My response to Brian, in context:
Brian,
As I have stated in the past, I need more information regarding the design and damage to the rings to better understand the issues. To date, I have received nothing in writing from Whiteflash responding to my queries of January 24, 2007. I want to be certain that my recounting of the facts related to the damage is accurate. In this connection, I pasted directly from my 2/10/07 email and raised various yes/no questions regarding the design of and damage to the ring.
FROM 2/10/07 @ 1:27PM, Ryan wrote, in part:
III. QUESTIONS REGARDING DAMAGE AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
In my January 24, 2007 email, I raised the following questions:
Are the diamonds in the engagement ring being chipped by the diamonds in the band (and vice versa)?
Is this a usual problem with this type of ring/band configuration?
Will this continue to happen on a regular basis?
If this is an anticipated problem, should I have been apprised of same before agreeing to the configuration?
If this is not an anticipated problem, is this the result of a flaw in the design process?
Based upon my conversation with Leon on the afternoon of the 8th, I understand that WF's response to the queries is as follows:
Are the diamonds in the engagement ring being chipped by the diamonds in the band (and vice versa)?
There is one diamond in the wedding band (second from the end) that is chipped. The girdle of the "second from the end" diamond is the only stone that appears to touch the diamonds in the engagement ring, and almost certainly is the cause of the chips in the 5 stones on the ering.
Is this a usual problem with this type of ring/band configuration?
No. The rings are designed so that the diamonds do not touch. In Leon's 6-7 years of being a jeweler he has only seen a similar problem one time.
Will this continue to happen on a regular basis?
Most likely. According to Leon, the first chip(s) likely occurred soon after the rings were worn together, and additional chips almost certainly will occur in the future unless 1) the rings are remade with larger shared prongs to help space the stones, or 2) the rings are soldered together.
If this is an anticipated problem, should I have been apprised of same before agreeing to the configuration?
This is sort of the million dollar question here; several commentators on pricescope.com indicated that a jeweler should warn the customer of potential problems with any eternity or semi-eternity set. However, others indicated that no warning is necessary when the rings are designed so that the stones do not touch.
If this is not an anticipated problem, is this the result of a flaw in the design process?
This is where I was more than a little confused by the obvious inconsistency regarding the touching of the stones. Per Leon, the rings were designed so that the stones do NOT touch; however, per Leon, the chipped stones are the result of the "second from the end" stone touching/rubbing the stones on the ering. Notwithstanding, Leon indicated that our custom designed set is not flawed. Further, Leon indicated that the damage is not the result of a stone that has shifted or moved, thus making it out of line and rubbing with the other stones.
IV. WHITEFLASH RECOMMENDATIONS
Per my conversation with Leon, I understand that simply repairing/replacing the damaged diamonds will not solve the underlying problem. Further, I understand that simply soldering them together may not solve the problem. I understand that WF is recommending that the rings be remade with wider shared prongs to further space the diamonds . . . in that correct? Also, I understand from Leon that in addition to the additional spacing, soldering the rings would further protect the diamonds in the future. Is your recommendation to remake the rings with additional spacing and soldering them together?
We trust that you know what is best to prevent this problem in the future. Assuming we can work something out on the price/concession end, I anticipate that we will follow whatever recommendations you have for the custom ring set. As you know, we have been pleased in the past with your recommendation regarding the original 2kt stone, the original setting, and the custom wedding/ering set.
V. WHITEFLASH CONCESSIONS
Per my conversation with Leon, WF values us as customers and will consider making some concession on the price. If we go with the recommended remake of the rings (repair/replace damaged diamonds, additional spacing, and soldering) in platinum, what would be the price? Based upon that price, what is the greatest concession that WF would be willing to offer us?
_________________________
***AGAIN - if the above questions/responses/recommendations/concessions are not an accurate recounting of my conversation with Leon regarding the the facts (or now, your understanding of the facts), please advise in writing so that I am better able to understand the facts surrounding the design of the ring, WF's customer service and where we currently stand as far as concessions.***
To reiterate, I am more than a little confused by the inconsistency regarding the touching of the stones. In this connection:
-I understand that the rings were designed with small gaps so that the stones do NOT touch;
-from pricescope, I understand that many vendors would not design or make a custom ring set that had diamond girdles touching;
-from pricescope, I understand that, as a bare minimum, the vendor should warn any customer of the potential damage to the rings when such a set is requested;
-from Leon, I understand that although the rings were designed so that the stones would not touch, the chipped stones are the result of the "second from the end" stone on the wedding ring touching/rubbing the stones on the ering;
-from Leon, I understand that the damage is not the result of the "second from the end" stone that has shifted or moved (wear & tear), thus making the stone out of line and rubbing with the other stones;
-notwithstanding, Leon indicated that our custom designed set is not flawed. Further, you confirmed same by stating that "these rings were in perfect condition when they went out."
Please help me understand the above. Stating "I cannot possibly know what has transpired in the time they have been worn" ignores that I have already been told that the damage was caused by the "second to the end" stone rubbing against the ering.
1) How did the rings rub together if: 1) they were designed to NOT rub together, 2) the rings were "sent out in perfect condition" (i.e., no design flaw allowing the rings to rub), and 3) the ring set bands/prongs remain undamaged?
2) Is the single stone in the wedding ring rubbing against the ering?
3) Is the single stone out of line?
4) Are the rings damaged or somehow bent or misformed now to cause the diamond to touch?
5) What is the most logical cause of this type of damage on this type of ring?
Simply saying that "[you] cannot possibly know" is troubling to me. Also, your analogy to the automobile is misguided; if 1) my car's tire is shredded, 2) upon inspection by the dealer, a part of the wheel well touches my tire (although it was designed to not touch), 3) the wheel well touching the tire is the most logical cause of the damage, and 4) the dealer confirms that the wheel well is exactly where it is suppose to be, then you are damn right that I would demand that the dealer to repair the damage.
In the alternative, are you stating that WF is without fault because Leon simply followed our picture (flawed or not) to create the design? Your statement of "with this understanding we made the rings as requested and delivered them to you" apparently attempts to shift any design flaw to us (although, again, WF has stated that there is no design flaw . . . correct?). Although any argument along these lines is significantly flawed, for the sake of argument, I will accept that we picked the design, and WF made the custom ring set attempting to mimic the picture:
6) Did WF make our custom ring set knowing that the diamonds could rub?
7) Would WF make an unsoldered custom ring set with diamond girdles touching?
What is the "standard practice" discussion you reference (i.e., "the diamonds in the rings may chip")?
9) How often does WF make ring sets where there are "small gaps" between the girdles of diamonds?
10) Would you or WF try to dissuade a buyer's request that asked for diamonds touching?
I need to know answers to these questions to understand standard practice in the online jewelry industry. As you know, several jewelers who responded on pricescope indicated that they would NEVER custom make a ring SET where diamonds were touching.
11) Is WF's position different?
12) Will WF make anything that a customer requests?
Regarding the above, I must ask how my comment that “(she) will not mind small gaps between the ring and band when worn” reflects that we assumed the liability for the design or the diamonds touching? That argument appears nonsensical to me. We understood that the gaps were necessary. Now I understand that the gaps were in place to KEEP THE DIAMONDS FROM TOUCHING . . . is that incorrect?
13) How does acknowledging the "small gaps" equate to acknowledging that the rings would have "rubbing issues"?
14) Does the word "gaps" mean something different in this context?
Next, your synopsis of my discussions with Bob and Leon, including the statement that "it is standard practice to discuss [the rubbing issues with such a design]", does not accurately reflect our interaction. At no point did Bob or Leon ever mention the possibility of damage/chipping to the diamonds with this design.
15) Are Bob and/or Leon now saying that such a discussion took place?
As indicated in the pricescope forum, the only potential problem ever discussed was that the diamonds may cut away at the prongs. In fact, this was primarily a concern when we were trying to fit the custom wedding ring "flush/flush" with the existing tiffany set ering. So as to be factual, below please find a recounting of the emails exchanged with Bob, including the emails where we discussed pictures (including those on WF's website):
____________________________________
from 3/8/2006 @ 9:31am, Ryan wrote:
...we understand that we have 3 options going forward:
(1) change the ring to an X Prong and keep the band as it is (reducing any gap between the rings and creating visual consistency with the bands);
(2) keep the tiffany 6 prong ring as it is and change the band (I believe that you stated that you could use smaller diamonds (10 points?) in a band and get it close to flush with the 6 prong ring); and
(3) change both the ring and band;
We were hoping to get some help from you as we choose between the 3 options. Below, I have provided our thoughts regarding each of the above options.
*******
(3) I believe that my wife is leaning towards option 3. The attached picture is of a ring and band we saw online. She would want the 6 prong head with the ring band done in small diamonds, and then a matching band in the same size diamonds. This choice allows her to keep the tiffany 6 prong setting with the thin, delicate band (now with diamonds in it . . . surprise, surprise). Also, with the smaller diamonds in the band, we are optimistic that we can get the ring and band closer to flush. Further, my wife indicated that, visually, she did not mind the small gaps between the ring and band because they were less noticeable between rows of diamonds compared to a row of diamonds and a gold band. I do not know what size of diamonds would be best to maintain the thin, delicate ring band that my wife wants. Can you give me your thoughts on this? Is this a ring/band combination that you can do? Would the diamond band need a small curve around the bottom prong? Any help that you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
After sending the above email, I spoke with Bob and Leon regarding WF designing a custom wedding/ering set. Both indicated that the custom set was the best choice in lieu of attempting to make a wedding band to fit around the existing ering (given that our previous attempt was unsatisfactory to my wife). At no point, ever, was anything mentioned about potential problems with the diamonds damaging each other. Needless to say, I will be extremely disappointed if Bob and/or Leon now state that I was told/warned/etc. about potential damage to the diamonds. I was not. Had we been warned, we certainly would have chosen another design (as would any logical consumer).
Later that day, I received the following email from Bob:
from 3/8/2006 @ 8:35pm, Bob responded:
Dear Ryan,
Here is the quote for the rings in option #3 that we discussed this afternoon. Custom 18kt white gold engagement/wedding ring set in size 5.5 to contain a 2ct round diamond that is 6-prong set and having shared prong set diamonds half way around each ring and to fit close together. The price on the ring and band only without any diamonds would be $1440. If you add 17 x 0.10ct aca diamonds there is an additional $1950. If you add 17 x 0.15ct aca diamonds there is an additional $3359.
Please let me know what you think?
Sincerely,
Bob Hoskins
from 3/9/2006 @ 9:24pam, Ryan replied:
We want to purchase the "custom 18kt white gold engagement ring wedding ring set in size 5.5 to contain a 2ct round diamond that is 6-prong set and having shared prong set diamonds half way around each ring and to fit close together."
My wife would like to go with the .15ct stones, but is concerned that she may lose the "petite, classic, antique" look that she wants. ... Can you help me out with a visual for her (either a picture of a 2ct w. a .10 on one side and .15 on the other, or a sample from the website? We were looking at the whiteflash website (solitaires with side stones) last night, but I cannot tell what ring(s) would most closely resemble what the ring would look like. I thought the White Fire (but with diamonds halfway around) or Cupid's Quiver. Is that right?
from 3/11/2006 @ 1:58pm, Ryan replied:
Bob,
The picture was great. This will confirm that we want the custom 18kt white gold engagement ring wedding ring set in size 5.5 to contain a 2ct round diamond that is 6-prong set and having shared prong set diamonds (15 points) half way around each ring and to fit close together. I truly appreciate you time and efforts.
Kind regards,
Ryan
__________________________
I hope the above gives you a more accurate picture of our interaction. Please advise if you need actual copies of the emails or notes from our conversations to confirm the above; I have maintained a complete an accurate record of my communication with Whiteflash since early May 2005. I look forward to your responses so that we can have a meaningful discussion regarding the resolution of this dispute.
Next, I am disappointed that you chose to attack me for starting a thread on pricescope. The facts I presented are accurate, and the advice/information received has been valuable to us as we consider our alternatives going forward. Although I was upset when initially posting (and I remain frustrated at WF's refusal to answer simple questions about the design and demand to the rings), I have no obligation to paint Whiteflash in the most sympathetic light. That being said, I was unaware that other experienced posters would recognize the photos and link my post to whiteflash. However, I imagine that vast majority of "rough rock" online ering buyers (your prospective customers) have no idea that I was talking about Whiteflash. Candidly, I thought that I was taking the prudent course in protecting Whiteflash's name by not mentioning the vendor or individuals by name when I did not yet have sufficient information to intelligently discuss the issues presented by Leon in our 2/8/07 conversation. At your direction, in order to avoid further inference from you that I am leveraging or acting in an underhanded manner, I will change the post today to reflect the appropriate names.
Finally, although we were surprised by the speed and severity of the discoloration of the rings, please consider the discoloration issue moot.
Regards,
Brian,
As I have stated in the past, I need more information regarding the design and damage to the rings to better understand the issues. To date, I have received nothing in writing from Whiteflash responding to my queries of January 24, 2007. I want to be certain that my recounting of the facts related to the damage is accurate. In this connection, I pasted directly from my 2/10/07 email and raised various yes/no questions regarding the design of and damage to the ring.
FROM 2/10/07 @ 1:27PM, Ryan wrote, in part:
III. QUESTIONS REGARDING DAMAGE AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
In my January 24, 2007 email, I raised the following questions:
Are the diamonds in the engagement ring being chipped by the diamonds in the band (and vice versa)?
Is this a usual problem with this type of ring/band configuration?
Will this continue to happen on a regular basis?
If this is an anticipated problem, should I have been apprised of same before agreeing to the configuration?
If this is not an anticipated problem, is this the result of a flaw in the design process?
Based upon my conversation with Leon on the afternoon of the 8th, I understand that WF's response to the queries is as follows:
Are the diamonds in the engagement ring being chipped by the diamonds in the band (and vice versa)?
There is one diamond in the wedding band (second from the end) that is chipped. The girdle of the "second from the end" diamond is the only stone that appears to touch the diamonds in the engagement ring, and almost certainly is the cause of the chips in the 5 stones on the ering.
Is this a usual problem with this type of ring/band configuration?
No. The rings are designed so that the diamonds do not touch. In Leon's 6-7 years of being a jeweler he has only seen a similar problem one time.
Will this continue to happen on a regular basis?
Most likely. According to Leon, the first chip(s) likely occurred soon after the rings were worn together, and additional chips almost certainly will occur in the future unless 1) the rings are remade with larger shared prongs to help space the stones, or 2) the rings are soldered together.
If this is an anticipated problem, should I have been apprised of same before agreeing to the configuration?
This is sort of the million dollar question here; several commentators on pricescope.com indicated that a jeweler should warn the customer of potential problems with any eternity or semi-eternity set. However, others indicated that no warning is necessary when the rings are designed so that the stones do not touch.
If this is not an anticipated problem, is this the result of a flaw in the design process?
This is where I was more than a little confused by the obvious inconsistency regarding the touching of the stones. Per Leon, the rings were designed so that the stones do NOT touch; however, per Leon, the chipped stones are the result of the "second from the end" stone touching/rubbing the stones on the ering. Notwithstanding, Leon indicated that our custom designed set is not flawed. Further, Leon indicated that the damage is not the result of a stone that has shifted or moved, thus making it out of line and rubbing with the other stones.
IV. WHITEFLASH RECOMMENDATIONS
Per my conversation with Leon, I understand that simply repairing/replacing the damaged diamonds will not solve the underlying problem. Further, I understand that simply soldering them together may not solve the problem. I understand that WF is recommending that the rings be remade with wider shared prongs to further space the diamonds . . . in that correct? Also, I understand from Leon that in addition to the additional spacing, soldering the rings would further protect the diamonds in the future. Is your recommendation to remake the rings with additional spacing and soldering them together?
We trust that you know what is best to prevent this problem in the future. Assuming we can work something out on the price/concession end, I anticipate that we will follow whatever recommendations you have for the custom ring set. As you know, we have been pleased in the past with your recommendation regarding the original 2kt stone, the original setting, and the custom wedding/ering set.
V. WHITEFLASH CONCESSIONS
Per my conversation with Leon, WF values us as customers and will consider making some concession on the price. If we go with the recommended remake of the rings (repair/replace damaged diamonds, additional spacing, and soldering) in platinum, what would be the price? Based upon that price, what is the greatest concession that WF would be willing to offer us?
_________________________
***AGAIN - if the above questions/responses/recommendations/concessions are not an accurate recounting of my conversation with Leon regarding the the facts (or now, your understanding of the facts), please advise in writing so that I am better able to understand the facts surrounding the design of the ring, WF's customer service and where we currently stand as far as concessions.***
To reiterate, I am more than a little confused by the inconsistency regarding the touching of the stones. In this connection:
-I understand that the rings were designed with small gaps so that the stones do NOT touch;
-from pricescope, I understand that many vendors would not design or make a custom ring set that had diamond girdles touching;
-from pricescope, I understand that, as a bare minimum, the vendor should warn any customer of the potential damage to the rings when such a set is requested;
-from Leon, I understand that although the rings were designed so that the stones would not touch, the chipped stones are the result of the "second from the end" stone on the wedding ring touching/rubbing the stones on the ering;
-from Leon, I understand that the damage is not the result of the "second from the end" stone that has shifted or moved (wear & tear), thus making the stone out of line and rubbing with the other stones;
-notwithstanding, Leon indicated that our custom designed set is not flawed. Further, you confirmed same by stating that "these rings were in perfect condition when they went out."
Please help me understand the above. Stating "I cannot possibly know what has transpired in the time they have been worn" ignores that I have already been told that the damage was caused by the "second to the end" stone rubbing against the ering.
1) How did the rings rub together if: 1) they were designed to NOT rub together, 2) the rings were "sent out in perfect condition" (i.e., no design flaw allowing the rings to rub), and 3) the ring set bands/prongs remain undamaged?
2) Is the single stone in the wedding ring rubbing against the ering?
3) Is the single stone out of line?
4) Are the rings damaged or somehow bent or misformed now to cause the diamond to touch?
5) What is the most logical cause of this type of damage on this type of ring?
Simply saying that "[you] cannot possibly know" is troubling to me. Also, your analogy to the automobile is misguided; if 1) my car's tire is shredded, 2) upon inspection by the dealer, a part of the wheel well touches my tire (although it was designed to not touch), 3) the wheel well touching the tire is the most logical cause of the damage, and 4) the dealer confirms that the wheel well is exactly where it is suppose to be, then you are damn right that I would demand that the dealer to repair the damage.
In the alternative, are you stating that WF is without fault because Leon simply followed our picture (flawed or not) to create the design? Your statement of "with this understanding we made the rings as requested and delivered them to you" apparently attempts to shift any design flaw to us (although, again, WF has stated that there is no design flaw . . . correct?). Although any argument along these lines is significantly flawed, for the sake of argument, I will accept that we picked the design, and WF made the custom ring set attempting to mimic the picture:
6) Did WF make our custom ring set knowing that the diamonds could rub?
7) Would WF make an unsoldered custom ring set with diamond girdles touching?
What is the "standard practice" discussion you reference (i.e., "the diamonds in the rings may chip")?9) How often does WF make ring sets where there are "small gaps" between the girdles of diamonds?
10) Would you or WF try to dissuade a buyer's request that asked for diamonds touching?
I need to know answers to these questions to understand standard practice in the online jewelry industry. As you know, several jewelers who responded on pricescope indicated that they would NEVER custom make a ring SET where diamonds were touching.
11) Is WF's position different?
12) Will WF make anything that a customer requests?
Regarding the above, I must ask how my comment that “(she) will not mind small gaps between the ring and band when worn” reflects that we assumed the liability for the design or the diamonds touching? That argument appears nonsensical to me. We understood that the gaps were necessary. Now I understand that the gaps were in place to KEEP THE DIAMONDS FROM TOUCHING . . . is that incorrect?
13) How does acknowledging the "small gaps" equate to acknowledging that the rings would have "rubbing issues"?
14) Does the word "gaps" mean something different in this context?
Next, your synopsis of my discussions with Bob and Leon, including the statement that "it is standard practice to discuss [the rubbing issues with such a design]", does not accurately reflect our interaction. At no point did Bob or Leon ever mention the possibility of damage/chipping to the diamonds with this design.
15) Are Bob and/or Leon now saying that such a discussion took place?
As indicated in the pricescope forum, the only potential problem ever discussed was that the diamonds may cut away at the prongs. In fact, this was primarily a concern when we were trying to fit the custom wedding ring "flush/flush" with the existing tiffany set ering. So as to be factual, below please find a recounting of the emails exchanged with Bob, including the emails where we discussed pictures (including those on WF's website):
____________________________________
from 3/8/2006 @ 9:31am, Ryan wrote:
...we understand that we have 3 options going forward:
(1) change the ring to an X Prong and keep the band as it is (reducing any gap between the rings and creating visual consistency with the bands);
(2) keep the tiffany 6 prong ring as it is and change the band (I believe that you stated that you could use smaller diamonds (10 points?) in a band and get it close to flush with the 6 prong ring); and
(3) change both the ring and band;
We were hoping to get some help from you as we choose between the 3 options. Below, I have provided our thoughts regarding each of the above options.
*******
(3) I believe that my wife is leaning towards option 3. The attached picture is of a ring and band we saw online. She would want the 6 prong head with the ring band done in small diamonds, and then a matching band in the same size diamonds. This choice allows her to keep the tiffany 6 prong setting with the thin, delicate band (now with diamonds in it . . . surprise, surprise). Also, with the smaller diamonds in the band, we are optimistic that we can get the ring and band closer to flush. Further, my wife indicated that, visually, she did not mind the small gaps between the ring and band because they were less noticeable between rows of diamonds compared to a row of diamonds and a gold band. I do not know what size of diamonds would be best to maintain the thin, delicate ring band that my wife wants. Can you give me your thoughts on this? Is this a ring/band combination that you can do? Would the diamond band need a small curve around the bottom prong? Any help that you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
After sending the above email, I spoke with Bob and Leon regarding WF designing a custom wedding/ering set. Both indicated that the custom set was the best choice in lieu of attempting to make a wedding band to fit around the existing ering (given that our previous attempt was unsatisfactory to my wife). At no point, ever, was anything mentioned about potential problems with the diamonds damaging each other. Needless to say, I will be extremely disappointed if Bob and/or Leon now state that I was told/warned/etc. about potential damage to the diamonds. I was not. Had we been warned, we certainly would have chosen another design (as would any logical consumer).
Later that day, I received the following email from Bob:
from 3/8/2006 @ 8:35pm, Bob responded:
Dear Ryan,
Here is the quote for the rings in option #3 that we discussed this afternoon. Custom 18kt white gold engagement/wedding ring set in size 5.5 to contain a 2ct round diamond that is 6-prong set and having shared prong set diamonds half way around each ring and to fit close together. The price on the ring and band only without any diamonds would be $1440. If you add 17 x 0.10ct aca diamonds there is an additional $1950. If you add 17 x 0.15ct aca diamonds there is an additional $3359.
Please let me know what you think?
Sincerely,
Bob Hoskins
from 3/9/2006 @ 9:24pam, Ryan replied:
We want to purchase the "custom 18kt white gold engagement ring wedding ring set in size 5.5 to contain a 2ct round diamond that is 6-prong set and having shared prong set diamonds half way around each ring and to fit close together."
My wife would like to go with the .15ct stones, but is concerned that she may lose the "petite, classic, antique" look that she wants. ... Can you help me out with a visual for her (either a picture of a 2ct w. a .10 on one side and .15 on the other, or a sample from the website? We were looking at the whiteflash website (solitaires with side stones) last night, but I cannot tell what ring(s) would most closely resemble what the ring would look like. I thought the White Fire (but with diamonds halfway around) or Cupid's Quiver. Is that right?
from 3/11/2006 @ 1:58pm, Ryan replied:
Bob,
The picture was great. This will confirm that we want the custom 18kt white gold engagement ring wedding ring set in size 5.5 to contain a 2ct round diamond that is 6-prong set and having shared prong set diamonds (15 points) half way around each ring and to fit close together. I truly appreciate you time and efforts.
Kind regards,
Ryan
__________________________
I hope the above gives you a more accurate picture of our interaction. Please advise if you need actual copies of the emails or notes from our conversations to confirm the above; I have maintained a complete an accurate record of my communication with Whiteflash since early May 2005. I look forward to your responses so that we can have a meaningful discussion regarding the resolution of this dispute.
Next, I am disappointed that you chose to attack me for starting a thread on pricescope. The facts I presented are accurate, and the advice/information received has been valuable to us as we consider our alternatives going forward. Although I was upset when initially posting (and I remain frustrated at WF's refusal to answer simple questions about the design and demand to the rings), I have no obligation to paint Whiteflash in the most sympathetic light. That being said, I was unaware that other experienced posters would recognize the photos and link my post to whiteflash. However, I imagine that vast majority of "rough rock" online ering buyers (your prospective customers) have no idea that I was talking about Whiteflash. Candidly, I thought that I was taking the prudent course in protecting Whiteflash's name by not mentioning the vendor or individuals by name when I did not yet have sufficient information to intelligently discuss the issues presented by Leon in our 2/8/07 conversation. At your direction, in order to avoid further inference from you that I am leveraging or acting in an underhanded manner, I will change the post today to reflect the appropriate names.
Finally, although we were surprised by the speed and severity of the discoloration of the rings, please consider the discoloration issue moot.
Regards,
Ryan
300x240.png)