Bad Experience with Natural Sapphire Company (long)

[Harriet]

Date: 3/24/2009 11:29:15 PM
Author: Linda W

Date: 3/24/2009 11:24:58 PM
Author: Harriet

Date: 3/24/2009 10:46:54 PM

Author: tourmaline_lover

Thanks Harriet.

See? I don't always disagree with you.

Your post was to the point. It called into question a statement Arnstein made. I understand that he has the right to defend himself here, but perhaps he could have done so more diplomatically. I hope his posts are not indicative of the NSC's customer service.

Oh come on Harriet. I have dealt with them for many many years, you have not.

So? I wrote that "I hope his posts are not indicative of the NSC's customer service." That is an optative statement, not a declarative one.

FYI, I have looked at a number of their stones in person and have been unimpressed.

ETA: Please see my first post where I wrote that I cannot, and will not, take sides here.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/24/2009 11:32:20 PM
Author: Harriet

Date: 3/24/2009 11:29:15 PM
Author: Linda W

Date: 3/24/2009 11:24:58 PM
Author: Harriet

Date: 3/24/2009 10:46:54 PM

Author: tourmaline_lover

Thanks Harriet.

See? I don''t always disagree with you.

Your post was to the point. It called into question a statement Arnstein made. I understand that he has the right to defend himself here, but perhaps he could have done so more diplomatically. I hope his posts are not indicative of the NSC''s customer service.

Oh come on Harriet. I have dealt with them for many many years, you have not.

So? I wrote that ''I hope his posts are not indicative of the NSC''s customer service.'' That is an optative statement, not a declarative one.

FYI, I have looked at a number of their stones in person and have been unimpressed.

Linda, with all due respect, you dealt mostly with Steven Bliss who is no longer there. Even Fox said that he was quite agreeable.

 

[Kaleigh]

Since legal action is being taken, I feel this should be between the OP and TNSC. I don''t see how we can add anything more than has already been said.

 

[Linda W]

Date: 3/24/2009 11:44:00 PM
Author: Kaleigh
Since legal action is being taken, I feel this should be between the OP and TNSC. I don''t see how we can add anything more than has already been said.

Ditto Lisa, I will not be adding my two cents worth in any longer.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 3/23/2009 1:44:39 PM
Author: Harriet
Fox, Michael,
If this dispute has reached the legal level, it might be better to keep it private.

See p.1.

 

[BWise]

I can’t help but want to jump in to offer my 2 cents. I have read all the posts and here is a summary of all facts:

1. The ring broke 3 times in about a year.
2. The first 2 times NSC repaired it free of charge, the ring is not repaired yet after the 3rd breakage.
3. Fox requested a refund on the setting, but wants to keep the sapphire, which was purchased separately.
4. NSC offered to issue full refund on the setting AND the sapphire, but refused to refund on the setting alone.
5. NSC believes that FOX requested refund on the setting BECAUSE she wants to get the setting else where. Proof of that motivation was not provided.
6. NSC considered FOX ‘NASTY’ because she threatened to take actions such as going to the BBB or legal actions.
7. NSC has not agreed to take the ring to an independent appraiser.
8. FOX agreed to send the ring to an independent appraiser, but not now.
9. The true reason for the ring breakage remains to be validated by professionals with unbiased opinion.

Some posters chose to take sides base on HIS/HER OWN experience with NSC, but I think we should focus on what happened in THIS case.

A few of my own opinion:

1. Assume FOX was abusive on her e-ring, she must have been quite careful when ‘abusing’ the ring every time in order NOT to damage the sapphire she clearly loves.

2. Based on NSC version of the story, FOX has one and only one end goal – to get the setting elsewhere. In order to achieve that goal, she had carefully cracked the ring for 3 times and worked out the repair for twice, only to wait for her chance for the 3rd time so she can demand a refund on the setting. That sounds far fetched to me.

3. What is wrong with a consumer taking actions by going to BBB after the case cannot be resolved with the vendor? I know myself wouldn’t hesitate to do the same to protect my rights.

4. What is wrong for FOX wanting to get a setting elsewhere after her NSC ring broke 3 times? Of course, that is assume FOX did not plan everything ahead of time.

With all that much said, a question for FOX – I understand you don’t want to give up the sapphire given its sentimental value. But that sentimental value now also includes all the unpleasant memories. Do you really want to be reminded of this bad experience? If I were you, I would simply return the whole thing and get my money back. I am sure you can find a sapphire somewhere else just as lovely. Forget the whole thing and move on - it is not worth it.

IMHO, based on things learned from FOX’s case so far, I will stay away from NSC.

A company that cares about its reputation and is truly committed to customer service would have handled it better.

 

[Fox2009]

Yingh--good, objective summary of facts! Thanks for all you said. I'm glad someone else sees it as far fetched that I would break my ring 3 times so I could get a new setting. The fact is that I don't even have another picked out, this is all kind of an inconvenience. Also, in order to preserve the evidence if we go to court, I can't do ANYTHING with re-setting my sapphire for a very long time, potentially. I just have to leave it alone, in the box, undisturbed. So, this would be a horrible way of going about that if that was, indeed, my goal.

I also have really struggled with what you asked: Why not just return the sapphire? I really want to in some ways, it woudl be simpler. But, with the way NSC has treated me, I really don't want to just give into their bullying, especially over a stone that was very inexpensive. That is what it comes down to for me. And, despite all this nasty stuff with NSC, the fact remains that my husband proposed with a ring with that stone in it, and it will always be my e-ring stone.

 

[Linda W]

Date: 3/25/2009 10:33:38 AM
Author: Harriet

Date: 3/23/2009 1:44:39 PM

Author: Harriet

Fox, Michael,

If this dispute has reached the legal level, it might be better to keep it private.

See p.1.

Ditto

 

[BWise]

I don''t own a business but I am a consumer. It will be fair to say that everyone on this board is a consumer.

I''m really puzzled why NSC refused to refund the setting but is willing to refund the whole thing. If they ''bend'' a little more, consider they did repair it twice for free, FOX would be singing praises instead of all this heat. Not to mention potential customers being driven away to avoid possible issues.

My profession in real life is risk management and I can tell you that reputational loss is the most difficult to quantify - ask those guys on wall street! LOL

often times it is not what a company will do but it will NOT do that sets them apart from others. It is not for me to judge who is right/wrong in this case, but I consider this a bad business decision of NSC.

 

[BWise]

I don''t own a business but I am a consumer. It will be fair to say that everyone on this board is a consumer.

I''m really puzzled why NSC refused to refund the setting but is willing to refund the whole thing. If they ''bend'' a little more, consider they did repair it twice for free, FOX would be singing praises instead of all this heat. Not to mention potential customers being driven away to avoid possible issues.

My profession in real life is risk management and I can tell you that reputational loss is the most difficult to quantify - ask those guys on wall street! LOL

often times it is not what a company will do but it will NOT do that sets them apart from others. It is not for me to judge who is right/wrong in this case, but I consider this a bad business decision of NSC.

 

[purrfectpear]

I don''t think that Fox was going to sing their praises, refund or not, because Fox is convinced that NSC is at fault, and claims she did nothing to destroy the ring.


I imagine that NSC would prefer to refund the entire thing rather continue to have any relationship with Fox as a customer. I know I would. We''ve seen them before on PS, and it''s never pretty.

 

[jake06783]

Before and After pictures would be nice...otherwise, IMHO, this discussion should be kept between the two parties involved... When and if this is ever resolved, I think, THAT would be the time to post the story here...

 

[LaurenThePartier]

Whoa, I''ve never seen a ring snap like that.

Fox, I hope everything gets resolved to both parties'' satisfaction.

 

[Fox2009]

This IS Between the NSC and me, the ONLY reason I put it on here is to help consumers as this is a consumer board. Not to be adjudicated, or helped. I am taking care of that on my own. The only reason I have continued to comment is to re-iterate that, answer questions, and to further explain my experience.

I would be singing their praises if everything had gone well. Before it completely broke, I was happy with how they treated the initial bend, and we were overjoyed with the customer service we received in purchasing the ring. In this process of this post I have said good things about my stone, and made sure to point out that I am sure they do other castings well. I''ve even said that Steven Bliss provided good customer service. Those things go to show that I am not here to bash and lambast, but to share, honestly, how my experience went.

purrfect pair--I don''t think what you said about me is neccesary. This is a consumer oriented board. I prefer to not be lumped in with an ambiguous "them" regarding dissatisfied customers. It''s ok to be dissatisfied and to share that, it doesn''t make me, or anyone else, a bad person who is not worth dealing with. That said, I told the NSC I''d be happy to sign away any warranty rights to the stone in order to get the refund on the setting so that we don''t have to deal with one another again. Michael said nothing in response.

 

[Linda W]

Well if you are suing him, as you stated on this forum publicly, I don''t think I would respond to you either.

 

[Rockit]

I don''t know... I''ve read this entire thread twice now, and it just seems that someone, either NSC or Fox, needs to flex somewhat here, or you all WILL end up in court. Is this little ring worth it?

And, frankly, I don''t see that proving that the casting was good or bad, or that the wearer was careful or careless, really matters anymore. At this point no one will EVER be satisfied.

If I were to advise NSC, I''d say take back the setting, reimburse the couple for the setting, and let these people have their engagement stone. I am completely perplexed as to why this obvious solution has not happened, especially because, by Fox''s account, the piece is not amazingly pricey. Certainly, wouldn''t it be worth it to avoid a PR mess like this? And don''t kid yourselves, this IS a PR nightmare. Any consumer-driven business understands that there is always some loss to cover/avoid unresolvable consumer issues. Regardless who is "right" or "wrong." Like advertising, like it or not, it is part of the cost of doing business. In terms of future sales, I guarantee that NSC has lost MORE than the cost of the setting, just by the presence of this thread. To me, the course NSC has chosen to follow in this matter seems more like a personal, emotional decision, driven by anger and frustration, rather than a professional, sound, business decision.

I feel like I''m in a kiddie sandbox here.

To Fox, I say, let it go. Ideally, since NSC won''t accept just the setting back, I think you should send the entire ring back, get your money, and be done with it. That being said, given the gem''s significance, I do understand your unwillingness to let it go. Remember, though, you DO have a choice here. And, by your own admission, your motivation for keeping the stone is, like NSC''s, based upon emotion. Soooooooooooo, if you refuse to send it ALL back, and if NSC won''t accept the ring back, sans stone, then, perhaps you should just be content to know that this thread has created a significant PR problem for NSC with a group of people – not to mention countless lurkers – who regularly spend money on colored stones. Certainly, that "pound of flesh" is worth something to you? You won''t get your money back, but, you''ll still avoid the hassle of court and continued misery.

From what I can see, neither party is going to get what he/she wants, whether you end up in court or not. You''ve both done your best to discredit one another. We get it. So, unless someone wants to call "uncle," nothing will change here and the stated point of this thread, "to help consumers" has been met.

Such a shame that something that is supposed to bring joy has become such an ordeal for everyone involved.

 

[LD]

I wonder how many of us would tolerate an engagement ring of huge sentimental value breaking 3 times in just over a year? I know people who are incredibly heavy on their jewellery but have not heard of a ring breaking that frequently.

Why Fox would WANT to break the ring or abuse it is totally illogical.

If a ring breaks that frequently it is clearly not fit for purpose. An engagement ring is a ring to be worn each and every day for the rest of your life.

As a jewellery consumer, I would be livid if this happened to me, wouldn''t you?

 

[Fox2009]

Rockit--thanks for the thoughtful commentary. I am glad the objective has been met! I feel so too.

And, just to clarify, I never said I was suing them. I''m still trying to work this out through other means, and there is a difference between having your lawyer write a letter, and filing a complaint. I''d like to avoid it. But, having free counsel, I wouldn''t mind going the extra mile either. We''re already out the money, and, like I said, and like Rockit mentioned, it''s not a huge sum.

Also, I am sure NSC will lose more business than the money we spent on this setting, especially because, like I said, our purchase was not very expensive. They already lost ours, and we had other purchases planned. It is a shame, as in many ways, they are a good company.

 

[T L]

Fox,
Regardless of your complaints about NSC, and this thread, I have decided A LONG TIME AGO not to deal with them based on many unfavorable reviews that I found in this forum (thank goodness for PS). I know some people are very happy with them as well, but I find the inconsistantcy in how they do business with varying individuals a bit unsettling. Thank you for sharing your experience, and I hope that both parties can remedy the situation.

I hope Mr. Arnstein reads these past reviews of his company - they are not all favorable as he believes they are. The best advertisement a business has is customer service, and if it''s bad or inconsistant, or driven by emotion, it can be detrimental, especially in this economy.

 

[aquasea]

Wow. I am so glad I came across this thread. I was only looking at purchasing from NSC last night. Lucky escape! I will never purchase from them now. I think how they have dealt with this situation is appalling. They have made a decision about Fox''s motivation on getting a refund for the setting based purely on speculation. They have NO PROOF that she did any of this deliberately. I can''t believe they would treat customers so disrespectfully. Foolish, foolish company. If they refunded her setting the whole thing would be behind them but no, they have to be childish about it and thus turn many potential customers (such as myself) completely off ever dealing with them. A very silly business decision.

 

[Fox2009]

Thanks for your input, Aquasea. I am glad this info could help

 

[DianaBanana]

I know my opinion isn''t needed here but I don''t feel like going to bed yet so I''ll put in my 2 cents

.....although this is a consumer board, as consumers, we need to remember that we will always hear more negative comments about a company than positive....sad but true, most people will sign up to comment on a negative experience but very rarely will do the same for a positive one. It bothers me to hear that some posters will avoid a company because of a few negative comments when in actuality there are probably thousands of customers who are thrilled with their transactions. If you don''t like their goods...that''s another story.

That is not to say that Fox''s situation isn''t rotten....I wouldn''t wish it on anyone and I would hope that the NSC sits up and takes notice that over 4000 people have viewed this thread!

To each her own, but I like to use this forum to gather information and I take the good with the bad and I keep in mind that there is probably a lot more good out there than we hear about. I consider customer service to be an attitude, not a department and unfortunately attitudes vary from day to day and person to person - regardless of the company''s policy.

My disclaimer - I''m a bit of a soft touch, emotional Canadian girl and I like to live by the motto "can''t we all just get along?" so forgive me if I''ve ruffled any feathers.

 

[soberguy]

good grief, there is a major undercurrent of insults in this forum. i''ve read several threads, and i would hardly call this forum friendly by any stretch of the imagination. I''m very sorry for your horrid experience, and I hope you can reach an amicable end.

 

[gemnick]

Hi Fox,

Just a quick word to say ... I admire your tenacity in pursuing what you believe is fair and just.

It would have been easier for you to "cave" - both to the pressure of a rude vendor as well to some of the remarks made on the Board. Your efforts to recover the cost of your mounting, and willingness to return the defective mounting, after providing the vendor two chances dor to make it right - make sense to me.

Best of luck to you in law school (try not to let this interfere with your studies) and in resolving this matter soon.

-Gemnick

 

[neatfreak]

Gemnick and Sober Just so you know, none of us (at least the consumers on this board) intend to be mean to Fox. But at the same time-we''ve seen it all here. MANY people (not saying Fox here) come on this board to complain about a vendor and once the story has been actually understood the vendor actually was completely in the right and the customer was either nuts or had unrealistic expectations.

All we wanted was to try and help Fox and make sure that the appropriate actions were taken by her to try and get the situation resolved. Would it be nice if every vendor took care of every situation regardless of who was at fault? Yes. But the reality is that people VERY OFTEN do damage their rings-should it be the vendor''s responsibility to replace them every time? No. Which is why we all stress that an independent appraisal helps ANYONE in Fox''s situation because it provides an independent viewpoint on why the ring was damaged. Even though we''ve seen the pictures it''s still questionable what happened. Storm, one of the experts here, says Fox damaged it. But many others think that there is no way she could have. The reality is that sometimes pictures are helpful, and sometimes not. In this situation an appraiser needs to examine the piece in person to determine what happened.

It is unfortunate that Fox has had such trouble with what should be a very wonderful and sentimental piece of jewelry. But we must all remember that there are two sides to every story and until we''ve heard both and the opinion of an independent appraiser it''s unfair to either Fox or NSC to make judgements about what happened.

I think we all wish both Fox and NSC the best in getting this resolved.

 

[T L]

Date: 3/26/2009 3:09:56 AM
Author: soberguy
good grief, there is a major undercurrent of insults in this forum. i've read several threads, and i would hardly call this forum friendly by any stretch of the imagination. I'm very sorry for your horrid experience, and I hope you can reach an amicable end.

I find that an extremely unfair statement, in light of the fact you're new to this forum (unless you're reposting under another name). I find this an extremely friendly forum. I'm sorry you feel that way, but Pricescope has tons of posters and many threads, and I don't think it's possible for you to make such a blanked statment like that. I think that your post is insulting to the great people that post here and try to get a consumer education.

 

[arjunajane]

Soberguy,
I agree with TL - thats a pretty big call for a newbie.

TBH, I can understand how you may think that if this is one of the first threads
you read - I myself wasn't all that impressed with Fox's treatment. And cynicism or none,
I will generally take the side of the consumer until the vendor proves their position/merit. It is mho
that NSC has not proven they have a decent position on this matter, and in absence of any effort by NSC
for an amicable conclusion, I'm gonna go with Fox.

However, please, just go over to RT where many mbrs devote hours of their time to helping complete strangers,
or any of the lifestyle threads where ppl receive moral and real support on a daily basis.
I don't think you would pass such judgement if you'd done your research first.

So, even if I do agree with you on the matter of this one thread, I also find your comments
quite insulting and inflammatory.
I hope you stick around and learn the truth

 

[thetrial]

Date: 3/26/2009 7:34:33 AM
Author: neatfreak
Gemnick and Sober Just so you know, none of us (at least the consumers on this board) intend to be mean to Fox. But at the same time-we''ve seen it all here. MANY people (not saying Fox here) come on this board to complain about a vendor and once the story has been actually understood the vendor actually was completely in the right and the customer was either nuts or had unrealistic expectations.


All we wanted was to try and help Fox and make sure that the appropriate actions were taken by her to try and get the situation resolved. Would it be nice if every vendor took care of every situation regardless of who was at fault? Yes. But the reality is that people VERY OFTEN do damage their rings-should it be the vendor''s responsibility to replace them every time? No. Which is why we all stress that an independent appraisal helps ANYONE in Fox''s situation because it provides an independent viewpoint on why the ring was damaged. Even though we''ve seen the pictures it''s still questionable what happened. Storm, one of the experts here, says Fox damaged it. But many others think that there is no way she could have. The reality is that sometimes pictures are helpful, and sometimes not. In this situation an appraiser needs to examine the piece in person to determine what happened.


It is unfortunate that Fox has had such trouble with what should be a very wonderful and sentimental piece of jewelry. But we must all remember that there are two sides to every story and until we''ve heard both and the opinion of an independent appraiser it''s unfair to either Fox or NSC to make judgements about what happened.


I think we all wish both Fox and NSC the best in getting this resolved.

I rarely post but lurk just about everyday. I think most of the posters here are helpful and friendly and have been on this thread as well, AND have had complete objectivity. However, I think a few people are hostile and have not been objective(due to their own positive experience with the vendor), and one has crossed the line of being objective into being rude (not the first time either).

Just to point out as well MANY times the customer has been proven right as well. Fox I hope you can resolve this to your satisfaction and put this behind you and ENJOY your ring with zero issues.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/26/2009 3:09:56 AM
Author: soberguy
good grief, there is a major undercurrent of insults in this forum. i've read several threads, and i would hardly call this forum friendly by any stretch of the imagination. I'm very sorry for your horrid experience, and I hope you can reach an amicable end.

I have to agree with TL, AJ and thetrial on this. Perhaps you've been reading the wrong threads.

 

[flowerladytoo]

Fox2009, I wish you luck getting this resolved. I''ve never seen a ring break like that and it would be interesting to see what Richard Sherwood, or another independent appraiser had to say about the integrity of the setting.

After reading the responses on here from NSC, I would never, ever buy from them.