Fraud on the Trumpet & Horn website!

[Tourmaline]

I noticed that each of the following two listings (for OEC rings) on the Trumpet & Horn website have a photoshopped image (OF THE SAME MRB) as their first two images, and the rest of the photos on each listing show the actual OEC that is for sale in each ring:

http://www.trumpetandhorn.com/new-bond-street.html





http://www.trumpetandhorn.com/lucerne.html





I wrote to them to ask why and received a LIE in response from someone named Kim. It said:

"I'm happy to answer your questions about our New Bond Street and Lucerne rings. They are all actual pictures of the rings and there are no discrepancies. The culets don't show well in New Bond Street reflections in the stone are cancelling it out. The same thing happened to our Lucerne ring. It's really hard to take images of diamonds in the white light of the studio. I assure you they are all as pictured and described. They're beautiful rings!"

Can you believe this?!

 

[Tourmaline]

I wrote back and said that it was a lie, and that I thought the Pricescope community would be interested in knowing about it. This is the reply I received (from a different person, named Kelly).

I am the photographer here at Trumpet & Horn. I wanted to take the time to respond to your e-mail personally.

First, I want to apologize for this misunderstanding. You are absolutely right - the diamonds in the main photo for both New Bond Street and Lucerne are Photoshopped in. I apologize for Kim’s response - she simply didn’t know how my photographing & editing process works. If I am unable to get a good photo of the ring, especially a ring over $20,000, I do use Photoshop to make the ring look as close to what it looks like in real life as possible. Many big diamonds, when photographed super close up for the web, appear black because they show the reflection of the camera in the diamond. Obviously the diamond does not look like this in real life, so rather than leave it black, I do occasionally use Photoshop to make the ring look like it does in real life, as close as I am able to do.

There is a video uploaded for both rings that show 100% the actual ring, with no editing whatsoever. There are also iPhone photos on my hand uploaded for each ring that are also unedited. The information for each diamond is also listed in the description. No matter what site you shop on, you should always make sure to go by the description rather than the picture, since photographing diamonds is incredibly difficult. Even rings shown on sites like Tiffany & Co. are renderings - not actual photos - generated using Computer Aided Design (CAD). They are meant to give you a good idea of what the ring looks like, but do not reflect 100% what the finished ring will look like.

We are more than happy to shoot any rings you are interested in on our iPhones so you can see real, 100% unedited photos. The photos I shoot for the web are absolutely Photoshopped to look their best, like all retail products in any category that are shot for the web. I am incredibly sorry that you felt mislead! Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you personally to remedy the situation.

I wrote back and thanked her for coming clean, but told her that I feel that this practice is totally misleading advertising, which is fraudulent and irresponsible. Also, pictures of a generic MRB will not attract buyers looking for an OEC. Ridiculous.

 

[Nitedula]

Good eye! Once you start looking, you can see that there are a lot of others with that picture, too. I had a reply typed up with all the names, but lost it. A few have been rotated slightly, but wow, that's shameless.

 

[Tourmaline]

Good eye! Once you start looking, you can see that there are a lot of others with that picture, too. I had a reply typed up with all the names, but lost it. A few have been rotated slightly, but wow, that's shameless.

I know, it's unbelievable. She tried talking down to me in a follow-up note, and I told her she doesn't have to keep writing to me. I think what they're doing is indefensible.

 

[clearfading]

Good going! I love that you did that

 

[Nitedula]

Maybe the photographer should read Kenny's instructions describing the best lens set-up for photographing diamonds...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, with New Bond Street, it looks like the setting view photos have the photoshopped diamonds, and then one still pic, the hand pics and video have the actual diamond. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, the picture of the ring on the paper with writing is excellent and has the actual diamond in it. So clearly the photographer can get good images.

However, when I looked a little further, I could see the Loring even has the photoshopped diamond in the hand shot. That is not acceptable to me. A serious problem is that the photoshopped diamond image is a poorly cut round brilliant while some of the actual diamonds are OECs, so to me, there is more harm in photoshopping a different style of diamond altogether because I might stop looking at the ring after the first image because I wouldn't like the stone.

http://www.trumpetandhorn.com/loring.html

I honestly don't think it is fraud since some of the images in each listing are the real diamond. But I don't think it is a wise decision since some people will be turned off either by the practice of photoshopping or just overlooking the ring because of the undesirable diamond. I see no problem with having sample images showing the setting design, but all actual pics of the ring for sale should show the diamond that is in the ring. Just my thoughts.

 

[ForteKitty]

Can it be fraud if they're making their product appear worse than the real thing? Because those photoshopped diamonds' cuts are hideous. The real ones are much nicer.

 

[distracts]

I find the weirdest thing that they do this especially on the more expensive rings. Like, wouldn't you think that's one where it's EVEN MORE NECESSARY for the picture to represent the actual product?

I don't think it is a wise decision since some people will be turned off either by the practice of photoshopping or just overlooking the ring because of the undesirable diamond. I see no problem with having sample images showing the setting design, but all actual pics of the ring for sale should show the diamond that is in the ring. Just my thoughts.

All this.

 

[Tourmaline]

Yes, I agree that these photoshopped diamonds would make someone not even open the link if they were looking for an OEC. Crazy.

 

[tyty333]

Good sleuthing Tourmaline!

Major fail for T&H...I mean really, if you are going to sell $20,000 dollar pieces of jewelry then you need to figure out how
to take a better picture...new photographer, new camera, new light box, photog class...whatever. I would call it deception
anytime you photoshot a different stone into a ring. Not good!

 

[seekingshiny]

I agree with Tyty. I think it is deceptive because the pictures show conflicting things - sometimes the photoshopped MRB and then the OEC in the other photos - and if a customer is spending large sums of money, I think that they should be able to see exactly what they are getting. I think it's further confused by the fact that T&H sells both vintage and newly cut, vintage-inspired rings. I mean, I can imagine a scenario where a customer loves the stock photo (the photoshopped photo) and chalks up the other photos to just being less photogenic and then feeling baited-and-switched when they get something different than they expected.

 

[meandmyarrow]

Good sleuthing Tourmaline!

Major fail for T&H...I mean really, if you are going to sell $20,000 dollar pieces of jewelry then you need to figure out how
to take a better picture...new photographer, new camera, new light box, photog class...whatever. I would call it deception
anytime you photoshot a different stone into a ring. Not good!

Couldn't agree more. As a photographer and consumer, I find this appalling. I wish more online retail establishments recognized the importance of quality photography. It's only difficult if you don't know what you're doing.

 

[Tourmaline]

Kelly updated me that she has taken my comments seriously, and she is planning to revisit the photography of their rings and use pictures of the actual diamonds. I hope she follows through on this soon.

 

[tyty333]

Kelly updated me that she has taken my comments seriously, and she is planning to revisit the photography of their rings and use pictures of the actual diamonds. I hope she follows through on this soon.

It would be great if they follow through...the sad thing is that they dont even photoshop an OEC into an OEC ring...I feel sorry
for the ring!

 

[kellytrumpethorn]

Hi! Kelly from Trumpet & Horn here. Thrilled to be a part of this conversation - I hope you've had as much fun talking about my photographs as I've had fun reading all of this!

First, I'd like to inform everyone that I did indeed re-photograph all the rings in question on this thread, and they are now back to their OEC glory! You are all SO right, Old Euros are so much prettier than RBC's. Over the next week, I'll be re-photographing the remaining few rings to make sure there's no mistake of fraud on our website ever again. I've photographed approximately 1,000 rings for our website in the last 3 years, and I'm happy to report that maybe 15 of them in that time have included a Photoshopped RBC. Lucky for me (and all of you hunting for them), that's less than 1% of the rings that have ever graced our website!

Secondly, I'd also like to thank Tourmaline personally for "calling me out" and "righting this wrong". I've had a very productive few days. And to everyone else, I'm thrilled that you are all really excellent at photography! Certainly better than me. Tourmaline did ask me if I "actually get paid to take photographs", and the answer so everyone knows is yes and no - I am the Director of Marketing at Trumpet & Horn, and I get paid to do that job first and foremost. We are a 7 person, family-owned business, so we do not employ a photographer (who I'm sure would be excellent!) to take our photographs. My time in business school seemingly didn't include teaching me how to take great photographs of jewelry, so I had to learn all by myself!

And finally, I would like to gently remind everyone, specifically you Tourmaline, of the agreement you electronically signed when you signed up for Pricescope, as I have just done today. It states that you: "agree to help and respect each other, stay positive, considerate and supportive." Tourmaline, I'd like to point out that repeatedly e-mailing and live-chatting my team, and belligerently stating the same thing over and over - calling us liars, and saying that our entire company is fraudulent, shady, and unethical because of my clearly lacking photography skills as evidenced in a handful of rings - is not only extremely unkind behavior, it is against the policy of Pricescope, which you clearly take a lot of pride in being a member of. It is amazing to me the sort of things people will say to perfect strangers beneath the mask of the internet. I truly hope you take this into consideration, and that you got something positive out of this interaction. I know I certainly did not, except that you're right! The photos are SO much better now.

Wishing you all a very happy and productive 2017!

Respectfully,
Kelly from Trumpet & Horn

 

[Niel]

Kelly the agreement you click on to become members of this community is not a binding contract to be nice to everyone on the internet. You know that. It has nothing to do with how she treats you in her emails to you. You only used that to open the door to insult her on this forum.

One, it's inappropriate to use someone first name on a site when you have no idea if she wants her anonymity protected. People express ownership of expensive items here and take their privacy seriously.

Two, your problem with her does not need to be broadcast to this forum even if you feel she was rude to you in personal emails.

Just something to consider when you're representing a business on this thread.

 

[Tourmaline]

I am a layperson, and this is about your business. You have included my name, which is against Pricescope rules. I have reported your post for that reason and have requested that my name be edited out of it.

As for calling you "liars", here (again) is the note I received in response to my first inquiry:

"I'm happy to answer your questions about our New Bond Street and Lucerne rings. They are all actual pictures of the rings and there are no discrepancies. The culets don't show well in New Bond Street reflections in the stone are cancelling it out. The same thing happened to our Lucerne ring. It's really hard to take images of diamonds in the white light of the studio. I assure you they are all as pictured and described. They're beautiful rings!"

I posted this thread after receiving the above note. If you'd like to spin it some way other than "lying", go right ahead. I have records of our communications, including the live chat, and the way you've represented me here is not accurate. I've been a member of this forum for a long time. I remain astounded by the fact that you have photoshopped diamonds, and I don't think your post here is going to do you any favors. You are still within the time where you can edit out my name, and I'd like you to do so. Otherwise, the admin will do it when she sees my report.

 

[Tourmaline]

Thanks for your post, Niel. I was not rude to her, but I was direct. She's embarrassed, so she's trying to make me look like an aggressor. To be honest, had I not received that first email reply that provided false information, I wouldn't have posted this thread. I posted here about the short emails I sent to her. I didn't send anything that I didn't also state here. Here's a transcript of the live chat, edited for anonymity, because, yeah, people here know that I own diamonds, and safety is important.

--------------------

Me
To whom am I speaking now?

Kelly
Hi there! This is Kelly. What questions can I answer for you?

Me
Hi, Kelly. We in the Pricescope community have been discussing your practice of using the same MRB photo as the photoshopped center stone in many of your ring listings. Someone noticed that in The Loring ring, the only true image of the OEC is the video. A bunch of us agree that what you're doing is really, really bad. People who are looking for old European cut diamonds won't click on badly cut modern ones, and the discrepancy is not only antithetical to your purpose, but also unethical.

I don't have a question.

But you call yourself a photographer but say it is "difficult to photograph diamonds".

Aren't you paid to do so?

I guess that's a question.

Kelly
I completely understand your concern. Our conversation yesterday actually inspired me to take another shot at some new photos of the rings you mentioned. I think you'll be pleased with the results!

Me
Yeah, I would be pleased with actual photos of the diamonds you are selling. I cannot understand how you were allowed to do this.

Kelly
Actually I'm the Marketing Director here at Trumpet & Horn. I have a degree in business, I am not actually a "photographer" by education.

Me
I don't understand how this practice passed your ethics check.

Kelly
We are a small family business and we are too small to employ a photographer, so I do it myself.

Me
I mean, it’s really, really wrong.

Kelly
I'm so sorry you feel that way.

Me
I take photos with an iPhone, and sometimes a light box.

Kelly
I'm glad you're a great photographer! Maybe you could send me some tips.

Me
Ok...I'll send you a link...just a second

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-to-take-good-photos-of-your-diamonds.102989/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-to-take-good-photos-of-your-diamonds.102989/[/URL]

Kelly
I would also love for you to know that I think you're assuming all the rings on our website are photoshopped, which isn't the case. Thank you for the link! I will absolutely look into it.

Me
I and others have seen the same MRB in the three listings I have mentioned. It is wrong whether you do it three times or 100.

Kelly
I've heard your concerns and I thank you for them. As I said, I spend the morning photographing the rings you mentioned. I think you'll be pleased with the results.

Me
Good.

Kelly
Is there any thing else?

Me
Nope. But people will be watching. I hope you will post images with ethics.

------------------------

 

[Tourmaline]

I looked at the three listings, and the pictures are lovely and accurate. The rings are a million times prettier than the photoshopped versions, and if it hadn't been for your antagonistic post here, this would have resolved itself beautifully. Best of luck to the company, which carries beautiful jewelry, even if its representatives leave a bit to be desired.

 

[totallyfree]

Wow - glad I didn't end up going with T&H! Photoshopping like that gives me the hee-bee-geebies. What other business practices might be engaged in that I am not comfortable with?

While I am glad they have re-shot the rings, I can't help but feel this is something that should not have been compromised in the first place? Thanks to T&H for offering their POV on this site, and for correcting this issue, but I won't be purchasing from your site in the future.

(Which is a shame, because you have some nice jewellery!)

Edit - went to take a look. I think it's the same stone on most of these rings?
http://www.trumpetandhorn.com/vintage-engagement-rings/the-flower-shop.html

Given that when I was looking for a ring I was really attracted to/against some facet patterns (above colour, carat etc) it's pretty disappointing if I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing. Hopefully T&H correct this ASAP...

 

[Tourmaline]

Wow - glad I didn't end up going with T&H! Photoshopping like that gives me the hee-bee-geebies. What other business practices might be engaged in that I am not comfortable with?

While I am glad they have re-shot the rings, I can't help but feel this is something that should not have been compromised in the first place? Thanks to T&H for offering their POV on this site, and for correcting this issue, but I won't be purchasing from your site in the future.

(Which is a shame, because you have some nice jewellery!)

Edit - went to take a look. I think it's the same stone on most of these rings?
http://www.trumpetandhorn.com/vintage-engagement-rings/the-flower-shop.html

Given that when I was looking for a ring I was really attracted to/against some facet patterns (above colour, carat etc) it's pretty disappointing if I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing. Hopefully T&H correct this ASAP...

Wow, you're right! Other websites use sample images on stock (replaceable) items, but to use the same sample diamond image on one-of-a-kind pieces was unconscionable. I just looked at your link, and those rings are not one-of-a-kind. They are made to order. While other companies use sample images, it seems excessive and bizarre to me to use the EXACT same diamond image photoshopped into every single ring like the ones in this link you provided. In any case, the images on the three one-of-a-kind vintage rings that we noticed were fixed. Maybe there are more, but I don't know.

I did some research last night, too. The woman who wrote the first response to me (the one that said all the photos were legitimate, which we all know wasn't the truth) is the co-owner of the company (with her husband, who sources the inventory). The "photographer" or marketing director was hired to do what she does. If it were my company, I would be issuing a massive apology and requiring the marketing director to do the same, or sending her elsewhere. But we can't force people to have integrity. We can only choose where to spend our money, and provide information that offers others the opportunity to do the same.

 

[dazzlerazzle]

Hi! Kelly from Trumpet & Horn here. Thrilled to be a part of this conversation - I hope you've had as much fun talking about my photographs as I've had fun reading all of this!

First, I'd like to inform everyone that I did indeed re-photograph all the rings in question on this thread, and they are now back to their OEC glory! You are all SO right, Old Euros are so much prettier than RBC's. Over the next week, I'll be re-photographing the remaining few rings to make sure there's no mistake of fraud on our website ever again. I've photographed approximately 1,000 rings for our website in the last 3 years, and I'm happy to report that maybe 15 of them in that time have included a Photoshopped RBC. Lucky for me (and all of you hunting for them), that's less than 1% of the rings that have ever graced our website!

Secondly, I'd also like to thank Tourmaline personally for "calling me out" and "righting this wrong". I've had a very productive few days. And to everyone else, I'm thrilled that you are all really excellent at photography! Certainly better than me. Tourmaline did ask me if I "actually get paid to take photographs", and the answer so everyone knows is yes and no - I am the Director of Marketing at Trumpet & Horn, and I get paid to do that job first and foremost. We are a 7 person, family-owned business, so we do not employ a photographer (who I'm sure would be excellent!) to take our photographs. My time in business school seemingly didn't include teaching me how to take great photographs of jewelry, so I had to learn all by myself!

And finally, I would like to gently remind everyone, specifically you Tourmaline, of the agreement you electronically signed when you signed up for Pricescope, as I have just done today. It states that you: "agree to help and respect each other, stay positive, considerate and supportive." Tourmaline, I'd like to point out that repeatedly e-mailing and live-chatting my team, and belligerently stating the same thing over and over - calling us liars, and saying that our entire company is fraudulent, shady, and unethical because of my clearly lacking photography skills as evidenced in a handful of rings - is not only extremely unkind behavior, it is against the policy of Pricescope, which you clearly take a lot of pride in being a member of. It is amazing to me the sort of things people will say to perfect strangers beneath the mask of the internet. I truly hope you take this into consideration, and that you got something positive out of this interaction. I know I certainly did not, except that you're right! The photos are SO much better now.

Wishing you all a very happy and productive 2017!

Respectfully,
Kelly from Trumpet & Horn

I would immediately fire this person if they worked for me - what a condescending, satirical, passive aggressive non-apology! To blame the CUSTOMER for the company's bad practices...?!

Completely unprofessional - I am unfollowing them on IG and will never consider buying from them in future.

Seriously. I am appalled at this behavior.

 

[whitewave]

I find the weirdest thing that they do this especially on the more expensive rings. Like, wouldn't you think that's one where it's EVEN MORE NECESSARY for the picture to represent the actual product?

I don't think it is a wise decision since some people will be turned off either by the practice of photoshopping or just overlooking the ring because of the undesirable diamond. I see no problem with having sample images showing the setting design, but all actual pics of the ring for sale should show the diamond that is in the ring. Just my thoughts.

All this.

This, totally this. Makes no sense.

I do feel it is misleading in the least unless they state *this is a photo of the actual diamond* and *photo is representative of this ring* which I guess they cant say that if they are using MRB instead of OEC?

It gives me the idea that I should stay away from this place because who knows what else they do....

 

[whitewave]

And, yes, I do think I take good photos of my diamond. She does need to read the post about how to photograph diamonds.

Edited because I don't want to pile on..

 

[whitewave]

Here is the link on how to photograph diamonds with a point and shoot camera: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-to-take-good-photos-of-your-diamonds.102989/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-to-take-good-photos-of-your-diamonds.102989/[/URL]

 

[lovedogs]

Edit - went to take a look. I think it's the same stone on most of these rings?
http://www.trumpetandhorn.com/vintage-engagement-rings/the-flower-shop.html

Given that when I was looking for a ring I was really attracted to/against some facet patterns (above colour, carat etc) it's pretty disappointing if I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing. Hopefully T&H correct this ASAP...

I think the part I am struggling with (beyond the appalling response to OP) is that the rings in question (which appear to have the same stone in the image), have links to the EGL reports which are all different. So, at least IMHO, it's different when a vendor has pics of settings with an example stone in it, because it says *EXAMPLE STONE, or *SAMPLE STONE, and it's obvious that the setting is what is being shown. But in this case, they are selling a complete ring including a SPECIFIC stone, but have a stock image in the center. That bothers me.

 

[KimHeidenreich]

Hi Guys,

This is Kim from T&H. We are so sorry about all of this. Truly very sorry. We are a small family team over here and we are far from perfect. I feel terrible that our mistake has manifested in this manner. We certainly don't want to mislead anyone who visits us online and we greatly appreciate the feedback from Tourmaline and those of you who have been participating in this conversation as well.

We are jewelry people first, and that's our passion. That's what we love and that's what we want to share with vintage jewelry enthusiasts who are excited about getting engaged. As for our website, we are trying our best to work on it and improve it everyday. The website portion of our business has been a huge learning curve for us and has caused more frustration and tears than you can imagine. We are trying so hard to perfect what we do when it comes to all things digital - including but not limited to, SEO best practices, coding, magento, photography, graphic design, social media... all of it. With the help of feedback from industry professionals, our clients, tech vendors and friends, we will get better at this. I promise.

Kelly posted beautiful new photographs of the rings that had RBC diamonds photoshopped in. We do have a new Flower Shop collection of modern rings that are made to order and the image of those rings will remain in place as the stock picture, but our written descriptions, will describe the details of the diamond available for purchase. Like you, we love natural images of our rings and we will continue to work at improving our photography as we grow and evolve.

We wish you all a happy 2017 and if you're ever in Los Angeles, we would love for you to visit our showroom and come meet us. We have a lot of fun here and more than anything, we love to talk about great jewelry with people who love it as much as we do!

Kim

 

[whitewave]

I appreciate your response, Kim.

 

[Tourmaline]

Thanks for chiming in, Kim. I hadn't heard from you since your first response, and it's good that you made the effort to speak up now.