Fully bonded diamond:

[mthom]

Hey Garry - Thanks for the info.

In reading the thread you posted, I''m a little confused. In the full mega-scope report that was posted, the crown range was only 34.37 - 34.69 and pavillion was 40.69 - 40.74 degrees.

So what does the rest of the industry call it when there is a large variation in angles? And what the generally accepted tolerance?

 

[denverappraiser]

Mthom,

I’m afraid that this appreciation/crash promise sounds like a reason not to trust him. This is a guy who has written several books on the topic of paying attention to the exacting details of the deal being offered. He has several very verbose websites on the subject, he has been giving diamond buying advice full time for years and he’s sold millions of dollars in diamonds accompanied by documents just like the one you posted. He promotes that ‘bonding’ is the single most important attribute that a buyer should consider and in all of this he doesn’t explain what it’s most core concept means. Your explanation is distinctly different from what’s written in his book, on his sites and what appears in the text of the warranty that you posted. If this is a simple oversight, it’s a whopper.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/31/2006 3:24:54 PM
Author: mthom
Lorilei ... my bonding document doesn't have the once per customer limitation, but in his book he describes the nicks / chips to be more than once, but a complete bust of a diamond is only once per customer.

And actually, my mistake that he doesn't say the only way it would bust is from treatment, but that treatment caused brittleness and increases the chances of busting ...

I think if mine busted, I'd ask for something in writing to be covered for another bust (because I'd also be suspicious otherwise). I wonder if he's ever had someone make a claim for a bust ... maybe that's a question for his site ...

You're probably right on the insurance premiums too.

This has got me wondering again too mythom, sorry to be a pest - but if Fred is saying that if your diamond chips or nicks he will replace it but only one bust per customer, how does this work? If your bonded diamonds chips, would he take one look and say not a problem here's a new diamond, the same thing happens again and you nick it would he replace it once more? Or would he insist upon a recut or polish even if you lose some carat weight and aren't happy about it? Or even state that a chip or nick isn't a bust and he won't replace it or arrange for a repair for you? In other words the diamond falls to bits and you are covered, it chips and your'e not? What exactly does a bust mean? The diamond shattering and falling to pieces, a chunk missing, a crack etc? I can't seem to find the answer on his site, there just seem to be so many variables here and I would be interested to know exactly how well protected a bonded diamond is.

 

[princessv]

So I did a little digging in LexisNexis which is the legal database that law students use.

Here is a little timeline of Fred Cuellar:

Being the good law student that I am here is the citation for my information here: Cuellar v. State, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 6690 This is an appeal to the intermediate Court of Appeals...I will get to the latter appeals later.

State of Texas issued an indictment which "included 10 appropriations for thefts occurring in 1991, and 104 appropriations for thefts occurring in 1995. At the conclusion of the evidence, appellant argued that the 1991 appropriations should be omitted because the State did not present any evidence of their commission. The State then dropped every 1991 appropriation and eight of the 1995 appropriations." The reason Texas dropped some of the charges is because the 1991 and some of the 1995 charges were resolved in a civil suit. Still that''s alot of charges.

Jury returned a verdict of guilty "of felony theft in an amount over $ 200,000, and assessed punishment at 10 years community supervision and a $ 10,000 fine. Appellant was also ordered to pay $ 1,075,100 in restitution to the complainants." Cuellar apparently wasn''t happy about this verdict and appealed.

I won''t get into the legal arguments here but just an fyi, there were 4 arguments he brought to the Court of Appeals in order to try to overturn his conviction. None of them worked. But I will share this one argument that I found amusing.

"In point of error three, appellant complains the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the State''s closing [*13] argument at the guilt/innocence phase. Specifically, appellant contends the State''s argument that appellant has a reputation as a liar and a thief was improper because no reputation evidence was presented. During closing arguments, the State argued:

[State]: You might say why can''t somebody do something about the crime? Well, folks, there''s more crime in this community than just somebody going out there with a gun or a knife. There''s people like Fred Cuellar, a businessman. Going to offer some investment opportunity, help you out, make you rich. What does he do? He steals your money. And he lies to steal your money. This press release of April 1995, in the first paragraph at the bottom it says - - and I''m taking it just out of context here for a minute. In an industry where dealers'' representations are determined by the measure of their transactions. Well his reputation is that he is a liar and a thief.

[Appellant]: Your Honor, I''m going to object. That''s outside the record and an improper statement.

[Court]: Overruled."

Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the objection because "appellant was on trial for theft, and six complainants testified appellant lost their entire investment by deceiving them. Appellant paid to have a press release distributed claiming he sold a 51.5 carat diamond. Berg testified appellant never owned or sold a 51.5 carat diamond, despite appellant''s claims to the contrary. Appellant also told potential clients that certain enormous diamonds belonged to the Saudi Royal family, although these statements were false. Finally, while appellant told investors he had wired $ 2,800,000 to the Saudis as part of their investment deal, David Pilant, a fraud examiner for the District Attorney''s office, testified appellant had only wire transferred $ 25,000, and to WGDI, not the Saudis.
In light of the evidence before the jury, we conclude that the State''s argument that appellant has a reputation as a liar and a thief was a reasonable deduction or summation of the evidence. We overrule point of error three."

During sentencing, prosecutors wanted Cuellar to place on his website "I want him to place on the Internet; that is, his web page, or any other advertising that he does this disclaimer -- . . . On May 27, 1998, I was convicted of the first degree felony of theft by a jury in the 338th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 743694. This case is presently on appeal." However, this along with another sentencing provision by the judge was overruled. So Cuellar did win this one on appeal which may have been what he is trying to misrepresent as he is STILL guilty of felony theft. Oh yes, here is the citation: Cuellar v. State, 985 S.W.2d 656

Supreme Court denied cert. Cuellar v. Texas, 531 U.S. 876

All in all Cuellar should be pretty pleased...he got off lightly as far as sentencing with no jail time. Still doesn''t change the fact that he is guilty of felony theft involving lots of $$!

 

[mthom]

Neil - I think the only place where my document and the book disagree is when the book states "fixed appreciation" and the document states "market value" and lists the recent average at 6.25%. To me, the issue of what appreciation to use is one to easily defend by simply going by his published price tables, that he constantly updates with new editions of his book.

Lorelei - the document state that the bond protects against "chips, nicks, OR breakage" I think it''s pretty clear on the point (and it covers this in the book) ... chips and nicks are covered for life ... breakage is once per customer. To keep this part of the warranty intact, you must have your regular check-ups on the ring.

Princess - Thanks for the info ... I''m sure your assessment of winning the appeal is correct ... that''s probably what the poster was referring too. But if he ended up with no jail time, that must have been won in appeal too, because he originally got 30 days.

But lets be clear ALL of the incidents were apparently from one investment deal. From the articles I can''t tell who did what ... the prosecution says Fred was buying from the Saudi Royals, and Fred says he tried to sell to the Saudi Royals ... and it seems like the issue was whether he could legally charge a non-refundable deposit for the $13.4 M deal. Fred says it was a sale, and he could ... the courts said it was an investment and he couldn''t. I bet Fred got stuck with a deposit in his brokering of the deal and was trying to pass this along to the investors ... But I actually agree with the courts ... to the 70 folks that put money in, it was pitched as an investment, and should be treated as such. But I would have sued this McDonald character who asked Fred to broker it. My guess is their contracts (if any) between each other weren''t great, or they were partners in the deal, but I would have set it up where McDonold pays the non-refundable deposit.
Prosecution - Seventy investors, most from the Houston area, put up anywhere from $100 to $50,000 each in 1995 to finance the purchase of two large diamonds. The sale fell through, and Cuellar didn''t return the money.

Fred - Cuellar says McDonald approached him three years ago for help in locating and purchasing two large diamonds. At the time, McDonald was working as a stock broker and had a client who wanted to buy the diamonds.

Cuellar says he told McDonald he would have to put up a 5 percent, non-refundable deposit when the diamonds were located. The purchase price for both diamonds was $13.4 million, so the deposit was $670,000.

When Cuellar found the diamonds in New York, he says McDonald was unable to come up with the rest of the purchase price, even though he had brought in additional investors. He asked Cuellar to find another buyer for the gems. And he paid Cuellar to go to Saudi Arabia and try to sell the diamonds to the royal family, who weren''t interested.

An investor later complained to the Harris County District Attorney''s office that Cuellar had not earned the money he collected as a non-refundable deposit. But Cuellar says it was a sale, not an investment. And a non-refundable deposit is simply non-refundable.

 

[Rhapsody]

Date: 2/1/2006 11:51:16 AM
Author: mthom
Neil - I think the only place where my document and the book disagree is when the book states ''fixed appreciation'' and the document states ''market value'' and lists the recent average at 6.25%. To me, the issue of what appreciation to use is one to easily defend by simply going by his published price tables, that he constantly updates with new editions of his book.


Lorelei - the document state that the bond protects against ''chips, nicks, OR breakage'' I think it''s pretty clear on the point (and it covers this in the book) ... chips and nicks are covered for life ... breakage is once per customer. To keep this part of the warranty intact, you must have your regular check-ups on the ring.


Princess - Thanks for the info ... I''m sure your assessment of winning the appeal is correct ... that''s probably what the poster was referring too. But if he ended up with no jail time, that must have been won in appeal too, because he originally got 30 days.


But lets be clear ALL of the incidents were apparently from one investment deal. From the articles I can''t tell who did what ... the prosecution says Fred was buying from the Saudi Royals, and Fred says he tried to sell to the Saudi Royals ... and it seems like the issue was whether he could legally charge a non-refundable deposit for the $13.4 M deal. Fred says it was a sale, and he could ... the courts said it was an investment and he couldn''t. I bet Fred got stuck with a deposit in his brokering of the deal and was trying to pass this along to the investors ... But I actually agree with the courts ... to the 70 folks that put money in, it was pitched as an investment, and should be treated as such. But I would have sued this McDonald character who asked Fred to broker it. My guess is their contracts (if any) between each other weren''t great, or they were partners in the deal, but I would have set it up where McDonold pays the non-refundable deposit.

Cuellar says he told McDonald he would have to put up a 5 percent, non-refundable deposit when the diamonds were located. The purchase price for both diamonds was $13.4 million, so the deposit was $670,000.

I''m curious as to how you''re so clear about this. You didn''t even know whether the appeal was lost or won yet you say you understand the exact nature of the case. To me it sounds like more than an investment gone bad, especially requiring over $1 mill in resitution payments and with over 100 approriations.

I know when I first started researching diamonds I came across Fred first, and his websites made him sound like he held the diamond holy grail. But as I read more he just sounded like an agry salesman using scare tactics to keep you from buying from anyone else, which to me is unprofessional and if that''s how you feel you have to sell your product I have doubts about the quality.

As far as Fred having the most stringent cut guidelines, I doubt it.

 

[denverappraiser]

From the website.

Bonded diamonds come with a lifetime trade-in policy with a fixed appreciation rate to keep up with inflation.
Bonded diamonds come with a market crash protection policy. If the diamond market ever crashes and your diamond depreciates, the jeweler will refund the difference between what you paid from the new market value.

From the official bond.
The diamond’s current market value can be used towards a trade-in. Annual appreciation has averaged 6.25%.
Your diamonds’ value is protected against any diamond market crash.

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

Actually, I don’t have all that much trouble with the way the appreciation is calculated other than that it’s not very clearly stated. The problem is deciding what to use as the basis of ‘market value’ in the first place. You’re assuming that it starts out as your actual cost and is adjusted from that but I don’t see anything to support this conclusion. This is not the common usage of that term. In most situations, market value refers to what you could be reasonably expected to sell it for. These are decidedly not the same thing and it makes a huge difference in the value of the offer.

I don’t doubt that if you are trading in an undamaged stone and the new stone is significantly more valuable than the old one, this assumption will be correct but this true at most other jewelers as well. What makes his program significantly different from the ones offered at Walmart, Whiteflash, ShaneCo, Zales and many others is the ability to trade-down and this whole market value business. He promotes this bonding program as the feature that differentiates his store and makes it better than all other jewelers in the world so it seems important for customers who are considering buying into it to understand what it means. Perhaps I'm just missing the part where he explains it. I would love a link to the appropriate page.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[mthom]

I see your point Neil. You''re right I''m making the assumption that since it states that you can always get 100% of your purchase price back in cash, that that''s the minimum coverage. That''s why I used it as the base price. I still think that since Fred publishes his price tables, taking the appreciation from those tables, or using the to determine market value at the time, would come pretty close to each other ... well, actually the table prices are always higher than what he (and most others) would probably sell or buy for. I''d be interested in seeing someone try the trade down part of it too ... but how often would someone really want to trade down. I also agree the Crash piece is worthless if the company folds during the crash. Still at minimum you''ve got the 100% cash liquidation part of the warranty. He''d do well to clarify the other parts of his warranty to quell any suspicions.

Rhapsody - All I know is from the article in 1998 ... they were direct quotes. As far as the cut guidelines ... it sure seems like most of the complaints on stats that I''ve seen are stones falling outside of Fred''s guidelines that others say are just fine (and that Fred''s just trying to steer you to him). Particularly I''ve read it on Total Depth (FC says don''t go beyond 61%) and Pavillion angle (FC says don''t go beyond 41.5 deg, I think). What I''ve seen is a lot of diamonds falling outside of this get the NO from Fred and a "he doesn''t know what he''s talking about" from other dealers.

Can someone review Garry''s post of the thread above on the 3 ct stone from Fred? ... from the girdle profile Garry was saying that the crown angles were likely largely varied, but later in the post the full report showed little variance. The poster still thought something was wrong with the stone ... but I must be missing it.

 

[aljdewey]

An oft-quoted phrase comes to mind: "Methinks thou doth protest too much."

It''s incredible to me how one can claim to know the intricacies of what the counts of the lawsuit applied to, but not know the outcome.

As far as the need to convince anyone goes.....too much effort. If people WANT to believe the world is flat, no amount of information suggesting otherwise will resonate.

I hope you enjoy your bonded diamond, and I''m glad that your experience has been a favorable one.

 

[mthom]

Al - I got all of my information about the case from that article in 98 ... I don''t think it''s a stretch to figure out both sides arguments from it. Until Perry posted his lastest find ... I couldn''t find the outcome anywhere. I''d seen a post which I quoted and then I saw the 2003 article which matched Perry''s confirmation. Of course, once Magellen sailed around the world and proved the world was flat, people believed ... the power of proof.

By the way, after all this talk about FC not delivering the goods, but seeing no complaints on the BBB site, I decided to check out the PS vendors, just to compare ... anyone care to know the results? I won''t name names, because I don''t have any experience with the vendors ... but out of 20 dealers ... 9 had no complaints, I couldn''t find 2, and 9 had at least one complaint in the laast 36 months ... of those 9, 5 only had 1 complaint, one had 2 complaints, one had 5, and two had 17 complaints, one of those with 17 was in unsatisfactory standing. Several of these complaints (at least 4 dealers) had product quality complaints ... others had return or warranty complaints ... and some were customer service related.

Fred and DCI has 0 complaints

This REALLY surprised me after the discussions here ... especially when some of the same dealers here with complaints also don''t offer great return policies ... the topic of this conversation.

Now, that being said ... I''m not trying to dog PS ... I''m sticking around, because I''ve actually gained a lot of knowledge here and like the conversations. But I was surprised by the reaction to DCI without the same skepticism for dealers that are being recommended here. As a customer, I would be concerned ... but I''m glad that there''s also a good list of appraisers, and a wealth of knowledge to help customers out too.

 

[princessv]

I thought I''d post the facts of the case which the jury as factfinders decided was true and was summarized in the appellate case that I cited above.

Facts:

"Appellant, the owner of Diamond Cutters International ("DCI"), sold a watch to Michael McDonald. McDonald, an investment banker, returned to DCI with a friend whose mother sought an investment grade diamond. Shortly thereafter, appellant called McDonald and inquired whether he knew anyone interested in buying large diamonds. Appellant told McDonald about a 50.5 carat diamond owned by the Saudi Royal family. Appellant explained that the purchase price was $ 4,000,000, and they could auction the diamond for $ 9,000,000 to $ 12,000,000. Appellant told McDonald the down payment on the diamond was $ 1,000,000. To cover the down payment, appellant asked McDonald to raise $ 100,000, and appellant would contribute $ 700,000 and borrow $ 200,000. After McDonald paid appellant $ 100,000, appellant told McDonald that if they could sell the 50.5 carat diamond and a 88.9 carat diamond, they could purchase some loose diamonds at wholesale. Appellant told McDonald they would profit greatly from the sale of the loose diamonds."
McDonald invested more of his own money and found investors to do the same. In all, McDonald gave appellant over $ 1,000,000 through checks disbursed from his personal account and Evergreen Consulting, McDonald''s business account. Eventually, it was revealed that the diamonds were not owned by the Saudi Royal family, McDonald and the other investors'' monies were not used to purchase the 50.5 carat diamond, and appellant would not return their money."

It really doesn''t matter at this point what Fred Cuellar would like to contend. A jury of his peers found him guilty and believed the fact pattern above. In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court''s rulings which still makes him guilty of felony theft.

mthmom: You say the article you are citing to was written in 1998. I''d like to point out that the cases above that I cited to were decided 1999 for the appeal and later. Also, I thought it was strange that you said "Still at minimum you''ve got the 100% cash liquidation part of the warranty. " Did you realize that Cuellar promised his investors that he would liquidate his diamond inventory if the deal fell through? This was directly out of the appellate case as well.

It''s not really about the quality of goods that he''s selling to me, but more about his reputation which to me, cries RUN AWAY!

But since you''re happy with your purchase, thats what really matters.

 

[Capitol Bill]

mthom,
I believe you''re living in serious denial. The reality is you purchased a diamond "blind" with no independent verification - not even a lab report. Your stone could very well be two grades lower in color and clarity for all you know. But you simply don''t care because (as you keep trying to remind yourself and everyone else) at any point you can request your money back. But it''s obvious you are unwilling to go through the steps involved in such a request to FC (your friend in the diamond business).

The result is that your wife-to-be will always wear a diamond that you know absolutely nothing about (other than what FC told you). Even FC''s book full of "truthiness" recommends against buying a diamond this way. Yet you choose to ignore the subtle (and not too subtle) urgings by people here to have your diamond''s characteristics verified by an independent gemologist appraiser. I know you''ll find it hard to believe, but several folks participating in this thread are geniunely concerned that you were potentially ripped-off. Of course, most (if not all) of the people posting here are already suspicious of FC. But I can assure you that if you purchased a diamond in the exact same way from any other vendor, they would still be urging you to have it independently verified. Instead you''ve chosen to take up the fight on behalf of a convicted felon.

This thread keeps reminding me of a quote from the movie "Tommy Boy" -- "Hey, if you want me to take a **** in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will."

Best of luck to you!
Bill

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/1/2006 9:04:14 PM
Author: Capitol Bill
mthom,
I believe you''re living in serious denial. The reality is you purchased a diamond ''blind'' with no independent verification - not even a lab report. Your stone could very well be two grades lower in color and clarity for all you know. But you simply don''t care because (as you keep trying to remind yourself and everyone else) at any point you can request your money back. But it''s obvious you are unwilling to go through the steps involved in such a request to FC (your friend in the diamond business).

The result is that your wife-to-be will always wear a diamond that you know absolutely nothing about (other than what FC told you). Even FC''s book full of ''truthiness'' recommends against buying a diamond this way. Yet you choose to ignore the subtle (and not too subtle) urgings by people here to have your diamond''s characteristics verified by an independent gemologist appraiser. I know you''ll find it hard to believe, but several folks participating in this thread are geniunely concerned that you were potentially ripped-off. Of course, most (if not all) of the people posting here are already suspicious of FC. But I can assure you that if you purchased a diamond in the exact same way from any other vendor, they would still be urging you to have it independently verified. Instead you''ve chosen to take up the fight on behalf of a convicted felon.

This thread keeps reminding me of a quote from the movie ''Tommy Boy'' -- ''Hey, if you want me to take a **** in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will.''

Best of luck to you!
Bill

You said pretty much what I was thinking. I see the call for "proof" and "evidence", but it''s hard to reconcile that with "well, but I won''t have my ring checked out."

I could be wrong......but I just really get the overwhelming sense that it''s more than just an average bystander......but that''s just my hunch. Totally unproven, just a gut instinct.

I''d LOVE to prove or disprove, but I''m not currently the owner of one of his stones....nor will I ever be in the future. But I find it curious that one who is that confident in the 100% refund policy is reluctant for whatever reason to road test that policy in the interest of proof.

I''m always confounded by people who avoid information.

 

[Dancing Fire]

mthom

have some common sense,will ya

how is it possible for DCI to give you 100% cash back for your diamond?

if the market crashes. say if you paid $10k for the stone and the market crashes and now the stone is worth $5k, DCI buys your stone back for $10k, who are they going sell this stone to?

i know,i know, find a sucker who would pay $12k for it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 2/1/2006 10:18:50 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 1/31/2006 3:24:54 PM
Author: mthom
Lorilei ... my bonding document doesn''t have the once per customer limitation, but in his book he describes the nicks / chips to be more than once, but a complete bust of a diamond is only once per customer.

And actually, my mistake that he doesn''t say the only way it would bust is from treatment, but that treatment caused brittleness and increases the chances of busting ...

I think if mine busted, I''d ask for something in writing to be covered for another bust (because I''d also be suspicious otherwise). I wonder if he''s ever had someone make a claim for a bust ... maybe that''s a question for his site ...

You''re probably right on the insurance premiums too.

What exactly does a bust mean? The diamond shattering and falling to pieces, a chunk missing, a crack etc? I can''t seem to find the answer on his site, there just seem to be so many variables here and I would be interested to know exactly how well protected a bonded diamond is.

Lorelei

my Brit gf....

i thought English is the main language in the UK

according to my webster''s dictionary.

Bust....The chest or breast. a woman''s bosom.

 

[mthom]

Princess - let''s be clear ... your "facts" look a lot more like the prosecutions statement of the case ... I''m sure you wouldn''t agree if I put the Defendent''s case up as "fact" ... at least I presented both arguments. And if you read my post, I agreed with the court ... Fred really couldn''t charge a non-refundable deposit in the way that deal was structured.

Al (et al) ... I know everyone is hounding me for not sending my stone in to prove you wrong. But it''s simple to me ... I''m very happy with my wife''s stone, and most importantly, she is very happy with her stone. I just won''t pull her into this and make her send the stone in for analysis.

I''m not asking for proof that my stone is the cut that''s advertised ... I believe it from the comparison of the brilliance when compared to other stones ... so at least relatively, I know my wife''s stone is cut well (or at least sparkles like it is).

What I''ve been asking is proof that someone else has been screwed. And you''ve given me none than the well talked about investment conviction in 98.

No stories of unsatisfied customers or their experience with DCI

No BBB complaints in the last 36 months for DCI (compared with 46 complaints for PriceScope vendors)

Garry posted a thread (See page 3) with an analysis of one of Fred''s stone, claiming it was "warped", and suggested the crown angle probably varied from 28 - 40 degrees ... but you can see the full analysis (done by one of the appraisers here) that showed very little crown or angle variance (which is what FC calls warped).

Investors in diamonds continue to look to Fred (I found links to him from Kiplingers, Bankrate and others) ... of course, the wedding sites link to Fred (especially knot.com). The news media continues to use Fred as the diamond expert.

So basically, I''m supposed to be skeptical of someone whom I''ve met personally, bought a stone that I think is beautiful in it''s sparkle, had 4 custom rings made that were equally beautiful, was recommended to from friends who were very satisfied ... all because some of the folks here (some of whom may be the dealers with more negative BBB complaints than Fred) don''t like or trust him. When asked for proof why they don''t ... it''s just "I don''t believe his warranty" ... "I don''t believe his cut" ... "I don''t believe ..."

I get the fact that you don''t believe ... but for a customer to take you seriously ... you need to give some experiences to back that up ... otherwise you''re resprting to the same thing you accuse him of "scaring customers away from other dealers"

No one''s tried to scare me from the two vendors here with 17 BBB complaints each. I invite all perspective customers to play russian roullette with the PS list of 20 vendors and see if you hit the jackpot with one of those 2. At least those BBB complaints are something tangible that I can point to, that recent customers were not happy with their purchase.

Now - I''d rather go back to discussing warping, which I though was interesting. But I could always hound the dealers here who I could point to as being worthy of skepticism, and dig up history of unhappy customers or lack of warranties ... but I didn''t come here to bash other dealers, but find out REAL reasons why others bash my dealer.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/1/2006 11:04:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 2/1/2006 10:18:50 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 1/31/2006 3:24:54 PM
Author: mthom
Lorilei ... my bonding document doesn''t have the once per customer limitation, but in his book he describes the nicks / chips to be more than once, but a complete bust of a diamond is only once per customer.

And actually, my mistake that he doesn''t say the only way it would bust is from treatment, but that treatment caused brittleness and increases the chances of busting ...

I think if mine busted, I''d ask for something in writing to be covered for another bust (because I''d also be suspicious otherwise). I wonder if he''s ever had someone make a claim for a bust ... maybe that''s a question for his site ...

You''re probably right on the insurance premiums too.

What exactly does a bust mean? The diamond shattering and falling to pieces, a chunk missing, a crack etc? I can''t seem to find the answer on his site, there just seem to be so many variables here and I would be interested to know exactly how well protected a bonded diamond is.

Lorelei

my Brit gf....

i thought English is the main language in the UK

according to my webster''s dictionary.

Bust....The chest or breast. a woman''s bosom.

DF my American BF, the English language IS the most commonly spoken language in old Blighty!

You are absolutely right about the meaning of a bust pertaining to a ladies chest, it is a good thing I didn''t mention a diamond busting due to a cleavage plane either

 

[MissAva]

This is the breakdown of the information from the BBB, as you can see the report formats vary. And the total number from the PS vendors was 46…I listed the vendors and have their BBB report linked. I asked which had 17 and was told Blue Nile and Diamond.com
Abazias: 0
http://www.jacksonville.bbb.org/commonreport.html?compid=16000194
Blue Nile: 17
http://www.thebbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=15026564
USA Certed Diamonds: No listing
WhiteFlash: 1
http://www.data.bbb.org/houston2.asp
James Allen: 0
http://www.baltimore.bbb.org/nis/newsearch2.asp?ID=1&ComID=0011000022011065
GoodOldGold: 0
http://www.bbbnewyork.org/businessreports/Default.aspx?id=36079
Spencer and Spencer: 2
http://www.labbb.org/BBBWeb/Forms/Business/CompanyReportPage_Expository.aspx?CompanyID=13162832
Union Diamond: 1
http://www.atlanta.bbb.org/commonreport.html?compid=13002818
ERD:0
http://www.bbbnewyork.org/businessreports/Default.aspx?id=8497
Facets:0
http://www.bbbnewyork.org/businessreports/Default.aspx?id=85386
Pearlmans: 0
http://www.grandrapids.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bureau=grandrapids&code=&compid=24005067
Scheiner Diamonds: 0
http://www.bbbnewyork.org/businessreports/Default.aspx?id=46960
Jewelry Zone Not a member
Nice Rings: 1
http://www.labbb.org/BBBWeb/Forms/Business/CompanyReportPage_Expository.aspx?CompanyID=100013960
Diemend Scaasi: 1
http://www.chicago.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=53000948
Ice Store: 1
http://www.labbb.org/BBBWeb/Forms/Business/CompanyReportPage_Expository.aspx?CompanyID=13159828
Nice Ice: 0
http://www.thebbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=79001540
Winfield’s:0
http://www.data.bbb.org/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=boise/boise/showrpt.html?bis=n&zid=AYFlGhLgLj
Mondera: 5
http://www.bbbnewyork.org/businessreports/Default.aspx?id=6914
Diamond.com: 17
http://www.bbbsoutheastflorida.org/nis/newsearch2.asp?ID=1&strBCode=06330000&ComID=0633000011004121

 

[MissAva]

Blue Nile: 17
Diamond.com: 17
Mondera: 5
Spencer and Spencer: 2
Diemend Scaasi: 1
Ice Store: 1
WhiteFlash: 1
Nice Rings: 1
Union Diamond: 1


ETA:
I just went to the DCI web page for the first time in about a year, I had been put of by the rude opinions of non-diamond erings and a few other poorly worded sections. The first thing I noticed was that the little talking head states that DCI is the worlds largest Diamond information web site, that is quite the claim, and one quite easy to disprove. It leads to a further sense of unease about the rest of the page.
I also wonder why he is not a member of the BBB.

 

[princessv]

mthom: I wasn''t putting up both sides of the argument because a jury that listened to all the sides presented in the case believed that one. A jury is the ultimate fact finder here. Like I said before, whatever Cuellar''s argument is now moot because he''s already been found guilty by a jury of his peers. (not to mention the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction).

The facts that I posted were right out of the appellate case. The judges HAVE to summarize the fact findings of the trial court. Those are the facts that are believed by a jury of his peers. Are you saying you trust the argument of a convicted felon rather what the ultimate outcome of his trial proved?

Old saying goes, ''innocent until proven guilty.'' He was proven guilty by a jury and the appellate court agreed with the trial court.

 

[mrssalvo]

Mat, thanks for posting the links to the BBB reports. i actually did a search last night and found that the most commonly referred to Pricescope vendors, by consumers, are all in good standing. Mthom, do a search on bluenile and diamond.com here and you''ll find mixed reviews from customers here so their BBB results do not surprise me in the least. I would not recommend either of those companies, not because of the BBB reports but because they do not provide the info I would need to make a purchase from them.

 

[mthom]

OK ... so all of you have consistently pointed to FC''s case of 98 where he was ordered to pay $1 M over 10 years and probation, and using that as the predominent (if not sole) reason to be skeptical of FC.

Well then, I''m sure you are all aware of the GIA Scandal ... including causes of action of $250 M ($50 M in five causes) plus $150 M in punitive damages ... for $400 MILLION in suits against them in 2005.

I''m sure your aware of the large shake-up in GIA leadership, ethics violations, and a severe impact on their credibility for taking bribes to increase diamond grades.

And these are the guys you are telling me to send my stone to, trust them, and believe them!!! Either you didn''t know about these cases or your protecting the fact that you are severely dependent on the GIA evaluations sold with diamonds from you.

When you find that this bribery and ethics violations go years back ... I bet your wondering how many of your customers you''ve intentionally or unintentionally screwed over.

I hope for your sake, the diamonds with GIA evaluations were indeed graded properly. Especially when your consumers aren''t protected.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/20/markets/diamond_bribery/index.htm
http://www.diamonds.net/news/newsitem.asp?num=13065&type=all&topic=GIA%20investigation-&collapse=0
http://www.jckgroup.com/article/CA6298926.html?section=Retail+Roundup
http://www.diamondse.info/blog/2006/01/gia-makes-sweeping-changes-after.html

So after all this talk of FC ... you''re asking me to trust an evaluation from a company with $400 Million of charges against them NOW, and a host of ethics violations.

RIGHT !!!!!

 

[mthom]

Moral of the story ... even with a GIA "certificate" ... as a consumer, you better have a good return policy (30,60,90 days won''t cut it). And get it in writing and signed.

Why purchase from someone online (with BBB complaints), with a certificate from an unethical grading lab, and a 30 day return policy?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/2/2006 12:24:39 PM
Author: mthom
OK ... so all of you have consistently pointed to FC's case of 98 where he was ordered to pay $1 M over 10 years and probation, and using that as the predominent (if not sole) reason to be skeptical of FC.

Well then, I'm sure you are all aware of the GIA Scandal ... including causes of action of $250 M ($50 M in five causes) plus $150 M in punitive damages ... for $400 MILLION in suits against them in 2005.

I'm sure your aware of the large shake-up in GIA leadership, ethics violations, and a severe impact on their credibility for taking bribes to increase diamond grades.

I'm even more convinced now that this is no casual bystander.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/2/2006 1:27:03 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 2/2/2006 12:24:39 PM
Author: mthom
OK ... so all of you have consistently pointed to FC''s case of 98 where he was ordered to pay $1 M over 10 years and probation, and using that as the predominent (if not sole) reason to be skeptical of FC.

Well then, I''m sure you are all aware of the GIA Scandal ... including causes of action of $250 M ($50 M in five causes) plus $150 M in punitive damages ... for $400 MILLION in suits against them in 2005.

I''m sure your aware of the large shake-up in GIA leadership, ethics violations, and a severe impact on their credibility for taking bribes to increase diamond grades.

I''m even more convinced now that this is no casual bystander.

Agreed Al.

 

[mthom]

No, I just find it very odd that folks were very quick to keep jumping back to a lawsuit, and that no one has brought up the most recent lawsuit that effects every cutomer posting here.

Doing a search of the GIA Scandal on this forum, I find a lot of folks trying to down play it. Interesting, when I''m being criticized for taking the aforementioned lawsuit from 98 lightly.

You can believe what you want about my identity, but all you have to do is look at my original posts and you will see the exact truth as to why I''m interested in this. I''m a customer of FC, had a great experience, and felt like the posts here were a little unfair (or at least wanted to see if they were justified).

My findings so far ... NO facts on people being unhappy with FC ... none. The only thread posted was from Garry and I am still trying to figure out why he believes the crown angles were so varied, when the 3rd party analysis showed good angles all the way around the stone.

I''ve tried telling everyone what I know about my bonding document, posted what I know about my stone, posted a picture of my wife''s ring.

But still nothing but rhetoric on the other side ... strengthen your case with some data ... and don''t detract from the fact that the principle document attached to stones being recommended here are from GIA which is having severe troubles as we speak.

What I want is to see more posts like Garry''s and the analysis of a stone, that points out flaws in FC''s logic or disclosures. But so far we have one example, which didn''t show what was claimed to be shown (my guess is that I''m missing something in the analysis, because the appraisers here would know more on what to look for). But no one''s pointing them out, which makes me believe there isn''t anything to point out.

 

[princessv]

Funny how you completely dodged the bullet. GIA isn''t the only lab out there. Many people here don''t even have a GIA cert. There''s also AGS and my personal favorite GCAL.

Al and Lorelei: I completely agree.

 

[mrssalvo]

mthom..most consumers here recommend you send your stone to an independant appraiser regardless of who the certification is by. GIA, EGL, whomever and no matter which vendor you purchase from. they have been mistakes when the wrong stone was shipped and the appraiser is the one to catch it. I don''t trust just a piece of paper and would take it to more than one appraiser if I felt it necessary. Very interesting that you take FC at his word and while I have done business with a few PS vendors I have always had a independant set of eyes look at my purchase? Have you?

 

[dhog]

Date: 1/31/2006 5:13:20 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Dear Mthom,


I am someone of substance in the area of diamond cut.

I will wager you $100 plus costs.



We arange shipping to one of a few independant appraisers for removal of your stone for proportion measurement and then resetting.


If your stone is the proportions quoted then you pay me $100, and pay the appraiser.

If I am wrong by more than .2 degrees (GIA''s stated tolerance for accuracy) on the pavilion angle - then I pay you $100 and all costs.

while I know nothing about diamonds,I have learned enough as to what to look for in a stone.I have been reading this thread and don''t believe anyone asked you to send your stone to GIA for evaluation.

as a gambler I WILL PUT IN 300 USD for you to send it to a appraiser not GIA as I would agree that at this time GIA needs some time to seek help.

 

[sylvesterii]

Date: 2/1/2006 1:09:23 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/31/2006 11:47:13 PM

Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 1/31/2006 9:07:39 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


(maybe we could bet on that too? How about a bottle of relatively cheap Aussie Shiraz?)

Garry

what is that?

is that stuff legal in the U.S.

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-20,GGLG:en&q=Australian+Shiraz

http://www.sallys-place.com/beverages/wine/vintnerschoice/australian_shiraz.htm


yum yum

I think we americans call it syrah, but i''d take an australian shiraz any day over any syrah i''ve ever had.