Genuine Trust Financial Group, Inc.

I would greatly appreciate if you could re-open the above case and send this response to the jeweler. Unfortunately, I did not see that the business has provided a response (I don't recall getting a message from Revdex.com alerting me to that fact). When I clicked on the below link received today, I see they filed a letter. That letter appears to have incorrect information. The jeweler claims that we paid $13,for the necklace. That does not appear correct. The jeweler provided no receipt or other documentation at the time of purchase. The jeweler provided no written confirmation that the item was not used, for example. The only document the jeweler provided was an appraisal. The insurance company said they paid $35,for the two items combined. Therefore, there is something fishy going on when nothing is documented and the numbers provided do not add up. Furthermore, both a third-party jeweler and an independent appraiser stated that the piece simply should not have been assigned such a high retail value. We all understand that the secondary market has a lower value. But that is not the issue. The issue is that the jeweler represented to us that we were getting fair replacement value, when that was not in fact that case. Sincerely, *** *** *** *** *** ** ***

Tell us why h Pampillonia Jewelers fully stands behind the Retail Replacement Value stated on the appraisalThe retail value or current replacement value is the cost to replace or purchase the item new in the most common marketIn this case, it was a retail settingThe actual price paid for the
necklace was 13, In preparation for this response I checked with my supplier and the cost today would be higher. Fair market value is what willing buyer and seller might agree on and does not reflect retail replacementIn this case the secondary marketFair market, retail, insurance, liquidation are all different type of values with specific purposes. In conversations with the client, he remained perplexed as to the difference between what he paid for the item (Retail) and what he can sell it for (Liquidation) It is unrealistic to assume that one can sell a custom necklace made to ones specification for what one paid for it The retail prices paid that the two items were both fair and reflective of the competitive retail environment of which they were purchased Pampillonia will not make any adjustmentsere

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Mr. P[redacted] questions the appraiser's competence to evaluate this piece of jewelry.  However, the appraiser has extensive credentials as detailed at [redacted].  His appraisal is attached.  I also note that the appraisal Mr. P[redacted] forwarded in his last response to the Revdex.com indicated the value of the necklace was $19375 -- significantly higher than the $13,490 showing on the receipt.  Thus Mr. P[redacted] was indicating, at the time of sale, that this necklace not only had stable value but even had greater value than the sale price.  (In contrast, the ring he sold was invoiced at $19,750 and also appraised by him at that value.)  In reality, the exact opposite was true.  Mr. P[redacted] was replacing the loss of a 2 karat diamond ring with one item that had stable value (the $19,750 ring) and another item that did not have stable value, if it was even worth $13,490 in the first place.  He played a special role in this transaction as advisor, representing that the replacement jewelry was of comparable value.  And in doing so, it is now clear that he had a conflict of interest.  What he failed to explain at the time was that a necklace such as this would not hold its value and its value is much more subjective (at least in his eyes, as he keeps referring to the special construction of it).  Had he explained any of this to my wife at the time, she would have been much more reluctant to accept something of unstable and speculative value as a replacement for something of clear, demonstrable value (the lost 2 karat diamond ring).  Thus my wife feels taken advantage of in this transaction.As noted originally, we believe a store credit is in order to provide us with items that are, in the end, of comparable value to the lost jewelry Mr. P[redacted] was supposed to be replacing pursuant to the insurance agreement.Regards,
[redacted]

I have attached copies of both receipts and the appraisal provided to Ms [redacted]. The prices paid for the two items were more than fair. In fact we offered Ms [redacted] a special price on the necklace so her total would not exceed her settlement.The necklace could not be duplicated to at the price paid. The appraiser, who in his opinion, stated that the value on our appraisal was somehow incorrect is mistaken and possibly unfamiliar with that segment of the market. I’m certain if the appraiser would obtain the current costs for 8 carats of briolette diamonds he would agree with our evaluation