What is this SCARINESS in my diamond that I thought I loved?? PIC

[Rockdiamond]

elle- it''s shady using pressure techniques, and outright fabrications to avoid satisfying their client.

Don''t you think $4k is a bit steep for a re-stock fee?
Especially since Kristie is not asking for a refund, rather an exchange?

 

[bgray]

though this is from your previous thread about the stone:

"I think you are all right....also, for this size stone, we are talking $7-15,000 more for an SI1-VS2 range...scary! This is already my "upgrade" so maybe in another five years or so maybe I will go up in clarity

The thing darn near blinded me in the sun! I was very fortunate that I was able to look at it in every imaginable type of lighting at the appraiser. Of course, I am a nitpicker (albeit one that LOVES 2ct+ diamonds) so I notice everything that is flawed....the budget did not allow for that size though with a quality cut and higher clarity.

I will learn to embrace my little twinning wisps, LOL."

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 2/25/2010 1:26:35 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
elle- it's shady using pressure techniques, and outright fabrications to avoid satisfying their client.

Don't you think $4k is a bit steep for a re-stock fee?
Especially since Kristie is not asking for a refund, rather an exchange?

What fabrications has Kristie been told? That the guy can't go back on his deal? That it's a difficult stone to sell? I don't know about backing out of his deal.. neither do you. We don't know what kind of relationship he has with this supplier. As far as a hard stone to sell- yes, I believe that. A large SI2 with visible inclusions is going to be a pain. which means he's stuck with a stone that he didn't purchase for his own inventory because a client changed their mind.

Yes, I think 4k is steep. Too steep, but based on Kristie's last post he's willing to work with her so hopefully it won't be minus the full 4k.

 

[Amethyste]

No one has confirmed ANY type of return policy for this vendor, am I wrong? If there are no return policy, then how can a customer have any type of boundaries to go on when something needs to be returned or exchanged etc?

That is what i thought most of her problem was. What kind of recourse does a consumer have when there is no return policy mentionned?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Elle- you''re correct, I don''t know anything specific, but I do know the diamond business works in a fairly routine manner.
Should we assume this seller found totally different cutters, using totally different practices?

How can one cutter destroy a store''s reputation with all the other cutters?
Answer- they can NOT.

I''ve been doing this a long time- and have worked with a lot of cutters- both as a salesman, and a buyer.
They don''t like it when you ask them to take a return, but I''ve found that business people have to be practical.

 

[kristie]

Bgray....YES, I said that.....but those wisps were only visible in that very specific jeweler lighting with my hand shaded. I do not know why I have to repeat this over and over and over and over and OVER again. The other lighting in the appraiser's office did NOT show the wisps.

At the appraiser I looked at it in dim room lighting (one of the bulbs overhead was burned out) and I took it outside. Obviously I also looked at in in the diamond grading lighting. Those are the 3 lighting conditions I viewed it in. The ONLY one where the wisps popped up is under the grading lighting and only with my hand shielding the light.

When I got the ring home and out in multiple and different environments, they presented themselves very obviously.

Since it seems as though some people want to attack rather than help, and they refuse to read ALL of my posts before commenting in a snarky manner....I am done here.

To all of you that were an immense help in a time of great frustration and anguish, THANK YOU, truly....I really and sincerely appreciate it.

I will think positive thoughts about what my jeweler has promised to do and we shall see. Such is life.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Good luck Kristie.

 

[elle_chris]

Amethyste- I''m sure they have a return policy. But Krisitie may be past it, or it only applies to item purchased in-house. Whatever it is, it doesn''t even matter unless they''re violating their own policy (which unless they''re really stupid, they won''t be).

Rockdiamond- "it''s shady using pressure techniques, and outright fabrications to avoid satisfying their client." Totally uncalled for and unproven. Much lke you don''t like it when members make comments about how you do your business (trust your jeweler and choose a stone with your eyes etc.), you have no idea how this company conducts their business. We have one poster who''s unhappy because they won''t take the stone back. Yes, I feel terribly for her. Yes, I hope the vendor works with her and it she''s satisified. But no, I will not jump to any conclusions on how they''re lying, or doing anything shady, because I just don''t see it.
Kristie- I''m sorry you feel attacked. I do sincerely hope it works out for you in the end.

 

[sdevante]

After all this drama, I surely hope the OP at least posts the final resolution and the name of the vendor.

 

[Amethyste]

Date: 2/25/2010 2:04:47 PM
Author: elle_chris

Amethyste- I''m sure they have a return policy. But Krisitie may be past it, or it only applies to item purchased in-house. Whatever it is, it doesn''t even matter unless they''re violating their own policy (which unless they''re really stupid, they won''t be).

Rockdiamond- ''it''s shady using pressure techniques, and outright fabrications to avoid satisfying their client.'' Totally uncalled for and unproven. Much lke you don''t like it when members make comments about how you do your business (trust your jeweler and choose a stone with your eyes etc.), you have no idea how this company conducts their business. We have one poster who''s unhappy because they won''t take the stone back. Yes, I feel terribly for her. Yes, I hope the vendor works with her and it she''s satisified. But no, I will not jump to any conclusions on how they''re lying, or doing anything shady, because I just don''t see it.

Kristie- I''m sorry you feel attacked. I do sincerely hope it works out for you in the end.

I was hoping that the OP would eventually mention the vendor''s name so I could go check myself about their return policy, and go from there...

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 2/25/2010 1:48:56 PM
Author: kristie
Bgray....YES, I said that.....but those wisps were only visible in that very specific jeweler lighting with my hand shaded. I do not know why I have to repeat this over and over and over and over and OVER again. The other lighting in the appraiser''s office did NOT show the wisps.

At the appraiser I looked at it in dim room lighting (one of the bulbs overhead was burned out) and I took it outside. Obviously I also looked at in in the diamond grading lighting. Those are the 3 lighting conditions I viewed it in. The ONLY one where the wisps popped up is under the grading lighting and only with my hand shielding the light.

When I got the ring home and out in multiple and different environments, they presented themselves very obviously.

Since it seems as though some people want to attack rather than help, and they refuse to read ALL of my posts before commenting in a snarky manner....I am done here.

To all of you that were an immense help in a time of great frustration and anguish, THANK YOU, truly....I really and sincerely appreciate it.

I will think positive thoughts about what my jeweler has promised to do and we shall see. Such is life.

Kristie, no one is attacking you. I think they keep restating their points because you are not acknowledging them. If the inclusions are visible they are visible, and it is not and eye clean diamond. Even if it was in only one lighting environment at the appraisers and more lighting environments in real life. NO ONE is disputing what you have said, they are pointing out that you knew you were getting a diamond that was not 100% eye clean, and now you are unhappy about that. I would be too. But the fact remains that this was not a mysterious out-of-the-blue issue with the diamond. It was always a potential, one that you hoped you could live with. Turns out you cannot. Does that mean the dealer has to find someone who can live with it?

 

[Maisie]

Is this new diamond you are considering a lot more expensive than the one you have now?

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 2/25/2010 1:48:56 PM
Author: kristie
Bgray....YES, I said that.....but those wisps were only visible in that very specific jeweler lighting with my hand shaded. I do not know why I have to repeat this over and over and over and over and OVER again. The other lighting in the appraiser''s office did NOT show the wisps.

At the appraiser I looked at it in dim room lighting (one of the bulbs overhead was burned out) and I took it outside. Obviously I also looked at in in the diamond grading lighting. Those are the 3 lighting conditions I viewed it in. The ONLY one where the wisps popped up is under the grading lighting and only with my hand shielding the light.

When I got the ring home and out in multiple and different environments, they presented themselves very obviously.

Since it seems as though some people want to attack rather than help, and they refuse to read ALL of my posts before commenting in a snarky manner....I am done here.

To all of you that were an immense help in a time of great frustration and anguish, THANK YOU, truly....I really and sincerely appreciate it.

I will think positive thoughts about what my jeweler has promised to do and we shall see. Such is life.

You viewed it with an Expert under room lighting, outdoors, bright grading lighting, PLUS idealscope lighting.

What exactly were the "multiple and different" environments at home that made the wisps you were going to embrace so glaring?

For the record, no one is "attacking" you. We are pointing out that your own description seems to show that there WERE opportunities to evaluate the stone prior to commitment.

Everyone is wishing you the best outcome. Some of us just don''t agree that the supplier has been dishonest in any way.

 

[whatmeworry]

Your jeweler could be acting in good faith too.

Suppose he made a 2K profit, (20K to the cutter, 2K for the store).

You return it and now he has to sell it at a fire sale price to other dealers because he doesn''t want it or can''t afford it for his inventory.

If the fire sale (too good to refuse) price to other dealers is 16K, then you would get 18K and feel burned by the jeweler but the jeweler would not be making any money.

I hope it works out for you.

 

[yssie]

Kristie, noone's attacking you. Different people have different online "voices" and will state their points less or more bluntly, but ultimately we're all just saying what we think, and we're hoping for a good resolution for you!


It's really not fair to smear the vendor here, though - you did have the opportunity to A) see the wisps in more lighting types than you checked in and B) check all the store policies prior to purchase. It's an expensive mistake, but at some point I really think it's more stressful to continue the bloodhunt

I just hope you and vendor are able to come to some mutually satisfactory conclusion soon!

 

[LGK]

Just for general info I thought I''d add some stuff about CC chargebacks. As the person who deals with the financial stuff at an antiques business I have dealt with a good number of charge backs that customers have tried to do, generally for no particular reason. This is the process I''ve gone through numerous times as a merchant using Bank of America Merchant Services. Any CC claims go to *the merchant''s* account with their bank- the customer may start it with their company, but the merchant''s bank or CC processor is the one that deals with the whole process.

Basically, the when a consumer disputes a charge the merchant is sent a notification that the money is in dispute, and the money is taken out of their account at that point, but not given to the customer- just held in limbo by the CC company until the dispute is decided. The CC company sends you a copy of the reason for the chargeback, and "I don''t like it" isn''t on the list. It has to be something like "I bought online and didn''t receive the goods" or "Someone stole my CC" or a truly big fraudulent deal. If you want to do a chargeback because of buyer''s remorse, you have to lie through your teeth. And, of course, that does happens on occasion.

The onus is on the merchant to prove that you sent the item, or whatever. (If you have a signed CC receipt you are covered for the "stolen CC" claim. If you have a tracking # you''re covered for the mailing thing.) If you have the information proving it''s an invalid charge back, you give it to the CC company, then they reimburse your account after they find in your favor. Since lying because of buyer''s remorse is not that uncommon- I''d say I see it maybe once or twice a year- the companies, in my experience, tend to be slightly more likely to find in favor of the merchant.

The merchant services people have told me that there are some CC companies that allow a customer one charge back per year with no reason for the claim. Who knows if that''s true, but it was my bank people that told me that.

 

[Maisie]

I think kristie did what most of us would do when a huge rick is placed on our finger. She was caught up in the excitement and joy of such a huge sentimental purchase. Once she calmed down and looked at the diamond through her normal eyes she realized that it wasn't quite as perfect as she originally thought. Thats why a vendor usually gives a decent time frame for returns. Unfortunately kristie didn't know what her options were for return so she is now stuck in a very difficult position. I have a feeling the vendor is trying to talk her into a substantionally more expensive diamond. I really hope this is not the case as that would strike me as shady.

 

[purrfectpear]

Kristie already had an over 2 carat diamond, so the extra .68 probably wasn''t all that blinding of a new experience

 

[Maisie]

Oh. Well that blows my theory right out of the water

 

[cara]

hmm, I would feel attacked by some of the posts on this thread, were I the OP. People digging up old quotes to rub it in that I (obviously) misestimated the inclusions during the appraisal? People assuming I had been wearing the ring for two weeks and lying about it when in fact it was being set then? using the word ''smear'' to describe kristie''s behavior toward the vendor?

Kristie hasn''t smeared the vendor, she hasn''t even named the vendor, and when she started the thread she naively thought a return would be no problem. Maybe she has unrealistic expectations, but she has reported her side of the story in a way that allows us to see her contributions to the problem and form our own opinions even while expressed her frustration with the situation and her opinion. Hardly smearing if she''s presenting enough information for people to see how she contributed to the mess and call her out on it. And people (myself included) have done that and pointed out the vendors possible viewpoint here. For people to treat her like she''s trying to pull a fast one is just a bit much - people have pointed out mistakes she made, she agrees she contributed (maybe not as much as others think) but she thinks the remedy her vendor proposes is unfair. Maybe, maybe not, we can debate.

The comments from people in the biz (Paul, Rockdiamond) have come the closest to ''smearing'' the vendor, by indicating that contrary to what the vendor has told Kristie, sometimes stones do end up going back to the cutter after the deal is agreed to, mazel is not an Unbreakable Vow, and that one cutter is unlikely to be able to entirely ruin a vendor''s rep with all other cutters. Also these poster''s poor opinion of kristie''s vendor''s policies and statements carries some weight with me, as much as I see kristie as contributing by not doing her due diligence and all. Of course, they are more reputable hands-on vendors so maybe they have a special place in their hearts for their drop-shipping kin.

I think it is entirely possible that the inclusions were more noticable/visible to kristie when she got the ring home. At least this happened to me in evaluating my e-ring stone! Maybe ineffective evaluation in an insufficient variety of lighting environments, maybe self-delusion or giddy bling-blindness, who cares. She didn''t accuse the vendor of switching the stone or anything so clearly she missed something in her initial evaluation and/or didn''t heed the warning signs that she did notice. That coupled with not establishing the return policy ahead of time has contributed to her current unfortunate situation. Which could be remedied more happily with a reasonable vendor, not one trying to squeeze more money out of the her.

Kristie, good luck. I still vote for cashing out even with the hit. You are unlikely to come out ahead by giving these people more of your money.

 

[yssie]

Cara - you are correct. I apologize for my use of the word "smear". It was not the correct choice.


Unfairly accuse this vendor of dishonesty would be more appropriate.

 

[purrfectpear]

Also Cara, no one here accused Kristie of sitting around wearing the diamond for 2 weeks.

SHE jumped to that conclusion.

Anyone could clearly read that she received the diamond, viewed it AT THE APPRAISERS, told the supplier she would accept it, and had it sent back to the supplier to be set into a ring, then got it back in the mail, wore it for a day or two and had buyer''s remorse.

Kristie tried to "imply" we were too stupid to understand the scenario, but I think everyone is clear that the stone was sent back to be set.

 

[Rockdiamond]

+1 Cara

I''m here in a genuine attempt to assist a consumer.
I don''t know the seller - or the buyer- but I do have inside knowledge of trade practices that might assist the consumer.

I think it''s crazy to buy from a store that has a sign "NO REFUNDS"- but if it''s clearly posted, than the buyer has been warned.

Of course we all agree Kristie should have asked these questions first but lets remember that virtually all reputable online diamond sellers do have money back guarantees.
In that regard, it''s easy to see how Kristie assumed she''d also have a money back guarantee.

Finally- if the seller is going to charge this $4000 fee, be a big boy, and be honest.
The cutter can not ruin a buyers reputation on a broad basis in the trade. Not only that, the cutter will likely be very glad to send more stones to a seller who pays- even if they return occasionally.
I can not say for sure what this particular seller''s relationship is with the cutter, but there are aspects that are trade standards, or realities. My experience as a wholesale seller and buyer is very long- so I have perspective on how cutters and wholesale buyers work.
There''s no "hotline" cutters look at to see if Joe Shmoe broke a mazal.

elle- I have no problem whatsoever if members want to discuss how we do our business -in fact, I welcome it. I don''t like having quotes attributed to me that I never said- such as "Trust your jeweler" or "choose a stone with your eyes"

I do apologize if I get overly passionate- but a diamond seller behaving badly reflects badly on ALL diamond sellers.
Hopefully we''ve given Kristie assistance that will ultimately help her in this difficult situation.

 

[tberube]

Kristie - I have read this entire thread in all its back and forth, and I will say that I am awaiting your final outcome with baited breath.

I myself, as many of us, have made big decisions I''ve regretted and have lost some hard-earned cash because of it, so I can see where your frustration and anger are coming from.

A person should look down on their engagement diamond and love it, smile because of what it means to them, and not have to be practically grief-stricken by its bitter story. I hope that you and your jeweler can come to a conclusion that makes you happy and much more satisfied in the end.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 2/25/2010 1:17:45 PM
Author: kristie
MC, will you please read my response just two posts up? Thanks

Additionally, my post regarding SI2''s was made after I had this debacle with this stone.....

I do not get it, I mentioned the ONE lighting situation I could see the inclusions in and that was in a DIAMOND GRADING LIGHT that is super bright and if I shaded my hand over it, they appeared......that was it.

Please do not change my words I wrote. I said I could only observe them in that one very specific lighting condition.....gosh, why is it necessary to attack people on here? It is not as if I am bashing the vendor''s name directly and no one even knows who it is, I only came to get advice and now people are making things up when they must have barely skimmed over what I wrote in earlier posts.

Peace.

I''m not sure why you''re so defensive as we''re not "attacking" you, just stating that you did see the inclusions so you had a bit of warning before the diamond was set.

Since none of us know who the vendor is, we''re not able to assess what the return policy on the website is. It''d be a lot easier for us all to get a complete picture with all the pieces of the puzzle.

Anyway, good luck! Hope all works out in your favor.

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 2/25/2010 10:37:33 AM
Author: elle_chris
Paul- Kristie received the stone set on the 19th. But in her earlier thread dated Feb. 9th, the stone(loose)was already in her possesion.

eta: link to thread on the 9th: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/think-i-found-it-its-not-a-3-ct-but-close-enough-questions.136021/

Cara- I never meant to imply that Krisite wore the ring around for a few weeks and decided she didn''t like the stone. I even linked the above thread because Paul had said, "On page 3 of this thread, the OP states that she received the stone in hand on the 19th". So if I gave I that impression, I apologize.

Rockdiamond- Are you really missing my point? You accused a company of using shady techniques and lying, without knowing a thing other than they won''t take back the stone. You did exactly what you accuse others here of doing to you.. you know, talking crap.

 

[Rockdiamond]

elle- since I have no idea who buyer or seller is here, I am NOT speaking about any seller in particular- rather my comments highlight general trade practices.
I am taking kristie''s comments at face value- I believe that she was told what she''s relating.
As such, I can only speak about what she''s been told.
How is this any different that a consumer posting a question like
"A jeweler told me pink diamonds are all treated, is this true?"

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/25/2010 9:41:33 AM
Author: elle_chris

Normally, I''m always on the side of the consumer. In this case though, Kristie has another thread that was posted on the 9th. In that thread the stone was already in her possesion and she had seen it with her appraiser. Kristie herself said that the inclusions were visible in a shaded area.

On the 21st she decided she can''t live with it. That''s not four days. That''s at least 11 days from her first thread assuming it was purcahsed on the 9th, and not before. Whiteflash who''s known for excellent customer service, allows 10 day returns for stones that are not in house. I don''t believe this is an unreasonable policy. It gives the consumer enough time to see the stone and have it appraised.

What''s enough time for a consumer to change their mind? 15 days, 20 days, a month?

I do think if they don''t want to refund the full amount, then at least do an exchange for the full value of the current stone. But, they''re not obligated to. Crappy customer service? Oh yeah. Shady business practice? I don''t think so.

Elle, there''s a public relations/marketing problem here for this company and Paul-Antwerp keeps getting it right time and again. They are behaving like a snake-oil salesman. If they don''t think their stone is worth the money they sold it for, why should anyone ever buy a diamond from this company ever again? How can they be trusted? I have a diamond being set right now. If I found out it was this same company, I''d tell them sorry, I''m not interested in doing business with you. As a result of this transaction, you''ve not only lost my sale, but you''ve also lost your reputation. And reputations are ALL these retailers have going for them.

 

[LGK]

I should add that my last post about CC chargebacks wasn''t directed at the OP. I know you were saying you weren''t doing a CC chargeback Kristie. I just wanted to post my experience with chargebacks for future/other readers, since I''ve dealt with a lot of them from the merchant''s side.

 

[cara]

Date: 2/25/2010 4:58:30 PM
Author: yssie
Cara - you are correct. I apologize for my use of the word 'smear'. It was not the correct choice.

Unfairly accuse this vendor of dishonesty would be more appropriate.

On what basis did KRISTIE unfairly accuse her vendor of dishonesty? She sounded aghast at what her vendor told her and upset and possibly doubting. Fine, she's assumed pleasant things about her vendor - remember on the first page when she thought she'd get her money back? - and is now shocked and in a position to lose a lot of money. The dishonesty accusations began when OTHER POSTERS questioned the accuracy of the vendor statements that kristie relayed. See Rockdiamond's earlier post, as well as others.

So she shouldn't have started a thread relating her ordeal and in particular posting what her vendor told her was the reason they could not do a full refund because OTHER PEOPLE might comment that her vendor's reasons were unlikely to be wholly and completely true, and then somehow Kristie is responsible for these supposedly-unfair accusations (against a vendor that has not yet been named)? Its a ridiculous criticism to make.

If nothing else, this is a consumer forum. We should be moderately supportive of consumers, even if they make big mistakes and are upset about them.