Ray Beckett was proud of all he and his wife Gina had built in just 20 years. With little more than Ray’s bench experience and a dream, they’d opened a small business in the middle of nowhere and grew it into one of the most successful and respected fine jewelry stores in the industry.

Growing up in his father’s store, Ray saw firsthand the value of integrity, hard work and quality. He began his bench training as a teenager, and continued his work as a craftsman even after earning his Graduate Gemologist diploma from GIA in 1981. When he and Gina married that same year, the narrow gold band he gave her matched her ¼-carat solitaire engagement ring ‑ and his young bench jeweler’s salary ‑ perfectly. Eight years and three kids later, careful planning, a herculean effort and a total commitment to their shared goals and values had Ray and Gina opening the doors of Beckett & Co. in the small but growing crossroads town in the desert Southwest where they’d both lived as children. The store, offering the local community fine quality brands, extraordinary craftsmanship and exceptional service, was an immediate success. Two years after their opening, on their tenth wedding anniversary, Ray replaced Gina’s ¼-carat solitaire with a 1-carat MQ diamond in a simple, elegant setting.

Over the next several years, working side by side nearly every day, Ray and Gina saw their small town ‑ and their business ‑ grow to epic proportions. In 1996, just five short years after opening their doors, Ray and Gina moved into their new location ‑ the custom-built store of their dreams ‑ several miles from their original spot. In celebration, Ray replaced Gina’s 1-carat MQ with what she had once called her “someday diamond” – a 3.54 carat MQ, in a mounting created by one of her favorite designers. Gina wore the ring with pride, and the designer’s line became one of the store’s best sellers.

As Beckett & Co’s business grew, Ray and Gina also grew as merchants. They knew that their continual evolution was driving their progress, and they recognized the importance of keeping one eye on current client interest and the other on emerging trends. At the invitation of an old friend, the Becketts made an appointment to look at a unique, limited distribution designer bridal line at a trade show late last January. Gina had admired the line in the past, intrigued by the appearance of “floating diamonds” in many of the mountings ‑ but this was the first time she felt that the Beckett & Co customer might actually be ready for the more sophisticated look and the much higher price tag the line represented.

Much to everyone’s delight, the meeting was a huge success. The Becketts agreed to test the line with the introduction of a carefully planned trunk show to be held in early May, but more importantly, Gina was so taken by the beauty and quality of one style in particular that she and Ray asked the designer to create a special version of the ring to hold her 3.54 carat MQ. The designer agreed, and Gina left her diamond with him. Several days later, he provided the Becketts with a cost estimate of $8,950, less a 20 per cent “owners’ courtesy,” and a delivery commitment of six weeks or less. He requested that a 50 per cent deposit be sent to him along with a signed copy of his order authorization. While travel delays kept Ray from getting the deposit off for two weeks, he felt confident that, since the designer had Gina’s diamond and the signed authorization, the work would progress on schedule and that Gina would have her ring in time for their 28th anniversary in late March.

The March delivery deadline came and went. After numerous calls to check on the ring, Ray was finally able to reach his friend (the designer’s sales rep) on April 8. His friend told him that Gina’s ring was just about complete, with only final finishing steps to go ‑ and that it would be ready to ship the following week. Two days later, Ray received a fax from the designer’s office requesting a waiver of liability for setting Gina’s diamond ‑ something that was not discussed in any of their earlier conversations. Ray refused to sign the waiver, maintaining that the need for such a document should have been presented to him at the beginning of the process ‑ when he left his diamond with the designer. The designer refused to move forward on the completion of the ring without the signed release. Out of irritation with the delivery delay and what he saw as generally shoddy business practice, Ray asked that the designer accept responsibility for the setting or that he simply return Gina’s diamond, old mounting and his deposit.

After several days of back and forth debate, Ray’s confidence in the designer ‑ and his willingness to present the line to his customers ‑ had diminished greatly. He contacted the sales rep on April 15th to cancel the introductory trunk show. The rep told him that the designer needed to speak with him directly and would be calling him later that day. They continued to miss each other’s phone calls, so on April 22, the designer sent Ray an e-mail in which he said that on April 14, in an attempt to resolve the issue to Ray’s satisfaction, he turned the diamond over to his setter who unfortunately damaged it in the setting process. He stated that the damage was slight, and offered to pay for the repair.

Although the designer indicated that the damage occurred on April 14, Ray was convinced that it happened long before, and that it was the damage that prompted the request for a waiver. He asked that the designer submit the diamond to a mutually agreeable cutter for evaluation, and reiterated his expectation that in addition to paying for the repair of the diamond and any value lost, the designer return his old mounting and his deposit, voiding the order. The designer agreed to pay for the repair and to compensate for lost value, but refused to refund the Beckett’s deposit, insisting that since Ray commissioned the creation of the mounting, he was obligated to complete the transaction. Ray turned the matter over to his attorney, as did the designer.

Five months later, with the matter still unresolved after countless letters, faxes and e-mails, and with mounting legal bills, Ray and Gina considered their situation. The designer still had possession of their diamond, old mounting and $3850 deposit. Though the evaluation indicated that the weight loss due to the repair would be between .25 and .30 carats (about $1,500 in cost value), and though the designer agreed to that compensation, Gina just couldn’t see herself wearing the ring she’d once loved ‑ a bold, distinctive piece made by a designer she and Ray would never carry in their store. Ray had always believed that his business was built on trust ‑ on honest and honorable relationships ‑ but felt that in this case, he had been misled, taken advantage of and cheated.

The BIG questions: Who’s right? Should the Becketts have to pay for the high-cost piece they commissioned? Is it common, accepted practice for a designer to require a liability waiver before setting a diamond ‑ and since this designer did not, is simply paying for the repair and value loss enough?

Comments (13)

President
written by gary youngberg, October 07, 2009

This designer has no moral compass and should be taken behind the woodshed and given a whoopin! How can ANYONE be this callous? He is fully responsible, should refund the deposit, pay all the legal fees and REPLACE the diamond as close as physically possible. No waiver- too bad. This is all on the designers shoulders and he should "man up" and do the right thing.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

A Simpler Resolution...
written by Jane Hudson, October 07, 2009

This all could have been avioded completely, had the designer or Ray agreed to have Ray (or one of his jewelers) set Gina's center diamond, and shipped the new setting and her loose diamond back. Gina would have gotten exactly what she wanted, the designer would not have to take liability, and NO ATTORNEYS =)

That being said, the designer should have set the diamond in the first place...that's what he is, or should be, insured for.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

owner
written by Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, October 07, 2009

I have disclaimers about gemstone breakage all over my paperwork but the reality is that I have always taken responsibility for any stone entrusted to me. If you (or your setters) aren't up to it then you shouldn't be doing it is my belief. Do things sometimes happen? Sure, stuff breaks all the time, but then it's up to you to make it right. Unfortunately, one of the reasons designers are often at the wholesale end these days is because they have no concept of customer service, in the person to person sense. You take in someone's stone to work on, you screw it up, you make amends. It's really pretty simple. Designer should have the diamond recut, refund the $1500 value difference, refund the deposit and send back the old setting. Take it as a learning experience.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

owner
written by sonya gage, jewels unlimite, 10/7/09, October 07, 2009

This designer is a manipulator ! What an embarassment to the trade. I think Ray & Gina should publish his name so that we all can stay clear of this person. He needs to face the music that he damaged the stone and make money amends as needed according to Ray & Gina - is it really worth him losing a valuable store representing his line, even by the owner wearing his design ? I'm truly in hopes that this is one of the few bad apples - most of us are honest & forthright ! Good luck to Ray & Gina - I'm a designer - would be happy to help at my cost, if needed !

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by ED from Teds, October 07, 2009

I think Ray is right. The damage happenned before he asked for a release. I have 3 bench jewelers and carry insurance against this sort of thing happenning. The other option is for Ray to get the mounting and set the diamond himself. I think in todays business climate that the designer should be bending over backwards to make it right and also save the account for his salesman. The designer should be avoided and Ray should make it a point to discusss the situation with JVC, and other trade outlets.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

V.P.
written by Claudai Freshman, October 07, 2009

Kate Peterson ususally writes scenarios to obtain opinions. I think that it should be stated if this is a scenario for the same purpose or a real instance. People are going to think that this is a real designer. Clarification please.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

president
written by kris frederickson, October 07, 2009

The designer made several mistakes. Taking the diamond in so a custom mounting was fine. However, the issue of liability should have been addressed before the stone was removed from the old setting. At that time refusal to sign the waiver could have been resolved. I am sure the new mounting could have been designed without the stone being removed from the old setting. The Becketts were remiss to not have addressed this issue as well. Nevertheless, now it is time for both parties to give a little. The manufacturer is responsible for replacing the stone with one of like kind and quality. The Becketts are responsible to pay for the mounting they ordered. If the Becketts agree to a $1500 payment for loss of value instead of requiring a replacement stone and the stone is repaired for them then the new ring should be provided at no additional cost. Otherwise the Becketts should be given their damaged stone back for them to repair and receive their deposit and the $1500. Both parties lose a little and learn to be more professional in their business dealings it the future.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

owner
written by Mary Harding, October 07, 2009

All documents regarding who is responsible for what should be delivered and signed pruior to the exchange of money/stones. That being said, the designer is now responsible for the damage to the diamond and ANY solution to the problem lies on his shoulders (repair or replacement). The dispute over the mounting would not have occurred if the designer had accepted the responsibility for the damage to the diamond....he acted out of fear rather than integrity. The way to keep a client is to try to "make it right" no matter the cost when you have wronged someone. he should have notified the client of the damage, offered to have it evaluated and repaired and GIVEN them the mounting as a sign of good will.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Alex Weil, October 07, 2009

I've followed Kate Peterson for some time now,and she has always maintained that these scenarios are taken from actual events, but she has changed the names to protect the GUILTY!(lol).
In this case it seems there is an "accident"..not a disaster, but an accident. Any time there is one, hard feelings and finger pointing follow. To the designers credit there was an offer to make it right financially however along with some real rudeness. The warning flag for me was when the designer asked for a deposit. Not very courteous to a fellow professional and I would have backed out upon the request. In this case it seems that people have insurance or the services of mediation for just these kinds of issues. Using a "mediator" will likely prove useful to avoid the emotional hard feelings generated.
There is probably no financial payouts that can be offered to take away those feelings that i can think of. Or can i think of any satisfaction from getting money here. The designer has chosen to tarnish his reputation and will probably pay an additioanl price.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Celebrated Designer
written by Antonio Suarez, October 09, 2009

OK, My feeling is this...
1-The jeweler having this much experience should have been smart enough to have known about the risks whenever handling a Marquise shaped stone in a tension or suspended setting. Even his own bench jeweler would never assume the responsibility.

The designer should have had a disclosure statement before anything got started.
The jeweler does have some level of commitment to a custom made piece. The designer was greedy in that he is losing what may be a great account by not fulfilling the needs of the owner who would certainly sell the line heavily having a piece on her hand.

The designer should have left the deposit on as a credit, paid for the diamond as agreed and moved forward. The designer was VERY short sighted and the jeweler was not attentive to a detail such as this.
Tony

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Vice-President
written by Laurie Pfitzer, Artistry in Gold, Spokane, Wa., October 10, 2009

The blame should be on the designer. Yes everybody makes mistakes but the designer wasn't honest about the damage to the Diamond and tried to cover it with a delayed signing of the waiver. That error along with the delayed finish date, rudeness and legal matters has permanently destroy this vendor relationship with no hope of repair. Step up vendor. Repair the diamond at no cost to the Becketts. Return the original mounting, the deposit and the recut unset Diamond immediately. Save some for your intregity. You screwed up and you loose.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Cheif Disorganizer!
written by Mark Garcia, October 22, 2009

As a personal friend of Ray and Gina, I can tell you that the article was written directly from actual documents (faxes, emails, lawyer letters, etc.) from both parties. The situation is real, and as of 10/21/2009, it is reported that there has been no resolution. Is trust and integrity gone from our business?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

New to the Business
written by JM, June 22, 2010

The designer should have been up front with Ray and Gina at teh beginning, rather than play into assumptions and legalitites. In doing so, he would have saved a sale for himself, kept the business with Becketts & Co., saved face for his sales rep. and so on. Allowing a trade and Gina to choose another diamond of her choice from his personal stock to replace the damaged one, would have meant just as much to her under the circumstances. Then the designer could have the diamond recut and set it into something Gina might have purchased anyway or sold it to recoup some of his loss.

To reciprocate honesty and fair play would have meant the world to the Becketts who obviously practice that everyday.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment