Superbcert won''t send stones to Rockdoc for appraisal?

[optimized]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 12:56:36 AM Rhino wrote:

Putting yourself in the other man's shoes ...

While I don't take any sides here regarding harry (don't know the guy) or whoever ... how can you blame why he does bring this up? Let's put ourself in his shoes for a moment.

Let's say John Q comes on these forums and learns of the issues brought up here concerning strain. Some of us side with the opinion that it's a non-issue some side with RockDoc's opinion that it may indeed be an issue. Some may just want to double check the B'scope results ... WHATEVER the reason. When a vendor says you can only have your diamond appraised with x, y or z BUT NOT "w", who is a vendor to dictate who the consumer ... the paying consumer, can or can not have their diamond appraised with?

If I were a consumer that would certainly make me question the business and what are they trying to hide from me? When a vendor denies you the freedom of choice with whom you'd like to have your diamond checked out with this would naturally make me skeptical so I can understand where harry is coming from.

Tim, if I came to you for a very expensive purchase, say a diamond, but before I purchased from you and spent my hard earned money with you, I wanted to have the stone checked with RockDoc and you denied that to me. I'd think you had something to hide. Your actions would tell me that you're not being up front with me or that your withholding certain information from me. This would naturally make me skeptical of you and the things you told me, information etc. This is where harry is coming from.

Optimized, Canadianice, diamondexpert, etc. are all SC fans so are naturally biased towards SC and it is commendable to see them fend for their vendor (we vendors like to see our clients fend for us if needed

) but if you place yourself into the shoes of harry ... can you not understand how he can be skeptical? I can.

My .02c

Peace,
Rhino
----------------

Hi Jonathan,

I thought my post on the topic actually answered your question, but I'll try again...

I don't blame Harry at all for asking the question. I agree that it's natural to wonder why a dealer won't send a diamond to a certain appraiser. The easiest way to find out might be to ask the dealer (or the appraiser) rather than bringing it up on a message board, but that's beside the point right now.

My point is, Harry didn't just ask "Why won't SuperbCert send diamonds to Rockdoc?" and wait for input. He drew his own instant conclusion and practically accused Barry of falsifying BScope results based on one given: SuperbCert won't send diamonds to Rockdoc. In effect he was saying (and did in fact say it later on), "Does SuperbCert refuse to send diamonds to Rockdoc because they have artificially inflated BScope reports that they are trying to avoid having exposed?" which is quite a different question. He had no reason to suspect Barry to be dishonest, but he continued to question his integrity despite others saying it was due to the strain issue.

Let's spin it around a bit. What is he had said "Why won't SuperbCert send diamonds to Rockdoc? Is it because some dishonest appraisers have been known to switch stones they receive to appraise and Barry is afraid Rockdoc will steal his great diamonds?" Would that be okay despite the fact there is no evidence that Rockdoc would ever even think of doing such a thing? Would it be okay if he persisted to make those types of veiled accusations in numerous subsequent posts, despite having been reassured by others that it had to do with a completely different issue? That's what I'm getting at.

A agree that the consumer has the right to have a diamond appraised by whomever they choose, but I don't agree with the idea that a dealer should just blindly send their merchandise to whatever address the customer chooses despite the dealer's own misgivings. What if I have a cousin (Bubba, we'll call him) who fancies himself a diamond appraiser. Should I expect any dealer to send a diamond to Bubba for appraisal before any payment is received? He's my choice of appraiser, after all, and as the consumer I should have absolute control over who examines the diamond I wish to purchase before I pay a penny, right? If a dealer refuses, should I accuse the dealer of being afraid Bubba will expose him as a fraud, or should I consider the possibility that the dealer has other reasons? Harry assumed Barry was hiding something, and he never acknowledged any other possibility....

-Tim

 

[harry]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 12:56:36 AM Rhino wrote:

Putting yourself in the other man's shoes ...

While I don't take any sides here regarding harry (don't know the guy) or whoever ... how can you blame why he does bring this up? Let's put ourself in his shoes for a moment.

Let's say John Q comes on these forums and learns of the issues brought up here concerning strain. Some of us side with the opinion that it's a non-issue some side with RockDoc's opinion that it may indeed be an issue. Some may just want to double check the B'scope results ... WHATEVER the reason. When a vendor says you can only have your diamond appraised with x, y or z BUT NOT "w", who is a vendor to dictate who the consumer ... the paying consumer, can or can not have their diamond appraised with?

If I were a consumer that would certainly make me question the business and what are they trying to hide from me? When a vendor denies you the freedom of choice with whom you'd like to have your diamond checked out with this would naturally make me skeptical so I can understand where harry is coming from.

Tim, if I came to you for a very expensive purchase, say a diamond, but before I purchased from you and spent my hard earned money with you, I wanted to have the stone checked with RockDoc and you denied that to me. I'd think you had something to hide. Your actions would tell me that you're not being up front with me or that your withholding certain information from me. This would naturally make me skeptical of you and the things you told me, information etc. This is where harry is coming from.

Optimized, Canadianice, diamondexpert, etc. are all SC fans so are naturally biased towards SC and it is commendable to see them fend for their vendor (we vendors like to see our clients fend for us if needed

) but if you place yourself into the shoes of harry ... can you not understand how he can be skeptical? I can.

My .02c

Peace,
Rhino
----------------

i think the reason why some people here are unable to put themselves in my shoes is because they have already purchased a stone from superbcert. that's why they get upset and offended when i ask what are clearly very reasonable questions to ask from a consumer's point of view.

 

[Hest88]

Harry, I don't blame you. I guess it's easy for those of us who saw the exchange firsthand to dismiss the controversy as merely differences in personality. Stepping back and looking at it as newer consumer, I can certainly see your concern.

 

[aljdewey]

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10

7:44 AM harry wrote:

since some of you decided to throw stones at me let me throw a few back.

pay up front before having it sent to an appraiser? have you not learned anything from these forums?

do you think that it will be easy for you to get your money back through legal channels? where do you live? in the same city? in the same state? how will you physically get to the jurisdiction that Superbcert is in to take legal action and what will it cost you? can you take a day off work to do that, and then more days off if neeed? think you can get an attorney who will help you on your little lawsuit? think you can win an argument with barry about diamonds in front of a judge, given your knowledge of diamonds compared to his knowledge? as you're figuring these things out along the way, your finacee doesn't have a stone, you're out of the money, and weeks/months are passing by.

still want to pay for the stone before the appraiser checks it out?
----------------

I've had just about enough of this. I do not own a Superbcert & I have on numerous occassions not been a champion of super luper duper ideals.

That said, I think the undertone of your posts, Harry, to be quite acromonious. Now you are insinutating that Barry would not honor a return policy. This simply is untrue and contrary to anything I have read or heard.

Barry won't ship the stone directly to Rocdoc. We all know it now. Why, still remains somewhat unclear. Move on to a vendor that will. PERIOD.

And don't take Rhino's support at face value. There is history involved. (I still love you though, Rhino)

 

[aljdewey]

Hi, Rhino.....responses in blue.

While I don't take any sides here regarding harry (don't know the guy) or whoever ... how can you blame why he does bring this up? Let's put ourself in his shoes for a moment.

No one (as far as I can see) "blames" Harry for asking a perfectly sound question...that's what this forum is for. He is being a smart consumer in wondering why Barry won't send the stone to Rock, and he asked a perfectly acceptable question. The question was answered, too.."they inherently disagree about an unrelated issue that has created an unworkable relationship". No one is "for or against Harry", either...I have nothing against the guy personally. I think the downward spiral that occurred because instead of accepting this reason, he instead chose to make "leaps to judgment" that the refusal must instead be about hiding quality flaws in his stones and/or misrepresenting them. If it's fair game for Harry to make (unfounded) speculative statements about Barry's business, so too is it reasonable to question Harry's motivations for conducting what has devolved into an (unsupported) smear campaign.

Let's say John Q comes on these forums and learns of the issues brought up here concerning strain. Some of us side with the opinion that it's a non-issue some side with RockDoc's opinion that it may indeed be an issue. Some may just want to double check the B'scope results ... WHATEVER the reason.

For clarification, this thread took off on the "strain" tangent when that in fact had nothing to do with the initial issue directly. Harry wants Rock to appraise the stone because he is (purportedly) the only appraiser with a b/scope machine. But you're right.....WHATEVER the reason.

When a vendor says you can only have your diamond appraised with x, y or z BUT NOT "w", who is a vendor to dictate who the consumer ... the paying consumer, can or can not have their diamond appraised with?

You're right....a vendor doesn't have a right to dictate to a PAYING customer who appraises the stone. However, I'm fairly certain that Harry is not a paying customer yet....but since he wouldn't answer that question, there is no way to be sure.

Harry could easily PAY for the stone and negotiate a return policy that would allow him to ship the stone to ANYONE HE WANTS and return it if he isn't happy. (I even suggested terms he could negotiate with Barry.....no response on that.) He also could ask to have the B/scope results verified with GemEX, which I suspect Barry would have no problem with. Harry could EASILY accomplish what is trying to by going about it a slightly different way. It was suggested repeatedly to Harry to contact Barry to discuss it, which he hasn't done.

He wants Barry to ship to Rock without putting any of his own money on the line up front. He appears to refuse any way of accomplishing what he said matters to him "verification of the B/scope results" other than the ONE way he wants, and that way seems to be publicly forcing Barry to send to Rock PRIOR to payment.

If I were a consumer that would certainly make me question the business and what are they trying to hide from me? When a vendor denies you the freedom of choice with whom you'd like to have your diamond checked out with this would naturally make me skeptical so I can understand where harry is coming from.

Of course it would make me question it too, and I would probably also come here and ask if anyone knows why. But he was given the answer... "bad working relationship and animosity." YES, a customer should be able to select an appraiser of his own choosing if he is willing to PAY. Barry cannot deny Harry the right to have Rock appraise the diamond, but he DOES have the right to refuse to do so without getting payment on the diamond prior to sending it.

And, if it's okay to question what Barry is trying to hide, how it is not similarly OK to wonder what Harry is trying to hide on the issue of payment? I personally think he wouldn't answer because he knew the response would likely be "well, then pay up front and you can get what you want", but that wasn't the answer Harry wanted to hear.

Tim, if I came to you for a very expensive purchase, say a diamond, but before I purchased from you and spent my hard earned money with you, I wanted to have the stone checked with RockDoc and you denied that to me. I'd think you had something to hide. Your actions would tell me that you're not being up front with me or that your withholding certain information from me. This would naturally make me skeptical of you and the things you told me, information etc. This is where harry is coming from.

Again, Rhino, it's not that we don't comprehend where Harry is coming from. We do. And if I were in that position, and I couldn't resolve my doubts, I would simply decide to go with someone else who was willing to meet my needs. A vendor and a buyer have to both agree on terms of sale, and if they cannot do that, the sale cannot be consummated. It's really a very simple premise. Selecting another vendor was suggested to Harry early on in the thread, and he could have done that gracefully by letting the issue drop. But allow me to be very direct here....not getting your way isn't a valid reason to suggest that someone's business practices are fraudulent, especially without any evidence to back it up.

Optimized, Canadianice, diamondexpert, etc. are all SC fans so are naturally biased towards SC and it is commendable to see them fend for their vendor (we vendors like to see our clients fend for us if needed ) but if you place yourself into the shoes of harry ... can you not understand how he can be skeptical?

They may all be true, but I have never purchased a thing from Barry and am not biased to anyone. In fact, I was a vocal critic of the tone of Barry's responses to you on the recent "princess cut thread". Also, the fact that the others have bought from them does not in ANY way diminish the validity of the comments they've made on the issue. None of them get any monetary recompense from Barry for offering their comments, nor do I. Of course I (and I'm sure the others, too) can UNDERSTAND why Harry might be skeptical, and he's entitled to still be so. If he is, pick another vendor! What's so hard about that? However, without any evidence to back it up, his skepticism does NOT entitle him to "warn" others that the quality of Barry's stones may be suspect or may reflect inflate B/scope results or any other unsupported allegation.

I think F&I put it best.....
We get it - Barry won't ship to Rocdoc. So what, he has that right.

What are you trying to accomplish? If you want a superbcert stone from Barry & you want Rocdoc to examine such stone, buy it & ship it to Rocdoc yourself. Return it if it's not right. PERIOD.

The facts are simple. Your solution is simple. Accept it or move on.


My two cents.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10

7:44 AM harry wrote:
since some of you decided to throw stones at me let me throw a few back.

pay up front before having it sent to an appraiser? have you not learned anything from these forums?

oh i get it. you think that if there's a 10 day return policy on the website there would be no problems. why don't you wise up and show exactly what it is that you think you have to an attorney friend and then listen to that friend tell you that you basically have nothing.

but lets suppose for a minute that you do have something. do you think that in this scenario you are save? do you think that it will be easy for you to get your money back through legal channels? where do you live? in the same city? in the same state? how will you physically get to the jurisdiction that Superbcert is in to take legal action and what will it cost you? can you take a day off work to do that, and then more days off if neeed? think you can get an attorney who will help you on your little lawsuit? think you can win an argument with barry about diamonds in front of a judge, given your knowledge of diamonds compared to his knowledge? as you're figuring these things out along the way, your finacee doesn't have a stone, you're out of the money, and weeks/months are passing by.

still want to pay for the stone before the appraiser checks it out? ----------------

My dear Harry: NO ONE is throwing stones are you. As far as I can see, we've been trying to help you, and you choose to be offended because we don't agree with you. If you are entitled to question Barry's motives, you should equally expects yours to be questioned, especially when you make unsupported slurs against someone's business.

Regarding all your concerns above.....good points, all....and if you're that concerned, then........p i c k a n o t h e r v e n d o r.....whose terms you are satisfied with, as has been repeatedly suggested to you.

 

[harry]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10:48:11 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10

7:44 AM harry wrote:

since some of you decided to throw stones at me let me throw a few back.

pay up front before having it sent to an appraiser? have you not learned anything from these forums?

do you think that it will be easy for you to get your money back through legal channels? where do you live? in the same city? in the same state? how will you physically get to the jurisdiction that Superbcert is in to take legal action and what will it cost you? can you take a day off work to do that, and then more days off if neeed? think you can get an attorney who will help you on your little lawsuit? think you can win an argument with barry about diamonds in front of a judge, given your knowledge of diamonds compared to his knowledge? as you're figuring these things out along the way, your finacee doesn't have a stone, you're out of the money, and weeks/months are passing by.

still want to pay for the stone before the appraiser checks it out?
----------------

I've had just about enough of this. I do not own a Superbcert & I have on numerous occassions not been a champion of super luper duper ideals.

That said, I think the undertone of your posts, Harry, to be quite acromonious. Now you are insinutating that Barry would not honor a return policy. This simply is untrue and contrary to anything I have read or heard.

Barry won't ship the stone directly to Rocdoc. We all know it now. Why, still remains somewhat unclear. Move on to a vendor that will. PERIOD.

And don't take Rhino's support at face value. There is history involved. (I still love you though, Rhino)


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

i believe you're the one who asked Leonid in an earlier post to move this thread to the hanging out forum. 2,500+ thread hitters so far wanted to read this thread. if you had enough of this then just don't click in here. Move on. PERIOD.

 

[harry]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10:56:25 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10

7:44 AM harry wrote:


since some of you decided to throw stones at me let me throw a few back.

pay up front before having it sent to an appraiser? have you not learned anything from these forums?

oh i get it. you think that if there's a 10 day return policy on the website there would be no problems. why don't you wise up and show exactly what it is that you think you have to an attorney friend and then listen to that friend tell you that you basically have nothing.

but lets suppose for a minute that you do have something. do you think that in this scenario you are save? do you think that it will be easy for you to get your money back through legal channels? where do you live? in the same city? in the same state? how will you physically get to the jurisdiction that Superbcert is in to take legal action and what will it cost you? can you take a day off work to do that, and then more days off if neeed? think you can get an attorney who will help you on your little lawsuit? think you can win an argument with barry about diamonds in front of a judge, given your knowledge of diamonds compared to his knowledge? as you're figuring these things out along the way, your finacee doesn't have a stone, you're out of the money, and weeks/months are passing by.

still want to pay for the stone before the appraiser checks it out? ----------------

My dear Harry: NO ONE is throwing stones are you. As far as I can see, we've been trying to help you, and you choose to be offended because we don't agree with you. If you are entitled to question Barry's motives, you should equally expects yours to be questioned, especially when you make unsupported slurs against someone's business.

Regarding all your concerns above.....good points, all....and if you're that concerned, then........p i c k a n o t h e r v e n d o r.....whose terms you are satisfied with, as has been repeatedly suggested to you.
----------------

but i have already said i will pick another vendor, so i don't know why people keep suggesting that to me.

 

[fire&ice]

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

i believe you're the one who asked Leonid in an earlier post to move this thread to the hanging out part of the forum. so far 2,500+ thread hitters wanted to read this thread. if you don't want to read this thread anymore then don't click in here. Move on. PERIOD.
----------------

I indeed did. The disenigration of the thread & the hurling accusations belong in Hangout. Are you enjoying the attention & the need to point out how many people are reading this? Enough to post two identical posts.

I will not move on. I will not stand by & watch accusations go unanswered.

I suggest it is *you* who should move on to another vendor.

 

[Heyjud]

There is no RHYME or reason
For this thread to go on and on
If everyone stops answering
Maybe it soon will be GONE!

 

[harry]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 11:26:57 AM Heyjud wrote:

There is no RHYME or reason
For this thread to go on and on
If everyone stops answering
Maybe it soon will be GONE!

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

a regular from the hangout forum?

Yes there is a reason
For this thread to go on and on
If Superbcert doesn't answer
His business will soon be gone!

- Harry (with help from Heyjud)

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 11

8:49 AM harry wrote:

but i have already said i will pick another vendor, so i don't know why people keep suggesting that to me.

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

You're right Harry, you have finally picked another vendor. It's too bad that only came after several discrediting posts to your initial vendor.

And yes....you have picked another vendor. Bravo. I would imagine (hope) that means you are happily busy reviewing other stones and won't find it worth your time to continue your "warnings".

Good luck in your search.

 

[niceice]

The reason for sending a diamond out to an independent appraiser prior to the customer paying for the diamond is because the customers are afraid that they (1) may not receive "the same" diamond advertised by the vendor; (2) that they will get a diamond at all; and (3) that they will actually be able to get a refund in the event that they want to return the diamond... By sending the diamond to an independent appraiser (whoever) prior to paying for the diamond, the customer involves a seemingly neutral third party that verifies the diamond prior to the customer blasting $$$ into cyber space for a mythical rock that they haven't seen... The process is reasonably safe for the vendor assuming that he / she has taken the necessary steps to verify the good standing of the appraiser within the industry.

The fact that a vendor is willing to send a diamond to one independent appraiser, it stands to reason that the vendor should be willing to send a diamond to another appraiser of the customers choosing assuming that the credentials, insurance provisions and good credit of the appraiser can be verified... Herein lies the possibility for the customer to feel relatively confident in the appraisers ability to remain neutral impartial in that the appraisers was selected by the customer and is being paid to examine the diamond on their behalf and with the protection of their interests in mind...

There are times with any appraiser that for a variety of reasons, that a customer decides not to purchase a diamond after it has been sent to an independent appraiser for verification... Thus far in our experience, it as never been because the characteristics of the diamond did not match those stated on the lab report, but rather because the customer decided not to purchase the diamond because of the appraisers opinion regarding the effect of an inclusion; or the overall visual properties of the diamond; or because the customer expected "this or that" (sometimes unreasonably)... This holds true for diamonds we have sent to Bill Lieberman, Marty Haske, David Atlas, Nancy Stacy, Martin Fuller, John Fuller, David Wolfe, etc... For any of the "more recognized" independent appraisers... For the record, we have only had the good fortune to meet with one of these appraisers in person and Marty has remained completely impartial and consistent in his grading practices with regards to our diamonds since... Some he likes and others he doesn't... While we hope to meet all of the appraisers in-person at some point so that we (really) know the face behind the voice, we don't expect our meeting in-person to have an effect (good or bad) on the future grading and evaluating of our diamonds... By nature, it is the necessity of the position within the industry for an appraiser to remain impartial and unbiased...

There have been many times in the past when we have received a telephone call from Rock Doc informing us that he was sending a diamond back to us because (1) "the customer asked him if the stone was 'the best' he'd ever seen - and while it was a fabulous stone, it wasn't 'the best' he's 'ever' seen; (2) the customer had four dealers send six diamonds to Roc for evaluation (and paid $160.00 per carat to have each one evaluated) and decided to buy one of the other five diamonds; (3) the customer liked the diamond, intended to buy the diamond, asked for wire transfer instructions and then vanished off the face of the earth (that was about a month ago...); (4) Roc simply didn't like the diamond... Regardless of the reason the diamond has been sent back to us, our conversation with Bill has always been essentially the same... It involves the normal courtesies of "How are you... How's your family... How's business..." and a brief discussion about his evaluation of the stone, sometimes accompanied by an email containing photographs regarding his opinion of this or that and a discussion regarding the latest developments in the gemological community... More often than not, we benefit from the discussion by gaining insight into a new technique... Does this bantor result in Bill's being more leniant when evaluating our diamonds? Certainly not, if the feedback from our clients is any indication... "I talked to Bill and he told me that he didn't agree with the clarity grade of the stone, but he had seen (the lab) give that grade to similar diamonds before, etc."

Do we think that strain is an issue? Not really... Our feeling is that if the diamond made it through the intense pressure of the cutting process that the odds of strain being an issue during the lifetime of the stone under normal conditions of wear is quite slim... And we've never lost a sale due to strain... We also haven't knowingly paid less for a diamond with strain, so we can't comment on the theory that diamonds with strain cost less than diamonds without... But it seems to us that the customer has the right to decide what factors and characteristics of a diamond are important to them in the selection of the diamond they intend to purchase, so we'll continue to send our diamonds to independent appraisers of the customers choosing prior to receiving payment for the stone as it seems good and ethical practice to do so providing that the conditions of qualification we placed upon the appraisers above remain verifiable.

One thing we would like to address, we disagree with Bill's opinion that vendors who do not own their inventory are more likely to sell diamonds without strain because they don't have to buy the diamond until it sells... We own 98% of the inventory that we offer for sale and the reality is that we "cherry pick" the inventory of our suppliers to maintain that inventory... The advantage to buying inventory outright as opposed to sending it out "on memo" (on loan from the cutter) is that we pay lower points / prices than dealers who do not buy diamonds for inventory... We're not going to buy any diamond that we don't like for inventory, why would we invest our money in diamonds that are not going to sell?!?! That would be idiotic. When you buy for inventory, when you invest millions of dollars per year in inventory, you want to see it sell and you want to see it sell FAST so that your money continues to work for you... Thus you buy the very best diamonds that you can find... The strength that comes from being recognized as a buyer and not a borrower is that you are often given first right of refusal for the new production of each cutter, we often know what each cutter has (1) in current inventory; (2) in production; (3) being sent to the laboratory; and (4) clearing the laboratory; and bids are made for entire parcels of diamonds to ensure the best prices... Buying "a business" of diamonds does not require us to buy diamonds of lower clarity or diamonds of lower color, those of you familiar with our inventory know that we rarely have an SI-2 in the house, nor anything lower than "I" in color... The cutters know that we don't sell diamonds of lower clarity and color combinations and don't even bother wasting their breath trying to talk to us about such stones... We agree that companies that buy a hundred thousand dollars or so worth of diamonds a year might have to buy a few L-M, SI-2's to get their hands on the D, VVS's but companies that buy diamonds in large annual volume certainly do not!

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 5/23/2003 10

7:44 AM harry wrote:


pay up front before having it sent to an appraiser? have you not learned anything from these forums?

oh i get it. you think that if there's a 10 day return policy on the website there would be no problems. why don't you wise up and show exactly what it is that you think you have to an attorney friend and then listen to that friend tell you that you basically have nothing.

but lets suppose for a minute that you do have something. do you think that in this scenario you are save? do you think that it will be easy for you to get your money back through legal channels? where do you live? in the same city? in the same state? how will you physically get to the jurisdiction that Superbcert is in to take legal action and what will it cost you? can you take a day off work to do that, and then more days off if neeed? think you can get an attorney who will help you on your little lawsuit? think you can win an argument with barry about diamonds in front of a judge, given your knowledge of diamonds compared to his knowledge? as you're figuring these things out along the way, your finacee doesn't have a stone, you're out of the money, and weeks/months are passing by.

still want to pay for the stone before the appraiser checks it out? ----------------

----------------
[/quote]

Hi Harry!

I did just that. I wanted to compare TWO diamonds, live and in person to make my decision. I PAID, in advance for TWO diamonds from White Flash. I decided which one I wanted to keep, shipped BOTH diamonds back to White Flash. White Flash custom made a pendant for me using the diamond I selected and PROMPTLY REFUNDED the money I paid for the diamond I did not select.

I contacted several other vendors before choosing White Flash. I decided against diamonds from the other vendors for a variety of reasons. One vendor contacted me directly via email after I posted a thread asking about a diamond. That vendor wanted to sell me a diamond. I don't care for those kinds of business practices and I scratched them off my list. I didn't sling mud and tell who the vendor was. That only serves to make both of us look bad.

You can bet your A** if White Flash, or any vendor I'd done business with had NOT REFUNDED my money, EVERYONE on Price Scope, that vendor's State's and Local Prosecuting Attorneys, any appropriate Federal agencies, all their professional affiliations, and anyone else even remotely associated with that vendor would hear about it loud and clear.

Barry would refund your money. I'm sure he has had customers who decided to send a diamond back after they saw it just because it didn't suit their taste preferences, let alone a comment from an appraiser. Have you read any posts to the contrary? "Hey, I bought a SC diamond that my appraiser says I shouldn't keep and Barry won't refund my money." "I bought a SC diamond that I didn't like and Barry won't refund my money."

Do you think Barry/SuperbCert, White Flash, Good Old Gold, Nice Ice, etc, etc, etc, want a black eye here??? No. They want good referrals from happy customers paving the way for future business from the many folks to come that will find Price Scope.

Just my $0.02 worth

 

[Final Cut]

Relevance vs importance.

The consumer determines the importance, the vendor/appraiser determines the relevance.

If strain is relevant (even as a 25th decision point), then natural selection (read: capitalism) will favour those who report it so that the consumer can get relevant information and then assess the importance him/her self.

Vendors decide for themselves, consumers decide for themselves, people who mix business and personal issues often fail (on both accounts) - why - because the information will out .... consumers demand it .... Why do you think this forum exists ?

FC

PS - is harry really barry ? .. or is he .... ?

 

[trichrome]

Here is my 2 cents on this way too long thread...

Since I'm entering this business, I'd like to stress that the consumer is the king and
as a vendor, you should always try to please him. Emotions should never
be part of your behavior.

However, you all know what the diamond business is all about : making money.

There are very honest people in this industry and there are many (too many)
persons that deserve only a spit in the face.

Also, this industry is not crystal-clear.....you just have to look at those
famous Rap sheets.....only available for members of the trade ; same thing
for the Polygon & Rapnet networks... why is it so? Simple : you don't want
people from the exterior (ie. customers) know what's going on in the
business. 95% in the business advocate not disclosing Rap prices to the customer. Why?
Simple.....I'm pretty sure none of you will ever buy a stone twice the price the
jeweller in front of you is trying to sell it for....

Honesty will, at the end,
bring you more money & more customers.
(And it's the same thing for the customer point of view)

Trichrome.

 

[Rhino]

Greetings friends,

Al, Tim ... great responses and I hear what you're saying and understand your point completely. We'll let this rest. Tim ... just in response to one paragraph of yours ...

"I agree that the consumer has the right to have a diamond appraised by whomever they choose, but I don't agree with the idea that a dealer should just blindly send their merchandise to whatever address the customer chooses despite the dealer's own misgivings. What if I have a cousin (Bubba, we'll call him) who fancies himself a diamond appraiser. Should I expect any dealer to send a diamond to Bubba for appraisal before any payment is received? He's my choice of appraiser, after all, and as the consumer I should have absolute control over who examines the diamond I wish to purchase before I pay a penny, right? If a dealer refuses, should I accuse the dealer of being afraid Bubba will expose him as a fraud, or should I consider the possibility that the dealer has other reasons? Harry assumed Barry was hiding something, and he never acknowledged any other possibility...."

This is a good analogy except for one thing. RockDoc is not an unknown "Bubba". As a matter of fact were it not for RockDoc, superbcert would not be on the map at all. During the course of 2 years Rock and myself helped turn Barry's business from someone nobody heard of to one of the top internet brands. I won't go into the thanks or gratitude we got for that. You can read about that elsewhere.

Tim ... I hear you in your point as I would not send our diamonds with no money to just any person claiming to be an appraiser. They must be acredited, have a known history in this business and a solid reputation. If that is not the case then clients MUST pay with bankwire if I am to ship the diamond anywhere besides their billing address. I could just see a scam where someone is wanting someone to send a diamond to a supposed appraiser, we send the stone, then find out there never was an appraiser ... it was the persons partner in crime whom the diamond was being sent. You will not find me getting caught in that trap.

So while your analogy is a good one it's not one that applies in this particular case. In my personal opinion, if a vendor is willing to send diamonds to an appraiser *before the purchase* then all appraisers should be treated equal as long as they have the credentials and they're not Bubba from the backwoods. Discrimination against one because of a personal vendetta or opinion should not be an issue when the clients needs are at stake. I may not agree with Dave Atlas on certain issues or I may not agree with Rich or RockDoc on certain issues ... does this mean I should deny clients the right to send diamonds for them before the purchase? The way I conduct my business ... if I do it for one I'll do it for all otherwise I will not do it for any. What if all of the above appraisers start checking and reporting for strain? The vendor will now not recommend all of them becuase he doesn't want this information reported about the diamonds he's carrying? I could share some personal dealings about this with the parties involved but would rather not.

In any case ... you needn't reply to the above. This thread has gone longer than it should. I respect and appreciate all the posts you guys give and always enjoy reading what you guys have to write. We all appreciate you being on the boards and we have a good family here on PS.

Kind regards,
Rhino

 

[optimized]

Yes, this thread should probably die a quiet death, but I am not exactly known for leaving empty space on a page (quite the opposite, actually) so here are a few points relevant to the posts that have appeared since my last entry...

~ ~ ~

Harry wrote:

"pay up front before having it sent to an appraiser? have you not learned anything from these forums?

oh i get it. you think that if there's a 10 day return policy on the website there would be no problems. why don't you wise up and show exactly what it is that you think you have to an attorney friend and then listen to that friend tell you that you basically have nothing.

but lets suppose for a minute that you do have something. do you think that in this scenario you are save? do you think that it will be easy for you to get your money back through legal channels? where do you live? in the same city? in the same state? how will you physically get to the jurisdiction that Superbcert is in to take legal action and what will it cost you? can you take a day off work to do that, and then more days off if neeed? think you can get an attorney who will help you on your little lawsuit? think you can win an argument with barry about diamonds in front of a judge, given your knowledge of diamonds compared to his knowledge? as you're figuring these things out along the way, your finacee doesn't have a stone, you're out of the money, and weeks/months are passing by.

still want to pay for the stone before the appraiser checks it out?"

I think maybe a good question would be, haven't YOU learned anything from these forums? If you really paid attention you'd probably have seen that Barry enjoys a fine reputation among his customers and didn't deserve to have such unfair suspicions cast his way. Apparently not satisfied with the unjustified allusions you've already stated, now you're proposing the possibility that you feared Barry may be a thief as well as a fraud? IMO that's an awfully inflammatory sentiment considering the fact that he's a pretty high-profile businessman around here and seems to have established a fantastic level of customer satisfaction along the way, which it would seem you should already know seeing as you have been a member for a few months now. You may not agree with some of his policies, but that statement is pretty extreme and even more unwarranted than the baseless allusions to falsified BScope reports. It's also something you never even hinted at before, making the point seem a bit like you may be grasping at straws now.

Btw, as a consumer you indeed do have legal protections available to you when purchasing over the Internet (not that you'd need them when dealing with many of the respected Pricescope contributors), and any lawyer will tell you just that.

What IS your agenda here, anyway?

Harry also wrote:

"i think the reason why some people here are unable to put themselves in my shoes is because they have already purchased a stone from superbcert. that's why they get upset and offended when i ask what are clearly very reasonable questions to ask from a consumer's point of view."

It's no secret I enjoyed my experience with Barry and believe he is a respectable professional. I've been saying that for a long time now. I will be the first to agree that I have no qualms about his ethics, but that doesn't automatically mean that I can't see the issue from another point of view.

As I've said repeatedly, I think it was completely reasonable for you to inquire as to why he doesn't send diamonds to Rockdoc. I'll repeat that: I think it was completely reasonable for you to inquire as to why he doesn't send diamonds to Rockdoc. When I first read the question I was intrigued as well. My ENTIRE issue with your posts was your immediate and insistent insinuations that his policy must somehow be related to fraudulent BrillianceScope reports when in fact the situation hardly called for assuming the worst. Your tone was consistently negative toward SuperbCert despite no indication of any malfeasance at all. As I mentioned before, the question you originally asked was correctly answered by Richard within six hours of you asking it, but you persisted in questioning the reliability of SuperbCert's BScope results despite a complete lack of any corroborating evidence and an abundance of information to the contrary. Just because someone has a policy that doesn't make sense to you doesn't make them a crook.

If you hadn't started the thread with a post asking why he doesn't send stones to Rockdoc AND noting a thread about fraudulent BScope results (and then persisting with that line of thought), I almost certainly wouldn't have even bothered posting. You'll notice that I didn't jump in until this thread was quite active although I had been following it with interest. But, I saw Barry's integrity being questioned in an unjustified way. I thought it entirely likely that he wouldn't dignify the insinuations with a response, so I took it upon myself to defend his good name. In the end, although this thread eventually did devolve into something it might have been better to avoid, I am happy that I stepped in when I did. Barry did nothing to deserve insinuations of fraud such as those you (and only you) were making, and IMO it has now been thoroughly shown that you were wrong to have jumped to the conclusion you did.

~ ~ ~

Hest88 wrote:

"Harry, I don't blame you. I guess it's easy for those of us who saw the exchange firsthand to dismiss the controversy as merely differences in personality. Stepping back and looking at it as newer consumer, I can certainly see your concern."

I have no quarrel with your opinion, but I think you're being too generous. While it was reasonable to question why Barry opts to not send diamonds to Rockdoc, were the immediate insinuations of dishonesty warranted? IMO they were not.

~ ~ ~

aljdewey,

We are most certainly on the same page. Bravo on some very good points throughout this regrettable thread!

~ ~ ~

Harry wrote:

"Yes there is a reason
For this thread to go on and on
If Superbcert doesn't answer
His business will soon be gone!"

I applaud Barry for not dignifying your insinuations with response, and think he did the right thing. Despite what you may think, he doesn't need to prove himself to folks like yourself who choose to question his integrity for no good reason. His reputation speaks for itself.

~ ~ ~

Robin and Todd wrote,

"Do we think that strain is an issue? Not really... Our feeling is that if the diamond made it through the intense pressure of the cutting process that the odds of strain being an issue during the lifetime of the stone under normal conditions of wear is quite slim... And we've never lost a sale due to strain... We also haven't knowingly paid less for a diamond with strain, so we can't comment on the theory that diamonds with strain cost less than diamonds without... But it seems to us that the customer has the right to decide what factors and characteristics of a diamond are important to them in the selection of the diamond they intend to purchase, so we'll continue to send our diamonds to independent appraisers of the customers choosing prior to receiving payment for the stone as it seems good and ethical practice to do so providing that the conditions of qualification we placed upon the appraisers above remain verifiable."

I agree with what you wrote, but would just like to clarify one point. While it's no secret that Barry doesn't agree with Bill's opinion of the strain issue, my impression is that the issue itself was eclipsed by more of a "personality clash" between Barry and Bill while they debated the issue among themselves. While we'll never know what truly transpired between them it sounds to me like it got personal somewhere along the line, and who's to say that any one of us might not have reached a similar decision to stop doing business with someone if we were in the same situation. To make a bad pun (sorry in advance), strain may have caused the strain between them, but I suspect the damage goes much deeper than that now. I just don't think something as simple as a professional disagreement between the two is the true reason behind the SuperbCert policy as it stands now.

~ ~ ~

trichrome wrote:

"Since I'm entering this business, I'd like to stress that the consumer is the king and as a vendor, you should always try to please him. Emotions should never be part of your behavior."

While I agree with your sentiments in theory, I think it's also important to remember that vendors are people, and as such are susceptible to basic human emotional response. I've worked in the retail trade for most of my adult life and pride myself on giving superlative service to my customers (in a local business known and respected for giving an unsurpassed level of customer care to tradespeople and average consumers alike), but there are still times when emotions can get the best of you. While it's nice to believe in never letting your emotions enter the equation, it's unrealistic to think that this goal will be reached. I think Barry's decision was probably not the best one for his business, but I also think none of us are in a position to say whether we would react differently if we were in his position. Sometimes rationality just doesn't win....

"Also, this industry is not crystal-clear.....you just have to look at those famous Rap sheets.....only available for members of the trade ; same thing for the Polygon & Rapnet networks... why is it so? Simple : you don't want people from the exterior (ie. customers) know what's going on in the business. 95% in the business advocate not disclosing Rap prices to the customer. Why? Simple.....I'm pretty sure none of you will ever buy a stone twice the price the jeweller in front of you is trying to sell it for...."

Agreed. This is true in any business, not just the diamond industry. "Cost" data is almost always kept from the customer so that profit margins are kept confidential and free from potentially embarrassing misunderstandings.


~ ~ ~

Jonathan,

I know, I know, you'd rather let this thread die, but since I'm going to reply to other comments anyway I thought I might as well address your comments too. Rest assured, you are one of my most respected "family members" here on PS, and I don't want you to ever take what I say the wrong way. I just don't know when to quit sometimes, and as my signature line says, "economy of words has never been my strong suit."

"This is a good analogy except for one thing. RockDoc is not an unknown "Bubba". As a matter of fact were it not for RockDoc, superbcert would not be on the map at all. During the course of 2 years Rock and myself helped turn Barry's business from someone nobody heard of to one of the top internet brands. I won't go into the thanks or gratitude we got for that. You can read about that elsewhere."

In all honesty, the "Bubba" comment that prompted your reply was really a cumulative reply to all the folks who made it seem like the consumer has some sort of unconditional right to have a diamond sent without payment to any appraiser of their choosing without exception. While my comments ended up being in a reply to you, I meant it as more of a blanket reply to the participants of the thread in general. It was meant to be extreme in order to illustrate a point (poorly I think, as I look back at it). I agree that Rockdoc is certainly a well-known appraiser but, as I mentioned in my comments to Trichrome above, I don't think most of us really know what personal issues the two gentlemen may have with each other so it's hard to say that there isn't more understandable reasoning behind Barry's actions than a desire to keep strain from being considered by his customers.

On another note, I'd like to just gently point out that nobody can rightly claim to have put Barry "on the map," as you put it. This type of statement is a logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent" (in logic terms), and occurs when an argument is made stating "A then B; Not A, therefore not B," and is a common mistake in logical discourse. A classic example of this goes as follows: "A six year old boy is hit by a car and dies young. If he hadn't been hit by the car he wouldn't have died young." But that argument excludes the possibility that perhaps the boy fell off a cliff at seven, in which case he still died young. Another current "tech" example is the commonly stated argument that without Microsoft's leadership in the computer industry the computer world would still be dominated by $50,000 mainframe computers only accessible to a few engineers, which ignores the fact that some other innovative company might have stepped in and done as good (or a better) job of bringing computers to the masses. In the case of SuperbCert, the fact that you and Rockdoc helped Barry early in his business doesn't mean that his business wouldn't have been equally successful without your help. Believe me, I'm certainly not trying to diminish what you may have done for him at all; I'm just pointing out that this classic logical fallacy can never be proven to be true since we can never know what might have been under different circumstances.

"In my personal opinion, if a vendor is willing to send diamonds to an appraiser *before the purchase* then all appraisers should be treated equal as long as they have the credentials and they're not Bubba from the backwoods. Discrimination against one because of a personal vendetta or opinion should not be an issue when the clients needs are at stake. I may not agree with Dave Atlas on certain issues or I may not agree with Rich or RockDoc on certain issues ... does this mean I should deny clients the right to send diamonds for them before the purchase? The way I conduct my business ... if I do it for one I'll do it for all otherwise I will not do it for any. What if all of the above appraisers start checking and reporting for strain? The vendor will now not recommend all of them because he doesn't want this information reported about the diamonds he's carrying? I could share some personal dealings about this with the parties involved but would rather not."

I addressed this point in my comments to niceice and trichrome above, but I'd just like to reiterate that I don't think most of us here can make that sort of judgment based on the information we have. You may well be privy to more information than I am in this regard so you may be more confident in your assessment, but I do know that sometimes in the course of human interaction personal rifts occur that override what may seem "the right thing to do." I think Barry's policy doesn't exactly make sense on some levels from a business standpoint, but I also know that I'm not in a position to say that I wouldn't have done the same thing if I were in his exact position and had experienced the same personal interactions with Rockdoc that he did. I just don't know what happened to cause the policy so I can't say. This also pertains directly to your question about "what if all appraisers start reporting on strain." I'm not convinced it's the actual reporting on strain that caused the policy as much as the personal interactions between Barry and Bill concerning the debate about strain. In other words, it may not be the strain issue itself that Barry is so adamant about as much as his interactions with Bill. But boy, do I wish I knew.

Jonathan, I want to reiterate that throughout this whole thread I've read the various posters and appreciated all the input. I certainly respect and appreciate your opinion and understand where you're coming from, but I try to recognize that all may not be as black and white as it may seem from the outside of the Barry/Bill dynamic. Thanks for your input.

~ ~ ~

Anyway, I think I've finally gotten most of the stuff that's been floating around in my head out now. I apologize to those who would have preferred that this thread died long ago for prolonging it a bit more, but this turned into one of those threads that so interested me that I felt compelled to tie up some loose ends. While it's sad to see threads like this populate the forums, I also think it's been an informative ride so in the end it wasn't a total disaster. Barring any more comments that I feel a compulsion to reply to, I think I'm done with the "book posts" on this thread. Thanks to all for bearing with me...

-Tim

 

[harry]

omg, see what i mean about certain people who have already bought from superbcert getting upset due to their bias? you sound real objective and calm there buddy. perhaps economy of words should be your strong suit.

Do you guys remember the first time you walked into a jewelry store and tried to learn about diamonds from that seemingly very knowledgeable and trustworthy looking salesperson? Then you found pricescope and realized what a joke that conversation was, right?

If you never found pricescope, you probably would have ended up buying a stone without ever knowing the important details about cut. Or you may have bought that gorgeous looking non-certified stone thinking its's an E color when it's a F color. Think about how sad you would be if you found out later what you really bought.

I know some of you are "Cut Rock" on this forum, but have you ever considered that you may be in the same situation you were in that very first time, except you don't know it because the game is being played at a higher level of sophistication here? Do you really think that just because you read this forum regularly, you cannot be fooled by professionals who have been in this industry for years and years?

Think about it.

 

[pricescope]

----------------
...The disenigration of the thread & the hurling accusations belong in Hangout.
----------------

F&I, it is actually belongs to steam room already

Guys, although I'm ugly and have big ears (

), I've seen people being alienated because written communication is lacking of human voice, smiles, etc.

We should show more courtesy to each other when writing our posts and keep in mind how easy it is to hurt somebody’s feelings even if it wasn’t meant to.

Please accept my apologies but I’m locking this thread...