoughtfully chosen and beloved, this one was defective ... and perhaps suggest a dealer who sold an identical thing where OP knew the quality. An identical thing that cost less, btw, just so as to not look greedy.

Alternately, I think I'd suggest telling your husband to just act really enthusiastic and beg to go shopping with mom, and have HIM steer her in the right direction in the future, and just eat it on this one piece ....

would you have no ethical problem with causing the defect, and possibly causing the department store to have to bear the responsibility? maybe i am interpreting this all wrong? at any rate, i won't comment on damaging the goods to get rid of this item again since no one else has noted their disgust with it.

 

[decodelighted]

I dunno, Deco. On the one hand, I think I and my husband would both feel good about *ourselves* if we followed your philosophy ... but we'd be condemned to a lifetime of lying to *one another* about how HAPPY we were with things we were only lukewarm about.

I previously mentioned - in several earlier posts that "couples w/joint finances" is a different story, IMHO. If you have the kind of relationship where you're open about gift pickiness & concern for "family waste", maximum value etc -- this situation would probably only happen once, if at all. In my relationship, it was discussed pre-engagement ring. And we consult each other on gifts over a certain amount to ensure we don't misspend our mutual assets.

Gifts from folks with whom you *do not share assets* are another story entirely. And forget that "but it's my inheritance!" stuff. NO ONE IS OWED ANYTHING in this world.

 

[rosetta]

Thinking of ourselves as the giver, I bet most of us wouldn't be offended by a returned gift.

Thing is, we AREN'T the giver.

And only the OP has even the slightest clue about how the ACTUAL giver might react.

What we think is the right answer here, may well completely backfire in the OP's case.

Btw, having the identical item made with better diamonds on the sly won't stop her MIL giving her crappy diamonds in the future.

 

[Rhea]

I just don't think there are a lot of PSers who would be thrilled to receive a gift worth thousands of dollars with uncertified I1 and I2 diamonds.

You're right, I wouldn't be thrilled. In fact, I'm not thrilled about most gifts, both giving and receiving. There comes a point through were diamond colour, cut, clarity and all that doesn't matter, saving the relationship with your in-laws is much more important.

In my family we tell each other if we don't like things. There are usually no surprises and the gift receipt is always enclosed. My DH's family doesn't work like that. Short of the gift being truly unusable - like the wrong size shoes, we suck it up and get on with it. Gifts usually aren't perfect, the person isn't inside our heads to know exactly how we'd like them to spend their money on us. It was her money and unless you know that she'd be wonderful about the exchange, that relationship is so much more important than the item that was bought.

Someone had the idea of having your DH direct your MIL to a PS vendor. If your MIL is a frequent gift giver I'd pick a PS vendor, start a wish list with them, and hope that your MIL uses it when she next chooses to spend her money on you.

 

[Laila619]

I dunno, Deco.

On the one hand, I think I and my husband would both feel good about *ourselves* if we followed your philosophy ... but we'd be condemned to a lifetime of lying to *one another* about how HAPPY we were with things we were only lukewarm about. Given the policy of honesty, sure, sometimes we feel a little chagrined when we get it wrong - but we're getting closer and closer to getting it right.

(And I speak as a woman who just got a set of flying trapeze lessons for Mother's Day. While fatter than she's ever been before. Heart, right place: foot, in mouth.)

Regarding the OPs problem (first world problem, indeed - hey, own it!), I think I'd recommend the middle road: I wouldn't come straight out and say, "My god, woman, the quality - OR LACK THEREOF!" I might be seriously tempted to bend back a prong and call up MIL to say that while the gift was sooooooooooo thoughtfully chosen and beloved, this one was defective ... and perhaps suggest a dealer who sold an identical thing where OP knew the quality. An identical thing that cost less, btw, just so as to not look greedy.

Alternately, I think I'd suggest telling your husband to just act really enthusiastic and beg to go shopping with mom, and have HIM steer her in the right direction in the future, and just eat it on this one piece ....

would you have no ethical problem with causing the defect, and possibly causing the department store to have to bear the responsibility? maybe i am interpreting this all wrong? at any rate, i won't comment on damaging the goods to get rid of this item again since no one else has noted their disgust with it.

No, I agree. Deliberately damaging the item to be able to return it is wrong.

 

[Circe]

I dunno, Deco.

On the one hand, I think I and my husband would both feel good about *ourselves* if we followed your philosophy ... but we'd be condemned to a lifetime of lying to *one another* about how HAPPY we were with things we were only lukewarm about. Given the policy of honesty, sure, sometimes we feel a little chagrined when we get it wrong - but we're getting closer and closer to getting it right.

(And I speak as a woman who just got a set of flying trapeze lessons for Mother's Day. While fatter than she's ever been before. Heart, right place: foot, in mouth.)

Regarding the OPs problem (first world problem, indeed - hey, own it!), I think I'd recommend the middle road: I wouldn't come straight out and say, "My god, woman, the quality - OR LACK THEREOF!" I might be seriously tempted to bend back a prong and call up MIL to say that while the gift was sooooooooooo thoughtfully chosen and beloved, this one was defective ... and perhaps suggest a dealer who sold an identical thing where OP knew the quality. An identical thing that cost less, btw, just so as to not look greedy.

Alternately, I think I'd suggest telling your husband to just act really enthusiastic and beg to go shopping with mom, and have HIM steer her in the right direction in the future, and just eat it on this one piece ....

would you have no ethical problem with causing the defect, and possibly causing the department store to have to bear the responsibility? maybe i am interpreting this all wrong? at any rate, i won't comment on damaging the goods to get rid of this item again since no one else has noted their disgust with it.

I'll admit it wouldn't have occurred to me initially (was picking up on an earlier comment), but, no, all things considered, I think it's the lesser of the two/three evils, compared to hurting the MILs feeling or leaving the OP feeling sick about her well-intentioned loved one being taken for a ride every time she looked at it. It's not like taking a hammer to it - it's a two-minute fix. Hell, given the quality of your average piece of department store jewelry, I'm betting you can make the claim of wonky prongs right from the get-go ....

 

[Fly Girl]

If the gift truly can be returned and replaced with no one being the wiser, then go ahead. Otherwise, it is not worth bringing up to MIL. Wear it when family is around and leave it in your drawer otherwise. Never, ever tell her it is not worthy of you.

I get many gifts from my in-laws. I thank them and take them home and most of the time they don't get used. Of course, the jewelry from my MIL is cheap costume stuff. It goes into the drawer and stays there. Getting a gift that the receiver loves is a rare and wonderful thing, and not to be expected every time.

 

[crown1]

I dunno, Deco.

On the one hand, I think I and my husband would both feel good about *ourselves* if we followed your philosophy ... but we'd be condemned to a lifetime of lying to *one another* about how HAPPY we were with things we were only lukewarm about. Given the policy of honesty, sure, sometimes we feel a little chagrined when we get it wrong - but we're getting closer and closer to getting it right.

(And I speak as a woman who just got a set of flying trapeze lessons for Mother's Day. While fatter than she's ever been before. Heart, right place: foot, in mouth.)

Regarding the OPs problem (first world problem, indeed - hey, own it!), I think I'd recommend the middle road: I wouldn't come straight out and say, "My god, woman, the quality - OR LACK THEREOF!" I might be seriously tempted to bend back a prong and call up MIL to say that while the gift was sooooooooooo thoughtfully chosen and beloved, this one was defective ... and perhaps suggest a dealer who sold an identical thing where OP knew the quality. An identical thing that cost less, btw, just so as to not look greedy.

Alternately, I think I'd suggest telling your husband to just act really enthusiastic and beg to go shopping with mom, and have HIM steer her in the right direction in the future, and just eat it on this one piece ....

would you have no ethical problem with causing the defect, and possibly causing the department store to have to bear the responsibility? maybe i am interpreting this all wrong? at any rate, i won't comment on damaging the goods to get rid of this item again since no one else has noted their disgust with it.

I'll admit it wouldn't have occurred to me initially (was picking up on an earlier comment), but, no, all things considered, I think it's the lesser of the two/three evils, compared to hurting the MILs feeling or leaving the OP feeling sick about her well-intentioned loved one being taken for a ride every time she looked at it. It's not like taking a hammer to it - it's a two-minute fix. Hell, given the quality of your average piece of department store jewelry, I'm betting you can make the claim of wonky prongs right from the get-go ....

i don't believe the op ever mentioned wonky prongs or poor quality of the piece other than the diamonds? rationalizing bad behavior to suit one's desire for "better stones" seems like the wrong path to go down. this may be a diamond forum but i hope everyone has not thrown out reasonable and right behavior in the quest for "better stones". i really would have never believed the direction this has taken if i had not read it for myself.

 

[Circe]

i don't believe the op ever mentioned wonky prongs or poor quality of the piece other than the diamonds? rationalizing bad behavior to suit one's desire for "better stones" seems like the wrong path to go down. this may be a diamond forum but i hope everyone has not thrown out reasonable and right behavior in the quest for "better stones". i really would have never believed the direction this has taken if i had not read it for myself.

No, not the OP - somebody else in the thread offered it up as a suggestion, and it stuck in my head. I was being tongue-in-cheek in referencing it initially (i.e., "might be tempted" =/= offering suggestions on which tools to use for prong lifters). But, that said - if the store is wildly overcharging for subpar goods, do I have an ethical issue with the white lie of telling MIL my objection is practical because it catches on clothes or whatever rather than the aesthetic effect of crappy stones? Nope.

 

[decodelighted]

I, too, am STUNNED at the suggestions of damaging an item in order to open the door to exchange/replacement. All you Bistro sellers -- so people who don't like your items should DAMAGE THEM so they have a "claim" to return? Or is that only okay to do to "big Department stores"?

The thing about morals & ethics -- they don't change depending on the size of the vendor. Ooops, your values are showing.

 

[Circe]

I don't see the big deal. If the MIL absolutely insisted on taking it in herself (which I cannot really imagine since it has already been given to the OP), then OP can just loosen a link or something. I surely would try to switch it.

DiamondSeeker has got to be one of the most virtuous posters on here, generally. Me, not so much - but I am one of the more sarcastic. So let's just unclench our pearls and put things in perspective here ... the OP isn't being greedy, she doesn't want more money to be spent, she just seems to dislike the idea of a thoughtful present going to waste while a ton of money goes down the drain. I'm not advocating for the wholesale disenfranchisement of small business owners, but for the white lie of poor quality to smooth an exchange- which, given the OPs description of the stones, isn't even necessarily a lie. If the store overcharged for the stones, I'm not going to assume superb metalwork. My values, let me show you them. And now, I leave you with an emotie, since apparently without them I'm incomprehensible!

 

[Laila619]

I, too, am STUNNED at the suggestions of damaging an item in order to open the door to exchange/replacement. All you Bistro sellers -- so people who don't like your items should DAMAGE THEM so they have a "claim" to return? Or is that only okay to do to "big Department stores"?

The thing about morals & ethics -- they don't change depending on the size of the vendor. Ooops, your values are showing.

Yes. Because the department store overcharges, it's okay to damage the piece?!

 

[Circe]

I, too, am STUNNED at the suggestions of damaging an item in order to open the door to exchange/replacement. All you Bistro sellers -- so people who don't like your items should DAMAGE THEM so they have a "claim" to return? Or is that only okay to do to "big Department stores"?

The thing about morals & ethics -- they don't change depending on the size of the vendor. Ooops, your values are showing.

Yes. Because the department store overcharges, it's okay to damage the piece?!

See above.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don't see the big deal. If the MIL absolutely insisted on taking it in herself (which I cannot really imagine since it has already been given to the OP), then OP can just loosen a link or something. I surely would try to switch it.

maybe i misunderstood this post.

I'm sorry, I had no idea what you were speaking of! Okay, under no circumstances would I agree with actuallydamaging the item. I have had plenty of necklaces where a link was not closed all the way at the clasp and that kind of thing and it just needs some pliers to close it. But that was really just a reply to a "what if" question that I think is not going to happen. I think if he says THEY are taking it and need the receipt, she will either give it to them or if she says she will do it herself, then they can say absolutely not and they will just take it to their own jeweler to spare her the trouble. My real hope was that they could do the return without MIL having any knowledge period. The title of the post says the item is returnable. If it is, then just return it! It would be much better to say it is a little large... IF THAT IS TRUE... and then do the return and get one made 1/8 in. smaller so as not to lie at all.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Just to be clear...NO, I did not mean for her to damage the piece!!! Good grief!!! It is not going to get to the point of the MIL taking the thing in!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don't see the big deal. If the MIL absolutely insisted on taking it in herself (which I cannot really imagine since it has already been given to the OP), then OP can just loosen a link or something. I surely would try to switch it.

DiamondSeeker has got to be one of the most virtuous posters on here, generally. Me, not so much - but I am one of the more sarcastic. So let's just unclench our pearls and put things in perspective here ... the OP isn't being greedy, she doesn't want more money to be spent, she just seems to dislike the idea of a thoughtful present going to waste while a ton of money goes down the drain. I'm not advocating for the wholesale disenfranchisement of small business owners, but for the white lie of poor quality to smooth an exchange- which, given the OPs description of the stones, isn't even necessarily a lie. If the store overcharged for the stones, I'm not going to assume superb metalwork. My values, let me show you them. And now, I leave you with an emotie, since apparently without them I'm incomprehensible!

Thank you so much for the compliment and thank you even more for "getting" what I was trying to say. You apparently understood that I was NOT saying that she should damage the piece. I was just trying to think of any plausible excuse for the husband to get possession of the receipt!!!!! (I do like the idea of too big or too small a little better, though, now that I have had more time to think about it. Surely it can be a little too big or too small???)

 

[Dreamer_D]

I am truly amazed that so many people seem to:

a) EXPECT that they *will* and *should* ENJOY gifts they are given

and

b) Feel ENTITLED to control how others spend their money in order to squelch their own NEUROSES.

Giving "good" gifts isn't everyone's talent. And not everyone is concerned with getting the ultimate superior value & quality of an item at all costs.

None of you complainers would get a single gift from me in the future -- that's for sure!

This is a very independent way of thinking of things; culturally independent I mean. Like, a gift giver gives whatever he/she likes and the gift receiver's wants and needs be damned.

There are other ways of seeing the meaning of gifts within relationships. I know you sometimes have a hard time seeing perspectives other than your own, Deco, but allow me to elaborate anyways for others who might care to understand other's points of view rather than simply repeating over and over again how selfish and stupid others must be, because others do not agree with the self.

Some people believe that giving gifts is about meeting the needs of the recipient. Indeed, in some cultures and in some families, choosing a gift for a loved one that meets the loved ones needs and desires is the main goal of gift giving. In that way of thinking of things, the giving of a gift reflects the giver's knowledge of the receivers needs and wants, and reflects their care for the receivers needs and wants. To give someone a gift that they do not want or need, THAT is the mistake and travesty. That is how I see things -- giving gifts is not about throwing money or objects at another person and they better damn well like it. Giving gifts is about meeting the receivers needs. We have no idea what the giver in this situation thinks and feels about the act of giving gifts. We do know the receivers feelings about it. I think they owe it to one another to talk about this issue so it does not come up again; the giver's needs are not the only one's that matter IMHO.

 

[junebug17]

I don't see the big deal. If the MIL absolutely insisted on taking it in herself (which I cannot really imagine since it has already been given to the OP), then OP can just loosen a link or something. I surely would try to switch it.

DiamondSeeker has got to be one of the most virtuous posters on here, generally. Me, not so much - but I am one of the more sarcastic. So let's just unclench our pearls and put things in perspective here ... the OP isn't being greedy, she doesn't want more money to be spent, she just seems to dislike the idea of a thoughtful present going to waste while a ton of money goes down the drain. I'm not advocating for the wholesale disenfranchisement of small business owners, but for the white lie of poor quality to smooth an exchange- which, given the OPs description of the stones, isn't even necessarily a lie. If the store overcharged for the stones, I'm not going to assume superb metalwork. My values, let me show you them. And now, I leave you with an emotie, since apparently without them I'm incomprehensible!

Thank you so much for the compliment and thank you even more for "getting" what I was trying to say. You apparently understood that I was NOT saying that she should damage the piece. I was just trying to think of any plausible excuse for the husband to get possession of the receipt!!!!! (I do like the idea of too big or too small a little better, though, now that I have had more time to think about it. Surely it can be a little too big or too small???)

Diamondseeker, I swear I'm not trying to be nasty or pick on you, but I'm still unsure of what you meant in the top post...re the bolded part - aren't you suggesting the OP damage the piece in that sentence? At the least, you can see why some of us are confused as to what you actually meant.

 

[crown1]

i am sorry you had no idea what i was speaking of also. perhaps you might read all of your posts on this topic. since you have stated you felt you might be old enough to be a poster's mother, i was hoping you would offer some guidance here. i was hoping you might say you were a little zealous in wanting to please the op, and you had stepped a bit over the line in suggesting to alter the piece.

but no matter, we just differ in what is right and fair here. i know we are not to get personal and i think it might be headed there so i will bow out. thanks!

 

[Circe]

I don't see the big deal. If the MIL absolutely insisted on taking it in herself (which I cannot really imagine since it has already been given to the OP), then OP can just loosen a link or something. I surely would try to switch it.

DiamondSeeker has got to be one of the most virtuous posters on here, generally. Me, not so much - but I am one of the more sarcastic. So let's just unclench our pearls and put things in perspective here ... the OP isn't being greedy, she doesn't want more money to be spent, she just seems to dislike the idea of a thoughtful present going to waste while a ton of money goes down the drain. I'm not advocating for the wholesale disenfranchisement of small business owners, but for the white lie of poor quality to smooth an exchange- which, given the OPs description of the stones, isn't even necessarily a lie. If the store overcharged for the stones, I'm not going to assume superb metalwork. My values, let me show you them. And now, I leave you with an emotie, since apparently without them I'm incomprehensible!

Thank you so much for the compliment and thank you even more for "getting" what I was trying to say. You apparently understood that I was NOT saying that she should damage the piece. I was just trying to think of any plausible excuse for the husband to get possession of the receipt!!!!! (I do like the idea of too big or too small a little better, though, now that I have had more time to think about it. Surely it can be a little too big or too small???)

Diamondseeker, I swear I'm not trying to be nasty or pick on you, but I'm still unsure of what you meant in the top post...re the bolded part - aren't you suggesting the OP damage the piece in that sentence? At the least, you can see why some of us are confused as to what you actually meant.

I think it was sarcasm.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am truly amazed that so many people seem to:

a) EXPECT that they *will* and *should* ENJOY gifts they are given

and

b) Feel ENTITLED to control how others spend their money in order to squelch their own NEUROSES.

Giving "good" gifts isn't everyone's talent. And not everyone is concerned with getting the ultimate superior value & quality of an item at all costs.

None of you complainers would get a single gift from me in the future -- that's for sure!

This is a very independent way of thinking of things; culturally independent I mean. Like, a gift giver gives whatever he/she likes and the gift receiver's wants and needs be damned.

There are other ways of seeing the meaning of gifts within relationships. I know you sometimes have a hard time seeing perspectives other than your own, Deco, but allow me to elaborate anyways for others who might care to understand other's points of view rather than simply repeating over and over again how selfish and stupid others must be, because others do not agree with the self.

Some people believe that giving gifts is about meeting the needs of the recipient. Indeed, in some cultures and in some families, choosing a gift for a loved one that meets the loved ones needs and desires is the main goal of gift giving. In that way of thinking of things, the giving of a gift reflects the giver's knowledge of the receivers needs and wants, and reflects their care for the receivers needs and wants. To give someone a gift that they do not want or need, THAT is the mistake and travesty. That is how I see things -- giving gifts is not about throwing money or objects at another person and they better damn well like it. Giving gifts is about meeting the receivers needs. We have no idea what the giver in this situation thinks and feels about the act of giving gifts. We do know the receivers feelings about it. I think they owe it to one another to talk about this issue so it does not come up again; the giver's needs are not the only one's that matter IMHO.

I love you, Dreamer. Yay, one more person picked up on something I was trying to say as well.

 

[Circe]

I don't see the big deal. If the MIL absolutely insisted on taking it in herself (which I cannot really imagine since it has already been given to the OP), then OP can just loosen a link or something. I surely would try to switch it.

DiamondSeeker has got to be one of the most virtuous posters on here, generally. Me, not so much - but I am one of the more sarcastic. So let's just unclench our pearls and put things in perspective here ... the OP isn't being greedy, she doesn't want more money to be spent, she just seems to dislike the idea of a thoughtful present going to waste while a ton of money goes down the drain. I'm not advocating for the wholesale disenfranchisement of small business owners, but for the white lie of poor quality to smooth an exchange- which, given the OPs description of the stones, isn't even necessarily a lie. If the store overcharged for the stones, I'm not going to assume superb metalwork. My values, let me show you them. And now, I leave you with an emotie, since apparently without them I'm incomprehensible!

Thank you so much for the compliment and thank you even more for "getting" what I was trying to say. You apparently understood that I was NOT saying that she should damage the piece. I was just trying to think of any plausible excuse for the husband to get possession of the receipt!!!!! (I do like the idea of too big or too small a little better, though, now that I have had more time to think about it. Surely it can be a little too big or too small???)

And, getting back to the topic at hand ... a) facts are facts! You have, like, 20K posts worth of valuable, moral advice to back you up. And b), I think it depends on what it is. If it's a bracelet like we're guessing - did the OP confirm? - that would totally be the easiest thing to do. Tougher if it's earrings or a necklace, though ....

 

[diamondseeker2006]

i am sorry you had no idea what i was speaking of also. perhaps you might read all of your posts on this topic. since you have stated you felt you might be old enough to be a poster's mother, i was hoping you would offer some guidance here. i was hoping you might say you were a little zealous in wanting to please the op, and you had stepped a bit over the line in suggesting to alter the piece.

but no matter, we just differ in what is right and fair here. i know we are not to get personal and i think it might be headed there so i will bow out. thanks!

This was an incredible rabbit trail, actually, and it will be great if you can let it go since I have made it clear that I was NOT suggesting that she actually do damage to the piece. In order to spare her MIL's feelings and hopefully be able to replace the item, I do think it is okay to think of some excuse that is PLAUSIBLE and true to be able to get the receipt. Hopefully she can see something wrong with it in SOME respect so that there are no lies period.

I hope my last 5 posts have made this clear to those who were confused. I am sure the poor OP is sorry she ever posted.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

And, getting back to the topic at hand ... a) facts are facts! You have, like, 20K posts worth of valuable, moral advice to back you up. And b), I think it depends on what it is. If it's a bracelet like we're guessing - did the OP confirm? - that would totally be the easiest thing to do. Tougher if it's earrings or a necklace, though ....

Thank you, Circe! I feel really bad that something I said on here was sort of misconstrued because I have never in my entire life damaged something in order to return it. This item can be returned as it is, they just need the receipt!!!

No, she didn't say what it is, but you are right, the size issue will be a problem if it is a necklace or earrings.