The Natural Sapphire Company - BEWARE

[Avondale]

This is all well & fine, but first you must prove the gemstone was not the one pictured which will be next to impossible

And this right here is the reason threads such as this are important and useful.

Because every competent lawyer, wherever on earth they practice, will always advise to stay out of the courtroom, if possible. It's always best to avoid the problem before it becomes a problem.

 

[Chester Mercury]

And this right here is the reason threads such as this are important and useful.

Because every competent lawyer, wherever on earth they practice, will always advise to stay out of the courtroom, if possible. It's always best to avoid the problem before it becomes a problem.

Of course, you are citing Civil vs. Criminal statutes. Caveat emptor!

 

[Obscura]

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.

That is why I said it wouldn't necessarily be worth it. Unless of course it was an expensive stone, but usually the threat of litigation will have people fold if they are in the wrong, regardless of price.

Also, the OP had written word by them that it was not the actual stone and the website claiming it was. So there is your proof. Again, most companies would want to be out a sale instead of a lawsuit where it will tarnish their reputation.

 

[fredflintstone]

That is why I said it wouldn't necessarily be worth it. Unless of course it was an expensive stone, but usually the threat of litigation will have people fold if they are in the wrong, regardless of price.

Also, the OP had written word by them that it was not the actual stone and the website claiming it was. So there is your proof. Again, most companies would want to be out a sale instead of a lawsuit where it will tarnish their reputation.

I see a quote by the person who wrote the post, hardly proof in court. No written word documentation. No picture of the conversation on e-mail or other internet communication legal proof.

Like I wrote before, this group of people need to get over it.

Duplicate stones are legal though I would tell the perspective customer that there were identical stones in stock, but in the long run, they are identical for all purposes and worth the same amount of money. So, what are you going to do, sue said seller for the difference in price that is the other stone identical to the naked eye of even an expert?

So, this whole, I'm so mad thread is moot even if in your mind it is unethical, which it may be, but not a criminal. Now I'm going mute.

You can't tell people something that they refuse to listen too.

 

[lilmosun]

Duplicate stones are legal though I would tell the perspective customer that there were identical stones in stock, but in the long run, they are identical for all purposes and worth the same amount of money. So, what are you going to do, sue said seller for the difference in price that is the other stone identical to the naked eye of even an expert?

but when they are exactly alike and under a carat, I think people are making much more out of this than is warranted

But in this particular case, your arguments don't hold imo. The stones are NOT identical for all purposes nor are they worth the same amount of money.

As @mrs-b pointed out, the details on the listing were changed to one that was about 25% smaller and 20% cheaper and likely at a higher price per carat. Sorry, not even close imo. (While the numbers may not be exact, I think it's clear that NCS's original claim was they were identical is not accurate which they later changed to the practice for "similar" stones - whatever that means).

I also find the reuse of the item number concerning for items that are just visually similar but not nearly identical in size/weight/price. Someone is considering a stone - bookmarks it or asks their significant other to buy it for them - only to be sold something different unless they re-review the description carefully.

Whether it's legal or not, I think the callout and warning is warranted.

(As an aside, I don't think it's fair to tell/ridicule people to "get over it" and accept practices just because they are common in the industry. There are many such practices that many here would find not acceptable and we are here to share knowledge so people can make their own informed decisions.)

@mrs-b I just checked and it's not the same stone. The one they have up now is .46ct
The first heart was .61ct I believe or about that. The price was also closer to 300 I think? This one is $240 so definitely not the same stone.

But they're using the same video and pics which I consider fraud. Disgusting.

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.

 

[Obscura]

Amen likmosum.

To fred, your tone is very rude. To tell someone to "get over it" and "it's such a small stone, it's not worth the fuss" is not only rude, it's also ignorant. A hundred dollars may be pocket change to many members on here, but for a lot of people that is a substantial lump of cash. And customers deserve the same basic amount of respect whether they are spending $10 or $100,000.

I see from previous posts you are a former trade member, and I suspect that is where your bias stems from. I'm very concerned that as a former trade member you consider this practice as "no big deal." Again, there is a difference between "photo is of actual stone" i.e. fraudulant misrepresentation; and "photo is representative of item." -allows for variation. That is not hard to understand. It benefits both the seller and the customer and takes all of 2 seconds, so to not do so makes me think that a seller is lazy/bad-at-their-job at best and a crook at worst.

And fraud *IS* a crime as well as unethical. It is a misrepresentation if you make a statement that is *known* by you to be false. Period. It does not matter if they are identical. If it can be proven you misrepresented the item, you are accountable. You can also potentially be held liable for damages due to negligent representation. Yes, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. That is *always* the case. It is up the person how they feel about it and how they want to handle it. It is not up to you, nor I, nor anyone else.

Considering who the OP is, a well known and active PSer, I'm inclined to believe that she does have the information she said she did and that NSC has lived up to its poor reputation, yet again.

Mrs-b came on here a *consumer* forum with a concern over a purchase that she felt warranted to share with other consumers. Which this forum is for. I can understand taking the devil's advocate, giving constructive criticism, and definitely a behind the scenes insight, but "get over it, it's not a big deal, stop making a fuss about it" is none of those things. Might I suggest revisiting the policies stating the decorum of forum behavior.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Hey all -

I'm wondering if someone can fill me in. As a person who's purchased from the NSC before, I'm very interested in what happened here... and I want to have an opinion. lol

So, apparently there were two stones with the same stock #. What were the carat weight and price? If these were smaller, inexpensive stones, I can see grouping them in the same listing with the same item #, much like JTV will do. But they should definitely mention it in the listing.

I bought/kept 2 stones from the NSC and also bought/returned a ruby. Lauren was lovely and very accommodating (also patient). But my experience with the stones was mixed. Also not thrilled with what I read about their business practices in some of the links posted here. eek

About the "on hold" policy... this I can sort of understand too, because they often have in-house viewings. So they don't want to mark stones sold that have merely been put aside. I can also understand the waitlist function should the gem come off hold, but will admit it's odd that the transaction plays out like a purchase when the stone may already be spoken for.

Autumn

 

[mrs-b]

Hallo all.

To be honest, I'd stopped following this thread after my last post a couple of days ago, having said everything I had to say. NSC's practice in listing stones is something consumers should be aware of, so they can make their decision whether to shop there - or not - accordingly.

Am I "mad"? Not at all. Got my money back in a timely manner, didn't lose a cent, cost me about 5 minutes, and dodged a bullet. Would have liked a sapphire, but bought a nice shirt instead. Happy Valentine's Day to me!

Is this post victimizing a company? Course not - don't be silly.

Do I have an axe to grind? Nope. Had never had any dealings with the NSC up to a week ago and knew nothing about them. This is hardly a vendetta.

I also didn't post here to have people agree - or disagree - with me. So I'm 100% unconcerned with the single person who seems unable to comprehend what's wrong with the practices employed by the NSC. If a person doesn't value transparency and full disclosure, they will simply never get it. If their communication style is combative and if they're the sort of person who fixates on others agreeing with them, it tends to happen that their comments will turn insulting and aggressive as a matter of course. Please understand, tho, that I'm not at all upset by those comments; every group has its lunatic fringe.

To that end, I'd say - don't engage. In my opinion, at this point, the only argument to be had here is circular and unproductive. I've said everything I had to say and won't be shopping with the NSC. Hopefully this post was of use to others who were considering shopping there, and they can make their decisions accordingly.

End of story for this little Valentine's Day shopper! (I've got a new shirt! Yay!)

PS. Just to clarify - it wasn't me who noted that the new stone was smaller and cheaper. Not sure who it was - and thank you to them for checking! - but it wasn't me and credit where credit's due. I stopped looking at the NSC site after I decided not to proceed with the stone in which I was originally interested.

 

[fredflintstone]

I also didn't post here to have people agree - or disagree - with me. So I'm 100% unconcerned with the single person who seems unable to comprehend what's wrong with the practices employed by the NSC. If a person doesn't value transparency and full disclosure, they will simply never get it. If their communication style is combative and if they're the sort of person who fixates on others agreeing with them, it tends to happen that their comments will turn insulting and aggressive as a matter of course. Please understand, tho, that I'm not at all upset by those comments; every group has its lunatic fringe.

"Combative," hardly. Don't think I was targeting and threating people here.


"Insulting" and "aggressive," please. If you find that being truthful about the subject of duplicate stones "insulting" and "aggressive," and my thoughts on the subject, well, I'm sorry for being so darn mean. And I’m sorry for being so darn mean as to say in civil court a person must meet certain criteria to prove their case. It was not pointed at you or anyone here. It was a general statement.

"Lunatic fringe."

Now who is being insulting.

Forgive me if I made a mistake and those comments were not pointed towards me, but who else then? Funny how there are two sets of standards here and with what you wrote.

I based my whole assumption here on your original post and the quote from it below.


"So I call them and ask again - "Is this sapphire still available?" - Answer - yes, it is.

So I say - "That's concerning, given that my husband bought it on Friday."

They then respond with - oh - no - wait - it sold this morning. So I ask why it's still on their website, and she tells me....

"Because we have two of them and they're identical."

I say - identical? To the extent that they have the SAME STOCK NUMBER?

She says - yes - if they're identical, we will put them up there with the same stock number.

I then ask the obvious question: are these from the same rough?

Her answer? "I don't know."

So, there is where I came in and said what I have been saying about the common practice of selling duplicate stones. Dealers by parcels of duplicate stones. The parcel has a stock number, so in many cases you will find the stock number of the stone the same. That is just how it is done in some cases and in 99% of cases it is not done with the intention of duping the consumer. It really is not.

As far as disclosure, I already said I would disclose that there was more than one stone. But at the same time, I do feel if stones are identical to the naked eye in color, cut, clarity (some may weigh a few points more than others) from the same lot (identical stone are not always cut from the same rough) are each equal in value. It is not like one is selling each stone for a different price, though given enough time a dealer may either raise the price because the replacement stones are becoming more expensive or lower the price because the dealer needs quick cash and stones that sit and not sale need to be turned into to cash to buy more stones.

Now, someone quoted above that they checked the website, and the other stone was not the same. In that case yes, it is misrepresentation. But are we 100% sure after what you quoted the salesperson said that this is the actual other stone the salesperson was speaking of? Could be? Same stock number, right? Or is this a different stone than the salesperson was speaking of but from the same parcel with the parcel number? This I do not know. Do you? Did you call the salesperson back and ask if this was the other stone that was identical?

I am not defending nor am I accusing “The Natural Sapphire Company" here of unethical practices in this instance. I am just explaining that this is a wide practice not meant to dupe the customer or to be intentionally dishonest. I should have only written once here. My original post, but when people keep replying and quoting what I wrote I get drawn back into this conversation and it goes on and on…

It’s a two-way street people. You may not like what I have to say but I do have a right to say it without being called a part of “the lunatic fringe” here. LOL!

 

[elle_chris]

I was the poster who was debating between the original stone and a pear from NSC in a different thread. The original heart was 10 or 11 points larger, and about 100 USD more.
They're not identical.

@Autumn in New England The pear I winded up purchasing was not on hold until they shipped it to me. I purchased it directly off their site.
But they kept it up and put a note (after I purchased it) that says:
"Special Note: This item is currently on hold for another customer. If you'd like to be placed on a wait-list, continue your purchase today. We will contact you within 24 - 48 hours should the item become released from hold."

It's not "oh hold", it's bought and paid for. But they're allowing others to purchase the same stone just in case I return it? That's a shady business practice.

 

[fredflintstone]

I was the poster who was debating between the original stone and a pear from NSC in a different thread. The original heart was 10 or 11 points larger, and about 100 USD more.
They're not identical.

@Autumn in New England The pear I winded up purchasing was not on hold until they shipped it to me. I purchased it directly off their site.
But they kept it up and put a note (after I purchased it) that says:
"Special Note: This item is currently on hold for another customer. If you'd like to be placed on a wait-list, continue your purchase today. We will contact you within 24 - 48 hours should the item become released from hold."

It's not "oh hold", it's bought and paid for. But they're allowing others to purchase the same stone just in case I return it? That's a shady business practice.

I'm glad you like your Pear.

But two things.

How can you be so sure that this was the exact stone the salesperson was speaking to mrs-b about. Did you not read what I wrote about parcel stock numbers being used as stock numbers for stones of that parcel? Do we all have eyes at NSC to see exactly what is going on. What we do see is circumstantial evidence. But you may be right it could be the same stone, but I am not a mind reader. I cannot say for sure what stone the salesperson had in mind at that time.

When I was dealing stones most of my customers were the trade, but I sold to end buyers too. The trade very rarely returns stones. End customers do and I can't count the times I had two or even more end customers interested in buying the same stone 1 to 48 hours after it sold. You know what most asked me? Please let me know if it becomes available again. Meaning if it gets returned, I would like to buy it. As NSC sales to end customers on their website I see nothing wrong with them saying a stone is on hold that was sold, because you never know if it will stay sold. You never know. Return policy.

 

[elle_chris]

I'm glad you like your Pear.

But two things.

How can you be so sure that this was the exact stone the salesperson was speaking to mrs-b about. Did you not read what I wrote about parcel stock numbers being used as stock numbers for stones of that parcel? Do we all have eyes at NSC to see exactly what is going on. What we do see is circumstantial evidence. But you may be right it could be the same stone, but I am not a mind reader. I cannot say for sure what stone the salesperson had in mind at that time.

When I was dealing stones most of my customers were the trade, but I sold to end buyers too. The trade very rarely returns stones. End customers do and I can't count the times I had two or even more end customers interested in buying the same stone 1 to 48 hours after it sold. You know what most asked me? Please let me know if it becomes available again. Meaning if it gets returned, I would like to buy it. As NSC sales to end customers on their website I see nothing wrong with them saying a stone is on hold that was sold, because you never know if it will stay sold. You never know. Return policy.

I read what you wrote, but the stock numbers being the same due to parcel means nothing to a consumer.
To you it may all seem normal since you're in the trade, all well and good. But to someone who may have decided to buy it the following day, they don't understand what's going on.

If a business is worried about minimizing loss due to returns, they can easily add "notify me if the item becomes available" feature that so many companies use. But instead, they won't come out and say it was sold, they're using "on hold" for any customer that may be interested, and allowing them to purchase a stone that in reality is already sold.
It's a bad practice from where I'm sitting and doesn't exactly inspire trust.

 

[prs]

Now I'm going mute.

Words to live by!

 

[diamondyes]

Doesn’t JBG and lots of other places put stones “on hold” when they’ve sold? In case a return happens? I feel like I’ve seen that but I could be wrong

 

[fredflintstone]

I read what you wrote, but the stock numbers being the same due to parcel means nothing to a consumer.
To you it may all seem normal since you're in the trade, all well and good. But to someone who may have decided to buy it the following day, they don't understand what's going on.

If a business is worried about minimizing loss due to returns, they can easily add "notify me if the item becomes available" feature that so many companies use. But instead, they won't come out and say it was sold, they're using "on hold" for any customer that may be interested, and allowing them to purchase a stone that in reality is already sold.
It's a bad practice from where I'm sitting and doesn't exactly inspire trust.

So, I try to explain how the trade works. Let be honest, you and many here just do not want to hear it. You all know it all already ad nauseum. You must play the victims of the tyranny of conspiring malevolent deceitful sellers which rob and try to rob you. What ever happened two sides of the coin? I’ve even read some members here expounding that fact at times.

Your second paragraph is picking at bones. No stone is truly sold permanently until the return policy expires and here you go again, can you say 100% for sure there was not a second stone that was identical. All this amounts to is she says, she says. No real evidence for either side to prevail. Though the other side sure is not getting a chance to explain, not that they would want to, or it would be accepted here if they did. Sure glad the court system is not this sloppy and who are you to say how a company should run its business? If they want to keep their options opening until that sale is truly closed that is their prerogative and probably due to habitual returners, no matter the stone's quality. You say they are allowing the stone to be possibly sold twice. Again, pure conjecture on your part to the point of slander. You have no proof of that.

 

[fredflintstone]

Words to live by!

Well, that was the plan. But people refusing to hear what amounts to the second side of the coin, the sellers (even though I was not the seller, I gave plausible/truthful and reasons why this could happen), show how truly prejudice some members are here. There is nothing more hypocritical than the acrid smell of conceited sanctimony that seems quite plentiful here. Someone must stand up for the seller’s side of things. So, here I am and here I will be.

It is not all about the buyer. It takes two to make a transaction and 95% of the time all I read is how terrible the seller treated members here (from these type of threads) and nothing from their side of the story. Then again, maybe the sellers know better than to jump into the hornet’s nest hive and have better things to do.

Maybe I’m just slow to get the hint. You can quote that to if it provides you with amusement.

 

[yssie]

Fredflinstone you’re doing yourself and your perspective no favours but by all means continue I’m so here for free entertainment

 

[fredflintstone]

Perfect example. Enjoy your popcorn.

 

[demantoidz]

I don't have a horse in this race but I have a question for @fredflintstone since you were in the trade iirc.

Absolutely no emotions are in my question and I want that to be clear since this is quite a heated thread.

There is a problem in diamond melee where synthetics are being peppered with natural melee parcels. Do you think stock listings of gems could lead to similar dishonesty? not necessarily synthetic sapphires mixed with natural, but heat/no heat/diffusion/oil - whatever treatment. There was a poster here who got a garnet instead of ruby from such a listing, but it may have been a fluke.

 

[fredflintstone]

I don't have a horse in this race but I have a question for @fredflintstone since you were in the trade iirc.

Absolutely no emotions are in my question and I want that to be clear since this is quite a heated thread.

There is a problem in diamond melee where synthetics being peppered with with natural melee parcels. Do you think stock listings of gems could lead to similar dishonesty? not necessarily synthetic sapphires mixed with natural, but heat/no heat/diffusion/oil - whatever treatment. There was a poster here who got a garnet instead of ruby from such a listing, but it may have been a fluke.

Thank for the question demantoidz!

Anything is possible. There are sharks out there swimming in the water who have been doing that for years. Most the time they are not in business long or they start a business with a new name and continue thier crooked ways that give the rest of us a bad name in the trade

I hope that never happens to you.

Again, thank you for you question and thank you for being civil.

 

[elle_chris]

So, I try to explain how the trade works. Let be honest, you and many here just do not want to hear it. You all know it all already ad nauseum. You must play the victims of the tyranny of conspiring malevolent deceitful sellers which rob and try to rob you. What ever happened two sides of the coin? I’ve even read some members here expounding that fact at times.

Your second paragraph is picking at bones. No stone is truly sold permanently until the return policy expires and here you go again, can you say 100% for sure there was not a second stone that was identical. All this amounts to is she says, she says. No real evidence for either side to prevail. Though the other side sure is not getting a chance to explain, not that they would want to, or it would be accepted here if they did. Sure glad the court system is not this sloppy and who are you to say how a company should run its business? If they want to keep their options opening until that sale is truly closed that is their prerogative and probably due to habitual returners, no matter the stone's quality. You say they are allowing the stone to be possibly sold twice. Again, pure conjecture on your part to the point of slander. You have no proof of that.

I'm not saying it, THEIR SITE IS SAYING IT.

You like to talk a ton, but refuse to listen so gonna reiterate for the last time-
Anyone can purchase the stone I BOUGHT. The stone they put on hold once they shipped it to me. The stone that says; "This item is currently on hold for another customer.
If you'd like to be placed on a wait-list, continue your purchase today. "

That's pretty clear so stop pretending it's anything other than what it is.

 

[prs]

Well, that was the plan. But people refusing to hear what amounts to the second side of the coin, the sellers (even though I was not the seller, I gave plausible/truthful and reasons why this could happen), show how truly prejudice some members are here. There is nothing more hypocritical than the acrid smell of conceited sanctimony that seems quite plentiful here. Someone must stand up for the seller’s side of things. So, here I am and here I will be.

It is not all about the buyer. It takes two to make a transaction and 95% of the time all I read is how terrible the seller treated members here (from these type of threads) and nothing from their side of the story. Then again, maybe the sellers know better than to jump into the hornet’s nest hive and have better things to do.

Maybe I’m just slow to get the hint. You can quote that to if it provides you with amusement.

Fred, you had made your point on Page 1 of this thread. The ladies here are all smart enough to have "got it' if they felt so inclined. However, almost unanimously everyone else who posted disagreed with you. And after your third or fourth post it was obvious you were not going to change any minds. That was the time to take the off ramp!

I've found your posts in other threads to be informative and helpful. I am certainly not amused by the no-win situation you find yourself in here!

 

[fredflintstone]

I'm not saying it, THEIR SITE IS SAYING IT.

You like to talk a ton, but refuse to listen so gonna reiterate for the last time-
Anyone can purchase the stone I BOUGHT. The stone they put on hold once they shipped it to me. The stone that says; "This item is currently on hold for another customer.
If you'd like to be placed on a wait-list, continue your purchase today. "

That's pretty clear so stop pretending it's anything other than what it is.

Yes, I see that now. I even went through the process of buying the stone up until payment options. This is a bad proposition, no doubt about it. I do agree and I admit when I'm wrong and I am about this stone, and it seems this company.

I'm still not so sure about the original poster though that there was not an identical "heart" stone, but will say, any company that will take your money for a stone that is already currently paid for is capable of anything. I wish you had put this up first, then there would have been no objection from my end.

I'm sorry but seeing all things I have over the years from buyers has made me very skeptical. But you have provided the proof and there is no questioning it now from me.

 

[fredflintstone]

Fred, you had made your point on Page 1 of this thread. The ladies here are all smart enough to have "got it' if they felt so inclined. However, almost unanimously everyone else who posted disagreed with you. And after your third or fourth post it was obvious you were not going to change any minds. That was the time to take the off ramp!

I've found your posts in other threads to be informative and helpful. I am certainly not amused by the no-win situation you find yourself in here!

Yes, I did, and at that point wanted to be through with it, but when you are constantly bombarded with quotes one tends to answer back trying to explain their position.

All I have to say now is NSC has very unethical practices.

But don't automatically judge the rest of repeat duplicate stones sellers in the same category. That was also the point I was trying to get over.

Also, thank you for your kind second paragraph. Much appreciated.

 

[elle_chris]

Yes, I see that now. I even went through the process of buying the stone up until payment options. This is a bad proposition, no doubt about it. I do agree and I admit when I'm wrong and I am about this stone, and it seems this company.

I'm still not so sure about the original poster though that there was not an identical "heart" stone, but will say, any company that will take your money for a stone that is already currently paid for is capable of anything. I wish you had put this up first, then there would have been no objection from my end.

I'm sorry but seeing all things I have over the years from buyers has made me very skeptical. But you have provided the proof and there is no questioning it now from me.

Well, we're halfway there...

 

[Avondale]

But don't automatically judge the rest of repeat duplicate stones sellers in the same category. That was also the point I was trying to get over.

I don't think people are judging the practice of selling very similar stones under one listing. They're judging the lack of disclosure specifically. You know, the part that's misleading the client.

I can easily speculate it's meant to intentionally mislead as opposed to being the reult of an honest mistake, although I have no way of knowing for certain. Because what would sell more? "I have 5 identical stones, have this picture that's representative for all of them" or 5 times "I have this one of a kind unique stone that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world but here you have the chance to buy it"? We all know that we easily fall for uniqueness and no-one-else-has-this-ness. I imagine everyone in the trade knows this all too well. But no client wants to feel like they've been taken advantage of.

 

[fredflintstone]

I don't think people are judging the practice of selling very similar stones under one listing. They're judging the lack of disclosure specifically. You know, the part that's misleading the client.

I can easily speculate it's meant to intentionally mislead as opposed to being the reult of an honest mistake, although I have no way of knowing for certain. Because what would sell more? "I have 5 identical stones, have this picture that's representative for all of them" or 5 times "I have this one of a kind unique stone that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world but here you have the chance to buy it"? We all know that we easily fall for uniqueness and no-one-else-has-this-ness. I imagine everyone in the trade knows this all too well. But no client wants to feel like they've been taken advantage of.

As I wrote before, I would & did disclose that fact. Many repeat stone sellers do that too and have windows to put the number of stones a client wants to buy next to the picture. Then, some dealers are known specifically for that, but most likely more to the trade than the end buyer where it is common practice.

 

[Autumn in New England]

I was the poster who was debating between the original stone and a pear from NSC in a different thread. The original heart was 10 or 11 points larger, and about 100 USD more.
They're not identical.

@Autumn in New England The pear I winded up purchasing was not on hold until they shipped it to me. I purchased it directly off their site.
But they kept it up and put a note (after I purchased it) that says:
"Special Note: This item is currently on hold for another customer. If you'd like to be placed on a wait-list, continue your purchase today. We will contact you within 24 - 48 hours should the item become released from hold."

It's not "oh hold", it's bought and paid for. But they're allowing others to purchase the same stone just in case I return it? That's a shady business practice.

Enjoy your stone and thanks for the info! I think they do that because they offer an "inspection" period after selling a stone online. So, during that inspection period, they allow others to go on wait list for the item, should it be returned. I don't find this terribly unusual or concerning, but I understand why others might. And I agree it's weird that in order to go on waitlist, you have to actually enter payment info (which they don't charge unless a stone ships). I guess they don't want to lose potential buyers watching a stone until they're sure it's found its new home. I wonder what their return rate is that they felt the need to implement that policy?

With regard to the weight difference, what JTV will do, for example, is list a parcel (each purchase being for one stone) and mention the average weight and size of the stones. Naturally, they make it clear that there are several stones available. If NSC wants to list multiple similar stones in the same listing, that is what they should do. And the price should be the same for all. Otherwise, the stones should definitely have separate listings. Just my two cents!

 

[pokerface]

POV: It is actually really easy to transparently 1) complete a sales transaction without fraud and 2) offer a waiting list for a non-final sale.

 

[fredflintstone]

And I agree it's weird that in order to go on waitlist, you have to actually enter payment info (which they don't charge unless a stone ships).

I thought this could be the case, but I was not going to enter my card number to find out.