INSTORE 
Store Advice Real Deal The Case of The Second (and Third) Opinion
Store Advice Real Deal The Case of The Second (and Third) Opinion
Last Updated on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 01:59 Written by Kate B. Peterson Tuesday, 14 July 2009 21:54
Important note: Please include
your name, store name, and store location (city, state) in your
response. 
After months of research, Jack Meehan finally took the leap. In early January he purchased a 2.06-carat cushion-shaped diamond from The Gem Exchange, with the intention of presenting it to his fiance'e, Kim, as a surprise, and letting her select the mounting for her engagement ring. The diamond came with a GIA Certificate indicating VS2 clarity and D color. The purchase price was $21,271 plus tax - a bit more than he'd planned to spend -- but Jack was confident he'd gotten a good value and was comfortable with his purchase.
While travelling in New York on business in the days following his purchase, Jack spotted an ad for a diamond-district company that offered to laser inscribe a message onto the girdle of the diamond. Being a hopeless romantic, Jack thought that was a great idea. He took the diamond back to New York with him the following week and went to visit the shop in the ad.
While there, he spotted a setting that looked just like the one Kim had pointed out several times in stores and online as her very favorite. The store owner offered him a great combination price on the mounting, labor and inscription, and suggested he also get a new quality evaluation document and an insurance appraisal on the completed piece. He offered to get the evaluation taken care of at another national laboratory that was headquartered in the same building. Jack was delighted when he picked the ring up two days later - until he looked at the paperwork and noticed the diamond was actually found to be an F color.
When he got back home, Jack took the diamond and all the paperwork back to the Gem Exchange. The store owner, Terry Giles, explained to Jack that it was not uncommon for two different people or even two different laboratories to grade the same stone differently. Apparently overlooking the document note referencing the inscription, Terry offered to refund the full purchase price on the diamond, in keeping with the Gem Exchange's 100 percent customer satisfaction refund guarantee.
Jack told Terry that he was not interested in getting his money back -- that he wanted to keep the diamond, but wanted a refund for the difference in price between an F and a D color stone, which he estimated to be about $3,000. Unwilling to set a precedent with which he was not comfortable and convinced that he was correct in relying on the GIA report to substantiate the quality of the diamond, Terry maintained that he would only stick to the store's full refund policy - that if Jack was dissatisfied in any way, his only option would be to return the stone for a full refund.
On Feb. 5, Jack sent an e-mail to Terry acknowledging the refund offer but stating, "I invested a great deal of time and effort into the selection of my diamond, and I intend to present my engagement ring on Valentine's Day. I once again request that you simply send me a check for the confirmed difference in price between what I thought I bought (a D color) and what you actually sold me (an F color) - estimated by Web research and other consumers and retailers to be approximately $3,000.
The next day, a Gem Exchange attorney replied to Jack's e-mail, rejecting the payment idea and explaining that even though two laboratories had graded the stone an F color, "the body color of a diamond is not the primary factor in determining the ultimate retail price of a diamond". She added: "The color and clarity grades reported by any laboratory are subjective and are to be taken as an educated opinion. This is not an exact science - therefore, no one can guarantee a specific, completely consistent outcome."
A lengthy (and costly) response from Jack's lawyer outlined 24 points supporting his position and concluded with a request for $5,000 (adding legal fees to the previously accumulated total) to be paid within seven days. The Gem Exchange attorney countered by claiming that Jack had in fact received what he had purchased - a diamond with GIA certificate indicating a D color. She reiterated that despite the inscription (which the Gem Exchange would have removed), Jack could simply return the diamond, for a full refund or he could keep it and as a show of good faith, Gem Exchange would pay for the cost of the second certification and appraisal Jack had done by the New York lab
Jack's attorney countered, "This goes to the core of the dispute. We agree we were sold a diamond with a GIA certificate stating that the diamond is D color; however, we cannot agree that the diamond 'is as described in the GIA certificate.' We assert that we did not get what we paid for, evidenced by two certificates from reputable laboratories that state our diamond is F color. We love this diamond and want to keep it - at the right price for what it is."
Terry insists he wasn't trying to dismiss his customer. "Accepting Jack Meehan's proposed payment of the value differential might have been a more cost effective option for us, but it would also have meant admitting error - or worse - deception on our part - and would demonstrate a lack of confidence in the GIA certification process."
The REAL questions: How might you have handled the situation if you were the owner of the Gem Exchange? How about if you were the customer? Do you think such disputes do great damage to the industry as a whole?
Comments (49)
written by GI, July 15, 2009
There should be no dispute. GIA is an idependent lab- and has the highest degree/history of accuracy compared to the most of the other 'for hire' labs of liars.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sarah Meister Fazzino, July 15, 2009
Did the clarity grade of the GIA report and the other "national lab" match? If so, there is a possibility that each lab graded the color differently, but agreed on the other primary characteristics this could be one of those diamonds that is difficult to color grade. I agree with how the owner of The Gem Exchange has handeled the situation. He has stood behind the diamond he sold and offered to take the diamond back for a full refund. The client is being unreasonable in this instance. If this were my client I would make the same offer, a full refund in exchange for the diamond.
The variation between labratories created some mistrust of the industry. When labs are known to grade more lieniently this creates skeptisism in clients and they are not sure who to trust. This simply erodes trust in the industry and hurts us all in the end. The best way to explain a grading report is as an educated opinion by professionals and leave it at that.
The variation between labratories created some mistrust of the industry. When labs are known to grade more lieniently this creates skeptisism in clients and they are not sure who to trust. This simply erodes trust in the industry and hurts us all in the end. The best way to explain a grading report is as an educated opinion by professionals and leave it at that.
-
- +0
-
-
written by GallantJewelers, July 15, 2009
2 color grades different is pretty significant. And at the GIA while they agree to a degree of subjectivity, I'm quite sure there would be no allowance for 2 whole grades.
Also, I wonder why Jack would suddenly lose trust in the Gem Exchange. Why wouldn't he doubt the veracity of the 2nd appraisal? If the diamond was graded an F originally and the second place said it was a D grade would he want to give the Gem Exchange $3000 back?
It might not be good business practice to knock another jeweler but I'd put the burden on the New York jeweler. Who are they and what qualifications do they have?
Also, I wonder why Jack would suddenly lose trust in the Gem Exchange. Why wouldn't he doubt the veracity of the 2nd appraisal? If the diamond was graded an F originally and the second place said it was a D grade would he want to give the Gem Exchange $3000 back?
It might not be good business practice to knock another jeweler but I'd put the burden on the New York jeweler. Who are they and what qualifications do they have?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Eric Phillips, July 15, 2009
This kind of controversy damages our industry in at least two ways: it underscores the commoditization of diamonds, and it creates the perception that jewelers cannot be trusted. "D" vs. "E" may be a judgment call, but "D" vs. "F" is an error. If I had sold a diamond as "D" when it was in fact "F," I would want to make amends. In this case, I would want to look and see what the color actually was, and to verify that it was the same diamond I had sold. If I could see that GIA had been wrong, and I had not caught it, I'd take care of the customer immediately. If measurements, fluorescence, or other details demonstrated that it was actually a different diamond, I would tell the client very directly what I could see. If I thought "D" might be the correct grade, I'd ask the client to allow GIA to defend or correct its grade. In any case, my goal would be to allow my client to see that I was willing to listen to his concern, see it from his perspective, and use my professional ability to act in his interest without coercion.
I am a jeweler, not a lawyer. I do recall, however, a publicized case in which a prestigious New York Jeweler was required by the court to do exactly what this client was demanding, even though the discrepancy was only one grade ("flawless" to "internally flawless") and the difference was not discovered until the client went to sell his diamond (during the "D flawless" investment craze). Furthermore, I believe that the court required that jeweler to refund an amount which was much more than it would have been at the time the diamond was sold.
I am a jeweler, not a lawyer. I do recall, however, a publicized case in which a prestigious New York Jeweler was required by the court to do exactly what this client was demanding, even though the discrepancy was only one grade ("flawless" to "internally flawless") and the difference was not discovered until the client went to sell his diamond (during the "D flawless" investment craze). Furthermore, I believe that the court required that jeweler to refund an amount which was much more than it would have been at the time the diamond was sold.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Michael Miller, July 15, 2009
Has the diamond in question been rechecked by The Gem Exchange to verify it is indeed the original stone sold, and no deception on the part of the company selling the mounting and inscription, as the client seems to be placing a lot of trust in the credibility of this second vendor and labs
-
- +0
-
-
written by Daniel Spirer, July 15, 2009
I would have offered to send the stone back to the GIA for a second appraisal and see what they said. But, since the GIA developed the color grading system and is, I'm sure, a much more reliable lab than one located in some other jeweler's building, I would have stuck to my guns unless the GIA came back and said it was a different color on a separate grading report. Of course there is also the question of why the second jeweler wanted to get the stone regraded. If I take in a GIA graded stone to put in a custom piece, I use the GIA certificate (assuming I've checked it's the right stone) as the basis for my appraisal work. Was this just a way for him to generate more income, and was this ever brought up with the attorney? If the customer took the stone with the GIA cert to any good jeweler to resell it, the GIA document would act as the basis for the resale. I don't think the customer really has a leg to stand on, but in the interest of not a)losing him as a customer or b) having him bad mouth you to 10 other people, it might have been worthwhile to just pony up the $3000.
-
- +0
-
-
written by bertlevi, July 15, 2009
The Gem Exchange is doig the right thing by offering a full refund instead of a partial one. Keep in mind, that the Gem Exchange bought the diamond as a D color, so Im sure his cost is more than an F, so giving a discount will cause the jeweler to lose money, maybe even go below cost. Also, chances are that even though they may give a discount to this client, he will most likely never shop at the Gem exchange anyways. Maybe this is something we can all learn from, and put some kind of a disclosure in our written policies as to what our store will do in this type of situation.
-
- +0
-
-
written by George Harper, July 15, 2009
I believe that Terry is more than fair on the offer to take the diamond back and give the customer a full refund.I would question the New York jeweler and the upstair appraisal. Did the diamond have the same measurement as on the GIA?This could be a switched stone by the New York jeweler. There is lots more questions than answers.I have never seen GIA be off 2 whole grades.
Harper's Fine Jewelry
Harper's Fine Jewelry
-
- +0
-
-
written by Neil Beaty, July 15, 2009
A refund in full based on customer unhappiness and the store policy is entirely reasonable. It’s even generous given that the customer has modified the stone. A retroactive discount is not. It was sold as a GIA-D and, assuming that there’s no dispute that it’s the correct stone for the paperwork, that’s what it is. No misrepresentation has occurred even if it’s true that it’s somehow inferior to some other GIA-D’s. The customer’s research into what a D and an F ‘should’ cost is also seriously flawed. All otherwise similar D’s do not cost the same, especially when different labs are assessing the stone. Their research does not support the conclusion that that particular stone was either misrepresented or mispriced.
GIA does not 'certify' diamonds. This is fully disclosed on every single report. There is no 'certification process' to defend. They are giving an opinion about some of the properties of the stone within the limits of their lab tools and methodology and on a particular date, as is the other lab.
GIA does not 'certify' diamonds. This is fully disclosed on every single report. There is no 'certification process' to defend. They are giving an opinion about some of the properties of the stone within the limits of their lab tools and methodology and on a particular date, as is the other lab.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Anonymous Fine Jewelry, July 15, 2009
Seems like the customer wants to have his cake and eat it too..
I bet The Gem Exchange barely made $3000 on that diamond and offered full refund despite the cutomer having modified it. That's beyond great customer service.
Customer is being unreasonable here. It's one those those situations where we get harrassed and then get sued for being harrassed. Not fair..
I bet to techs at the GIA lab would have to different opinions on diamonds more often than not..
I bet The Gem Exchange barely made $3000 on that diamond and offered full refund despite the cutomer having modified it. That's beyond great customer service.
Customer is being unreasonable here. It's one those those situations where we get harrassed and then get sued for being harrassed. Not fair..
I bet to techs at the GIA lab would have to different opinions on diamonds more often than not..
-
- +0
-
-
written by David Abraham, July 15, 2009
First, there is no doubt that the Gem Exchange is 100% honorable in offering a full refund, even though the customer changed or "treated" the diamond by inscription (the inscription can be polished out, but at the Gem Exchange's risk).The "treatment" is not permanent and reversible but a new risk suddenly exists.
Second, the customer could have asked the Gem Exchange to make a new GIA report with the inscription that was already made to reconfirm that the customer received the same stone back.
Third, the customer is attempting to extort money from the Gem Exchange by demanding not only a discount, but forcing the company to change its refund policy for his own reasoning.
Finally, has anyone else who read this not see a motive for the inscription company(I.C.) to sabotage the customer's relationship with Gem Exchange so I.C. can then sell his own diamond to the customer.
Second, the customer could have asked the Gem Exchange to make a new GIA report with the inscription that was already made to reconfirm that the customer received the same stone back.
Third, the customer is attempting to extort money from the Gem Exchange by demanding not only a discount, but forcing the company to change its refund policy for his own reasoning.
Finally, has anyone else who read this not see a motive for the inscription company(I.C.) to sabotage the customer's relationship with Gem Exchange so I.C. can then sell his own diamond to the customer.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joel McFadden, July 15, 2009
Wow we did this to ourselves as jewelers we have pushed selling certificates not beauty. They will never see that customer again unless its in court. I say hold your ground a judge will probably agree that your offer of take it or leave it is fair.The lawyer's fees are just part of the cost of doing buisness in todays market.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Michel Gutman, July 15, 2009
I've been through this, over a 3/4 ct round diamond that came with no papers. I sold it as VS2/F.
Over a year later, the customer wanted to return it, because he and his fiancee broke up. I offered an exchange or trade in, but he wanted his money back. I suggested he try to sell it locally, and gave him an appraisal.
He went to another local jeweler, known for their sleazy business practices (since closed), and they graded the diamond SI1/H. Quite a difference....
Now he was furious, and came in demanding his money back. At this point, if I gave him his money back, I would've conceded that we misgraded the diamond. But we didn't. I offered to send the diamond to GIA to get an independent evaluation, but he refused. He believed the other jeweler, and we were liars.
He filed a small claims suit. The judge required the we send the diamond, at our expense, to the GIA. I gladly did so. It came back VS2/F, as expected. The judge dismissed the case, and suggested that he go back to the other jeweler, and get a refund on his bogus, false appraisal.
Moral of the story: Nobody won. It's this kind of nonsense that gives this industry a bad name. Healthy competition is fine, but when a jeweler has to be dishonest to stay in business, everybody gets hurt....
Over a year later, the customer wanted to return it, because he and his fiancee broke up. I offered an exchange or trade in, but he wanted his money back. I suggested he try to sell it locally, and gave him an appraisal.
He went to another local jeweler, known for their sleazy business practices (since closed), and they graded the diamond SI1/H. Quite a difference....
Now he was furious, and came in demanding his money back. At this point, if I gave him his money back, I would've conceded that we misgraded the diamond. But we didn't. I offered to send the diamond to GIA to get an independent evaluation, but he refused. He believed the other jeweler, and we were liars.
He filed a small claims suit. The judge required the we send the diamond, at our expense, to the GIA. I gladly did so. It came back VS2/F, as expected. The judge dismissed the case, and suggested that he go back to the other jeweler, and get a refund on his bogus, false appraisal.
Moral of the story: Nobody won. It's this kind of nonsense that gives this industry a bad name. Healthy competition is fine, but when a jeweler has to be dishonest to stay in business, everybody gets hurt....
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sandy Hequin, July 15, 2009
Tis is another lose - lose situation.
NO matter the outcome someone is going to be unhappy.
As jewelers we all have clients who try to take advantage of situations, although it is usually in the service department.
This is a different spin on an old delima, do we let the client get away with taking advantage of us (since he has investigated siamonds up down and all around before the purchase - he knew and probably wouldn't purchase a diamond without the gold standard of certifications - GIA) or do we give in and call it "advertising"?
Funny thing about these unreasonavble, irate clients - they usually come back for the great service and good value that enticed them to make the purchase from you in the first place.
This was a totally unreasonable client to went way too far - assuming he knows that GIA is the only reaaly reliable company. Any future sales to him are probably at the same risk.
I say the jeweler was reasonable to accept an altered stone for a full refund (for which he was going to lose money polishing off the inscription, losing weight and having it recertified).
Shame on you Mr. Unreasonable client!
NO matter the outcome someone is going to be unhappy.
As jewelers we all have clients who try to take advantage of situations, although it is usually in the service department.
This is a different spin on an old delima, do we let the client get away with taking advantage of us (since he has investigated siamonds up down and all around before the purchase - he knew and probably wouldn't purchase a diamond without the gold standard of certifications - GIA) or do we give in and call it "advertising"?
Funny thing about these unreasonavble, irate clients - they usually come back for the great service and good value that enticed them to make the purchase from you in the first place.
This was a totally unreasonable client to went way too far - assuming he knows that GIA is the only reaaly reliable company. Any future sales to him are probably at the same risk.
I say the jeweler was reasonable to accept an altered stone for a full refund (for which he was going to lose money polishing off the inscription, losing weight and having it recertified).
Shame on you Mr. Unreasonable client!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joe Yetter, July 15, 2009
We should all have terms and conditions on the back of our sales receipts.
Client Inspection:Client has examined the items listed and the meets their satisfaction.
No warranty on third party opinions, Competitors and clients can influenced appraisals.
Certifications are subjective and are not necessarily the opinion of ....Jewelers.
Client Inspection:Client has examined the items listed and the meets their satisfaction.
No warranty on third party opinions, Competitors and clients can influenced appraisals.
Certifications are subjective and are not necessarily the opinion of ....Jewelers.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ed from Teds, July 15, 2009
This really a situation that occurs more time than not. Usually it is over the clarity not the color. I think offering a full refund is more than enought. I am sure that the retail price of the diamond was based on the cost into the store not the cert information. I have apprasial insurance with federated that will take care of any of these situations that arise. I agree. Stand by my price for the item.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ira Kramer, July 15, 2009
Terry at the Gem Exchange is 100% correct and more than generous in his offer for a full refund. But he should make sure that the diamond is indeed the one he had sold. There is always a possibility that the NY jeweler had an ulterior motive; and who knows how tight he is with the "upstairs lab". If the customer will not let Terry resubmit the diamond to GIA; then he will have earned the nickname "Jack the Jerk". Ain't retail fun????????
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alain Planche, July 15, 2009
I know GIA is "IT", but I sold a pear shape 1.64ct about 10 years ago E/SI1 (GIA)
My customer upgraded the diamond a year ago. Thinking the certificate was old I submitted the diamond to GIA again, it came back G/SI1 (yes 2 color grade differences). I then give them the previous diamond grading report and without question they gave me an E color grade. What to make of this????
My customer upgraded the diamond a year ago. Thinking the certificate was old I submitted the diamond to GIA again, it came back G/SI1 (yes 2 color grade differences). I then give them the previous diamond grading report and without question they gave me an E color grade. What to make of this????
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alex Weil, July 15, 2009
Terry is spot on with his policy and handling.
In this situation I would have told the customer that regardless of how lab ABC or any other entity grades the stone the price remains the same for it.
A complete refund or exchanging for another diamond is adequate from Terry.
I'm wondering why Terry simply didn't show the other lab the GIA cert on the stone and ask them for a re-check?
I imagine when the lab would see the original GIA cert they would be in a better position to verify the information and correct their possible difference.
I'm also wondering how us oldtimers ever sold a diamond when there were no reports at all?
I'm also wondering how many diamonds out there have no reports on them?
The customer here is being a "wise guy"
We continue to offer diamonds with or without reports confidently.
In this situation I would have told the customer that regardless of how lab ABC or any other entity grades the stone the price remains the same for it.
A complete refund or exchanging for another diamond is adequate from Terry.
I'm wondering why Terry simply didn't show the other lab the GIA cert on the stone and ask them for a re-check?
I imagine when the lab would see the original GIA cert they would be in a better position to verify the information and correct their possible difference.
I'm also wondering how us oldtimers ever sold a diamond when there were no reports at all?
I'm also wondering how many diamonds out there have no reports on them?
The customer here is being a "wise guy"
We continue to offer diamonds with or without reports confidently.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bill Elliott, July 15, 2009
I was really sympathetic with Terry, until I got to the part where he had a Gem Exchange attorney reply to Jack'e e-mail. Getting an attorney involved is a great way to be right, and wrong, at the same time. Terry probably spends a lot more than $3000 a year in ineffective advertising trying to reach potential customers. For just $3000 he can keep one happy.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Allison Leitzel-Williams, July 15, 2009
I'm curious to the qualifications of both Gem Exchange and the NY jeweler. I find it crucial that any store have a trained gemologist or diamond grader on staff to help prevent discrepancies with lab reports during the diamond selection process. Did Gem Exchange examine the diamond indepently, or are they capable of doing so? I find a large problem in the industry is strong dependency on lab reports. We need to remember to sell DIAMONDS
-
- +0
-
-
written by Chuck Kuba, G.G., July 15, 2009
We have brought this upon ourselves by using lab reports as a selling tool rather than as they were originally intended. I have two lab reports from the GIA on the same stone with two different clarity grades. Diamond grading is not a science yet we have trained our customers to rely on lab reports as if they were taken chapter and verse out of the Bible.
-
- +0
-
-
written by tim staton, July 16, 2009
a jeweler's nightmare.
another story to be rumored about jewelers selling you a diamond claiming one thing when it is another. another he said she said opinion of color and grade. the engraving alone would have voided any responsibility to my store. it isn't clear or I missed it, but was the diamond verified as the exact same diamond he sold originally? I would assume so since it would match the cert.
any way he has lost the customer no matter what. and no matter what the customer will tell everyone. even if he gave him the 3 grand then he would tell them about how he had to get his money back. a full refund was offered the customer didn't take it. he is satisfied with the stone originally and still is so he is satisfied with the product. as for the price he felt he got a good deal then. so now since he has basically defaced the original stone he "bought it" and really doesn't deserve any refund.
I wouldn't respond to anymore request unless they are through my lawyer and make sure that if it goes to small claims that at the onset of that action I would notify him of my intention to counter for court costs if he looses.
another story to be rumored about jewelers selling you a diamond claiming one thing when it is another. another he said she said opinion of color and grade. the engraving alone would have voided any responsibility to my store. it isn't clear or I missed it, but was the diamond verified as the exact same diamond he sold originally? I would assume so since it would match the cert.
any way he has lost the customer no matter what. and no matter what the customer will tell everyone. even if he gave him the 3 grand then he would tell them about how he had to get his money back. a full refund was offered the customer didn't take it. he is satisfied with the stone originally and still is so he is satisfied with the product. as for the price he felt he got a good deal then. so now since he has basically defaced the original stone he "bought it" and really doesn't deserve any refund.
I wouldn't respond to anymore request unless they are through my lawyer and make sure that if it goes to small claims that at the onset of that action I would notify him of my intention to counter for court costs if he looses.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Stan Lynn, July 16, 2009
WOW! I think Terry needs an upgrade on his store policy which should be printed on the back of his sales tickets. This customer obviously is of the noveau riche genre and has more money than brains. Perhaps thats how he got his money in the first place. Many years in retail have rendered me a cynic for these good reasons.
Gem Exchange appears to be honest beyond the call and I may suggest to him that a better way to settle this without the publicity of going to court, would be through either Mediation(done through the NYS court system) or Arbitration (also through the court system which unlike mediation, IS the final word and is honored by the court systems). Costs involved are far lower than going to court as lawyers are not necessary in both situations(although more in Arbitration). It is expressley an unbiased fairness judgement by the mediator or arbitrator.
Each claimant pays his own nominal fee
and its all done in private. No press coverage and no dirt spread around. I
have had occasion to do this twice with
customers whom I considered unreasonable
and was very satisfied with the outcome on both occasions.
Customers are NOT always right! For sure.
Gem Exchange appears to be honest beyond the call and I may suggest to him that a better way to settle this without the publicity of going to court, would be through either Mediation(done through the NYS court system) or Arbitration (also through the court system which unlike mediation, IS the final word and is honored by the court systems). Costs involved are far lower than going to court as lawyers are not necessary in both situations(although more in Arbitration). It is expressley an unbiased fairness judgement by the mediator or arbitrator.
Each claimant pays his own nominal fee
and its all done in private. No press coverage and no dirt spread around. I
have had occasion to do this twice with
customers whom I considered unreasonable
and was very satisfied with the outcome on both occasions.
Customers are NOT always right! For sure.
-
- +0
-
-
written by admin, July 16, 2009
In response to the case of Jack Meehan verses The Gem Exchange. I have been in the Jewelry business for over 30 years and as I was taught by my dear Husband very early on - the customer is and always will be right, so why notswallow your pride, save a lot of arguments and most of all not give your store a bad name and give the customer what he or she wants. I don't care wether GIA or the Pope say's it is a D color and not an F colored stone, in Mr Meehan's eyes the Diamond was misrepresented and authenticated by two inspector's of his choice and that is who he believed: therefore, you could never change his mind and he was entitled to an adjustment of his bill and unfortunately because the case went further than it should have the cost of a lawyer. Instead of trying to disgruntle Mr. Meehan any further the sales person should have said Mr. Meehan G.I.A. is a respected company in the business of examining Diamonds and giving very strict laws and education to the employees whom they hire; however, if you would feel more confident with the two appraisals of the examiners you took the Diamond to I would be happy to respect your position and refund you the sum of $3,000.00 for your inconvience and to show our good faith. He would have appeased his customer and probably had him return for all of his future purchases. This is just my point of view. Thank you
Catherine M. Butchart
Buchards Jewelers, Inc.
Catherine M. Butchart
Buchards Jewelers, Inc.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Michael Miller, July 16, 2009
I am really very curious to see ifthere was verification, that the stone grading lowerwas indeed the same stone and not a switch, will we ever have an answer on this?
-
- +0
-
-
written by John Thompson, July 16, 2009
The diamond is still beautiful, that is why the client bought the diamond in the first place.
Communication is the key here. The two sides need common ground. The jeweler and the client first need to agree that they have a dispute, then put their heads together and settle on a course of action for resolution. It is possible to remain friendly in this situation and work together towards a settlement. The jeweler needs to impress on his client that his reputation is important to him, as well as preserving the relationships with every one of his clients. The jeweler needs to state to his client that he wants him to be happy with his purchase.
Only one lab should be used to grade this diamond. GIA is the oldest and most well respected gem lab in the world, but no lab is infallible. I suggest submitting the diamond to GIA again for another anonymous report (via an unrelated third party) and make an advance agreement with the client regarding resolution based on the new report.
1. if the new report comes back "D" color then the client keeps the diamond.
2. if the diamond comes back other than "D" color, then the client can either return the diamond for a full refund, or the seller will adjust the selling price to reflect the new grade.
However, I suspect that this client secretly wants to keep the GIA "D" color diamond at a $3,000 discount. In that case you will never be able to salvage any business relationship.
Communication is the key here. The two sides need common ground. The jeweler and the client first need to agree that they have a dispute, then put their heads together and settle on a course of action for resolution. It is possible to remain friendly in this situation and work together towards a settlement. The jeweler needs to impress on his client that his reputation is important to him, as well as preserving the relationships with every one of his clients. The jeweler needs to state to his client that he wants him to be happy with his purchase.
Only one lab should be used to grade this diamond. GIA is the oldest and most well respected gem lab in the world, but no lab is infallible. I suggest submitting the diamond to GIA again for another anonymous report (via an unrelated third party) and make an advance agreement with the client regarding resolution based on the new report.
1. if the new report comes back "D" color then the client keeps the diamond.
2. if the diamond comes back other than "D" color, then the client can either return the diamond for a full refund, or the seller will adjust the selling price to reflect the new grade.
However, I suspect that this client secretly wants to keep the GIA "D" color diamond at a $3,000 discount. In that case you will never be able to salvage any business relationship.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Colleen Boyle, July 16, 2009
I completly agree with John Thompson.
GIA is the standard in the industry, but this industry is subjective and no lab is infallible.
The offer to resend the diamond to GIA for a second certification report with the agreement to adjust the sale if needed pending the outcome of the new GIA report is the most fair offer.
I also agree that the customer probably wants the origional diamond for less money regardless the outcome of the recert.
With the big box mall chain jewelry stores doing anything to get the sale from the next store we have created an atmosphere where the customer feels that if they make enough noise they will get what they want.
I have personally dealt with customers that feel an independant Jeweler will not put up a fight and will give in to save money and reputation because they do not have the resources a large chain has.
The Gem Exchange is being very transparent with the customer and has offered a full refund on an altered diamond. More than most jewelers would do in this situation.
GIA is the standard in the industry, but this industry is subjective and no lab is infallible.
The offer to resend the diamond to GIA for a second certification report with the agreement to adjust the sale if needed pending the outcome of the new GIA report is the most fair offer.
I also agree that the customer probably wants the origional diamond for less money regardless the outcome of the recert.
With the big box mall chain jewelry stores doing anything to get the sale from the next store we have created an atmosphere where the customer feels that if they make enough noise they will get what they want.
I have personally dealt with customers that feel an independant Jeweler will not put up a fight and will give in to save money and reputation because they do not have the resources a large chain has.
The Gem Exchange is being very transparent with the customer and has offered a full refund on an altered diamond. More than most jewelers would do in this situation.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Susan Russell, July 16, 2009
I'm surprised at the confidence you all seem to place in the GIA. Does no one remember the "certifigate" scandal of a few years ago, in which I understand GIA graders were issuing false certifications on diamonds in return for bribes? My recollection is that a number of employees at GIA were fired over this, and that the head of GIA was replaced by Ralph Destino of Cartier. Although the GIA acted swiftly to try to quiet this scandal, I personally view all GIA certificates with a leery eye as a result.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jake Joseph, July 16, 2009
First off, We always look at the diamond first to make sure it matches the report.
Second, I've come across this once before where the GIA report was in question, in particular the VS2 grade. The other party said it had flaws that were putting the durability of the diamond in danger. We suspected this was a setup by the other party to get a sale. It turned out our suspicion was correct. We told our customer to get the statement in writing on their letterhead and they immediately backed down from the claim. Remember, some people are very crafty in the ways they try to get business. They sold the guy a mounting, why wouldn't they try for the diamond?
The GIA report is still very important and it is the supreme court in diamond grading, they train us after all. Anyone that tries to downplay the importance of the GIA accuracy usually sells EGL, uncertified and poor makes.
Second, I've come across this once before where the GIA report was in question, in particular the VS2 grade. The other party said it had flaws that were putting the durability of the diamond in danger. We suspected this was a setup by the other party to get a sale. It turned out our suspicion was correct. We told our customer to get the statement in writing on their letterhead and they immediately backed down from the claim. Remember, some people are very crafty in the ways they try to get business. They sold the guy a mounting, why wouldn't they try for the diamond?
The GIA report is still very important and it is the supreme court in diamond grading, they train us after all. Anyone that tries to downplay the importance of the GIA accuracy usually sells EGL, uncertified and poor makes.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jake Joseph, July 16, 2009
I ALMOST FORGOT, EVEN IF IT IS AN F COLOR, IT'S STILL BELOW RAP AT A GREAT PRICE!!!!!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joe Cheslock, July 16, 2009
Okay, so we all agree that Gem Exchange has gone above and beyond and the customer is an unreasonable jerk. Let's look at this a little differently. While GIA is the Bible in the jewelry industry, they aren't infallible. Although I find it hard to believe that some other (reputable?) lab would grade a diamond 2 grades lower than GIA. (My experience is usually the opposite). So, yes, let's resubmit the diamond to GIA for a re-grade and see what we get. And, by the way, where is Gem Exchange's supplier in all of this? They sold the diamond to Gem Exchange as a GIA "D". If it comes back as an "F", shouldn't Gem Exchange get a reduction in their cost as well?
Finally, if it comes back as a "D" a second time, the customer either accepts that or returns it. If it comes back as an "F", the supplier should make good either through that previously mentioned discount or by supplying another diamond that is a "D", at the customer's choice. Either way, Gem Exchange should have never let it get to the "attorney" stage!
Finally, if it comes back as a "D" a second time, the customer either accepts that or returns it. If it comes back as an "F", the supplier should make good either through that previously mentioned discount or by supplying another diamond that is a "D", at the customer's choice. Either way, Gem Exchange should have never let it get to the "attorney" stage!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Michel Gutman, July 16, 2009
Come on!!!! You're all thinking it, but I'll be the one to say it..... I GUARANTEE that this guy's fiancee will never see the document with the F color on it. Neither will his insurance company. As far as his fiancee is concerned, she's wearing a D.....
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alex Weil, July 16, 2009
WOW - what a great thread !!!
interesting and informative stuff lady's and gentlemen.
But boy I feel like offering the customer $3,000 more than he paid for it to buy this diamond from him.
Then I have the diamond AND the story that goes with it !!!!
Who's with me on the purchase???
interesting and informative stuff lady's and gentlemen.
But boy I feel like offering the customer $3,000 more than he paid for it to buy this diamond from him.
Then I have the diamond AND the story that goes with it !!!!
Who's with me on the purchase???
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dominick, July 16, 2009
This customer already proved himself unreasonable by not letting the jeweler re-submit the stone or accepting a full refund. I would not give him the $3K, let's let the judge sort it out.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ERIK MAUTER, July 16, 2009
I would hope that the original stone was already laser numbered, how do you know the other party didnt do something with it? The first thing I would do is to make sure the stone he has has the same number as the one I sold to him. If it is the same, you must to stick to your guns & stand by your policy. If thats not good enough for him, go to court.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sami, July 16, 2009
:angry: Seriously :angry:
First and foremost I dictate what the prices for the jewelry purchased in my store is. You do not! It should end at that. I have sold you 'x' item accompanied with 'y' certificate for 'z' price.
You can have the stone or the money but not a little of both at my expense.
Second, When the stone left your sight for a full TWO DAYS at a random jeweler that you just met, how do you know your original stone was sent back to you.
To many variables come to mind in this situation for it to be resolved fairly... Truthfully, I would only do a full refund only after the the stone has been verified to match the original report.
First and foremost I dictate what the prices for the jewelry purchased in my store is. You do not! It should end at that. I have sold you 'x' item accompanied with 'y' certificate for 'z' price.
You can have the stone or the money but not a little of both at my expense.
Second, When the stone left your sight for a full TWO DAYS at a random jeweler that you just met, how do you know your original stone was sent back to you.
To many variables come to mind in this situation for it to be resolved fairly... Truthfully, I would only do a full refund only after the the stone has been verified to match the original report.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sami, July 16, 2009
:lol:
While you're at it file a counter suit for damages.
Once the unreasonable customer has to pony up money for a defense lawyer he may walk away. :lol:
While you're at it file a counter suit for damages.
Once the unreasonable customer has to pony up money for a defense lawyer he may walk away. :lol:
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dave Phelps, July 17, 2009
As a diamond retailer, Terry let Jack down. He didn't do any of us any favors either.
Terry's first error was in trusting a certificate and not independently verifying the grade of D. I assume this as he explained variations in grading but never stood behind the D grade. The difference between a G and H may be subtle, but a D is pretty easy to verify by anyone that has any training and a decent light source. If he saw any color at all, he should have told Jack at the time of the sale that the cert was probably in error, but the error was in Jack's favor as the price reflects the lower grade of F. If there was no color, he should have done exactly as he did, right up until he made his second mistake.
Terry's second big error was having his attorney send an email. As a businessman, the last thing in the world I want is lawyer involvement in customer relations. As a customer, that would have sent my blood boiling. The war is on, and it was Terry that escalated it into a shooting war.
Terry should have restated his return policy, kept his attorney out of it, and left the ball in Jack's court. If Jack then went to his attorney, then it goes to court. Terry should never back down from his position, assuming the diamond he had sold really was a D (which he would have known if he had looked at it first). If it wasn't and he sold it as a D anyway, he deserves what he gets, whether he knew the true color grade or not. In that case he should probably give Jack the $5000 before it turns into ten grand and a prime-time expose' on the local news. If it was an F, and the GIA said it was a D, he can then try to recover his losses by bringing suit against the GIA (good luck with that, Terry).
Disputes such as this do damage our industry, but I think most of the damage is self-inflicted. I used to have great faith in the GIA, but after the recent scandals and having seen more than a few misgraded diamonds, I think we do ourselves and our clients a great disservice by relying on certs to the extent we often do. I never trust a cert, regardless of who did it. I always grade stones myself, and then show the customer my grading and explain any differences (which is almost as often as not, unfortunately). To do anything else is not serving the client, in my opinion, and would open me up to just this kind of problem. This is one of the only real advantages we in the brick-and-mortar world have over our Internet competition, and is why most of our customers come to us in the first place.
Terry's first error was in trusting a certificate and not independently verifying the grade of D. I assume this as he explained variations in grading but never stood behind the D grade. The difference between a G and H may be subtle, but a D is pretty easy to verify by anyone that has any training and a decent light source. If he saw any color at all, he should have told Jack at the time of the sale that the cert was probably in error, but the error was in Jack's favor as the price reflects the lower grade of F. If there was no color, he should have done exactly as he did, right up until he made his second mistake.
Terry's second big error was having his attorney send an email. As a businessman, the last thing in the world I want is lawyer involvement in customer relations. As a customer, that would have sent my blood boiling. The war is on, and it was Terry that escalated it into a shooting war.
Terry should have restated his return policy, kept his attorney out of it, and left the ball in Jack's court. If Jack then went to his attorney, then it goes to court. Terry should never back down from his position, assuming the diamond he had sold really was a D (which he would have known if he had looked at it first). If it wasn't and he sold it as a D anyway, he deserves what he gets, whether he knew the true color grade or not. In that case he should probably give Jack the $5000 before it turns into ten grand and a prime-time expose' on the local news. If it was an F, and the GIA said it was a D, he can then try to recover his losses by bringing suit against the GIA (good luck with that, Terry).
Disputes such as this do damage our industry, but I think most of the damage is self-inflicted. I used to have great faith in the GIA, but after the recent scandals and having seen more than a few misgraded diamonds, I think we do ourselves and our clients a great disservice by relying on certs to the extent we often do. I never trust a cert, regardless of who did it. I always grade stones myself, and then show the customer my grading and explain any differences (which is almost as often as not, unfortunately). To do anything else is not serving the client, in my opinion, and would open me up to just this kind of problem. This is one of the only real advantages we in the brick-and-mortar world have over our Internet competition, and is why most of our customers come to us in the first place.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Harvey, July 17, 2009
Dear Terry (The Gem Exchange),
You may recall a little while back, there were some unscrupulous diamond dealers that had “special connections” with the GIA. THEIR merchandise was graded mysteriously better than more honorable dealers’. That could be the case here. You need to be very careful who you deal with.
The alternatives are to deal with legitimate, honest people and companies, or you better double check each and every diamond – even those with GIA certificates – to determine that it is what it says it is.
You may recall a little while back, there were some unscrupulous diamond dealers that had “special connections” with the GIA. THEIR merchandise was graded mysteriously better than more honorable dealers’. That could be the case here. You need to be very careful who you deal with.
The alternatives are to deal with legitimate, honest people and companies, or you better double check each and every diamond – even those with GIA certificates – to determine that it is what it says it is.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alex Weil, July 17, 2009
Another thought.
None of the labs we work with GUARANTEE the accuracy of their work. They all make that very plain.
Therefore none of us jewelers/diamond dealers,experts, etc. are in a position to guarantee their own grading. We are dealing with opinions.
Unfortunately sometimes the consumer, even after knowing this, is unwilling to accept this fact and insists on guarantees.
As I see it the only guarantee that we are in a position to offer is a money back one.
Which is exactly what Terry offered.
None of the labs we work with GUARANTEE the accuracy of their work. They all make that very plain.
Therefore none of us jewelers/diamond dealers,experts, etc. are in a position to guarantee their own grading. We are dealing with opinions.
Unfortunately sometimes the consumer, even after knowing this, is unwilling to accept this fact and insists on guarantees.
As I see it the only guarantee that we are in a position to offer is a money back one.
Which is exactly what Terry offered.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alex Weil, July 18, 2009
An associate of mine here just brought up another interesting point.
That if the diamond was laser inscribed before it was graded by a different lab, it is possible that the inscription has altered the color of the diamond.
That if the diamond was laser inscribed before it was graded by a different lab, it is possible that the inscription has altered the color of the diamond.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dave Phelps, July 19, 2009
After contemplating my first post, I realize I may have been a little hard on the GIA. They are still the gold standard when it comes to diamond grading reports. Their reports are a very valuable asset in the sale of diamonds, and afterwards in the identification and appraisal of diamond jewelry. Much more so than any of their competitors (except maybe the AGS). It is just that sometimes their color grades and to a lesser extent, their clarity grades are not quite as consistent as they could (or imho should) be. I still maintain that we should never assume a report by any lab is entirely accurate without verifying it. After all, if a customer has a beef with a diamond's grade after the sale, they are coming after the retailer, not the GIA. Ask Terry. Stuff rolls downhill.
And that is where Terry really failed and the whole thing went south. He assumed a report was a certificate, and worse, let Jack think so too.
Which brings me to another thought. Neil Beaty stated in this thread that the GIA does not certify diamonds. This is absolutely true. According to Webster's dictionary, a certificate is "a document containing a certified statement, especially as to the truth of something".
A Diamond Grading Report is not a certificate, it's an opinion, even though we all call it a certificate. That being said, are customers wrong in expecting what is commonly called a diamond "certificate" to be an accurate certification "as to the truth" of a specific diamond's characteristics? From the point of view of the general public, if a diamond has a certificate, how can an evaluation of it's characteristics and quality not be certified to be accurate, by the very definition of the words? Can we really blame them when we ourselves call a statement of opinion a "certificate"?
Especially when labs like the EGL use the words "Diamond Certificate" in very bold print over "Report issued by: EGL" with a very official looking stamp to the left of the heading. Read the fine print at the bottom and you'll find that it's no certificate at all, just an opinion that they don't even have the courage to stand behind if they are called on it. Not to mention the inaccuracies associated with an EGL "certificate". I have yet to see one that has an accurate color grade.
Diamond grading labs like the EGL using words like "Diamond Certificate" in the heading of their reports and then consistently over-grading is misleading and in my opinion, downright deceptive. We should do what we can to stop such practices, like not buying or selling stones with an EGL "Diamond Certificate". That is where the true damage to our industy's image comes from and we don't need to help damage it further.
If the diamond industry wants to solve this problem, it (we) needs to educate the public as to the difference. This starts by not calling a Diamond Grading Report a "Certificate". I'll start today. Our industry needs to present a single, unified front to labs like the EGL, and demand that they either stop using deceptive terms like "Diamond Certificate" or that they get with the program and actually certify truly accurate evaluations and be willing to stand by them, in a court of law if need be.
Sorry to go off topic and for being so long winded.
Dave
And that is where Terry really failed and the whole thing went south. He assumed a report was a certificate, and worse, let Jack think so too.
Which brings me to another thought. Neil Beaty stated in this thread that the GIA does not certify diamonds. This is absolutely true. According to Webster's dictionary, a certificate is "a document containing a certified statement, especially as to the truth of something".
A Diamond Grading Report is not a certificate, it's an opinion, even though we all call it a certificate. That being said, are customers wrong in expecting what is commonly called a diamond "certificate" to be an accurate certification "as to the truth" of a specific diamond's characteristics? From the point of view of the general public, if a diamond has a certificate, how can an evaluation of it's characteristics and quality not be certified to be accurate, by the very definition of the words? Can we really blame them when we ourselves call a statement of opinion a "certificate"?
Especially when labs like the EGL use the words "Diamond Certificate" in very bold print over "Report issued by: EGL" with a very official looking stamp to the left of the heading. Read the fine print at the bottom and you'll find that it's no certificate at all, just an opinion that they don't even have the courage to stand behind if they are called on it. Not to mention the inaccuracies associated with an EGL "certificate". I have yet to see one that has an accurate color grade.
Diamond grading labs like the EGL using words like "Diamond Certificate" in the heading of their reports and then consistently over-grading is misleading and in my opinion, downright deceptive. We should do what we can to stop such practices, like not buying or selling stones with an EGL "Diamond Certificate". That is where the true damage to our industy's image comes from and we don't need to help damage it further.
If the diamond industry wants to solve this problem, it (we) needs to educate the public as to the difference. This starts by not calling a Diamond Grading Report a "Certificate". I'll start today. Our industry needs to present a single, unified front to labs like the EGL, and demand that they either stop using deceptive terms like "Diamond Certificate" or that they get with the program and actually certify truly accurate evaluations and be willing to stand by them, in a court of law if need be.
Sorry to go off topic and for being so long winded.
Dave
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dave Phelps, July 19, 2009
I should also add that the EGL could never certify truly accurate evaluations of a diamond's characteristics. As Alex points out, no one can. About the only things about a diamond that could really be certified in a court of law is that it is a polished diamond, what it weighs and it's measurements. Everything else is subjective.
Dave
Dave
-
- +0
-
-
written by Shawn Przeclawski, July 21, 2009
What we have all missed in this story is the one factor that very few jewelers tend to take into account when color grading diamonds. Flourescence. Strong to very strong flourescence can throw off a diamonds color grade anywhere from 2 to 4 grades. This is well documented by the GIA yet despite this, they continue to utilize flourescent bulbs in their diamond grading lights. (those of you who have light boxes from GIA, just check the bulbs)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Danelle, August 14, 2009
Dave Phelps..until I read your post...I was going to quit..after 25 years of selling diamond and bench work...yep off to truck driving school first thing in the morning!! YOU ARE RIGHT!! some of these post just freak me out..I get so worked up I just want to faint. THEY ARE GRADING REPORTS!!! NOT CERTIFCATION OF ANYTHING!!!! I will never again say "heres the cert on that stone" EVER!! Some times us "EXPERTS" like to sound all knowing and impress our customers so badly ..we bite ourselves in the rump..with impressive wordage..cuz "diamond certification" sure does sound better than "diamond grading report" sounds "expert" like huh? Ive been doing this a long time I have yet to meet an expert!! lab guys think they are expets...GGs think they are experts..appraisers think they are..bench jewelers know they are...but none thinks the other is!! why is that?
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
Latest Comments
Online Users
2 users
and 436 guests
online
Latest On Pogolist
- Sales Managers/Supervisors ( / Positions Available)
- Exp Diamond/Jewelry Sales Rep in Los Angeles ( / Wanted)
- JEWELRY CUSTOMER SERVICE/SALES REPRESENTATIVE ( / Positions Available)
- WANTED A SMART ENERGETIC PERSON GOOD IN EXCEL, QUICK BOOKS ( / Wanted)
- Bench Jeweler Position Available ( / Positions Available)
This customer is not reasonable and yes, I think this dispute does damage in the industry. Also grading labs hurt everyone as the GIA is not perfect.