Specifications for vendors to remain on recommended list

[T L]

There's only really one unwritten specification that can kick you off the list --------> no refunds.

That seems to incur the wrath of PS'ers, and all will rally behind someone if a vendor does not refund them, which is understandable.

However, why is that the only one, and why are poor ethics, poor communication, inaccurate photography, misleading descriptions in order to get ridiculously high prices, poor shipping methods for refunds, etc. . . are allowed?

If the above is allowed, I really think the disclaimer needs updating. It needs to be highlighted, more to the point, and I think the title of the thread should be changed to remove the word "respected" because there's some vendors on there, that many of us don't respect. I would just call it a "list of vendors for reference."

As for the vendors that people tend to love overall, I think their customer service is their best advertisement They probably don't even need to be on a list. I just worry about newbies who see that list, get an inference from the word, "respected," and think everyone on there is wonderful, even with the current disclaimer.

 

[T L]

I am opposed to "fair retail pricing" as a criterion for being included on the list. Think that's best addressed, as happens now, when people either ask about a specific stone or for leads.
* I've seen some vendors offer certain colored stones at what strikes me as lower than the current range, but others in their inventory are priced higher. Would that kind of "mixed bag", so to speak, mean a vendor offers fair or unfair retail pricing?

I think Digdeep brought up a good point about this, it's not fair retail pricing, but it's more about ridiculous pricing for a misleading description.

For example, I saw on a vendor's site, a very included stone of an abundant and inexpensive gem variety with lots of inclusions. The inclusions were not rare in that type of gem. You could easily find one for pittance. The problem was that this stone was very large, and about two carats larger than the largest one you could find for much less money. The color was relatively the same, as the type of inclusions. Therefore because this is the biggest one of its variety with inclusions, we should pay FIFTY times more for it than the next largest stone with the same color and inclusions? I'm talking a price point of $200 vs $12000 dollars here. This is also a stone that is not treated, so even that didn't come into play. It was touted as, "the largest of its kind!!" Therefore, this is justification for obscene pricing on a large unattractive common stone full of inclusions which are not rare, and actually makes the stone less attractive??? Perhaps this is more of an ethics issue, but ethics can be vague when it comes to fair retail pricing. I could go on and on with examples of the like.

This isn't super high retail pricing IMO, but well, I hate to say the word. . . even though I would use it as a metaphor.

 

[distracts]

I am opposed to "fair retail pricing" as a criterion for being included on the list. Think that's best addressed, as happens now, when people either ask about a specific stone or for leads.
* I've seen some vendors offer certain colored stones at what strikes me as lower than the current range, but others in their inventory are priced higher. Would that kind of "mixed bag", so to speak, mean a vendor offers fair or unfair retail pricing?

I think Digdeep brought up a good point about this, it's not fair retail pricing, but it's more about ridiculous pricing for a misleading description.

For example, I saw on a vendor's site, a very included stone of an abundant and inexpensive gem variety with lots of inclusions. The inclusions were not rare in that type of gem. You could easily find one for pittance. The problem was that this stone was very large, and about two carats larger than the largest one you could find for much less money. The color was relatively the same, as the type of inclusions. Therefore because this is the biggest one of its variety with inclusions, we should pay FIFTY times more for it than the next largest stone with the same color and inclusions? I'm talking a price point of $200 vs $12000 dollars here. This is also a stone that is not treated, so even that didn't come into play. It was touted as, "the largest of its kind!!" Therefore, this is justification for obscene pricing on a large unattractive common stone full of inclusions which are not rare, and actually makes the stone less attractive??? Perhaps this is more of an ethics issue, but ethics can be vague when it comes to fair retail pricing. I could go on and on with examples of the like.

This isn't super high retail pricing IMO, but well, I hate to say the word. . . even though I would use it as a metaphor.

Like... I don't think PS should be the price police? If someone is willing to pay that much for that particular stone, okay? I think even most newbies here would do comparison shopping or post on here about it and we would be like "well, but you could buy one two carats smaller for fifty times less." But if they really valued that extra two carats and that was the ONLY place you could find it... who is to say it's not actually worth fifty times as much, if only that one is available? I dunno.

 

[T L]

I am opposed to "fair retail pricing" as a criterion for being included on the list. Think that's best addressed, as happens now, when people either ask about a specific stone or for leads.
* I've seen some vendors offer certain colored stones at what strikes me as lower than the current range, but others in their inventory are priced higher. Would that kind of "mixed bag", so to speak, mean a vendor offers fair or unfair retail pricing?

I think Digdeep brought up a good point about this, it's not fair retail pricing, but it's more about ridiculous pricing for a misleading description.

For example, I saw on a vendor's site, a very included stone of an abundant and inexpensive gem variety with lots of inclusions. The inclusions were not rare in that type of gem. You could easily find one for pittance. The problem was that this stone was very large, and about two carats larger than the largest one you could find for much less money. The color was relatively the same, as the type of inclusions. Therefore because this is the biggest one of its variety with inclusions, we should pay FIFTY times more for it than the next largest stone with the same color and inclusions? I'm talking a price point of $200 vs $12000 dollars here. This is also a stone that is not treated, so even that didn't come into play. It was touted as, "the largest of its kind!!" Therefore, this is justification for obscene pricing on a large unattractive common stone full of inclusions which are not rare, and actually makes the stone less attractive??? Perhaps this is more of an ethics issue, but ethics can be vague when it comes to fair retail pricing. I could go on and on with examples of the like.

This isn't super high retail pricing IMO, but well, I hate to say the word. . . even though I would use it as a metaphor.

Like... I don't think PS should be the price police? If someone is willing to pay that much for that particular stone, okay? I think even most newbies here would do comparison shopping or post on here about it and we would be like "well, but you could buy one two carats smaller for fifty times less." But if they really valued that extra two carats and that was the ONLY place you could find it... who is to say it's not actually worth fifty times as much, if only that one is available? I dunno.

Well, likewise, that might not be the only one available, even if you can't find another like it online (I only looked for a brief period). If I told you the gem species, you might be flabbergasted, but I won't out of privacy for this vendor. I'll just say it's a really really inexpensive and abundant gem species that you can find in large sizes.

I suppose if the vendor wanted to charge $1000 more, fine, but $12K?? It was funny because at the time, I was thinking I could buy some amazing pieces of jewelry for that price, even from retail vendors that aren't considered lower priced by any means. In any case, I think of that poor lady I mentioned on the prior page who spent a fortune on a gem she could have obtained elsewhere for 20 times less, and how her disappointment reflected in her attempts to resell it. An unsuspecting newbie might think, "wow, what a rarity!" when in fact they're being taken advantage of. I know, I was there many times early in my collecting career. This is why I support this forum so much, because I would hate to see people go through the nightmares I went through. I really wish I had the internet back then (there was no internet really).

Also, let me make the point that dealers have a right to charge whatever they want for a gem. They can charge $10,000 on a cz if they want, if they fully disclose what it is. It is our right to say, "no, that's not acceptable to pay $10K on a cz," and I think the "list" should reflect those standards. People go to the list, and often buy a gem from a vendor with such pricing habits without asking the forum first, and that's the scary part.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I am opposed to "fair retail pricing" as a criterion for being included on the list. Think that's best addressed, as happens now, when people either ask about a specific stone or for leads.
* I've seen some vendors offer certain colored stones at what strikes me as lower than the current range, but others in their inventory are priced higher. Would that kind of "mixed bag", so to speak, mean a vendor offers fair or unfair retail pricing?

I think Digdeep brought up a good point about this, it's not fair retail pricing, but it's more about ridiculous pricing for a misleading description.

For example, I saw on a vendor's site, a very included stone of an abundant and inexpensive gem variety with lots of inclusions. The inclusions were not rare in that type of gem. You could easily find one for pittance. The problem was that this stone was very large, and about two carats larger than the largest one you could find for much less money. The color was relatively the same, as the type of inclusions. Therefore because this is the biggest one of its variety with inclusions, we should pay FIFTY times more for it than the next largest stone with the same color and inclusions? I'm talking a price point of $200 vs $12000 dollars here. This is also a stone that is not treated, so even that didn't come into play. It was touted as, "the largest of its kind!!" Therefore, this is justification for obscene pricing on a large unattractive common stone full of inclusions which are not rare, and actually makes the stone less attractive??? Perhaps this is more of an ethics issue, but ethics can be vague when it comes to fair retail pricing. I could go on and on with examples of the like.

This isn't super high retail pricing IMO, but well, I hate to say the word. . . even though I would use it as a metaphor.

Like... I don't think PS should be the price police? If someone is willing to pay that much for that particular stone, okay? I think even most newbies here would do comparison shopping or post on here about it and we would be like "well, but you could buy one two carats smaller for fifty times less." But if they really valued that extra two carats and that was the ONLY place you could find it... who is to say it's not actually worth fifty times as much, if only that one is available? I dunno.

Well said distracts, and I 100% agree. Gems are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them aren't they?

 

[T L]

I am opposed to "fair retail pricing" as a criterion for being included on the list. Think that's best addressed, as happens now, when people either ask about a specific stone or for leads.
* I've seen some vendors offer certain colored stones at what strikes me as lower than the current range, but others in their inventory are priced higher. Would that kind of "mixed bag", so to speak, mean a vendor offers fair or unfair retail pricing?

I think Digdeep brought up a good point about this, it's not fair retail pricing, but it's more about ridiculous pricing for a misleading description.

For example, I saw on a vendor's site, a very included stone of an abundant and inexpensive gem variety with lots of inclusions. The inclusions were not rare in that type of gem. You could easily find one for pittance. The problem was that this stone was very large, and about two carats larger than the largest one you could find for much less money. The color was relatively the same, as the type of inclusions. Therefore because this is the biggest one of its variety with inclusions, we should pay FIFTY times more for it than the next largest stone with the same color and inclusions? I'm talking a price point of $200 vs $12000 dollars here. This is also a stone that is not treated, so even that didn't come into play. It was touted as, "the largest of its kind!!" Therefore, this is justification for obscene pricing on a large unattractive common stone full of inclusions which are not rare, and actually makes the stone less attractive??? Perhaps this is more of an ethics issue, but ethics can be vague when it comes to fair retail pricing. I could go on and on with examples of the like.

This isn't super high retail pricing IMO, but well, I hate to say the word. . . even though I would use it as a metaphor.

Like... I don't think PS should be the price police? If someone is willing to pay that much for that particular stone, okay? I think even most newbies here would do comparison shopping or post on here about it and we would be like "well, but you could buy one two carats smaller for fifty times less." But if they really valued that extra two carats and that was the ONLY place you could find it... who is to say it's not actually worth fifty times as much, if only that one is available? I dunno.

Well said distracts, and I 100% agree. Gems are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them aren't they?

I would also argue that if a buyer is very uneducated, is it fair to them though? I think they're being taken advantage of, and I'm talking about the examples of obscene pricing/misleading descriptions I have seen, not just overpriced gems. I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, it's just that my stomach gets sick when I see things like that.

If enough people don't think this is an important specification, we'll leave it out, if specifications are allowed at all for the list.

 

[canuk-gal]

I am opposed to "fair retail pricing" as a criterion for being included on the list. Think that's best addressed, as happens now, when people either ask about a specific stone or for leads.
* I've seen some vendors offer certain colored stones at what strikes me as lower than the current range, but others in their inventory are priced higher. Would that kind of "mixed bag", so to speak, mean a vendor offers fair or unfair retail pricing?

I think Digdeep brought up a good point about this, it's not fair retail pricing, but it's more about ridiculous pricing for a misleading description.

For example, I saw on a vendor's site, a very included stone of an abundant and inexpensive gem variety with lots of inclusions. The inclusions were not rare in that type of gem. You could easily find one for pittance. The problem was that this stone was very large, and about two carats larger than the largest one you could find for much less money. The color was relatively the same, as the type of inclusions. Therefore because this is the biggest one of its variety with inclusions, we should pay FIFTY times more for it than the next largest stone with the same color and inclusions? I'm talking a price point of $200 vs $12000 dollars here. This is also a stone that is not treated, so even that didn't come into play. It was touted as, "the largest of its kind!!" Therefore, this is justification for obscene pricing on a large unattractive common stone full of inclusions which are not rare, and actually makes the stone less attractive??? Perhaps this is more of an ethics issue, but ethics can be vague when it comes to fair retail pricing. I could go on and on with examples of the like.

This isn't super high retail pricing IMO, but well, I hate to say the word. . . even though I would use it as a metaphor.

Like... I don't think PS should be the price police? If someone is willing to pay that much for that particular stone, okay? I think even most newbies here would do comparison shopping or post on here about it and we would be like "well, but you could buy one two carats smaller for fifty times less." But if they really valued that extra two carats and that was the ONLY place you could find it... who is to say it's not actually worth fifty times as much, if only that one is available? I dunno.

I agree. Not price police or any other kind.

Rating scales of consequence are both reliable and valid. Tested and retested, yanno? I just don't see that happening here with using arbitrary type of points. It becomes a slippery slope and I can see where it could be misused.

cheers--Sharon

 

[OreoRosies86]

TL I definitely understand your stance, I just don't think pricing is PS's battle to fight. There are vendors who sell stones at what I would consider ridiculous prices. I was quoted $700 for a moonstone similar to the one I ended up buying for less than $200. It didn't make me happy and I ended up passing on the purchase. That being said, I still have to respect their right as a business owner to charge what they wish.

Misleading descriptions seems subjective if the seller isn't telling a blatant lie, but that would hold more weight for me in determining if they stay on the recommended list.

 

[Garnet Gimlet]

TL I definitely understand your stance, I just don't think pricing is PS's battle to fight. There are vendors who sell stones at what I would consider ridiculous prices. I was quoted $700 for a moonstone similar to the one I ended up buying for less than $200. It didn't make me happy and I ended up passing on the purchase. That being said, I still have to respect their right as a business owner to charge what they wish.

Misleading descriptions seems subjective if the seller isn't telling a blatant lie, but that would hold more weight for me in determining if they stay on the recommended list.

I agree. As a newbie, it is our responsibility to do our own research and make our own judgements about whether or not something is worth the price. There is a lot of stock out there. But reliable information is key in making the right call.

 

[digdeep]

I know people can still make decisions they can regret, however I feel strongly that as a forum full of CS knowledge......it is not in anyone's best interest to have a vendor on the list that puts the consumer on unstable ground by that business's behaviors.
Trying to take subjectivity out with a simple 3 part test:

Does this vendor (in total) provide CS at prices that are normed to the gems he/she sells?

Does this vendor provide a reasonable description/photo/certificate through which a knowledgeable person could make a sound decision?

Does this vendor have a reasonable return policy that provides the consumer with time and safety in viewing/returning gems?

Any vendor that passes all three is someone I'd (most likely) do business with and we all know some of these people from the list. If they fail any of these it becomes a caveat emptor situation......... These are basic assessment questions and do not prohibit vendors from going where they will to make a sale. Again, however, I think the vendor list on this consumer forum needs to be a 'safer' one than it's been in the past. These questions indirectly address the ethic's issue and are sound gem practices. Altho I'd still like to see vendor's that fail these area's and have a history of questionable practices NOT listed on this forum.

 

[VirginiaZee]

I would also argue that if a buyer is very uneducated, is it fair to them though? I think they're being taken advantage of, and I'm talking about the examples of obscene pricing/misleading descriptions I have seen, not just overpriced gems. I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, it's just that my stomach gets sick when I see things like that.

I could be totally off base here, but this seems like two separate issues to me - (1) pricing and (2) misleading descriptions. While many people might shop around for prices (and I think more people are used to doing that now than in the past, particularly those who shop online) the misleading descriptions are more of a concern IMHO.

 

[minousbijoux]

As DK and marymm have said, updating the disclaimer seems like a good idea. I think requiring vendors to fit a list (which will grow) of ideal consumer specs will inevitably narrow the field to the two or three favorite vendors of long-time members, and end up creating an artificial atmosphere that won't serve new members well. Folks who aren't used to CS need to be confronted with price variability, they should be confronted with different styles of photography, and they should be acquainted, early, with the idea that buying CS online is a lot like buying South American real estate online.

We don't only recommend 'trade ideal' stones because not every consumer has the money to buy a $50k/ct untreated Burma ruby, or even a 'deal' on a $10k/ct Mahenge spinel. It's no less ridiculous to tell people that a handful of vendors are 'preferred' when there are posts all over the forum bragging about eBay finds or wicked deals from vendors who don't appear on the list because people are concerned about their return shipping instructions or packaging.

I think it's a fairly open secret that some posters have had remarkable success with specific vendors, and been offered some remarkable opportunities by those vendors which aren't available to the general public. That's a reality of the business - there aren't enough 5ct, vivid, eye clean Mahenge spinels for everyone who wants one to get one, and so they get offered to regulars, old friends or collectors who are known to pay over the mark. Those experiences aren't representative of what can be offered to the casual buyer stopping in to get a CS engagement ring because they're 'cheaper than diamonds', or replace their grandmother's synthetic ruby with a natural 5ct one, on a $500 budget, because the ring has sentimental value. Those vendors still don't get outed, or twitted about violating some nebulous code of fairness. PS recommends vendors who serve US buyers well and openly refuse international customers - should we de-list vendors on that basis? What if they encourage non-secure methods of payment, or don't respond to enquiries in trochaic tetrameter?

Let's acknowledge that the list isn't a perfect or unanimous guarantee of service - let's be open about why people were listed or de-listed, and let's encourage people to research their vendor as carefully as they research what colour and treatments they're okay with.

I nearly posted this same question early on, as PS is presumably a global forum and it seems well, rude to have vendors on the list that refuse to do business outside of the U.S. - no matter how great the vendor is. But removing them all together seems too harsh, so I'm not sure where to take it.

 

[T L]

I would also argue that if a buyer is very uneducated, is it fair to them though? I think they're being taken advantage of, and I'm talking about the examples of obscene pricing/misleading descriptions I have seen, not just overpriced gems. I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, it's just that my stomach gets sick when I see things like that.

I could be totally off base here, but this seems like two separate issues to me - (1) pricing and (2) misleading descriptions. While many people might shop around for prices (and I think more people are used to doing that now than in the past, particularly those who shop online) the misleading descriptions are more of a concern IMHO.

When the misleading descriptions are there, however, to justify obscene pricing, that's a double whammy IMO. I don't care if someone puts a 10 carat ordinary amethyst on a website for 12K, that's obviously ridiculous, but when they say, "it's a special amethyst found no where else," to justify the price on an ordinary amethyst, then I find that unethical. In this particular case, origin shouldn't even matter because no one will know or care since it's an inexpensive gem and inexpensive saturation/hue/tone for that species.

 

[distracts]

And, see, the moment I brought up my not-so-great transaction with Jeff Davies (nothing wrong on his part aside from the photography, and I didn't return the stone because, quite frankly, I promptly lost it and have never found it since), and we immediately know of three people who mostly had multiple transactions with him who thought the stones looked better than in the pictures. Whereas that was emphatically not my experience. Which is exactly my point - the majority of transactions with him are successful, the majority of people like his photographs, so removing him from the list would be unfair. You can't say with any certainty that you would find the stone received to be mismatched compared to the pictures - in fact, there is far more evidence of the opposite. I've only bought one stone from him so maybe I just had a weird experience. Maybe I don't know how to read his photography. So I would never want him removed from the recommended list on the grounds of my complaint (sorry for making this vendor my punching bag, he's just the only one I've had a remotely negative transaction with, and, like I said, I still "like" his facebook page, check his ebay page and website, etc, and if he had something that fell in the criteria of what I'm currently looking for, I would buy from him with the understanding that I may be more likely to return it).

If the above is allowed, I really think the disclaimer needs updating. It needs to be highlighted, more to the point, and I think the title of the thread should be changed to remove the word "respected" because there's some vendors on there, that many of us don't respect. I would just call it a "list of vendors for reference."

I would be fine with that. That's how I think most CS regulars use the list, and, honestly, while newbies are important... I kind of like to err on the side of catering to the people who are here and posting every week.

From what I see, it's just a list of vendors. I think adding a disclaimer of "These are vendors that other people have had decent purchasing experiences with, understand that you are doing so at your own risk, and please do a search for specific reviews regarding said vendor" or whatever should be added and highlighted, but I think the old adage of "don't fix whats not broken" applies here.

I think if someone wants to start a ratings system and implement it, I think it has the potential to create a lot of tension and disagreements. Typically I think that new posters post threads and then more experienced posters chime in with "Well, hey, maybe you should do a search for reviews" for example, anytime someone posts about NSC.

So I don't know that the additional information is sustainable or really all that productive.

Yep yep

I don't think we can make a list of "perfect vendors you are guaranteed to have a good transaction with and get stones at a good price" because I don't think there IS such a thing for every buyer. I prefer to have a list of "hey, these are people you can buy stones from, who sell stones that are what they are purported to be (with reasonable tolerance for subjectivity and vendor flowery language in description, which I think all vendors use to promote their stuff), and if you are dissatisfied you may return the gem for your money back." I think just adding a note if the seller doesn't sell outside of certain countries is fine - I don't think it's something that should exclude them. I don't think making some super-exclusive list with a bunch of different requirements is actually beneficial to the majority of people in the long run. We're not obligated to make a foolproof list for people who are too lazy to do a search on their own. We're just not. I personally would prefer a list that includes a whole bunch of vendors, even if some aren't particularly good, to one that includes only a few.

Also, if there are only a few vendors included, that means more people fighting for their few stones, like what happens with Barry Bridgestock's stuff or the Precision Gem drops - and I think that is actively detrimental to the success of this forum because it creates the idea that stones from certain vendors are "better" and they then become nearly impossible for all but the most dedicated to get, and those of us that don't have them feel like we're missing out because we're not in that club. Which I think is its own form of irresponsibility.

 

[T L]

I'm just writing the changes that I feel are most feasible so far, since there's too much controversy about adding "specifications for vendors" at this point.

Update the title to remove the word "respected" to just say, "List of vendors for reference"

Update and highlight the disclaimer to say something like (let me know if this is okay). "These are the list of vendors that some people have had a good experience with. Your experience may not be the same. Please search the vendor in this forum for reviews. If you open up a review, put the vendor name in the title so others can easily search your review."

I think the above is very to the point, but if people want to add to it, that's fine. I just don't want it so long that its convoluted.

What does everyone think so far?

 

[MollyMalone]

as PS is presumably a global forum and it seems well, rude to have vendors on the list that refuse to do business outside of the U.S. - no matter how great the vendor is. But removing them all together seems too harsh, so I'm not sure where to take it.

A fair number of vendors on the current roster (including, e.g., a personal fave of mine, Dana Reynolds of Mastercut Gems) do not have anything on their web site expressly addressing international sales. So who's going to plow through the list, contact each of them to ascertain what their policy may be?

I know Gemfix -- whose policies re international sales are spelled out
http://www.gemfix.com/order.html
-- have been criticized here for not serving everyone no matter where situated. But the reality is that different countries have various restrictions and customs requirements on the importation of gemstones and jewelry, e.g., mailing such to Singapore requires prior approval from the postal authorities in that country, which sure sounds like a huge PIA. I don't think it's right to knock off a CS vendor now on the roster -- none of whom are remotely akin to Blue Nile in the scale of their operations -- because they don't want to assume the headache, paperwork, and additional expenses attendant to shipping everywhere.

I can also tell you that there are US vendors on the roster who are "skirting" international regulations because they will send stones to, for example, Singapore using International Priority Mail, which they should not be doing. So those vendors get rewarded via retaining a place on the roster, but Gemfix, who's operating entirely above board, gets penalized for being a wholly straight shooter?

 

[marymm]

I'm just writing the changes that I feel are most feasible so far, since there's too much controversy about adding "specifications for vendors" at this point.

Update the title to remove the word "respected" to just say, "List of vendors for reference"

Update and highlight the disclaimer to say something like (let me know if this is okay). "These are the list of vendors that some people have had a good experience with. Your experience may not be the same. Please search the vendor in this forum for reviews. If you open up a review, put the vendor name in the title so others can easily search your review."

I think the above is very to the point, but if people want to add to it, that's fine. I just don't want it so long that its convoluted.

What does everyone think so far?

TL - I just added the sentence in italics...

"These are the list of vendors that some people have had a good experience with. Your experience may not be the same. Please search the vendor in this forum for reviews. Prior to purchase, please be sure to familiarize yourself with the vendor's policies as to shipping/insurance, returns, and restocking fees (if any). If you open up a review, put the vendor name in the title so others can easily search your review."

 

[MollyMalone]

* * * Update the title to remove the word "respected" to just say, "List of vendors for reference"

Update and highlight the disclaimer to say something like (let me know if this is okay). "These are the list of vendors that some people have had a good experience with. Your experience may not be the same. Please search the vendor in this forum for reviews. If you open up a review, put the vendor name in the title so others can easily search your review."

I think the above is very to the point, but if people want to add to it, that's fine. I just don't want it so long that its convoluted.

What does everyone think so far?

I like it -- and marymm's addition! only (and I know this is nit-picky, but hey, editing is part of what I do in real life), "put the vendor name in the title so others can easily retrieve your review."

P.S. I'd like to see us recommend that folks use the embedded "Search this forum… Search by Google" box that's on all PS forum pages -- or do an "outside" Google search -- instead of the Search box that appears at the very top of PS pages. The embedded Google one gives better results (albeit far from fabulous), from all the forums, than what you get from the plain ol' Search feature.

 

[distracts]

as PS is presumably a global forum and it seems well, rude to have vendors on the list that refuse to do business outside of the U.S. - no matter how great the vendor is. But removing them all together seems too harsh, so I'm not sure where to take it.

A fair number of vendors on the current roster (including, e.g., a personal fave of mine, Dana Reynolds of Mastercut Gems) do not have anything on their web site expressly addressing international sales. So who's going to plow through the list, contact each of them to ascertain what their policy may be?

I know Gemfix -- whose policies re international sales are spelled out
http://www.gemfix.com/order.html
-- have been criticized here for not serving everyone no matter where situated. But the reality is that different countries have various restrictions and customs requirements on the importation of gemstones and jewelry, e.g., mailing such to Singapore requires prior approval from the postal authorities in that country, which sure sounds like a huge PIA. I don't think it's right to knock off a CS vendor now on the roster -- none of whom are remotely akin to Blue Nile in the scale of their operations -- because they don't want to assume the headache, paperwork, and additional expenses attendant to shipping everywhere.

I can also tell you that there are US vendors on the roster who are "skirting" international regulations because they will send stones to, for example, Singapore using International Priority Mail, which they should not be doing. So those vendors get rewarded via retaining a place on the roster, but Gemfix, who's operating entirely above board, gets penalized for being a wholly straight shooter?

Hah, yeah, and that's not even getting into insuring international shipments.

 

[sparkleismyfavcolor]

Great progress everyone!

 

[lilmosun]

Specifications are all subjective and for me, its more important to read what others have to say. For example, on sites like Amazon, I might use the stars as a starting point but always dig further into what the reviewers have to say because my likes/dislikes/needs may be different.

When I first joined, I immediately want to the list but quickly found it wasn't a good resource for my purposed. I find out much more from the threads on specific vendors.

While I hate sub-forums (because I prefer browsing quickly over 1 page), would it make sense in this case to have a vendor sub-forum under colored stones. Each vendor could have their own thread with user comments, pictures, etc.. with a sticky at the top with the recommended list that would include not just a link to the vendor but also that vendor's thread?

 

[T L]

While I hate sub-forums (because I prefer browsing quickly over 1 page), would it make sense in this case to have a vendor sub-forum under colored stones. Each vendor could have their own thread with user comments, pictures, etc.. with a sticky at the top with the recommended list that would include not just a link to the vendor but also that vendor's thread?

This would be up to the moderators and it could set a precedent (all forums would may want vendor subforums). I don't think they would go for this, but Ella would be the one to ask. We've brought up requesting different sub forums for CS before, and it didn't go over well.

 

[T L]

Here's the latest update:

I would like to open a new sticky in place of the old one with all the existing vendors now, and this would be the new disclaimer.

"These are the list of vendors that some people have had a good experience with. Your experience may not be the same. Please search the vendor in this forum for reviews. If you open up a review, put the vendor name in the title so others can easily search for and retrieve your review. Prior to purchase, please be sure to familiarize yourself with the vendor's policies as to shipping/insurance, returns, and restocking fees (if any). "

The new title would be "List of vendors for reference."

Thoughts thus far?

 

[dk168]

Here's the latest update:

I would like to open a new sticky in place of the old one with all the existing vendors now, and this would be the new disclaimer.

"These are the list of vendors that some people have had a good experience with. Your experience may not be the same. Please search the vendor in this forum for reviews. If you open up a review, put the vendor name in the title so others can easily search for and retrieve your review. Prior to purchase, please be sure to familiarize yourself with the vendor's policies as to shipping/insurance, returns, and restocking fees (if any). "

The new title would be "List of vendors for reference."

Thoughts thus far?

Like it, as it puts the onus on the person to perform his/her own due diligence when selecting a vendor.

DK (can't find a "thumb's up" smiley, or I would be using it instead)

 

[T L]

The new title would be "List of vendors for reference."

How does this look? It really makes me feel less responsible for what's on the list. I don't know about anyone else though.

Please do not leave comments on this thread!

These are the list of vendors that some people have had a good experience with. Your experience may not be the same. Please search the vendor in this forum for reviews. If you open up a review, put the vendor name in the title so others can easily search for and retrieve your review. Prior to purchase, please be sure to familiarize yourself with the vendor's policies as to shipping/insurance, returns, and restocking fees (if any).

If you are new to colored stones, before purchasing from ANY vendors, it is highly recommended you read this thread first.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/new-to-coloured-gemstone-buying-read-this-first.174284/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/new-to-coloured-gemstone-buying-read-this-first.174284/[/URL]

Cutters and/or Gemstone Dealers
Barry of Artistic Colored Gems - www.acstones.com
Marc Sarosi - www.africagems.com
Arnold & Rung of AJS Gems - www.ajsgem.com
www.andrewsarosi.com
Rick Martin of Art Cut Gems - www.artcutgems.com
Doug Menadue Bespoke Gems www.bespoke-gems.com
www.bkkgemstones.com (mainly Sapphires but some other colored gemstones and jewelry)
Bob Kast - www.bobkast.com
Steve Green (fine Briolettes) www.briolettes.com
Lloyd A. Forrester of Clear Cut Gems - http://www.clearcutgems.com
Richard Homer of Concave Cut - www.concavegems.com
MountainMamaGems https://www.etsy.com/shop/MountainMommaGems
Dan Stair of Custom Gemstones - www.customgemstones.com
http://www.deliqagems.com/
David of Diamonds by Lauren - www.diamondsbylauren.com (mainly fancy coloured diamonds but also coloured gemstones)
john rhodes www.djraregems.com
Dutton's Diamonds (and colored gems) http://www.diamondexpert.com
Jeff Hapeman http://www.earthstreasury.com/
Joe Escobar - http://www.escobardiamonds.com
Leibish - www.leibish.com (specializes in fancy colour diamonds)
Gary Braun of Fine Water Gems - www.finewatergems.com
Jim Rentfrow www.flawlessfacets.com/
Jerry Newman of Gem Art - www.gemartservices.com
Hemi Englisher of www.gemcal.com
Andrew Gulij of Gemfix - www.gemfix.com
John of GemRite - www.gemrite.com
Constantin Wild - www.gemstone.de and http://www.constantinwild.com/en/
Lisa Elser - www.lisaelser.com
Gem Line - www.litnon.com
Dana of Master Cut Gems - www.mastercutgems.com
David Wein of Multicolour Gems - www.multicolour.com
http://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/
www.NaturalUnheatedRuby.com (exactly that!)
Ulli of Osiris Gems - www.osirisgems.com
Pala - www.palagems.com
Paraiba International www.paraibainternational.com
Robert Genis http://www.preciousgemstones.com/
Gene Flanigan of Precision Gems - www.precisiongem.com
Jaimeen Shah - www.primagemsusa.com
Reddiam - www.reddiam.com (specializes in fancy colored diamonds)
David Dawson & Cathy Dolson http://rough2refinedgemstones.com/
Jason Brim of Selectgem www.selectgem.com
John - www.simplysapphires.com
Roger Dery of Spectral Gems - www.spectralgems.net
Steve Perry www.steveperrygems.com
Eric of Swala Gems (specializes in Mahenge spinels, tsavorites and other African Gems) www.swalagemtraders.com
Brad Payne of The Gem Trader - www.thegemtrader.com (specializes in rare and unusual stones)
www.topgem.co.uk (UK gemstone dealer specialising in unheated sapphires and rubies)
Peter Torraca www.torraca.net
Bruce Bridges Tsavorite USA Inc. www.tsavorite.com
Steve Wallner, Westviewgems http://www.stevorocks.com/
Jeff White of White's Gems - www.whitesgems.com
Edward Bristol of Wild Fish Gems - www.WildFishGems.com (Unheated Sapphires and other untreated gemstones)
Ryan Quantz (mostly does cabochons, but also some faceted gems) - http://www.etsy.com/shop/RyanQuantzStudios
Peter Brush of Western Gem www.westerngem.com
Vance Gems https://www.facebook.com/pages/Vance-Gems/164274600277910

Ebay Stone Vendors
Beau of Beau-wy http://stores.ebay.com/qualitycoloredgems
Wilds Global Minerals http://www.ebay.com/usr/wilds-globalminerals
Jeff Davies of Fine Gemstones and Jewelry- http://stores.ebay.com/finegemstonesandjewelry
Tan of Gemcatalogue http://stores.ebay.com/GemCatalogue
Tan of Odysseygem http://stores.ebay.com/OdysseyGem
Tan of VVS1gem http://stores.ebay.com/vvs1gem
Tan of Thegemology http://stores.ebay.com/thegemology
Vance Gems - http://stores.ebay.com/Vance-Gems-LLC/Vance-Gems.html
Weblorn - http://www.ebay.com/sch/weblorn/m.html

Ebay Setting Vendors
American Set - http://myworld.ebay.com/americanset/?_trksid=p4340.l2559
Lan.bo4 - http://www.ebay.com/sch/lan.bo4/m.html
diamondmounts - http://myworld.ebay.com/diamondmounts/
jewe2004 - http://stores.ebay.com/jewe2004
LOGR (Lord of Gem Rings) - http://stores.ebay.com/Lord-of-Gem-Rings
leejewelry
beyondjewelry3

Etsy Stone and/or Setting Vendors
Adzia - http://www.etsy.com/people/AdziasJewelryAtelier
Sally of Heart of Water - http://www.etsy.com/people/HeartofWaterJewels
Julia Taylor (JKT) - http://www.etsy.com/people/juliakaytaylor
Kyleanne - http://www.etsy.com/people/kyleannemetals
Maddie of OneGarnetGirl - http://www.etsy.com/people/onegarnetgirl
Jill of janishjewels - http://www.etsy.com/shop/JanishJewels?ref=ss_profile
JuliaB - http://www.etsy.com/shop/JuliaBJewelry
Yvonne Raley of Cecile Raley Designs - https://www.etsy.com/shop/yvonneraley
Wilds Global Minerals - https://www.etsy.com/shop/WILDSglobalminerals (Stones only)

Custom Setting Vendors
Brian Gavin Diamonds (BGD) - www.briangavindiamonds.com
Engagement Rings Direct (ERD) - www.engagementringsdirect.com
Victor Canera - www.victorcanera.com
Michael E - http://gemshoppe.com/
Green Lake Jewelry - www.greenlakejewelry.com
Joseph Jewelry - https://www.josephjewelry.com/
Steven Kirsch http://www.stevenkirsch.com/
David Klass https://www.facebook.com/david.klass.jewelry
IDJewelry http://www.idjewelryonline.com/
Quest Fine Jewelry http://questfinejewelers.com/
Hunt Country Jewelers http://huntcountry.com/
Peter Lees Jewelry http://peterlees.com/
http://www.beatrizfortes.com/

Other sites
Opal Auctions - www.opalauctions.com
Diamond Bistro - www.diamondbistro.com
Jewels By Grace: http://www.jewelsbygrace.com/
Love Affair Diamonds: http://www.loveaffairdiamonds.com/
Pearlman's www.pearlmansjewelers.com
Loupetroop: http://www.loupetroop.com/

 

[Marlow]

Let us talk about price:

Yesterday a german home shopping channel ( HSE24) offered "investment diamond" - a lot of blabla about the chinese market and how many percent you would get....

They offered a

0,40 ct G IF with an excellent cut and an IGI certificate for !!! 2400 EUR = 2976 $ !!! INVESTMENT !!!! An investment????

It took me 1 minute ( James Allen app) to find this....

0,40 ct G IF with an excellent cut and a GIA certificate for 1520 $

This is a consumer forum - this is PRICEscope and not "thestonehasawindow"scope or "thestonehasagreymask"scope!!!

I think we have to talk about the price!!

 

[T L]

Let us talk about price:

Yesterday a german home shopping channel ( HSE24) offered "investment diamond" - a lot of blabla about the chinese market and how many percent you would get....

They offered a

0,40 ct G IF with an excellent cut and an IGI certificate for !!! 2400 EUR = 2976 $ !!! INVESTMENT !!!! An investment????

It took me 1 minute ( James Allen app) to find this....

0,40 ct G IF with an excellent cut and a GIA certificate for 1520 $

This is a consumer forum - this is PRICEscope and not "thestonehasawindow"scope or "thestonehasagreymask"scope!!!

I think we have to talk about the price!!

But I think using diamonds as an example is a bit different than colored stones. While I do admit there are some vendors that would put the shopping channels to shame (I've seen much better deals on some shopping channels than with some vendors), colored stone pricing is very subjective. Diamond pricing is far less subjective and there's a lot more examples to compare. Besides, I'm getting the feeling that this forum doesn't want to be the "price police," as someone put earlier. That being said, as fellow posters, we always have the right to say if something is overpriced.

To be honest, I'm more concerned about misleading descriptions -----> justification for obscene pricing, and highly inaccurate photography, but again, I'm not sure how we can police those things in regards to the list. Some of the vendors on the list have been there forever, for years, long before the latest sticky was in place. I'm not sure who put them on there because I haven't heard anything decent about those vendors in eons, but they're remnants that remain too, even though they've shown their true colors, business practices might have changed, and they have had poor reviews and tons of returns. I think with the current disclaimer/title, it's at least a start.

However, if vendor xyz wants to charge $10K for a piece of quartz, that's their right.

I think one thing we can enact is that although it is too difficult to get someone off the list, and some vendors "skate the margins" of what is acceptable for years (as someone eloquently put it earlier), it is way too easy to get on the list. I don't think one person with one review suffices for putting a vendor on the list. They need at least three reviews IMHO.

 

[Marlow]

Yes, there is a difference - you are right. You need a lot of experience to compare CS - and many, many here are able to do this !!

I said it took me one minute to compare the price of the home shopping investment stone with the James Allen stone. No problem with diamond. And nobody would recommend this "investment". Thats why I chose this example. And the diamond was only two times overpriced.

The problem is not a vendor selling obscene overprised gems - the problem is a list on a consumer forum which recommend this vendor and user (PSer) who still think it is a good advice to post a link them if a newbie for example is looking for a sapphire or something else.

 

[TechieTechie]

Okay, I'm a newbie, but I will pass along something we do on the car forums (yes, I'm a car nut). We have a main folder for vendor feedback and sticky subfolder for each model (e.g. vendor) and we ask folks who have sold or purchased a car to jot down Model, year, options, price, purchaser/purchasee, date bought, date sold, comments, etc.

Could we do the same for each vendor? Ask folks who have purchased to give facts and figures regarding their jewelry purchase, like the following (though I will leave it up to old hands to name these correctly):

Purchase Facts (non-subjective)
1. Stone
2. Specs
3. Grading institution
4. Purchase date
5. New/Used
6. Purchase price

Vendor Rating (1-5, 5 being highest)..subjective
1. Value
2, Communication
3. Shipping
4. Blah blah blah
5. Comments

That way we separate the subjective from the objective...and folks will be able to get a sense of good pricing (I know I was able to find out a 'fair to excellent' purchase price for my BMWs this way). And those vendors that consistently get high vendor ratings (subjective) will naturally float to the top of the list.

My concern is that the recommended list as it stands now doesn't have enough 'meat' to be really valuable, particularly for us newbies.

Just my 2cents....

 

[T L]

The problem is not a vendor selling obscene overprised gems - the problem is a list on a consumer forum which recommend this vendor and user (PSer) who still think it is a good advice to post a link them if a newbie for example is looking for a sapphire or something else.

This is why I am using the new title, "list of vendors for reference." It's no longer a recommended list, but a starting baseline for people to look. I think if we use "recommended," then it makes me feel, at the very least, that everyone here is happy with that vendor, and that's obviously not the case. There's some vendors on that list I would never ever recommend, and I would even warn people against using them. The new title makes me feel better at the very least, and I hope others would weigh in on that as well.