soberguy
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 650
soberguy|1317774096|3033408 said:I didn't mean it should not be on pricescope... I just wonder whether or not it should be in the Colored Stone Forum...
soberguy|1317774096|3033408 said:I didn't mean it should not be on pricescope... I just wonder whether or not it should be in the Colored Stone Forum...
smitcompton|1317403408|3029825 said:Hi Kelpie,
Insurance is a protection against damage or loss. When you purchased the gemstone RH was fine with sending it to a lab for verification. This shows me she was not trying to defraud you. it shows an unprofessional approach to selling her stones. The stone was not as she described. She agreed to accept it back from you and to give you a refund. You must send her the stone back as she sent it to you or the lab. She says she did not reeive it back as she sent it to you. That is the transaction. The whole transaction.
If the stone was damaged you must file the claim with the postal service getting the imformation from AGL, who acted as your agent in sending the stone back to her. You show them (USPS) your receipt for payment for the stone, as you are the insurer.
It is not up to you to appraise the item, or evaluate the circumstances of this, or to decide it is fraudulent. Insurance protects you.
If I were RH I would not give you your money back until you agreed to file the claim. As she now knows she cant keep the money and the stone so she is returning the stone to you. She received it damaged. Let the post office determine if they will pay the claim.
Its completely beyond me why you insured the item if you aren't going to use the insurance.
All the speculation on fraud here is only that. Kelpie you will the loser here. And you certainly succeeded in ruining RHs reputation.
I do not know what the truth is. It is the USPS that should determine the legitimacy of the claim --not the herd on PS.
I want you to get you money back Annette
ruby59|1318008858|3035404 said:Excellent post. I do feel sorry for the OP, but this thread has turned into a witch hunt with people taking assumptions and turning it into facts. OP seems very knowledgable. She should have looked at the stone more closely. If there was the slightest crack, she should have triple wrapped the stone and sent it back. When she sent it to a third party to be verified, it was still under her control. RH has every right to receive the item back in its original condition. Calling what RH did a fraud is stretching it in my opinion. It is not like she tried to sell a cz as a diamond. From what I am reading, even experts make mistakes identifying these stones.
And now people are airing RH's dirty laundry in public, sharing private emails, calling her bankrupt, and talking about her estranged husband and handicapped child. I do not blame her for cutting off communication. There is sufficient blame on both sides.
And I still do not understand why the OP has not made a claim with the post office. That is what insurance is for. And RH is totally correct in that while she can assist in the claim, only the OP can file it.
pregcurious|1318014082|3035457 said:Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond.
TL|1318014994|3035467 said:pregcurious|1318014082|3035457 said:Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond.
Pregcurious, I think I can speak to this a bit as I have collected copper and non-copper bearing tourmalines for years. Some copper bearing tourmalines labeled as Paraibas can be less money than a super fine windex colored Afghan tourmaline. It depends on the stone. Some paraibas are not very neon, but labeled as such because they have the blue color. I personally would rather have a more neon non-copper bearing tourmaline than one that was less neon, although it had the copper bearing status, but that's just me.
I will say that a fine Brazilian Paraiba from the original strike will be worth the most. However, it's a blanked statement to say that non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, as there are many individual characteristics of each stone to consider when doing a comparison. Just wanted to make the clarification. Thanks.
In the end, even though there has been a lot of words going back and forth in this thread, I do hope that RH and Kelpie can come to a satisfactory resolution.
pregcurious|1318015377|3035472 said:TL|1318014994|3035467 said:pregcurious|1318014082|3035457 said:Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond.
Pregcurious, I think I can speak to this a bit as I have collected copper and non-copper bearing tourmalines for years. Some copper bearing tourmalines labeled as Paraibas can be less money than a super fine windex colored Afghan tourmaline. It depends on the stone. Some paraibas are not very neon, but labeled as such because they have the blue color. I personally would rather have a more neon non-copper bearing tourmaline than one that was less neon, although it had the copper bearing status, but that's just me.
I will say that a fine Brazilian Paraiba from the original strike will be worth the most. However, it's a blanked statement to say that non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, as there are many individual characteristics of each stone to consider when doing a comparison. Just wanted to make the clarification. Thanks.
In the end, even though there has been a lot of words going back and forth in this thread, I do hope that RH and Kelpie can come to a satisfactory resolution.
Thanks TL, I appreciate your post. I think the point I am trying to get across in my last post is: If you had 2 stones that had the same chacteristics, except for one being non-cuprian, and the other being a cuprian from Paraiba, the Paraiba would me worth much more. I think that is what Kelpie is dealing with. Do you think that is accurate? I see that my comparison of a CZ to a diamond could be an exaggeration for this case (depending on the stone, which I am never seen).
pregcurious|1318014082|3035457 said:ruby59|1318008858|3035404 said:Excellent post. I do feel sorry for the OP, but this thread has turned into a witch hunt with people taking assumptions and turning it into facts. OP seems very knowledgable. She should have looked at the stone more closely. If there was the slightest crack, she should have triple wrapped the stone and sent it back. When she sent it to a third party to be verified, it was still under her control. RH has every right to receive the item back in its original condition. Calling what RH did a fraud is stretching it in my opinion. It is not like she tried to sell a cz as a diamond. From what I am reading, even experts make mistakes identifying these stones.
And now people are airing RH's dirty laundry in public, sharing private emails, calling her bankrupt, and talking about her estranged husband and handicapped child. I do not blame her for cutting off communication. There is sufficient blame on both sides.
And I still do not understand why the OP has not made a claim with the post office. That is what insurance is for. And RH is totally correct in that while she can assist in the claim, only the OP can file it.
I will respond to the sections that refer to my post about buying a diamond and getting a CZ. The ebay listing, which I have actually looked at, stated that the stone was a "Paraiba tourmaline". A reputable lab inspected that stone and determined it was not even copper-bearing--no one is refuting that, not even the RH. Non-copper bearing tourmalines are nowhere near the price of Paraiba tourmalines, and in fact a Paraiba tourmaline with the color represented here could fetch more than a diamond. I cannot say for sure because I have never seen it. While a non-copper bearing tourmaline is not worthless, the contract was for a Paraiba.
As for not understanding why the OP has not made a claim with the post office: The lab packed and returned the stone to RH--not the OP. The OP was not the one who used USPS or insurance--the lab did. The OP cannot make the claim with the postal service.
(answer) Ok, then why doesn't the lab file a claim with the Post Office? But that does not change the fact that RH still cannot file it.
As for saying it is fraud, some people have said it is fraud. Others have not, and I have not. Many people have encouraged Kelpie to have a third party (FBI, Ebay, civil court, etc) investigate if fraud has happened, and she has confirmed that she is taking steps through official channels of her choice. I have encouraged others to flag that listing on Ebay to determine if there is something wrong, as Kelpie has presented. I think there is nothing wrong with that. If Ebay thinks the item has been accurately represented, then that is that.
(answer) Ebay cannot tell the difference between a cz and a diamond, so no way are they going to get invoved with a stone that complicated. Anyway, the window of opportunity with ebay and paypal (45 days) has longed closed. And the FBI has bigger problems to take care of.
As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.
TL|1318015839|3035477 said:Well, in that case, you would be paying more or the marketing name, so yes. However, as I said earlier in this thread (I think on page 2 or 3), I think $750 was a fair retail price for this stone being a non-copper bearing windex blue tourmaline, and Lisa concurred a couple of posts later. It certainly wasn't being sold for $20K, and that is probably how much a one carat neon windex blue paraiba from the original strike would cost. It would also be much more saturated than this stone as well, if I'm reading the photos accurately.
I think it would be fairer if RH said it was "suspected to have copper, due to the color," and I think people still would have paid $750 for it. It's not that outrageous of a price.
pregcurious|1318016891|3035492 said:TL|1318015839|3035477 said:Well, in that case, you would be paying more or the marketing name, so yes. However, as I said earlier in this thread (I think on page 2 or 3), I think $750 was a fair retail price for this stone being a non-copper bearing windex blue tourmaline, and Lisa concurred a couple of posts later. It certainly wasn't being sold for $20K, and that is probably how much a one carat neon windex blue paraiba from the original strike would cost. It would also be much more saturated than this stone as well, if I'm reading the photos accurately.
I think it would be fairer if RH said it was "suspected to have copper, due to the color," and I think people still would have paid $750 for it. It's not that outrageous of a price.
TL, I never meant to refute your statemnt. I think your statement is correct, if it was not cracked. Someone on here posted that the stone was originally cracked based on images from the Ebay listing. Someone else pointed that the lab would have noticed, and therefore it was intact. I have no way to knowing what is true. I was just trying to make a point with the CZ to diamond analogy that a cracked tourmaline would be worthless to me.
ruby59|1318016238|3035480 said:pregcurious|1318014082|3035457 said:ruby59|1318008858|3035404 said:As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.
(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.
TL|1318017274|3035497 said:pregcurious|1318016891|3035492 said:TL|1318015839|3035477 said:Well, in that case, you would be paying more or the marketing name, so yes. However, as I said earlier in this thread (I think on page 2 or 3), I think $750 was a fair retail price for this stone being a non-copper bearing windex blue tourmaline, and Lisa concurred a couple of posts later. It certainly wasn't being sold for $20K, and that is probably how much a one carat neon windex blue paraiba from the original strike would cost. It would also be much more saturated than this stone as well, if I'm reading the photos accurately.
I think it would be fairer if RH said it was "suspected to have copper, due to the color," and I think people still would have paid $750 for it. It's not that outrageous of a price.
TL, I never meant to refute your statemnt. I think your statement is correct, if it was not cracked. Someone on here posted that the stone was originally cracked based on images from the Ebay listing. Someone else pointed that the lab would have noticed, and therefore it was intact. I have no way to knowing what is true. I was just trying to make a point with the CZ to diamond analogy that a cracked tourmaline would be worthless to me.
A cracked tourmaline may be worthless to you, but some people may still buy it for the price, have it recut, repolished, or just ignore the crack. Actually, many true paraiba tourmalines have internal fissues and cracks due to the heating they undergo. In the gem world, value can be very speculative. I have some cracked gems that are still worth something to me, and others as well.
As for the crack being there, not sure if it was a crack, a feather or some other type of inclusion. At this point, if we don't have the stone in hand, it's only an assumption, there needs to be solid proof to back that up.![]()
pregcurious|1318017617|3035503 said:TL, I really don't mean to argue with you about the stone at all. My statements all referred to the variety of claims on what this stone was or was not. I think we can both agree that the only people who know the truth are Kelpie, RH and the lab. I respectively accept your posts![]()
pregcurious|1318017394|3035500 said:ruby59|1318016238|3035480 said:pregcurious|1318014082|3035457 said:ruby59|1318008858|3035404 said:As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.
(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.
You can email a mod to delete the information that you find offensive. I have done it before, and it is very easy.
ruby59|1318017893|3035510 said:pregcurious|1318017394|3035500 said:ruby59|1318016238|3035480 said:pregcurious|1318014082|3035457 said:ruby59|1318008858|3035404 said:As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.
(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.
You can email a mod to delete the information that you find offensive. I have done it before, and it is very easy.
I do not find it offensive, but of course it is not my business that has been laid out here. What I am saying is that once something goes on the Internet, it can never be taken back. My point is that this could have been handled a little better. People were throwing out accusations and presenting them as facts. The only ones who know for sure are the OP, lab, and RH. And as we know, there are three sides to every story. So until then, is it fair to trash someone's reputation?
LovingDiamonds|1318006378|3035391 said:There was a perfect example of something similar. TGal bought a Padparadscha Sapphire that was sent to a lab for identification. I think it was synthetic. The vendor refunded her in full and on PS posted to say how embarrassed and sorry he was. He dealt with the situation with dignity.
LovingDiamonds|1318021139|3035540 said:ruby59|1318017893|3035510 said:pregcurious|1318017394|3035500 said:ruby59|1318016238|3035480 said:pregcurious|1318014082|3035457 said:ruby59|1318008858|3035404 said:As for the other points in your email about talking about the RH's personal information, the PS moderator has dealt with that and the post was removed (the post was immediately after one of my posts). The poster has apologized, and you can see her apology above.
(answer) The original post may be gone, but thanks to people copying and pasting, that information is still on this thread, which is how I found it.
You can email a mod to delete the information that you find offensive. I have done it before, and it is very easy.
I do not find it offensive, but of course it is not my business that has been laid out here. What I am saying is that once something goes on the Internet, it can never be taken back. My point is that this could have been handled a little better. People were throwing out accusations and presenting them as facts. The only ones who know for sure are the OP, lab, and RH. And as we know, there are three sides to every story. So until then, is it fair to trash someone's reputation?
I'm sorry but I disagree. RH sold a stone saying it was a Paraiba Tourmaline with a 150% refund guarantee if it wasn't. The lab confirmed it wasn't. RH has refused to refund and now has the money and the stone. All that is fact. RH has trashed her own reputation by her responses in this thread and her own actions.
ruby59|1318031368|3035644 said:If that were the entire situation, I would agree with you. However, the OP chose to send it to a 3rd party. Somewhere between it leaving the lab and being received by RH it was damaged. We know this because neither the OP nor the lab noted any cracks. Also, if you read the entire thread, you will see that RH tried to return the stone, but the OP has refused to accept it. RH attempted to contact the OP through ebay messaging, which is unreliable. RH tried to keep it business like, it is the OP and others who made it personal.