Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

The Natural Sapphire Company - BEWARE

theredspinel said:
I don’t think you understand the point, just because something is common doesn’t make it right.

The problem is they state the exact picture is of the same stone they will send - that’s just lying.

It doesn’t make it not lying just because everyone does it. Why does it feel like I’m talking to my pre teen right here.
Click to expand...

LOL! Mom, you got a lot to learn.

Do you realize how many stones are out there that look exactly alike in Sapphire under a carat? Hundreds of thousands.

I could show you two stones in person one at a time, then ask you which did I show first? You would not know because they look exactly the same.
The point? The point is as long is a stone is as represented, then what is the problem other than you have made it into one in your mind.

Now, if it is represented as a rare one of a kind stone, then you have ground to stand on. But I think everybody just assumed it was. Still, it was as represented in color and cut.

But there is no right or wrong here. Even the OP that got the Sapphire liked it. Just because this is new to many here (which is very surprising) does not make it unethical. Sure, the vendor should have said there was more than one stone (but I did not see the listing), but when they are exactly alike and under a carat, I think people are making much more out of this than is warranted
 
fredflintstone said:
LOL! I was not implying anything about your ethics. Why would I? I'm just telling the forum here what is a common practice. That is all.

I meant, I'm sure you would receive a stone identical when I wrote, "And I'm sure you do," as a reply to your sentence " that you get exactly what is shown on photo and video." Nothing to do with your ethics. I’m sure you are an ethical person.
:)
Click to expand...

My apologies, I definitely didn’t get it right :oops:

But wouldn’t it just make sense to write that the photo is a proxy for all stones in this size and color? I really don’t mind the practice but it seems to easy to add a disclaimer for smaller sized stones…
 
fredflintstone said:
LOL! Mom, you got a lot to learn.

Do you realize how many stones are out there that look exactly alike in Sapphire under a carat? Hundreds of thousands.

I could show you two stones in person one at a time, then ask you which did I show first? You would not know because they look exactly the same.
The point? The point is as long is a stone is as represented, then what is the problem other than you have made it into one in your mind.

Now, if it is represented as a rare one of a kind stone, then you have ground to stand on. But I think everybody just assumed it was. Still, it was as represented in color and cut.

But there is no right or wrong here. Even the OP that got the Sapphire liked it. Just because this is new to many here (which is very surprising) does not make it unethical. Sure, the vendor should have said there was more than one stone (but I did not see the listing), but when they are exactly alike and under a carat, I think people are making much more out of this than is warranted
Click to expand...

If you showed me two stones, A and B and told me you would give me B, it doesn’t matter if I can’t tell A and B apart. Ethically if there is a A and B and you said you would give B, you need to give B.

That’s all it is.
 
Its about disclosure. I don't care If they have 5000 identical small stones. But if they claim that each one is individually photographed and you will get the EXACT STONE SHOWN IN THE PIC, then they are lying.
 
But all of this is moot anyway, the guy went to jail for fraud :doh:that alone is enough to show honesty and trustworthiness aren’t a part of his plan.
 
VividRed said:
My apologies, I definitely didn’t get it right :oops:

But wouldn’t it just make sense to write that the photo is a proxy for all stones in this size and color? I really don’t mind the practice but it seems to easy to add a disclaimer for smaller sized stones…
Click to expand...

Yes, it would. I cannot argue that point.

But my point is, if the stones are exactly alike to the naked eye, is there really any harm if the person who bought the stone is happy. Was there any harm? No. But yes, they should have listed it as multiples. Maybe there was a little box that let you pick the amount that was available, some dealers do it that way and it is not always obvious. But again, I did not see the listing.

But really people, this forum does not like this vendor and that is fine, but people are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. As long as the stone is as represented no harm, no foul and it is up to the consumer to decide if the price is right.
 
fredflintstone said:
Yes, it would. I cannot argue that point.

But my point is, if the stones are exactly alike to the naked eye, is there really any harm if the person who bought the stone is happy. Was there any harm? No. But yes, they should have listed it as multiples. Maybe there was a little box that let you pick the amount that was available, some dealers do it that way and it is not always obvious. But again, I did not see the listing.

But really people, this forum does not like this vendor and that is fine, but people are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. As long as the stone is as represented ho harm, no foul.
Click to expand...

We havnt even started on the fact no two stones are actually identical. The cut, colour, polish, shade etc can and do differ even if it’s minuscule and even if it’s not immediately noticeable to the eye - no two stones are identical.

Even a machine couldn’t produce two utterly identical stones, let alone a human hand, dealing with something made by nature.

Some people don’t care about minuscule stuff like that, others do (hint PSers do) and both are entitled to like what they like.
 
theredspinel said:
We havnt even started on the fact no two stones are actually identical. The cut, colour, polish, shade etc can and do differ even if it’s minuscule and even if it’s not imeedietly noticeable to the eye - no two stones are identical.

Even a machine couldn’t produce two utterly identical stones, let alone a human hand, dealing with something made by nature.

Some people don’t care about minuscule stuff like that, others do (hint PSers do) and both are entitled to like what they like.
Click to expand...

LOL!

I've already answered this.

A good day to you.
 
fredflintstone said:
LOL! Mom, you got a lot to learn.

Do you realize how many stones are out there that look exactly alike in Sapphire under a carat? Hundreds of thousands.

I could show you two stones in person one at a time, then ask you which did I show first? You would not know because they look exactly the same.
The point? The point is as long is a stone is as represented, then what is the problem other than you have made it into one in your mind.

Now, if it is represented as a rare one of a kind stone, then you have ground to stand on. But I think everybody just assumed it was. Still, it was as represented in color and cut.

But there is no right or wrong here. Even the OP that got the Sapphire liked it. Just because this is new to many here (which is very surprising) does not make it unethical. Sure, the vendor should have said there was more than one stone (but I did not see the listing), but when they are exactly alike and under a carat, I think people are making much more out of this than is warranted
Click to expand...

And *that's* the end of the argument. Right there. "There is no right or wrong here."

Of course there is a right and wrong here. If you cannot see that, the rest of your comments should also be ignored because your judgment on this issue is impaired.

So anyway - back to the whole point - here's a quote from an email I received from the the NSC yesterday:

My apologies if you felt you were misled on the listing of this stone as well. As I mentioned on the phone, we do primarily work with unique images of single stones as they are all so different. But occasionally we do get in very similar pieces that are not identifiable to the eye as different stones. We have a very stringent eye when reviewing these and really only will list things that are very similar under the same ID. The ct weight and exact measurements gets updated on the ID when the change is made to the new stone, and images are updated should there be any noticeable differences.

Firstly, I hate the whole "I'm sorry if you feel..." approach. I don't feel misled. This is not just an emotion I have. I was misled. End of story.

"We do primarily work with unique images" - yes, you do. Enough to imply that ALL your images are unique, especially when there is no indication anywhere on your website to say that these specific images AREN'T unique.

"Occasionally we do get in very similar pieces" - which is not 'identical' - so let's stop pretending it is.

And again "We really only will list things that are very similar under the same ID." Not identical - just really, really, really similar - so similar we won't bother doing a full disclosure.

Seriously - this is a case of - when in a hole - don't dig.
 
fredflintstone said:
Yes, it would. I cannot argue that point.

But my point is, if the stones are exactly alike to the naked eye, is there really any harm if the person who bought the stone is happy. Was there any harm? No. But yes, they should have listed it as multiples. Maybe there was a little box that let you pick the amount that was available, some dealers do it that way and it is not always obvious. But again, I did not see the listing.

But really people, this forum does not like this vendor and that is fine, but people are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. As long as the stone is as represented ho harm, no foul.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s an accepted practice in wholesale? I could totally see that, especially for smaller sized stoned.

I think the NSC presents itself as a premium retail (not wholesale) company and that makes a difference in clientele and expectations.

But hey, it is what it is, they have a bad reputation here and this little episode is not good advertisement…
 
mrs-b said:
And *that's* the end of the argument. Right there. "There is no right or wrong here."

Of course there is a right and wrong here. If you cannot see that, the rest of your comments should also be ignored because your judgment on this issue is impaired.

So anyway - back to the whole point - here's a quote from an email I received from the the NSC yesterday:

My apologies if you felt you were misled on the listing of this stone as well. As I mentioned on the phone, we do primarily work with unique images of single stones as they are all so different. But occasionally we do get in very similar pieces that are not identifiable to the eye as different stones. We have a very stringent eye when reviewing these and really only will list things that are very similar under the same ID. The ct weight and exact measurements gets updated on the ID when the change is made to the new stone, and images are updated should there be any noticeable differences.

Firstly, I hate the whole "I'm sorry if you feel..." approach. I don't feel misled. This is not just an emotion I have. I was misled. End of story.

"We do primarily work with unique images" - yes, you do. Enough to imply that ALL your images are unique, especially when there is no indication anywhere on your website to say that these specific images AREN'T unique.

"Occasionally we do get in very similar pieces" - which is not 'identical' - so let's stop pretending it is.

And again "We really only will list things that are very similar under the same ID." Not identical - just really, really, really similar - so similar we won't bother doing a full disclosure.

Seriously - this is a case of - when in a hole - don't dig.
Click to expand...

You really need to get over it. I am.
 
fredflintstone said:
You really need to get over it. I am.
Click to expand...

Well, that's good. And that's your decision.

As a consumer, what I'm looking for from a company is obviously different to what you're looking for. Telling people what they 'need' to do is outside my purvey on this - and outside yours also. You can tell people what they 'need' to do until the cows come home, but people have an uncanny tendency to make their own decisions on what's important to them.

In this sort of situation, I'm looking for a more ethical practice than what this company is offering. A strict ethical code may not be important to you. That's your decision and has nothing to do with me.

Anyway, enough back and forth on this. I'm sure this thread will be of use to people like me who are looking for full disclosure, and not of use to people like you, for whom this is not important. Readers will divide into the appropriate camps as they see fit.
 
mrs-b said:
And *that's* the end of the argument. Right there. "There is no right or wrong here."

Of course there is a right and wrong here. If you cannot see that, the rest of your comments should also be ignored because your judgment on this issue is impaired.

So anyway - back to the whole point - here's a quote from an email I received from the the NSC yesterday:

My apologies if you felt you were misled on the listing of this stone as well. As I mentioned on the phone, we do primarily work with unique images of single stones as they are all so different. But occasionally we do get in very similar pieces that are not identifiable to the eye as different stones. We have a very stringent eye when reviewing these and really only will list things that are very similar under the same ID. The ct weight and exact measurements gets updated on the ID when the change is made to the new stone, and images are updated should there be any noticeable differences.

Firstly, I hate the whole "I'm sorry if you feel..." approach. I don't feel misled. This is not just an emotion I have. I was misled. End of story.

"We do primarily work with unique images" - yes, you do. Enough to imply that ALL your images are unique, especially when there is no indication anywhere on your website to say that these specific images AREN'T unique.

"Occasionally we do get in very similar pieces" - which is not 'identical' - so let's stop pretending it is.

And again "We really only will list things that are very similar under the same ID." Not identical - just really, really, really similar - so similar we won't bother doing a full disclosure.

Seriously - this is a case of - when in a hole - don't dig.
Click to expand...

What really gets to me is the reuse of an ID number. An ID by it’s very nature of existence is supposed to be unique to whatever it’s assigned to. How on earth can you reuse an ID number and change the internal details; what happens if one of the customers has a problem and their “ID” details is no longer the ID details for the stone they brought!

It’s disgusting as well as unethical.
 
theredspinel said:
What really gets to me is the reuse of an ID number. An ID by it’s very nature of existence is supposed to be unique to whatever it’s assigned to. How on earth can you reuse an ID number and change the internal details; what happens if one of the customers has a problem and their “ID” details is no longer the ID details for the stone they brought!

It’s disgusting as well as unethical.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that as well.
 
mrs-b said:
Are you indeed?

As you said....

RO
Click to expand...

mrs-b said:
Well, that's good. And that's your decision.

As a consumer, what I'm looking for from a company is obviously different to what you're looking for. Telling people what they 'need' to do is outside my purvey on this - and outside yours also. You can tell people what they 'need' to do until the cows come home, but people have an uncanny tendency to make their own decisions on what's important to them.

In this sort of situation, I'm looking for a more ethical practice than what this company is offering. A strict ethical code may not be important to you. That's your decision and has nothing to do with me.

Anyway, enough back and forth on this. I'm sure this thread will be of use to people like me who are looking for full disclosure, and not of use to people like you, for whom this is not important. Readers will divide into the appropriate camps as they see fit.
Click to expand...

I am not telling people what to do. I'm telling people this is a common practice and that in my opinion if the stone is as represented then what is the real harm other than there is another stone out there just like it. People love to feel they have something unique and when they find out they don't...well...

I already said, this vendor should have made it clear this was not a one of a kind stone, I would have done that and when I was dealing, I did. But, at the same time if the buyer got what they feel was their money's worth, than, there really is no harm. This is not like paying thousands of dollars for a one of a kind gemstone. It is a commercial quality Sapphire, that and only that.

If you want to feel that this is dishonest, fine, no problem. Sure, they could of went a clearer better path, but I got to wonder, there is so much hate for this dealer here that if it was someone everyone loved here, would you all be having this conversation that is now going on and on?

Good day. :)
 
fredflintstone said:
I am not telling people what to do. I'm telling people this is a common practice and that in my opinion if the stone is as represented then what is the real harm other than there is another stone out there just like it. People love to feel they have something unique and when they find out they don't...well...

I already said, this vendor should have made it clear this was not a one of a kind stone, I would have done that and when I was dealing, I did. But, at the same time if the buyer got what they feel was their money's worth, than, there really is no harm. This is not like paying thousands of dollars for a one of a kind gemstone. It is a commercial quality Sapphire, that and only that.

If you want to feel that this is dishonest, fine, no problem. Sure, they could of went a clearer better path, but I got to wonder, there is so much hate for this dealer here that if it was someone everyone loved here, would you all be having this conversation that is now going on and on?

Good day. :)
Click to expand...

You can’t fixate on one aspect of the problems whilst ignoring the rest. Dishonest descriptions, non disclosure, reusing ID’s, changing internal ID date, prison time for fraud… yes if any PS loved vendor did all this, I for one would be saying exactly the same things.

Yes we get it’s common practice in the trade (so was slapping a woman’s bum in certain trades not to many years back - i’ll let that speak for itself ) but in addition to all the other factors… it doesn’t look good for this vendor or any vendor hence we have this thread.

If you’re going to address ONE point, at least acknowledge all the other points too. That one point doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
 
theredspinel said:
yes if any PS loved vendor did all this, I for one would be saying exactly the same things.
Click to expand...

Well, LOL!

One thing I will say for you, you speak your mind and love to argue. Oh, that was two things, sorry.

Same could be said about me, I will admit it. No problem.

The world is not black and white, there is a lot of grey in between.

Again, good day.
 
fredflintstone said:
Well, LOL!

One thing I will say for you, you speak your mind and love to argue. Oh, that was two things, sorry.

Same could be said about me, I will admit it. No problem.

The world is not black and white, there is a lot of grey in between.

Again, good day.
Click to expand...

Haha we found common ground! But you’re still a little bit wrong.. I don’t like to argue.
 
I’m with you @mrs-b.
When buying online if I see a photo of a gemstone and that is the basis of my decision to purchase, I am entitled to believe that I will be receiving the gemstone in the photo.
While I appreciate that with smaller gems a heap of them can / will be similar, unless the listing tells me that the photo is just “indicative of the colour and quality you will receive” it is misleading to allow me to believe otherwise.
Sure if I don’t like it, because in fact it isn’t like the photo, I can return it BUT I’m likely out the x 2 shipping costs AND the inconvenience/ disappointment of not getting what I thought I would.
Some Companies use the fact that most of their buyers are naive and won’t notice or appreciate that what they received isn’t in fact the one from the photo and use that as their business model. I appreciate that photographing every small gemstone may not be cost effective or time efficient for the seller but all they need include is a few simple words “Note - photo is indicative of the colour and quality you will receive” and buyers can make an “informed” decision as to whether or not to proceed.
 
lovedogs said:
Its about disclosure. I don't care If they have 5000 identical small stones. But if they claim that each one is individually photographed and you will get the EXACT STONE SHOWN IN THE PIC, then they are lying.
Click to expand...
I don't know how it can possibly not be obviously this, but... This...
Using stock photos is commonplace. And it's no problem. Unless a vendor says the photos are of the actual product(s) you'll receive, then it's fraudulent.
This seems obvious...
 
Last edited:
Whether or not it is common practice or "indistinguishable to the naked eye" has nothing to do with it.

If the listing states that it is the exact item in the photos and you do not receive that exact item, then it is fraudulent:

Not a lawyer, but found on a firm's site.

The Elements of Fraudulent Misrepresentation​

In order to prevail in a lawsuit for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following six elements:

  1. A representation was made (in contract law, a representation is any action or conduct that can be turned into a statement of fact).
  2. The representation was false.
  3. The representation, when made, was either known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth.
  4. The representation was made with the intention that the other party rely on it.
  5. The other party did, in fact, rely on the representation.
  6. The other party suffered damages as a result of relying on the representation.
As I understand the definitions of damages, which I could be far off, #6 can be as simple as being out the shipping cost of returning, a restocking fee, postponement, or paying a higher premium elsewhere. They would fall under nominal and incidental damages.

Not to say it would be *worth* pursuing legal actions, but to demonstrate that yes, it is a big deal, it's technically illegal, and no it should not be accepted or that we should "get over it." It is fraud. Period. Even small Etsy jewelers know better and state that the stone is representative. NSC has no excuse.
 
Last edited:
Such lingo and back and forth. The details are in the minutia and the implied implication. I don't care if it is standard industry practice, that is how fraud is found. Simply straightforward, direct, and honest communication.
 
Just because you cannot tell the difference doesn't mean there's no harm, especially if the serial number and photos are the same. At least the serial number should be different.

It's like selling a painting by Picasso when it's not actually by Picasso. Or selling the same Tiffany design and saying it's from Tiffany when it isn't. That's misrepresentation.
 
GeliL said:
Just because you cannot tell the difference doesn't mean there's no harm, especially if the serial number and photos are the same. At least the serial number should be different.

It's like selling a painting by Picasso when it's not actually by Picasso. Or selling the same Tiffany design and saying it's from Tiffany when it isn't. That's misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

I fully concur. It is fraudulent sales practice. And just for your reference, I prefer Tiffany and Jasper Johns just in case you feel flush. Alms for the poor?
 
If it's a matter of taking too much time for photographs, take a group shot. Label each stone in the photo. Let the buyer choose stone A, B, C. A lot of vendors do that, it's honest, and their reputations don't take a hit. We're not talking about individual photos of 3mm melee here. It sounds like it's a couple of stones. Geezles!

As we've all learned, communication is key, including what the listing communicates to the buyer!
 
I concur. But I fully understand the OP frustration. I have no axe to grind.
 
Obscura said:
Whether or not it is common practice or "indistinguishable to the naked eye" has nothing to do with it.

If the listing states that it is the exact item in the photos and you do not receive that exact item, then it is fraudulent:

Not a lawyer, but found on a firm's site.

The Elements of Fraudulent Misrepresentation​

In order to prevail in a lawsuit for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following six elements:

  1. A representation was made (in contract law, a representation is any action or conduct that can be turned into a statement of fact).
  2. The representation was false.
  3. The representation, when made, was either known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth.
  4. The representation was made with the intention that the other party rely on it.
  5. The other party did, in fact, rely on the representation.
  6. The other party suffered damages as a result of relying on the representation.
As I understand the definitions of damages, which I could be far off, #6 can be as simple as being out the shipping cost of returning, a restocking fee, postponement, or paying a higher premium elsewhere. They would fall under nominal and incidental damages.

Not to say it would be *worth* pursuing legal actions, but to demonstrate that yes, it is a big deal, it's technically illegal, and no it should not be accepted or that we should "get over it." It is fraud. Period. Even small Etsy jewelers know better and state that the stone is representative. NSC has no excuse.
Click to expand...

This is all well & fine, but first you must prove the gemstone was not the one pictured which will be next to impossible & if the stones are identical, you got a problem there. Secondly, you must travel to the defendant’s state, county, city to sue. What was the stone, under .50 pts. Hardly worth the effort. You would spend more money on suing them than the stone cost. Then it is your responsibility to collect the money. Good luck on that.

If you spent thousands, than it will be worth the effort, but you still have to collect.

Just the cold hard truth of the matter. Not saying it is right, but that is how it is.

The plantiff has the burden of proof and collection.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP

Featured Topics

Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top