Dreamer_D|1328850618|3122976 said:
), then he should have done so to the best of his abilities and the returned ring should have been returned in the same condition it was in originally. If this is not possible, then either the consumer should be informed of this possibility (i.e., that the ring will be irreveribly damaged from the tweaks) and thus able to give informed consent, or the vendor shoud refuse to make the changes. The former did not appear to happen in this case, and the latter happened only after two rounds of tweaks. Dreamer_D|1328889100|3123189 said:I have been thinking about this thread a lot and something has been bugging me. I consider Yssie a friend, so I was unsure of whether to post or not as my opinion is likely not objective. But I have thought about it a lot and think I am reasonably objective in my feelings on this, meaning I would feel this way about any vendor-consumer interaction.
Perhaps Yssie micromanaged more than she should have. For the sake of argument let's take that as a given. For the sake of argument, let's also take it as a given that her requests to tweak the ring after it was made were unreasonable.
The issue I am having is that as a consumer she could not have known that her requests were unreasonable. And once the vendor agreed to make the changes, however reluctantly (oh how I dislike that term when used by a vendor, firmly placing all "blame" on the consumer
It just seems to be to have been a "not ideal" process. And reading this thread the vendor appears to be placing the blame on the cosumer for the post-tweak state of the ring, which it seems both agree was less that perfect and less than would be expected from a $6000 piece of jewelery. And I think that is unfair.
On a more technical note, I am confused about why the reworks seem to have irreversably damaged the ring, as it seems such post hoc tweaks are often done on PS without detriment?
As this thread has progressed I am left feeling that the heavy participation by the vendor's involved in this interaction a little unorthodox. I have never before seen a PS thread where a consumer posts their experiences and then the vendors involved return repeatedly to post answers, give their side of things, gloat, and blame. At the same time, there are so few posts from consumers. I can only think these two things are related. Most readers are just silently watching. It is unusual. And leaves Yssie as the cheese who stands alone. Not really in the PS spirit it seems.
Moreover, we have had many threads similar to this in the past, either posting about a single ring with macro photos to display things the consumer did not like, or even comparing two or even three rings. And this is the first time I have seen vendors come to argue and place blame for the outcome on the consumer. So now my hat goes off to Yssie for handling this thread in a gracious and calm manner.
rosetta|1328875102|3123086 said:Dreamer_D|1328850618|3122976 said:
Hi HOT
I agree with dreamer here. BGD did the ring in my avatar, nicely pointed prongs on my centre stone as well as on the rest of the ring. It's not hand forged, but cast and I'm entirely happy with it. I think it's a bit risky tampering with prongs afterwards so I vote "no touch" as well! I'm actually a big believer in NOT changing jewellery after it's made, unless there's a big mistake that affects it's structural integrity. Ive tried it, but I've rarely been happy with the results. Plus, I hate "wasting" money reworking the same thing over again, which I could use to buy more jewels
Yssie, thanks for your informative thread! I'll be considering both VC and DBL for future projects, if I'm ever brave enough to go the hand forged route
thing2of2|1328889525|3123197 said:Dreamer_D|1328889100|3123189 said:I have been thinking about this thread a lot and something has been bugging me. I consider Yssie a friend, so I was unsure of whether to post or not as my opinion is likely not objective. But I have thought about it a lot and think I am reasonably objective in my feelings on this, meaning I would feel this way about any vendor-consumer interaction.
Perhaps Yssie micromanaged more than she should have. For the sake of argument let's take that as a given. For the sake of argument, let's also take it as a given that her requests to tweak the ring after it was made were unreasonable.
The issue I am having is that as a consumer she could not have known that her requests were unreasonable. And once the vendor agreed to make the changes, however reluctantly (oh how I dislike that term when used by a vendor, firmly placing all "blame" on the consumer
It just seems to be to have been a "not ideal" process. And reading this thread the vendor appears to be placing the blame on the cosumer for the post-tweak state of the ring, which it seems both agree was less that perfect and less than would be expected from a $6000 piece of jewelery. And I think that is unfair.
On a more technical note, I am confused about why the reworks seem to have irreversably damaged the ring, as it seems such post hoc tweaks are often done on PS without detriment?
As this thread has progressed I am left feeling that the heavy participation by the vendor's involved in this interaction a little unorthodox. I have never before seen a PS thread where a consumer posts their experiences and then the vendors involved return repeatedly to post answers, give their side of things, gloat, and blame. At the same time, there are so few posts from consumers. I can only think these two things are related. Most readers are just silently watching. It is unusual. And leaves Yssie as the cheese who stands alone. Not really in the PS spirit it seems.
Moreover, we have had many threads similar to this in the past, either posting about a single ring with macro photos to display things the consumer did not like, or even comparing two or even three rings. And this is the first time I have seen vendors come to argue and place blame for the outcome on the consumer. So now my hat goes off to Yssie for handling this thread in a gracious and calm manner.
Well said, dreamer. I agree that yssie was extremely gracious and calm in handling Victor Canera's comments.
The ring Victor Canera sent yssie is not what I would expect from a $6k piece of jewelry, before or after the tweaks. I'm honestly surprised he would send out such a ring. IMO, it would have been more prudent for him to tell yssie that unfortunately, due to the metal/design/etc., her design was not working out, and he didn't feel he could complete it. I also think he should offer her, at the very least, a partial refund. Whether the comparison photos are "fair" or not, it's clear that the ring by Victor Canera is not at the level of finishing or perfection one would expect from a $6k setting by a master craftsperson.
ETA I didn't mean to leave yssie standing alone, but I didn't feel like I had much to contribute, probably because yssie was handling all of the vendor back and forth so well.
thing2of2|1328889525|3123197 said:Dreamer_D|1328889100|3123189 said:I have been thinking about this thread a lot and something has been bugging me. I consider Yssie a friend, so I was unsure of whether to post or not as my opinion is likely not objective. But I have thought about it a lot and think I am reasonably objective in my feelings on this, meaning I would feel this way about any vendor-consumer interaction.
Perhaps Yssie micromanaged more than she should have. For the sake of argument let's take that as a given. For the sake of argument, let's also take it as a given that her requests to tweak the ring after it was made were unreasonable.
The issue I am having is that as a consumer she could not have known that her requests were unreasonable. And once the vendor agreed to make the changes, however reluctantly (oh how I dislike that term when used by a vendor, firmly placing all "blame" on the consumer
It just seems to be to have been a "not ideal" process. And reading this thread the vendor appears to be placing the blame on the cosumer for the post-tweak state of the ring, which it seems both agree was less that perfect and less than would be expected from a $6000 piece of jewelery. And I think that is unfair.
On a more technical note, I am confused about why the reworks seem to have irreversably damaged the ring, as it seems such post hoc tweaks are often done on PS without detriment?
As this thread has progressed I am left feeling that the heavy participation by the vendor's involved in this interaction a little unorthodox. I have never before seen a PS thread where a consumer posts their experiences and then the vendors involved return repeatedly to post answers, give their side of things, gloat, and blame. At the same time, there are so few posts from consumers. I can only think these two things are related. Most readers are just silently watching. It is unusual. And leaves Yssie as the cheese who stands alone. Not really in the PS spirit it seems.
Moreover, we have had many threads similar to this in the past, either posting about a single ring with macro photos to display things the consumer did not like, or even comparing two or even three rings. And this is the first time I have seen vendors come to argue and place blame for the outcome on the consumer. So now my hat goes off to Yssie for handling this thread in a gracious and calm manner.
Well said, dreamer. I agree that yssie was extremely gracious and calm in handling Victor Canera's comments.
The ring Victor Canera sent yssie is not what I would expect from a $6k piece of jewelry, before or after the tweaks. I'm honestly surprised he would send out such a ring. IMO, it would have been more prudent for him to tell yssie that unfortunately, due to the metal/design/etc., her design was not working out, and he didn't feel he could complete it. I also think he should offer her, at the very least, a partial refund. Whether the comparison photos are "fair" or not, it's clear that the ring by Victor Canera is not at the level of finishing or perfection one would expect from a $6k setting by a master craftsperson.
ETA I didn't mean to leave yssie standing alone, but I didn't feel like I had much to contribute, probably because yssie was handling all of the vendor back and forth so well.
This is a large amount to spend on a setting, and I would also expect as close to perfection as possible. I don't think it is fair to blame the consumer. I am currenlty working on a sapphire ring with my friend/jeweler and I have made requests that she has plainly told me were not possible and she is certainly not at the VC level. I don't believe the tweaks that were made after the ring was made has caused the obvious difference in workmanship. I would also be very disapointed with the quality if I was Yissie 
I furthur more do not feel that it was unfair for Yissie to make this post, because it does educaute future consumers and hopefully vendors will take away something away from this thread for future business dealings. Ultimately you are supposed to be the professional and if a consumer is making unreasonable requests that are going to ruin your workmanship the answer should have been no.
Not to mention SPLAYED open and examined internally with microphotography & wrath. How many settings of ANY PRICE stand up to that level of scrutiny?bright ice|1328895531|3123287 said:
Yssie|1328836583|3122814 said:Oh boy - not what I meant, I'm sorry again! I had a strict budget that was lower than my original budget (I couldn't afford double), we talked and decided that yes, they could do it in my budget, as an experimental project. I don't want to share what that budget was or the reasons for why it was what it was on a public forum, but I'm confident that if you approach them (them being any vendor) and say "this is what I want and this is what I can spend, what can we do?" you'll most likely be able to work something out!
I hope my ring is a testimonial - it *should* be. It's just one of many though - I got to play with probably 20, 30 different rings in my visit? The vast majority were halos though, or involved pave in some way! And I hope to have another testimonial, from WF, in a few weeks
Anyway - hope that cleared stuff up a bit, I didn't mean to make anything sound sinister or strangely secretive! And thank you!
Victor - The centerstone re-orientation was not the result of me changing my mind several times as you seem to imply, it was because you neglected my original explicit instructions and later found you were unable to fulfill them. Your accusation is distasteful and insulting, and is unmerited; we have different perspectives. I am, however, happy to hear that you have gained something positive from this thread, and this experience, as have I.
*Edited.
TravelingGal|1328899111|3123343 said:
Now that you mention it I can think of one other thread that felt like this involving another vendor. I recall in that thread that man many PSers called the vendor out on his actions. Usually, it is only the "critiqued" vendor who replies, too. In this case, the "winning" vendor is also posting and inserting himself into the conversation, which seems heavy handed to me. So my comment was not only about VC but about DBL too. Anyway, that one comment was not really all that important for the point I was making. My critique was directed purely at VCs responses in this thread which, when read, a) seemed to agree that the tweaked ring was not one he was happy with (or why say he should not do tweeks? The undercurrent is that it somehow results in a less pleasing product) and b) the less than ideal outcome was the client's fault. I don't think either of these are good practices for a vendor. Each consumer has a right to their opinion, but wanted to be clear what mine is.
Dreamer_D|1328902470|3123393 said:TravelingGal|1328899111|3123343 said:
Well, I didn't exactly take a poll, I was just going by memory, which is pretty fooggy these days
At least PSers are weighing in now, whether they agree with me or not I don't give one fig, but the strange silence was just... strange.
For the record and to be clear My previous post said nothing about whether the ring VC created was or wat not beautiful. I also conceded for argument that Yssie was a micrmanaging nightmare client
After I posted it appears a flood gate has opened and people are "agreeing" with some things I might not have actually said
I had to wonder for a sec though, because off the top of my head, I can think of two instances that involve "she's" and not he's!
TravelingGal|1328902849|3123404 said:Dreamer_D|1328902470|3123393 said:TravelingGal|1328899111|3123343 said:
Well, I didn't exactly take a poll, I was just going by memory, which is pretty fooggy these days
At least PSers are weighing in now, whether they agree with me or not I don't give one fig, but the strange silence was just... strange.
For the record and to be clear My previous post said nothing about whether the ring VC created was or wat not beautiful. I also conceded for argument that Yssie was a micrmanaging nightmare client
After I posted it appears a flood gate has opened and people are "agreeing" with some things I might not have actually said
I understand the fog. Happens when there are little ones taking up most of your brain power.
The general PS opinion has usually been that if a consumer puts it out there, the vendor should have a right to respond. Sometimes that works well, sometimes that doesn't. Do it as your own risk, I suppose. But whether or not I agree with the vendors' rebuttals, I usually am glad they do because I usually learn something from it!
Sometimes I think Leon has things right in this regard 
Let the consumers duke it out. BGD have been absent from the boards for a long time, I think they are in the Leon camp now. haha
Anne :)|1328901740|3123378 said:
Sometimes I think Leon has things right in this regard Let the consumers duke it out. BGD have been absent from the boards for a long time, I think they are in the Leon camp now. haha[/quote]
TravelingGal|1328903302|3123416 said:
TravelingGal|1328903302|3123416 said:
300x240.png)
