Rowena Gems

[NKOTB]

I finally just read through the thread about Diamonds by Dino, which I found very interesting. Several months ago, I came across a woman's site selling gems, and I started to notice that a LOT of the pictures were very familiar...And realized it was because they belonged to some our favourite CS vendors! So, I contacted a few of them, to make them aware that their pictures were being used by someone acting like their stones were in her possession. I also inquired about one of the gems, to see what she would do. I asked the specific dimensions, so she just emailed the vendor and asked him what the dimensions are. Presumably, if I had actually purchased it, she would have then bought it (though this particular stone, as well as most of the ones I recognized were long gone) and flipped it to me at the exorbitant markup she was listing it for. Now, I don't really have an issue with flipping per se - if you want to buy something and take the chance that you can make some money on it, go ahead...But the misrepresentation of goods as your own...

See how many you guys can recognize!

http://rowenagems.multiply.com/products

 

[chrono]

The easy ones to recognize are Uli's Liquid Flower and John Dyer's Fantasy cuts. I saw many more of their stones when I clicked on the links. A strange way to run a business and certainly skirting the edges of what is legal and what isn't. It's a shame that these lapidaries are not getting recognition for their work either.

 

[VapidLapid]

I have some mixed or unresolved feelings about what she is doing. First it appears she is in the phillipines. I imagine she maybe hasn't much there that she would like to work with. She uses the internet to access other people's posted inventories to create her own virtual inventory. As long as she is ready and able to make good on a sale and pay the lapidaries what they want and on time, what's so wrong with that? She is doing the research and leg work, not everyone likes to put their jewels together themselves, they buy ready-mades or pay someone to put it together for them. As for the virtual inventory, it is not much different than what Amazon does, and seems to be becoming a common business model. I dont like that is seems she is presenting it as her real inventory in possession. She might do well even to come out and say that she has access to gems from precision lapidaries all over the world. That sounds much grander. If she can generate more sales for our fine independent lapidaries isn't that good? Admittedly though, there are a lot of ifs in that scenario.

 

[chrono]

The question is whether she will do the "bait and switch" like Dino, or will the customer have to wait an entire month for the stone to ship from the US to the Phillipines, then on to the customer? What about returns? It will have clearly passed the return period window with international shipping back and forth through an additional party.

 

[minousbijoux]

But how is it not misrepresentation if the photos she is using are not the actual stones? I notice that some of the stones she has on her website for sale are from Roger Dery's sold page, and probably true of some of the others she has, umm, "borrowed."

 

[VapidLapid]

Well that then woulld be misreoresentation. I was just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt until someone like you did the super sleuthing. Is it possible the stone you noticed was recently sold?

 

[JewelFreak]

This is the return policy from her site. She gives herself an out on the Sold items listed from other dealers. There is no mention of a return-time window or shipping time -- I presume it's a rather long wait for anything ordered.

"Refunds will only be issued if the item was already sold to someone else off multiply before you paid for it in multiply. This is where inquiries on the item’s availability is a must. Send me a PM or fill up my Inquiry Form

"Returns are not accepted unless the wrong item or items were sent in which case I will shoulder the cost of shipping the correct one and reimburse your shipping cost (present proof)."

I think she's not just skirting ethics; she's over the line -- "sold to someone else off Multiply?" Sold off the real owner's website actually. Pretty clearly representing the stones as in her stock, and using other people's photography without crediting them. I'll bet in some cases she sends stones similar to whatever was in the photo, thinking most people won't see the difference, & it's pretty darned hard to hear back re: a return for the "wrong item sent." Hate to be cynical, but this is pretty dodgy.

--- Laurie

 

[chrono]

She certainly has a highly unusual return / refund policy which explains the type of business she is running. Even if one isn't aware that she's flipping stones that she currently does not own and has no access to, it makes one ponder why she isn't aware of one of her stones is still unsold or is already sold. And no returns unless the wrong item was sent? Hello? I am very bothered by the fact that these talented lapidaries get zero credit for their work.

 

[NKOTB]

Okay, so it's not just me. This really bothered me when I first realized it. I kind gave her the benefit of the doubt, like VL. I thought, eh, what's the harm, as long as she is ultimately paying the lapidaries their asking prices. The only one who loses is the buyer, who could be buying the gem at a significantly reduced rate if he/she knew where to look, but the same could be said for a lot of resellers or B&M stores. And yeah, she's effectively stealing pictures without the owner's knowledge or consent, but that probably happens a lot on the internet, right? But it still doesn't sit right with me, and I'm glad to know I'm not alone in my discomfort (makes me feel less crazy!).

 

[minousbijoux]

How can she even have the right to use their photos? I just don't understand...

 

[royalstarrynight]

It seems like she actually does buy (at least sometimes) the stones and then flips them. I let Jeff Davies know about her pictures and stones.

His response was so
"Hi XXX, thanks for the heads up, she bought quite a few stones from me a while back, I think this was one of them.

I viewed the post on PS yesterday, and looked at her site, there were quite a few of my photos, but in fairness none of them are my current stock, and she probably purchased them from me anyway, as she did buy quite a large parcel , and they were shipped to an office in New York.

As a wholesaler, if it helps the customer, I have no problem with them using my images(providing they have purchased the item of course) as they are no longer any use to me, it actually helps me in a strange kind of way, because like yourself, astute buyers actually recognise individual sellers photos, kind of free advertising I guess.

This practice is very common in this business, the majority of gemstones you see on the US market are originally sourced through dealers like myself, the clever ones take their own photos, some of the better lapidaries of course source their own rough from all around the world.

Anyway, thanks for letting me know, much appreciated.

Best wishes

Jeff."

 

[Richard M.]

It seems like she actually does buy (at least sometimes) the stones and then flips them.

Thanks for posting this. At least 5 of the "directory" pictures on top of the page are my copyrighted images, all being used without my knowledge or permission. This person has never purchased a stone from me and is not currently selling any from my inventory.

She contacted me a year or so ago and asked me to figure out shipping charges to the Philippines on my stones, offering to re-sell them at my prices with a big mark-up for herself. I found the idea dodgy at best and declined. Now I see she's stolen my images anyhow and is using them to promote her own business.

You folks can use your own judgment about the ethics of such a person. She will certainly be hearing from me directly.

Theft of intellectual property has become rampant on the internet. I'm about to have a stern legal confrontation with another seller who has plagiarized word-for-word an article I wrote and is advertising it as their own work. They've even claimed "copyright" on a previously-copyrighted piece!

I guess the only solution to image-pirating is to go to the extra work of Photoshopping a "Copyrighted" stamp directly across the gem image. It will ruin the image but if you put it in a margin they'll just crop it out.

Richard M. (Rick Martin)

 

[minousbijoux]

Rick:

Thanks for speaking up and letting us know of the illegal practices.

NKOTB: what other names does Rowena Gems go by?

We want to make it clear that Rowena Gems is another fraudulent seller for search engines

 

[Rowena_G]

Hi everyone. Jeff Davies brought this thread to my attention so I would like to clear up/answer some concerns regarding my legitimacy as a seller.

First to Richard_M - I'm truly sorry if I'm still using your photos. I thought I got them all removed when you contacted me months ago. Let me know which ones are yours and I'll take them down.

Justin's photos - I do have permission to use them. If they were marked as sold out, it means I either sold them or returned the ones he sent to me on consignment. Some of them I did bought for sale and will stay active. I don't take down any inactive ones so that buyers can get an idea of what a gem will look like as well as their options.

Lee Little's jewelry photos - I do have his permission to use them.

With Uli - I actually own most of the gems I listed except for the "Glacial Ice" garnet that I use for my Gem Search listing. I'll replace it & check if I use photos of his gems that I don't actually own.

John Dyer photos - I am his retailer in the Philippines. I don't have his permission to use his photos though so I'll take them down except for a tourmaline of his that I sold and was paid thru Multiply.

I rarely post my own photos as I'm still learning how to take a good product pic. I'm not very good with a camera yet. Multiply makes me provide a pic every time I make a listing so I usually get one from the web especially if I need to make one in a hurry so a client can pay immediately. Some of my listings fall in that category.

As you all already know, I am from the Philippines so I have to import all the gems I sell so I can be sure of their authenticity (I can't conduct testing yet) and quality. Importing high value items makes me subject to sometimes extortionate import taxes. The NY address that royalstarrynight mentioned helps with some of that (it's a freight forwarder) if I am buying from North America/Europe/Thailand. But sometimes, I have the parcels sent straight to me so I have to pick them from the post office and then risk getting mugged on my way back. $25 is already considered a lot of money here so one custom cut gem costing more than $100 is going to make a mugger very, very happy.

As for my highly unusual returns and refunds policy - it's to protect me from customers who would change their minds in the very last minute especially if they are having jewelry made. I want them to be absolutely sure that they want the stone before buying. Most of the time, the refund period has passed so I can't return the stone anymore. If I still have time to return it, shipping them back with full insurance is very expensive. I'm trying to keep my costs as low as possible.

My site is intended for Philippine buyers only as I noticed that there is a lack of beautifully cut gems, a lot still mistake CZ as natural and I see a lot of synthetic rubies being peddled as natural. My prices are higher than normal due to taxes and import shipping costs but I think I'm still lower than what the mall jewelry stores charge for theirs.

This business is a way for me to generate extra income while promoting better cut gems and colored gemstones in general. I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes.

 

[Arkteia]

Without any comments on the ethics and way of conducting business, if a valid NY address is listed, be at a freight forwarder or an office, it should be used for returns for US customers. From what I understand, the site does not state it is a local business. And after all, good return policy is a significant measure of a vendor's integrity.

 

[NKOTB]

Thank you for chiming in, Rowena. It seems you are trying to do what is best (or at least stay out of trouble), and have "cleaned up" your site considerably since the first time I came across it. At that time, there were many, many pictures belonging to other vendors, 3 of whom I contacted and had no knowledge that you were using their pictures of stones that were either currently in their possession, or had been sold to someone other than you (none of those vendors are mentioned in your post).

I understand that you are trying to make as much money as you can, with as little risk as possible - that's what most do, when running a business. I also understand that it is difficult to post your own photos, especially if you don't own the stones to photograph them in the first place. I trust that you will be making arrangements with vendors from now on, as you have with Justin and Lee Little, that are ethical and fair to them, in order to make a potential profit off of their products.

 

[VapidLapid]

I guess I have no sense of ethics because I see little wrong with Rowena's business, except her rather harsh return policy. But even there I dont know what her market place is like, perhaps customers in her part of the world routinely walk all over vendors. Does one have to have the property in hand to offer it for sale? If a stone is listed on a lapidaries site for sale why can't she offer it to her client. Many of our favorite cutters cut with the jewelry business in mind, do a lot of wholesale, and direct consumer sales are a nice addition. The internet make the world one giant warehouse. We really had no reason to think she was baiting and switching like Dino. It seems common for realtors to offer properties that are not contracted to them. Art dealers do it all the time. I have seen art dealers go into a competitor's gallery with a client, tell the salesperson that it is his client and get 20% of the sale. Further there are art advisors who do the same. Decorators too, they typically get a decorator discount of 20% that they dont pass on to clients so they make 20% on everything the client buys. But they dont have any of that furniture in inventory. I see little difference here. I will say that as far as stones that are already sold, that might be a hazard in this style of business since she cannot keep on top of all the changing inventory of so many sources. That should only cause an ethics question if when a customer sees a particular stone they want and it is gone does she say that one is no longer available or try to pass off something else as that same stone. We have no reason to think she does the latter, no reports or stories. Much of our response was conjectural and speculative. I think we jumped the gun on this one. As for her use of vendor photos for stones she actually does have in inventory, I was glad to see Jeff Davis say that from his point of view she may as well use them. She made no secret of her intention to resell the stones, why not use the same promotional material. Many PSers use the original vendor photos when they resell their previously loved gems on the bistro.
It just seems to me that Rowena is not only making a virtual inventory of what is available in the lapidary world to her clients in the Phillipines, but at the same time she has a client base whose buying power she brings to the lapidary world, increasing their sales.

 

[Richard M.]

First to Richard_M - I'm truly sorry if I'm still using your photos. I thought I got them all removed when you contacted me months ago. Let me know which ones are yours and I'll take them down.

Rowena, I'll contact you separately about the images in question. But at the risk of sounding like a Big Meanie, you never requested permission to use my images. The only place they could have come from is my website, which carries a clear statement that all images and written content is copyrighted. I had no idea you were using them until I saw this thread.

If you wish to purchase stones outright from me for resale on your site, no problem. I'll even try to help you with images and gemologically correct descriptions. But the fact you've been using my images to help you sell stones you've purchased from other sources with no benefit to me is particularly galling.

Richard M. (Rick Martin)

 

[LD]

Thank you Rowena for posting.

I have concerns about your business methods/returns policy. It appears (unless I have misread your post) that you buy gemstones only when you have sold them on - which is a very risky business. Clearly if your buyer then changes his/her mind, you struggle to return the stone to the original vendor in the timeframes. Either you should negotiate a longer returns period with the original vendor being upfront about what you are doing OR accept that if a buyer returns a stone you will then have it in your inventory to sell on. Of course this means an outlay but buying/flipping stones is never a good business and will most certainly lead to the shedding of tears and a poor business reputation.

You must also understand that taking images from somebody else's website - whether they're copyrighted or not, without their permission and with the intention of selling something you don't own is an offence. You could be sued. Not only is it illegal but it's highly dangerous as you are assuming that websites are up to date and only list current stones for sale. This is absolutely NOT the case.

I understand financial/economic conditions are difficult for everybody at the moment but it's not an excuse for a poor business model. I wish you luck in your venture but trust that you will step to the correct side of the law from now on.

 

[NKOTB]

I guess I have no sense of ethics because I see little wrong with Rowena's business, except her rather harsh return policy. But even there I dont know what her market place is like, perhaps customers in her part of the world routinely walk all over vendors. Does one have to have the property in hand to offer it for sale? If a stone is listed on a lapidaries site for sale why can't she offer it to her client. Many of our favorite cutters cut with the jewelry business in mind, do a lot of wholesale, and direct consumer sales are a nice addition. The internet make the world one giant warehouse. We really had no reason to think she was baiting and switching like Dino. It seems common for realtors to offer properties that are not contracted to them. Art dealers do it all the time. I have seen art dealers go into a competitor's gallery with a client, tell the salesperson that it is his client and get 20% of the sale. Further there are art advisors who do the same. Decorators too, they typically get a decorator discount of 20% that they dont pass on to clients so they make 20% on everything the client buys. But they dont have any of that furniture in inventory. I see little difference here. I will say that as far as stones that are already sold, that might be a hazard in this style of business since she cannot keep on top of all the changing inventory of so many sources. That should only cause an ethics question if when a customer sees a particular stone they want and it is gone does she say that one is no longer available or try to pass off something else as that same stone. We have no reason to think she does the latter, no reports or stories. Much of our response was conjectural and speculative. I think we jumped the gun on this one. As for her use of vendor photos for stones she actually does have in inventory, I was glad to see Jeff Davis say that from his point of view she may as well use them. She made no secret of her intention to resell the stones, why not use the same promotional material. Many PSers use the original vendor photos when they resell their previously loved gems on the bistro.
It just seems to me that Rowena is not only making a virtual inventory of what is available in the lapidary world to her clients in the Phillipines, but at the same time she has a client base whose buying power she brings to the lapidary world, increasing their sales.

Again, I have no issue with reselling, or using vendor's pictures for stones she has in her inventory (or even if she doesn't own the stone, but has an agreement with the owner). I never suggested that she was sending out fake or alternate versions of what was listed on her site. My only issue was the representation of goods as her own, using pictures and products that don't belong to her, without the owner's knowledge or consent. It's quite possible that all of our vendors would be completely fine with her pushing their products and expanding their sales, and even be helpful about it, as Rick is potentially open to above.

 

[minousbijoux]

I keep going back to the fact that I believe she is using photos she has found on other people's websites as if she is selling that stone, when in fact, she borrowed the photo from the category like Previously Sold Stones, so the stone is long gone. In essence, if I understand correctly, she is using a "stock" photo of a gem to sell a different stone. Isn't this fraud? Isn't this what we are so bothered by NSC for doing as well?

Perhaps I'm missing something in regards to the use of someone else's artwork - in this case photos - without permission.