Hi [redacted] , Our reviews speak for themselvesAs stated this is a malicious and isolated caseWe have never ever dealt with before The names you mention Cecilia G [redacted] , Jo-Ann S [redacted] , Don P [redacted] I and Marla B [redacted] are all unqualified as fine jewelry appraisers They were all unable to determine how the finished piece of jewelry was produced Don P [redacted] I dissented with the opinion of Marla B [redacted] its clear and obvious – you can twist and turn it however you wish but the truth is that they both clearly don’t understand what goes into jewelry production You do continue to lieYou know the ring was cast in one pieceAnd if you don’t know this, I will attest to it as would others in any court or forum All I can do at this point is re-iterate my previous response below: FACT: The final email and contact we ever received from you fiancé [redacted] : “ [redacted] I received the ring earlier today and it's beautiful it's exactly what we wanted haven't told [redacted] yet I am meeting her in San Diego tomorrow afternoon and that's when I'll give her the ring no need to respond to her email tonight.” Does it not appear from this e-mail that he was completely satisfied with the ring? Enchanted Diamonds since inception has had rave reviews regarding its craftsmanship vis-à-vis client testimonials and independent high-end jewelry appraisersYour issue as stated previously is likely with malicious intent and isolatedRegardless of such, IT IS STILL 100% COVERED by our Lifetime WarrantyYou assert the claim that it took you days to make any mention of this to anyone and affirm this was long after your exchange policy had expired (which we continue to honor), but now change the story that it took so long to get notify us as it was difficult to tell the Jonathan about your distasteBut the fact is that you were in touch with us throughout the processYou approved of the design, and maliciously neglect to mention the fact that we sent you a final silver casting which you APPROVEDYou also know the ring was cast in one piece as you received the silver casting in on pieceFurther you received an image from me of the final ring in one pieceYou had been very vocal throughout the process, and were knowing of all our policiesMoreover, you misconstrue and obfuscate your storyJonathan has never ever reached out to us, it’s a matter of fact that it took – you – days to reach out to us, Jonathan has never reached out to us since his final email stating his satisfactionYou could have reached out to us any time within the day period for an exchange as per our policies and agreementAnd we continue to honor our exchange policy and our Lifetime WarrantyWe make no guarantee of delivery date when a client has a custom setting, let alone a custom setting with over versionsYour behavior, inconsistent with our clients, was met with patience and even apologized for not answering emails in between castings and design periods – there were no updated to provide at certain points and truth be told we wanted to avoid confrontation as you were highly aggressive throughout the processYou further attempt to disparage and slander our name by neglecting to mention the fact that you received numerous silver castings (one of which was erroneously casted, and yes, it did delay the process) and had over fourteen (14) versions of your ring designedEven the casting sample that had been a wrong version casting that was sent to you, resulted in positive feedback and more revisionsIn your previous response you slandered us by stating “A quick search of that company will show horrible review after review -- a company full of scams that is not Revdex.com accredited like Enchanted DiamondsOnline Diamonds International doing business as Enchanted Diamonds will be able to scam consumers for years to come.” And then again act disingenuous in your reply stating “FACT: We have said openly that when you search Enchanted Diamonds that your business has great reviews; which is why we trusted working with your company without ever meeting you.” I demand that you retract or prove this statement to be true by providing URL’s to said reviewsYou are maliciously attempting to confuse the public and defame us: the company and brand Diamonds International is unrelated to Enchanted Diamonds and Online Diamonds International CorporationAnd at this juncture you continue to misconstrue all timelines and facts in order to mislead and manipulate perceptionYour entire story continuously changes (all documented) – and facts that you know are facts entirely changed or omitted by you in order to mislead anyone who will listenIn regards to the timeline, again you neglect to mention the FACT that we were working with you on a 200+ diamond ring that went through a process of revisionsFinally the design was approved by both of you and was delivered to the satisfaction of [redacted] The fact is that this alleged issue arose when you went to a jeweler attempting to re-sell the ring, indeed it was a competitor, which texted the client's you saying: “Also, I just noticed that the halo is slantedThe people I that I took it to were not very complimentary about it which doesn’t help because it makes it harder to resell.” Would you not agree that the fact that the ring was in the possession of a an interested party, who was not only a competitor, but an interested party, interested in purchasing the ring, is the one who "discovered" that the ring was slanted is a questionable source? The offered $does not even cover the cost of the diamonds and the wholesale value of the platinumJewelers who are disingenuous are capable of much malice in order to make a sale You too were and continue to be disingenuous on February [redacted] you sent two emails: .” We've had it appraised by four separate jewelers who have all stated the above flaws and agreed on the quality.” When asked about the qualifications of jewelers and the fact that they are in no position to appraise jewelry your story changed ever so quickly and conveniently: “ I misspoke when I said it was appraised by four jewelers - we took it took a jeweler and then they had it independently appraised by three different companies who all came to the same consensus.” Yet you only provided one appraisal to the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (hereinafter “JVC”) JVC in turn provided me with the appraisal that you had done and further requested that they send the ring to GCAL for a second appraisalHave you ever provided anyone or us with the three “independent appraisals” done prior to going to JVC? Are you sure you/they really had them done? The fact is your appraisal from Marla B [redacted] and GCAL’s appraisal contradict each other Is that not something that you would find questions the authority of both the alleged “appraisals”? Did you ever contact GCAL? Did they ever say why they would not take my calls regarding their false/inaccurate/conflicting appraisal? Did you ever ask how they arrived at the "fact" that the ring was made in three pieces? You are aware of the fact that the ring was made in one single piece rather than the three pieces that Don P [redacted] I of GCAL claims the ring has been made inYet you continue to spin the story, lie, manipulate, omit facts and defame us I previously provided you with the image of the single piece casting, proving that the ring was cast in one piece, have you had an opportunity to review it? Would you not agree that this puts P [redacted] i's entire appraisal into question? Wouldn't you agree the following questions of fact must be asked of P [redacted] I? a) How did he get to his assessment? b) Why is there evidence that is contradictory to his “assessment”? Does this fact not put into question the entire basis of your story? You allege that the appraisals are not in contradiction with one anotherThis too is highly disingenuousIn contradiction to your original “appraisal” Don P [redacted] I of GCAL states: “The diamond work is without fault as we see no immediate weaknessThe prongs (beads) are large, probably in anticipation that the shank will take on the heaviest wear and tear as the ring is worn.” Further contradicting your original “appraisal” he states: “ the metal and diamonds are of high quality ” Which is in complete conflict with Marla B***’s “appraisal.” We had on many occasions asked Jo-Ann S [redacted] of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee that any appraiser should provide a curriculum vitae to avoid a situation such as thisI made this very clear to Jo-Ann as I wanted someone highly qualified to review the ringDon P [redacted] I is clearly notNeither appraisers areNeither of the appraisers adhere to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)They make no mention of their qualifications, tools and equipment used, etcThis FACT can not be ignored: neither appraiser was ever qualified to appraise your ring properlyNor was Don P [redacted] I ever agreed to, I was waiting for his curriculum-vitae to give my approval, which I never received and have never receivedBut likely for good reason, as its obvious by his “findings” that he is unqualified to appraise the ringHe may very well be qualified to appraise diamonds, but I question his authority to appraise jewelry as his “findings” are inconsistent with the fact that the ring was entirely cast in one piece and was NEVER produced in pieces which were soldered togetherYou state: “We are not interested in working with someone as aggressive and unprofessional as youYou have no regard for industry standards or expert opinions as made clear by your refusal of two appraisalsYou have robbed my fiancé and I of a blissful engagement that we can never ever get backWe are confident that if we gave you the opportunity to remake the ring that the undeniable craftsmanship and technique flaws would be replicated in the new ringTherefore, we once again ask that you take the setting back (inclusive of the diamonds) in exchange for a refund.” Claiming that I am ignoring “the expert opinions” of the two unqualified appraisers is a claim, I have never ignored their “expert opinions.” In fact, I have from the very beginning demanded to be provided with an explanation as to how they arrived at their “expert opinions” and “findings” as they are laughable without question and neither follow industry standards, which you claim to have knowledge of, all standards are completely disregarded by BOTH your appraisers and their “appraisals”I have attached a proper appraisal for your referenceThe attached example is what one should expect from a qualified appraiserIn fact as soon as GCAL and Don P [redacted] i’s “appraisal” and “findings” (that the ring was produced in pieces) were unequivocally refutedJo-Ann S [redacted] essentially went into hiding and ignored my emails, it was days later when she responded but refused to set the record straight as CEO of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee was away on vacation, and mistakes could not be corrected without her in the officeDon P [redacted] I of GCAL refused to speak on the matter of his “appraisal”, and Cecilia G [redacted] , CEO of the JVC became irate and unilaterally ended the mediation when I confronted her about Jo-Ann’s performance and GCAL’s grossly erroneous “appraisal.” G [redacted] began to yell at me when I made mention of the fact that I have all my calls with Jo-Ann recordedFurther, Jo-Ann had spun a web of lies early on, at that point I refused to participate in the mediation without yourself or Jonathan on copy to every emailWhen she refused to provide me with a curriculum vitae for Don P [redacted] I of GCAL or any other appraiser and laughed at me and belittled me for asking for one, I was shocked and disheartenedShe also showed her hand not understanding industry standards when she claimed she would go to the head of the Gemological Institute of America for clarifications on questions I had about equipment used, standards, findings and accuracyShouldn’t a jewelry mediator have access to this knowledge? One would think soAsk yourself, what do JVC and GCAL have to hide? Why didn’t they ever send me the curriculum vitae as I requested so many times? Why did Cecilia G [redacted] , CEO of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee unilaterally end the mediation when the inconsistency of Don’s appraisal was brought to light? I personally have never heard of a scenario where a mediator ends mediation unilaterallyNor have I ever heard of a mediation that recommends one and only one third party evaluatorFurther, a mediation with absolutely no rules, structure or guideline? The people you should be asking a refund for are the parties mentionedThey are incredibly lacking in qualifications made apparent by all the inconsistencies and following no peer reviewable standards whatsoeverFurther in response to your statement above, from the very beginning of the mediation with JVC we offered to remake the setting and have it independently appraised by a highly qualified independent jewelry appraiser at our costThis is our offer and it’s a fair one, meant to set the record straight and to deliver you a highly loveable and meticulously crafted engagement ringOur policy stands as does our offer to have the replacement independently appraised by a highly qualified appraiser does as wellPlease don’t leave facts outWe didn’t just offer to remake the settingWe offered to remake the setting and have it independently appraised by a qualified appraiserAnd continue to offer this as a resolution to this matter, even with all the lies and defamation – we still stand behind our Lifetime Warranty and your setting
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved Sincerely, [redacted] ***
To Whom It May Concern:This email is in response to the complaint filed by *** *** which states:"I was discontinued from my plan without any type of notice. Simply unfair. For any service that I am subscribed to and I am subscribed to many services such as ***, ***, ***,
***, etc, I always receive an email notification. I had to literally to contact this company, to find out what was going on. I was in a grandfathered plan, and was discontinued from this plan. My plan was cancelled and my business was affected. I hope to hear back soon." Please note that the reason this customer's service was discontinued was due to consecutive credit card declines for payment. Our system sends out a notification for each decline as well as notice of cancellation after the 5th decline Once this customer contacted us, we did grant the request to return to the previous plan he was on- which to note - was discontinued more than years ago.In closing, we did resolve this matter with *** *** on 2/2/2017.Regards,________________________________________*** *** | Billing & FinanceYesware, Inc| http://www.yesware.com ** *** *** *** *** *** ** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because of these facts:
ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “Initially when you had received your ring [redacted] stated: “[redacted] I received the ring earlier today and it's beautiful it's exactly what we wanted haven't told [redacted] yet I am meeting her in San Diego tomorrow afternoon and that's when I'll give her the ring no need to respond to her email tonight. “ FACT: [redacted], my fiancé, was referring to the design of the ring, after all it was OUR design that we meticulously crafted and day dreamed about years before meeting you. So, of course the design was “exactly what we wanted”. In fact, we have never questioned the design; this isn’t a case of a consumer purchasing a custom setting and then changing their mind based on taste. We have always been satisfied with our design, it is Enchanted Diamonds’ poor execution and craftsmanship of our design that is in question. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “Nearly 120 days after your exchange policy had expired you emailed us demanding a refund…”FACT: We contacted Enchanted Diamonds on numerous occasions, even before receiving the ring, stating our disgust in the process thus far, some of those dates include: October [redacted], 2015: “Any update? We are disappointed that our progress has come to a halt.” -[redacted]October [redacted], 2015: “Aside from the delays, aside from the switch from pave to shared prongs can someone please let me [know] why the entire shape of our setting has changed?” … “Absolutely unacceptable. You will be happy to know, for once, I am now at a loss for words. Jon I suggest you give Jonathan a call ASAP to resolve.” -[redacted] October [redacted], 2015: “We are growing very concerned that we have been working on this project since June and that the progress has been stagnant since August.” -[redacted]November [redacted], 2015: “This is our last attempt to request an update. We have repeatedly been promised updates that you and your colleague have failed to deliver. Please provide a date when we can expect to receive our final cast. If we do not receive the cast by the promised delivery date then we will proceed to work with another company to finalize our ring. -[redacted]November [redacted], 2015: [After being advised of another delay by Enchanted Diamonds] “We have been told since September [redacted], 60 days ago, that we would have our ring "by the end of the week". I manage production schedules for a living and I have never experienced a project that was it far behind! When will your company deliver what it promises??” … “If this project continues into December that will put us at the six month milestone... 1/2 year to complete this ring that should have been finalized months ago!” -[redacted]November [redacted], 2015: If we do not receive the cast on Thursday we will be contacting our attorney to file suit and get our money back. We have given you every chance to redeem this process to no avail.” -[redacted]See attached for complete please to Enchanted Diamonds ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “Nearly 120 days after your exchange policy had expired you emailed us demanding a refund…”FACT: The ring was received on November [redacted], 2015 and we contacted you on February [redacted], 2016 = 90 days not 120; see attached timeline.FACT: Yes, that is right, it took me three months to tell the love of my life that is hard earned money had purchased a substandard, poorly crafted ring. Lots of women will go their entire lives without telling their husbands that the dislike their engagement ring, this is common. My dissatisfaction with the ring began on the very same day I received it, but yes it took me three agonizing, heart wrenching months to get the courage to admit this to my fiancé. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “…threatened us by stating: “We highly ask to you reconsider an alternative for this situation to avoid legal recourse. We have disreputable proof of the lack of deliverables your company provided from June through November 2015 and are prepared to file civil suit if we cannot collaboratively resolve this together. “FACT: Of course we were/are prepared to take legal action, as any smart consumer would. You refused to offer a refund even with professional appraisers saying the ring was poorly made. This should have come as no surprise to you considering we were so disappointed with your company even before receiving the ring that we threatened legal recourse to get our money back 3 months prior on November 10th, 2015 stating, “If we do not receive the cast on Thursday we will be contacting our attorney to file suit and get our money back. We have given you every chance to redeem this process to no avail.” -[redacted] ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “The Jeweler whom you said is your friend (recording available), stated: “Also, I just noticed that the halo is slanted – see the photo below. The 3 people I that I took it to were not very complimentary about it…. which doesn’t help because it makes it harder to resell” FACT: I do not now, nor have I ever had any “friends” in the jewelry business. The text message you are referring to is a screen shot from Vanessa Nicole of the San Diego Diamond District and she showed the ring to her friends/colleagues (jewelry professionals) within the Diamond District to get additional expert opinions – all of whom agreed that the ring was of poor craftsmanship. So poor, that they only offered to buy it from us for $800 when we bought it from Enchanted Diamonds for $5,800. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “It could have very well been the jeweler who had possession of your engagement ring who bent the setting.”FACT: No consumer nor jewelry professionally would ever intentionally or maliciously damage the jewelry. That is absurd. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “[We offered] to have it independently appraised for quality at our cost, with no cost to you whatsoever.”FACT: After you refused the first appraisal done by ‘Jewelry Appraisal Professionals San Diego’ the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (our mediator) asked you to submit a second appraiser of your choosing. You do not reply. Therefore, the JVC unbiasedly chose an appraiser local to you – Master Gemologist Don P[redacted]i of GCAL. Don P[redacted]i concluded that “the ring mounting would not be considered a well made piece of jewelry”; yet you again refused a second professional appraisal. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “You continuously declined our offer to resolve this.” FACT: We worked diligently with the Jewelers Vigilance Committee for over 6 months to resolve this with Enchanted Diamonds, but you refuse to offer a refund and we simply cannot accept you to remake the ring. Based on expert advice of industry professionals in San Diego, Los Angeles, and New York City, including mediators, jewelers, and appraisers, we have been advised not to let Enchanted Diamonds remake the ring. Like the professionals, we firmly believe that your poor craftsmanship and negligence in the first ring will be replicated whether you try to make it for us a second, third, or fourth time. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: [You] continue to state lie after lie to spin the story in your favor all while defaming our company and myself.”FACT: My fiancé and I have only ever provided the truth about our experience working with you/Enchanted Diamonds and the quality of craftsmanship that you produce. If these truths are damaging to your company that is on you. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “You also managed to receive two conflicting appraisals that are in complete disagreement with each other and over the facts.”FACT: That is an absolute lie. Both appraisers concluded that the setting was poorly made. While one appraiser said the quality of diamonds was fine and the other didn’t is a moot point. Our concern has always been about the craftsmanship which was the purpose of the appraisals; and both appraisers agreed that the craftsmanship was “shoddy”, “drippy”, “not a well made piece of jewelry”, “substandard”, and a “low to moderate quality ring”. Both appraisals attached. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “Don P[redacted]i of GCAL and your appraiser in San Diego, Marla B[redacted] are in total disagreement with each other, and you are attempting to defame our company based on false information and findings.” FACT: You can try to spin this all you want and stray from the findings of the craftsmanship, but the truth is in my fact above and in the two appraisals which undeniable agree the craftsmanship is low quality; yet you continue to argue with multiple jewelry professionals’ appraisals.ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “Enchanted Diamonds aka Online Diamonds International Corporation continue to have A+ Ratings with the Revdex.com and 5 Star Ratings elsewhere.”FACT: We have said openly that when you search Enchanted Diamonds that your business has great reviews; which is why we trusted working with your company without ever meeting you. However, the service and deliverables that we have received since being in contact with you over the last 16 months has been an unprofessional nightmare.ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “We'd love to replace the setting for you - please give us the opportunity.”FACT: We are not interested in working with someone as aggressive and unprofessional as you. You have no regard for industry standards or expert opinions as made clear by your refusal of two appraisals. You have robbed my fiancé and I of a blissful engagement that we can never ever get back. We are confident that if we gave you the opportunity to remake the ring that the undeniable craftsmanship and technique flaws would be replicated in the new ring. Therefore, we once again ask that you take the setting back (inclusive of the diamonds) in exchange for a refund.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
The customer returned the diamond with a fully insured...
label provided by the company on 4/*/15, we received the diamond in our office on 4/*/15. We were able to verify the diamond at this time, but notified customer that we were closed for the Passover holiday until later the following week. On Thursday, April [redacted], 2015, we refunded the customer's credit card via [redacted], our credit card processing company. On April **, 2015, we saw the fund's leave our bank account. As per instructions from [redacted], we notified the customer that the refund could take 5-10 business days to be processed and reflected on her credit card statement. The customer contacted us on April [redacted], 2015, exactly 7 business days from the refund date. At this point we let the customer know that she should be seeing the refund in the next few days. The customer contacted us several times over the next 48-hours, at which time we advised the customer on April **, 2015, that her best course of action to alleviate her concerns, would be to open a dispute with her credit card company, as there is little we can do on our end. We then advised the customer again on April **, 2015, to open up a dispute with her credit card company, as on our end everything was processed correctly, and the funds had exited our account more than a week ago. The customer continued to contact us, at which point we put the customer on an email with a representative from [redacted] on April **, 2015, to give her peace of mind and assist her with this issue. There were many correspondences between the customer and [redacted] repeatedly told the customer that there was an issue on their end in processing the refund, and assured the customer that they were taking the necessary actions to expedite her refund. The customer continued to contact [redacted] and us regarding this matter. From our end, it was out of our hands, as the issue was entirely caused by a problem with [redacted], a problem that they have formally admitted to and taken ownership of with us. Documented in a letter from one of the Founders accepting blame and formally apologizing for this situation. The customer threatened us several times that she would file a complaint against us with the Revdex.com. We repeatedly told the customer that their complaint should be with [redacted], not us. The customer repeatedly demanded a reference number from [redacted], which the representative said he would have in the next few days. He provided this information to the customer on May [redacted], 2015. As you can see we did everything on our end, and [redacted], has repeatedly made it clear that the issue was on their end and that the customers refund will be going through this week. The customer continues to contact us demanding us to do more, which unfortunately we are unable to do. On May [redacted], 2015, the customer was successfully refunded. [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Hi [redacted], Our reviews speak for themselves. As stated this is a malicious and isolated case. We have never ever dealt with before. The names you mention Cecilia G[redacted], Jo-Ann S[redacted], Don P[redacted]i and Marla B[redacted] are all unqualified as fine jewelry appraisers. They were all unable to determine how the finished piece of jewelry was produced. Don P[redacted]i dissented with the opinion of Marla B[redacted] its clear and obvious – you can twist and turn it however you wish but the truth is that they both clearly don’t understand what goes into jewelry production. You do continue to lie. You know the ring was cast in one piece. And if you don’t know this, I will attest to it as would others in any court or forum. All I can do at this point is re-iterate my previous response below: FACT: The final email and contact we ever received from you fiancé [redacted]: “[redacted] I received the ring earlier today and it's beautiful it's exactly what we wanted haven't told [redacted] yet I am meeting her in San Diego tomorrow afternoon and that's when I'll give her the ring no need to respond to her email tonight.” Does it not appear from this e-mail that he was completely satisfied with the ring? Enchanted Diamonds since inception has had rave reviews regarding its craftsmanship vis-à-vis client testimonials and independent high-end jewelry appraisers. Your issue as stated previously is likely with malicious intent and isolated. Regardless of such, IT IS STILL 100% COVERED by our Lifetime Warranty. You assert the claim that it took you 90 days to make any mention of this to anyone and affirm this was long after your exchange policy had expired (which we continue to honor), but now change the story that it took so long to get notify us as it was difficult to tell the Jonathan about your distaste. But the fact is that you were in touch with us throughout the process. You approved of the design, and maliciously neglect to mention the fact that we sent you a final silver casting which you APPROVED. You also know the ring was cast in one piece as you received the silver casting in on piece. Further you received an image from me of the final ring in one piece. You had been very vocal throughout the process, and were knowing of all our policies. Moreover, you misconstrue and obfuscate your story. Jonathan has never ever reached out to us, it’s a matter of fact that it took – you – 90 days to reach out to us, Jonathan has never reached out to us since his final email stating his satisfaction. You could have reached out to us any time within the 30 day period for an exchange as per our policies and agreement. And we continue to honor our exchange policy and our Lifetime Warranty. We make no guarantee of delivery date when a client has a custom setting, let alone a custom setting with over 14 versions. Your behavior, inconsistent with our clients, was met with patience and even apologized for not answering emails in between castings and design periods – there were no updated to provide at certain points and truth be told we wanted to avoid confrontation as you were highly aggressive throughout the process. You further attempt to disparage and slander our name by neglecting to mention the fact that you received numerous silver castings (one of which was erroneously casted, and yes, it did delay the process) and had over fourteen (14) versions of your ring designed. Even the casting sample that had been a wrong version casting that was sent to you, resulted in positive feedback and more revisions. In your previous response you slandered us by stating “A quick search of that company will show horrible review after review -- a company full of scams that is not Revdex.com accredited like Enchanted Diamonds. Online Diamonds International doing business as Enchanted Diamonds will be able to scam consumers for years to come.” And then again act disingenuous in your reply stating “FACT: We have said openly that when you search Enchanted Diamonds that your business has great reviews; which is why we trusted working with your company without ever meeting you.” I demand that you retract or prove this statement to be true by providing URL’s to said reviews. You are maliciously attempting to confuse the public and defame us: the company and brand Diamonds International is unrelated to Enchanted Diamonds and Online Diamonds International Corporation. And at this juncture you continue to misconstrue all timelines and facts in order to mislead and manipulate perception. Your entire story continuously changes (all documented) – and facts that you know are facts entirely changed or omitted by you in order to mislead anyone who will listen. In regards to the timeline, again you neglect to mention the FACT that we were working with you on a 200+ diamond ring that went through a process of 14 revisions. Finally the design was approved by both of you and was delivered to the satisfaction of [redacted]. The fact is that this alleged issue arose when you went to a jeweler attempting to re-sell the ring, indeed it was a competitor, which texted the client's you saying: “Also, I just noticed that the halo is slanted. The 3 people I that I took it to were not very complimentary about it…. which doesn’t help because it makes it harder to resell.” Would you not agree that the fact that the ring was in the possession of a an interested party, who was not only a competitor, but an interested party, interested in purchasing the ring, is the one who "discovered" that the ring was slanted is a questionable source? The offered $750.00 does not even cover the cost of the diamonds and the wholesale value of the platinum. Jewelers who are disingenuous are capable of much malice in order to make a sale. You too were and continue to be disingenuous on February [redacted] you sent two emails: 1….” We've had it appraised by four separate jewelers who have all stated the above flaws and agreed on the quality.” When asked about the qualifications of jewelers and the fact that they are in no position to appraise jewelry your story changed ever so quickly and conveniently: 2. “…I misspoke when I said it was appraised by four jewelers - we took it took a jeweler and then they had it independently appraised by three different companies who all came to the same consensus.” Yet you only provided one appraisal to the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (hereinafter “JVC”). JVC in turn provided me with the appraisal that you had done and further requested that they send the ring to GCAL for a second appraisal. Have you ever provided anyone or us with the three “independent appraisals” done prior to going to JVC? Are you sure you/they really had them done? The fact is your appraisal from Marla B[redacted] and GCAL’s appraisal contradict each other. Is that not something that you would find questions the authority of both the alleged “appraisals”? Did you ever contact GCAL? Did they ever say why they would not take my calls regarding their false/inaccurate/conflicting appraisal? Did you ever ask how they arrived at the "fact" that the ring was made in three pieces? You are aware of the fact that the ring was made in one single piece rather than the three pieces that Don P[redacted]i of GCAL claims the ring has been made in. Yet you continue to spin the story, lie, manipulate, omit facts and defame us. I previously provided you with the image of the single piece casting, proving that the ring was cast in one piece, have you had an opportunity to review it? Would you not agree that this puts P[redacted]i's entire appraisal into question? Wouldn't you agree the following questions of fact must be asked of P[redacted]i? a) How did he get to his assessment? b) Why is there evidence that is contradictory to his “assessment”? Does this fact not put into question the entire basis of your story? You allege that the appraisals are not in contradiction with one another. This too is highly disingenuous. In contradiction to your original “appraisal” Don P[redacted]i of GCAL states: “The diamond work is without fault as we see no immediate weakness. The prongs (beads) are large, probably in anticipation that the shank will take on the heaviest wear and tear as the ring is worn.” Further contradicting your original “appraisal” he states: “… the metal and diamonds are of high quality…” Which is in complete conflict with Marla B[redacted]’s “appraisal.” We had on many occasions asked Jo-Ann S[redacted] of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee that any appraiser should provide a curriculum vitae to avoid a situation such as this. I made this very clear to Jo-Ann as I wanted someone highly qualified to review the ring. Don P[redacted]i is clearly not. Neither appraisers are. Neither of the appraisers adhere to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). They make no mention of their qualifications, tools and equipment used, etc. This FACT can not be ignored: neither appraiser was ever qualified to appraise your ring properly. Nor was Don P[redacted]i ever agreed to, I was waiting for his curriculum-vitae to give my approval, which I never received and have never received. But likely for good reason, as its obvious by his “findings” that he is unqualified to appraise the ring. He may very well be qualified to appraise diamonds, but I question his authority to appraise jewelry as his “findings” are inconsistent with the fact that the ring was entirely cast in one piece and was NEVER produced in 3 pieces which were soldered together. You state: “We are not interested in working with someone as aggressive and unprofessional as you. You have no regard for industry standards or expert opinions as made clear by your refusal of two appraisals. You have robbed my fiancé and I of a blissful engagement that we can never ever get back. We are confident that if we gave you the opportunity to remake the ring that the undeniable craftsmanship and technique flaws would be replicated in the new ring. Therefore, we once again ask that you take the setting back (inclusive of the diamonds) in exchange for a refund.” Claiming that I am ignoring “the expert opinions” of the two unqualified appraisers is a false claim, I have never ignored their “expert opinions.” In fact, I have from the very beginning demanded to be provided with an explanation as to how they arrived at their “expert opinions” and “findings” as they are laughable without question and neither follow industry standards, which you claim to have knowledge of, all standards are completely disregarded by BOTH your appraisers and their “appraisals”. I have attached a proper appraisal for your reference. The attached example is what one should expect from a qualified appraiser. In fact as soon as GCAL and Don P[redacted]i’s “appraisal” and “findings” (that the ring was produced in 3 pieces) were unequivocally refuted. Jo-Ann S[redacted] essentially went into hiding and ignored my emails, it was days later when she responded but refused to set the record straight as CEO of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee was away on vacation, and mistakes could not be corrected without her in the office. Don P[redacted]i of GCAL refused to speak on the matter of his “appraisal”, and Cecilia G[redacted], CEO of the JVC became irate and unilaterally ended the mediation when I confronted her about Jo-Ann’s performance and GCAL’s grossly erroneous “appraisal.” G[redacted] began to yell at me when I made mention of the fact that I have all my calls with Jo-Ann recorded. Further, Jo-Ann had spun a web of lies early on, at that point I refused to participate in the mediation without yourself or Jonathan on copy to every email. When she refused to provide me with a curriculum vitae for Don P[redacted]i of GCAL or any other appraiser and laughed at me and belittled me for asking for one, I was shocked and disheartened. She also showed her hand not understanding industry standards when she claimed she would go to the head of the Gemological Institute of America for clarifications on questions I had about equipment used, standards, findings and accuracy. Shouldn’t a jewelry mediator have access to this knowledge? One would think so. Ask yourself, what do JVC and GCAL have to hide? Why didn’t they ever send me the curriculum vitae as I requested so many times? Why did Cecilia G[redacted], CEO of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee unilaterally end the mediation when the inconsistency of Don’s appraisal was brought to light? I personally have never heard of a scenario where a mediator ends mediation unilaterally. Nor have I ever heard of a mediation that recommends one and only one third party evaluator. Further, a mediation with absolutely no rules, structure or guideline? The people you should be asking a refund for are the parties mentioned. They are incredibly lacking in qualifications made apparent by all the inconsistencies and following no peer reviewable standards whatsoever. Further in response to your statement above, from the very beginning of the mediation with JVC we offered to remake the setting and have it independently appraised by a highly qualified independent jewelry appraiser at our cost. This is our offer and it’s a fair one, meant to set the record straight and to deliver you a highly loveable and meticulously crafted engagement ring. Our policy stands as does our offer to have the replacement independently appraised by a highly qualified appraiser does as well. Please don’t leave facts out. We didn’t just offer to remake the setting. We offered to remake the setting and have it independently appraised by a qualified appraiser. And continue to offer this as a resolution to this matter, even with all the lies and defamation – we still stand behind our Lifetime Warranty and your setting.
It is with sincere apologies and regrets that you do not accept the terms of our Lifetime Warranty (attachment 5). As a safeguard for all clients including incidental damage, we extend this service to protect all consumers in nearly every scenario, including this one. Initially when you had...
received your ring [redacted] stated: “[redacted] I received the ring earlier today and it's beautiful it's exactly what we wanted haven't told [redacted] yet I am meeting her in San Diego tomorrow afternoon and that's when I'll give her the ring no need to respond to her email tonight. “ Nearly 120 days after your exchange policy had expired you emailed us demanding a refund stating “I misspoke when I said it was appraised by four jewelers - we took it took a jeweler and then they had it independently appraised by three different companies who all came to the same consensus. While we understand it's a custom ring the flaws are undeniable; see attached.” And threatened us by stating: “We highly ask to you reconsider an alternative for this situation to avoid legal recourse. We have disreputable proof of the lack of deliverables your company provided from June through November 2015 and are prepared to file civil suit if we cannot collaboratively resolve this together. “ You also sent us a screenshot of a text message (See: attachment1) The Jeweler whom you said is your friend (recording available), stated: “Also, I just noticed that the halo is slanted – see the photo below. The 3 people I that I took it to were not very complimentary about it…. which doesn’t help because it makes it harder to resell” The jeweler is the one who all of a sudden noticed the bend shank? You never stated that in your original email. It could have very well been the jeweler who had possession of your engagement ring who bent the setting. Nonetheless – we stood behind our lifetime warranty and offered you a full replacement of the setting and to have it independently appraised for quality at our cost, with no cost to you whatsoever. You continuously declined our offer to resolve this. Instead turning to blackmail over a refund. And continue to state lie after lie to spin the story in your favor all while defaming our company and myself. You also managed to receive two conflicting appraisals that are in complete disagreement with each other and over the facts. Both of which make clear that the appraisers were not qualified to appraise jewelry and both entirely disingenuous. You cited Don P[redacted] of GCAL as a source who in fact disagreed with your original appraisal and stated “though the metal and diamonds are of high quality…” but irrefutably incorrectly said that the ring was “produced in three (3) parts which were later soldered together.” And “the under gallery was not attached evenly,’’’ These statements are grossly incorrect. The ring was cast in 1 single piece and was NEVER soldered together. The ring never had to be evenly attached as it was cast in one piece. (See attachment 2). He even agreed with our diamond setting standards: “The diamond work is without fault as we see no immediate weakness. The prongs (beads) are large, probably in anticipation that the shank will take on the heaviest wear and tear as the ring is worn.” We had on many occasions asked Jo-Ann S[redacted] of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee that any appraiser should provide a curriculum vitae to avoid a situation such as this. Don P[redacted] of GCAL and your appraiser in San Diego, Marla B[redacted] are in total disagreement with each other, and you are attempting to defame our company based on false information and findings. (see attachment 3 and attachment 4 for completely inaccurate and contradictory appraisals). Also, you mentioned that I called the appraisers. I only called Don P[redacted]i of GCAL who refused to discuss the findings with me at all. I don’t see calling the appraiser as something controversial. He made a huge mistake and should retract his appraisal and have a chance to set the record straight. Instead, you use his name and false findings to disparage the company and myself. The ring was cast in one piece as we had provided you with photo’s of the casting and you received silver castings and approved of such. You also are telling people to do a search of Online Diamonds International Corporation which has results and reviews show up for an unrelated company: Diamonds International, which has poor reviews. Please provide us with an unrelated example of a poor review of our company: Online Diamonds International Corporation. Or please retract such statements. Enchanted Diamonds aka Online Diamonds International Corporation continue to have A+ Ratings with the Revdex.com and 5 Star Ratings elsewhere. We have continuously offered you an expeditious replacement of the ring and post-production inspection from an independent appraiser of high-end jewelry free of cost to you. The remedy our company has available to you and any of its customers is here to protect you, a Lifetime Warranty that ensures you will always wear a ring in proper condition and appearance. See: [redacted] We'd love to replace the setting for you - please give us the opportunity.
Hi [redacted] , Our reviews speak for themselvesAs stated this is a malicious and isolated caseWe have never ever dealt with before The names you mention Cecilia G [redacted] , Jo-Ann S [redacted] , Don P [redacted] I and Marla B [redacted] are all unqualified as fine jewelry appraisers They were all unable to determine how the finished piece of jewelry was produced Don P [redacted] I dissented with the opinion of Marla B [redacted] its clear and obvious – you can twist and turn it however you wish but the truth is that they both clearly don’t understand what goes into jewelry production You do continue to lieYou know the ring was cast in one pieceAnd if you don’t know this, I will attest to it as would others in any court or forum All I can do at this point is re-iterate my previous response below: FACT: The final email and contact we ever received from you fiancé [redacted] : “ [redacted] I received the ring earlier today and it's beautiful it's exactly what we wanted haven't told [redacted] yet I am meeting her in San Diego tomorrow afternoon and that's when I'll give her the ring no need to respond to her email tonight.” Does it not appear from this e-mail that he was completely satisfied with the ring? Enchanted Diamonds since inception has had rave reviews regarding its craftsmanship vis-à-vis client testimonials and independent high-end jewelry appraisersYour issue as stated previously is likely with malicious intent and isolatedRegardless of such, IT IS STILL 100% COVERED by our Lifetime WarrantyYou assert the claim that it took you days to make any mention of this to anyone and affirm this was long after your exchange policy had expired (which we continue to honor), but now change the story that it took so long to get notify us as it was difficult to tell the Jonathan about your distasteBut the fact is that you were in touch with us throughout the processYou approved of the design, and maliciously neglect to mention the fact that we sent you a final silver casting which you APPROVEDYou also know the ring was cast in one piece as you received the silver casting in on pieceFurther you received an image from me of the final ring in one pieceYou had been very vocal throughout the process, and were knowing of all our policiesMoreover, you misconstrue and obfuscate your storyJonathan has never ever reached out to us, it’s a matter of fact that it took – you – days to reach out to us, Jonathan has never reached out to us since his final email stating his satisfactionYou could have reached out to us any time within the day period for an exchange as per our policies and agreementAnd we continue to honor our exchange policy and our Lifetime WarrantyWe make no guarantee of delivery date when a client has a custom setting, let alone a custom setting with over versionsYour behavior, inconsistent with our clients, was met with patience and even apologized for not answering emails in between castings and design periods – there were no updated to provide at certain points and truth be told we wanted to avoid confrontation as you were highly aggressive throughout the processYou further attempt to disparage and slander our name by neglecting to mention the fact that you received numerous silver castings (one of which was erroneously casted, and yes, it did delay the process) and had over fourteen (14) versions of your ring designedEven the casting sample that had been a wrong version casting that was sent to you, resulted in positive feedback and more revisionsIn your previous response you slandered us by stating “A quick search of that company will show horrible review after review -- a company full of scams that is not Revdex.com accredited like Enchanted DiamondsOnline Diamonds International doing business as Enchanted Diamonds will be able to scam consumers for years to come.” And then again act disingenuous in your reply stating “FACT: We have said openly that when you search Enchanted Diamonds that your business has great reviews; which is why we trusted working with your company without ever meeting you.” I demand that you retract or prove this statement to be true by providing URL’s to said reviewsYou are maliciously attempting to confuse the public and defame us: the company and brand Diamonds International is unrelated to Enchanted Diamonds and Online Diamonds International CorporationAnd at this juncture you continue to misconstrue all timelines and facts in order to mislead and manipulate perceptionYour entire story continuously changes (all documented) – and facts that you know are facts entirely changed or omitted by you in order to mislead anyone who will listenIn regards to the timeline, again you neglect to mention the FACT that we were working with you on a 200+ diamond ring that went through a process of revisionsFinally the design was approved by both of you and was delivered to the satisfaction of [redacted] The fact is that this alleged issue arose when you went to a jeweler attempting to re-sell the ring, indeed it was a competitor, which texted the client's you saying: “Also, I just noticed that the halo is slantedThe people I that I took it to were not very complimentary about it which doesn’t help because it makes it harder to resell.” Would you not agree that the fact that the ring was in the possession of a an interested party, who was not only a competitor, but an interested party, interested in purchasing the ring, is the one who "discovered" that the ring was slanted is a questionable source? The offered $does not even cover the cost of the diamonds and the wholesale value of the platinumJewelers who are disingenuous are capable of much malice in order to make a sale You too were and continue to be disingenuous on February [redacted] you sent two emails: .” We've had it appraised by four separate jewelers who have all stated the above flaws and agreed on the quality.” When asked about the qualifications of jewelers and the fact that they are in no position to appraise jewelry your story changed ever so quickly and conveniently: “ I misspoke when I said it was appraised by four jewelers - we took it took a jeweler and then they had it independently appraised by three different companies who all came to the same consensus.” Yet you only provided one appraisal to the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (hereinafter “JVC”) JVC in turn provided me with the appraisal that you had done and further requested that they send the ring to GCAL for a second appraisalHave you ever provided anyone or us with the three “independent appraisals” done prior to going to JVC? Are you sure you/they really had them done? The fact is your appraisal from Marla B [redacted] and GCAL’s appraisal contradict each other Is that not something that you would find questions the authority of both the alleged “appraisals”? Did you ever contact GCAL? Did they ever say why they would not take my calls regarding their false/inaccurate/conflicting appraisal? Did you ever ask how they arrived at the "fact" that the ring was made in three pieces? You are aware of the fact that the ring was made in one single piece rather than the three pieces that Don P [redacted] I of GCAL claims the ring has been made inYet you continue to spin the story, lie, manipulate, omit facts and defame us I previously provided you with the image of the single piece casting, proving that the ring was cast in one piece, have you had an opportunity to review it? Would you not agree that this puts P [redacted] i's entire appraisal into question? Wouldn't you agree the following questions of fact must be asked of P [redacted] I? a) How did he get to his assessment? b) Why is there evidence that is contradictory to his “assessment”? Does this fact not put into question the entire basis of your story? You allege that the appraisals are not in contradiction with one anotherThis too is highly disingenuousIn contradiction to your original “appraisal” Don P [redacted] I of GCAL states: “The diamond work is without fault as we see no immediate weaknessThe prongs (beads) are large, probably in anticipation that the shank will take on the heaviest wear and tear as the ring is worn.” Further contradicting your original “appraisal” he states: “ the metal and diamonds are of high quality ” Which is in complete conflict with Marla B***’s “appraisal.” We had on many occasions asked Jo-Ann S [redacted] of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee that any appraiser should provide a curriculum vitae to avoid a situation such as thisI made this very clear to Jo-Ann as I wanted someone highly qualified to review the ringDon P [redacted] I is clearly notNeither appraisers areNeither of the appraisers adhere to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)They make no mention of their qualifications, tools and equipment used, etcThis FACT can not be ignored: neither appraiser was ever qualified to appraise your ring properlyNor was Don P [redacted] I ever agreed to, I was waiting for his curriculum-vitae to give my approval, which I never received and have never receivedBut likely for good reason, as its obvious by his “findings” that he is unqualified to appraise the ringHe may very well be qualified to appraise diamonds, but I question his authority to appraise jewelry as his “findings” are inconsistent with the fact that the ring was entirely cast in one piece and was NEVER produced in pieces which were soldered togetherYou state: “We are not interested in working with someone as aggressive and unprofessional as youYou have no regard for industry standards or expert opinions as made clear by your refusal of two appraisalsYou have robbed my fiancé and I of a blissful engagement that we can never ever get backWe are confident that if we gave you the opportunity to remake the ring that the undeniable craftsmanship and technique flaws would be replicated in the new ringTherefore, we once again ask that you take the setting back (inclusive of the diamonds) in exchange for a refund.” Claiming that I am ignoring “the expert opinions” of the two unqualified appraisers is a claim, I have never ignored their “expert opinions.” In fact, I have from the very beginning demanded to be provided with an explanation as to how they arrived at their “expert opinions” and “findings” as they are laughable without question and neither follow industry standards, which you claim to have knowledge of, all standards are completely disregarded by BOTH your appraisers and their “appraisals”I have attached a proper appraisal for your referenceThe attached example is what one should expect from a qualified appraiserIn fact as soon as GCAL and Don P [redacted] i’s “appraisal” and “findings” (that the ring was produced in pieces) were unequivocally refutedJo-Ann S [redacted] essentially went into hiding and ignored my emails, it was days later when she responded but refused to set the record straight as CEO of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee was away on vacation, and mistakes could not be corrected without her in the officeDon P [redacted] I of GCAL refused to speak on the matter of his “appraisal”, and Cecilia G [redacted] , CEO of the JVC became irate and unilaterally ended the mediation when I confronted her about Jo-Ann’s performance and GCAL’s grossly erroneous “appraisal.” G [redacted] began to yell at me when I made mention of the fact that I have all my calls with Jo-Ann recordedFurther, Jo-Ann had spun a web of lies early on, at that point I refused to participate in the mediation without yourself or Jonathan on copy to every emailWhen she refused to provide me with a curriculum vitae for Don P [redacted] I of GCAL or any other appraiser and laughed at me and belittled me for asking for one, I was shocked and disheartenedShe also showed her hand not understanding industry standards when she claimed she would go to the head of the Gemological Institute of America for clarifications on questions I had about equipment used, standards, findings and accuracyShouldn’t a jewelry mediator have access to this knowledge? One would think soAsk yourself, what do JVC and GCAL have to hide? Why didn’t they ever send me the curriculum vitae as I requested so many times? Why did Cecilia G [redacted] , CEO of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee unilaterally end the mediation when the inconsistency of Don’s appraisal was brought to light? I personally have never heard of a scenario where a mediator ends mediation unilaterallyNor have I ever heard of a mediation that recommends one and only one third party evaluatorFurther, a mediation with absolutely no rules, structure or guideline? The people you should be asking a refund for are the parties mentionedThey are incredibly lacking in qualifications made apparent by all the inconsistencies and following no peer reviewable standards whatsoeverFurther in response to your statement above, from the very beginning of the mediation with JVC we offered to remake the setting and have it independently appraised by a highly qualified independent jewelry appraiser at our costThis is our offer and it’s a fair one, meant to set the record straight and to deliver you a highly loveable and meticulously crafted engagement ringOur policy stands as does our offer to have the replacement independently appraised by a highly qualified appraiser does as wellPlease don’t leave facts outWe didn’t just offer to remake the settingWe offered to remake the setting and have it independently appraised by a qualified appraiserAnd continue to offer this as a resolution to this matter, even with all the lies and defamation – we still stand behind our Lifetime Warranty and your setting
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved Sincerely, [redacted] ***
To Whom It May Concern:This email is in response to the complaint filed by *** *** which states:"I was discontinued from my plan without any type of notice. Simply unfair. For any service that I am subscribed to and I am subscribed to many services such as ***, ***, ***,
***, etc, I always receive an email notification. I had to literally to contact this company, to find out what was going on. I was in a grandfathered plan, and was discontinued from this plan. My plan was cancelled and my business was affected. I hope to hear back soon." Please note that the reason this customer's service was discontinued was due to consecutive credit card declines for payment. Our system sends out a notification for each decline as well as notice of cancellation after the 5th decline Once this customer contacted us, we did grant the request to return to the previous plan he was on- which to note - was discontinued more than years ago.In closing, we did resolve this matter with *** *** on 2/2/2017.Regards,________________________________________*** *** | Billing & FinanceYesware, Inc| http://www.yesware.com ** *** *** *** *** *** ** ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because of these facts:
ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “Initially when you had received your ring [redacted] stated: “[redacted] I received the ring earlier today and it's beautiful it's exactly what we wanted haven't told [redacted] yet I am meeting her in San Diego tomorrow afternoon and that's when I'll give her the ring no need to respond to her email tonight. “ FACT: [redacted], my fiancé, was referring to the design of the ring, after all it was OUR design that we meticulously crafted and day dreamed about years before meeting you. So, of course the design was “exactly what we wanted”. In fact, we have never questioned the design; this isn’t a case of a consumer purchasing a custom setting and then changing their mind based on taste. We have always been satisfied with our design, it is Enchanted Diamonds’ poor execution and craftsmanship of our design that is in question. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “Nearly 120 days after your exchange policy had expired you emailed us demanding a refund…”FACT: We contacted Enchanted Diamonds on numerous occasions, even before receiving the ring, stating our disgust in the process thus far, some of those dates include: October [redacted], 2015: “Any update? We are disappointed that our progress has come to a halt.” -[redacted]October [redacted], 2015: “Aside from the delays, aside from the switch from pave to shared prongs can someone please let me [know] why the entire shape of our setting has changed?” … “Absolutely unacceptable. You will be happy to know, for once, I am now at a loss for words. Jon I suggest you give Jonathan a call ASAP to resolve.” -[redacted] October [redacted], 2015: “We are growing very concerned that we have been working on this project since June and that the progress has been stagnant since August.” -[redacted]November [redacted], 2015: “This is our last attempt to request an update. We have repeatedly been promised updates that you and your colleague have failed to deliver. Please provide a date when we can expect to receive our final cast. If we do not receive the cast by the promised delivery date then we will proceed to work with another company to finalize our ring. -[redacted]November [redacted], 2015: [After being advised of another delay by Enchanted Diamonds] “We have been told since September [redacted], 60 days ago, that we would have our ring "by the end of the week". I manage production schedules for a living and I have never experienced a project that was it far behind! When will your company deliver what it promises??” … “If this project continues into December that will put us at the six month milestone... 1/2 year to complete this ring that should have been finalized months ago!” -[redacted]November [redacted], 2015: If we do not receive the cast on Thursday we will be contacting our attorney to file suit and get our money back. We have given you every chance to redeem this process to no avail.” -[redacted]See attached for complete please to Enchanted Diamonds ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “Nearly 120 days after your exchange policy had expired you emailed us demanding a refund…”FACT: The ring was received on November [redacted], 2015 and we contacted you on February [redacted], 2016 = 90 days not 120; see attached timeline.FACT: Yes, that is right, it took me three months to tell the love of my life that is hard earned money had purchased a substandard, poorly crafted ring. Lots of women will go their entire lives without telling their husbands that the dislike their engagement ring, this is common. My dissatisfaction with the ring began on the very same day I received it, but yes it took me three agonizing, heart wrenching months to get the courage to admit this to my fiancé. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “…threatened us by stating: “We highly ask to you reconsider an alternative for this situation to avoid legal recourse. We have disreputable proof of the lack of deliverables your company provided from June through November 2015 and are prepared to file civil suit if we cannot collaboratively resolve this together. “FACT: Of course we were/are prepared to take legal action, as any smart consumer would. You refused to offer a refund even with professional appraisers saying the ring was poorly made. This should have come as no surprise to you considering we were so disappointed with your company even before receiving the ring that we threatened legal recourse to get our money back 3 months prior on November 10th, 2015 stating, “If we do not receive the cast on Thursday we will be contacting our attorney to file suit and get our money back. We have given you every chance to redeem this process to no avail.” -[redacted] ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “The Jeweler whom you said is your friend (recording available), stated: “Also, I just noticed that the halo is slanted – see the photo below. The 3 people I that I took it to were not very complimentary about it…. which doesn’t help because it makes it harder to resell” FACT: I do not now, nor have I ever had any “friends” in the jewelry business. The text message you are referring to is a screen shot from Vanessa Nicole of the San Diego Diamond District and she showed the ring to her friends/colleagues (jewelry professionals) within the Diamond District to get additional expert opinions – all of whom agreed that the ring was of poor craftsmanship. So poor, that they only offered to buy it from us for $800 when we bought it from Enchanted Diamonds for $5,800. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “It could have very well been the jeweler who had possession of your engagement ring who bent the setting.”FACT: No consumer nor jewelry professionally would ever intentionally or maliciously damage the jewelry. That is absurd. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “[We offered] to have it independently appraised for quality at our cost, with no cost to you whatsoever.”FACT: After you refused the first appraisal done by ‘Jewelry Appraisal Professionals San Diego’ the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (our mediator) asked you to submit a second appraiser of your choosing. You do not reply. Therefore, the JVC unbiasedly chose an appraiser local to you – Master Gemologist Don P[redacted]i of GCAL. Don P[redacted]i concluded that “the ring mounting would not be considered a well made piece of jewelry”; yet you again refused a second professional appraisal. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “You continuously declined our offer to resolve this.” FACT: We worked diligently with the Jewelers Vigilance Committee for over 6 months to resolve this with Enchanted Diamonds, but you refuse to offer a refund and we simply cannot accept you to remake the ring. Based on expert advice of industry professionals in San Diego, Los Angeles, and New York City, including mediators, jewelers, and appraisers, we have been advised not to let Enchanted Diamonds remake the ring. Like the professionals, we firmly believe that your poor craftsmanship and negligence in the first ring will be replicated whether you try to make it for us a second, third, or fourth time. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: [You] continue to state lie after lie to spin the story in your favor all while defaming our company and myself.”FACT: My fiancé and I have only ever provided the truth about our experience working with you/Enchanted Diamonds and the quality of craftsmanship that you produce. If these truths are damaging to your company that is on you. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “You also managed to receive two conflicting appraisals that are in complete disagreement with each other and over the facts.”FACT: That is an absolute lie. Both appraisers concluded that the setting was poorly made. While one appraiser said the quality of diamonds was fine and the other didn’t is a moot point. Our concern has always been about the craftsmanship which was the purpose of the appraisals; and both appraisers agreed that the craftsmanship was “shoddy”, “drippy”, “not a well made piece of jewelry”, “substandard”, and a “low to moderate quality ring”. Both appraisals attached. ENCHANTED DIAMONDS - FALSE: “Don P[redacted]i of GCAL and your appraiser in San Diego, Marla B[redacted] are in total disagreement with each other, and you are attempting to defame our company based on false information and findings.” FACT: You can try to spin this all you want and stray from the findings of the craftsmanship, but the truth is in my fact above and in the two appraisals which undeniable agree the craftsmanship is low quality; yet you continue to argue with multiple jewelry professionals’ appraisals.ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “Enchanted Diamonds aka Online Diamonds International Corporation continue to have A+ Ratings with the Revdex.com and 5 Star Ratings elsewhere.”FACT: We have said openly that when you search Enchanted Diamonds that your business has great reviews; which is why we trusted working with your company without ever meeting you. However, the service and deliverables that we have received since being in contact with you over the last 16 months has been an unprofessional nightmare.ENCHANTED DIAMONDS CLAIM: “We'd love to replace the setting for you - please give us the opportunity.”FACT: We are not interested in working with someone as aggressive and unprofessional as you. You have no regard for industry standards or expert opinions as made clear by your refusal of two appraisals. You have robbed my fiancé and I of a blissful engagement that we can never ever get back. We are confident that if we gave you the opportunity to remake the ring that the undeniable craftsmanship and technique flaws would be replicated in the new ring. Therefore, we once again ask that you take the setting back (inclusive of the diamonds) in exchange for a refund.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
The customer returned the diamond with a fully insured...
label provided by the company on 4/*/15, we received the diamond in our office on 4/*/15. We were able to verify the diamond at this time, but notified customer that we were closed for the Passover holiday until later the following week. On Thursday, April [redacted], 2015, we refunded the customer's credit card via [redacted], our credit card processing company. On April **, 2015, we saw the fund's leave our bank account. As per instructions from [redacted], we notified the customer that the refund could take 5-10 business days to be processed and reflected on her credit card statement. The customer contacted us on April [redacted], 2015, exactly 7 business days from the refund date. At this point we let the customer know that she should be seeing the refund in the next few days. The customer contacted us several times over the next 48-hours, at which time we advised the customer on April **, 2015, that her best course of action to alleviate her concerns, would be to open a dispute with her credit card company, as there is little we can do on our end. We then advised the customer again on April **, 2015, to open up a dispute with her credit card company, as on our end everything was processed correctly, and the funds had exited our account more than a week ago. The customer continued to contact us, at which point we put the customer on an email with a representative from [redacted] on April **, 2015, to give her peace of mind and assist her with this issue. There were many correspondences between the customer and [redacted] repeatedly told the customer that there was an issue on their end in processing the refund, and assured the customer that they were taking the necessary actions to expedite her refund. The customer continued to contact [redacted] and us regarding this matter. From our end, it was out of our hands, as the issue was entirely caused by a problem with [redacted], a problem that they have formally admitted to and taken ownership of with us. Documented in a letter from one of the Founders accepting blame and formally apologizing for this situation. The customer threatened us several times that she would file a complaint against us with the Revdex.com. We repeatedly told the customer that their complaint should be with [redacted], not us. The customer repeatedly demanded a reference number from [redacted], which the representative said he would have in the next few days. He provided this information to the customer on May [redacted], 2015. As you can see we did everything on our end, and [redacted], has repeatedly made it clear that the issue was on their end and that the customers refund will be going through this week. The customer continues to contact us demanding us to do more, which unfortunately we are unable to do. On May [redacted], 2015, the customer was successfully refunded. [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Hi [redacted], Our reviews speak for themselves. As stated this is a malicious and isolated case. We have never ever dealt with before. The names you mention Cecilia G[redacted], Jo-Ann S[redacted], Don P[redacted]i and Marla B[redacted] are all unqualified as fine jewelry appraisers. They were all unable to determine how the finished piece of jewelry was produced. Don P[redacted]i dissented with the opinion of Marla B[redacted] its clear and obvious – you can twist and turn it however you wish but the truth is that they both clearly don’t understand what goes into jewelry production. You do continue to lie. You know the ring was cast in one piece. And if you don’t know this, I will attest to it as would others in any court or forum. All I can do at this point is re-iterate my previous response below: FACT: The final email and contact we ever received from you fiancé [redacted]: “[redacted] I received the ring earlier today and it's beautiful it's exactly what we wanted haven't told [redacted] yet I am meeting her in San Diego tomorrow afternoon and that's when I'll give her the ring no need to respond to her email tonight.” Does it not appear from this e-mail that he was completely satisfied with the ring? Enchanted Diamonds since inception has had rave reviews regarding its craftsmanship vis-à-vis client testimonials and independent high-end jewelry appraisers. Your issue as stated previously is likely with malicious intent and isolated. Regardless of such, IT IS STILL 100% COVERED by our Lifetime Warranty. You assert the claim that it took you 90 days to make any mention of this to anyone and affirm this was long after your exchange policy had expired (which we continue to honor), but now change the story that it took so long to get notify us as it was difficult to tell the Jonathan about your distaste. But the fact is that you were in touch with us throughout the process. You approved of the design, and maliciously neglect to mention the fact that we sent you a final silver casting which you APPROVED. You also know the ring was cast in one piece as you received the silver casting in on piece. Further you received an image from me of the final ring in one piece. You had been very vocal throughout the process, and were knowing of all our policies. Moreover, you misconstrue and obfuscate your story. Jonathan has never ever reached out to us, it’s a matter of fact that it took – you – 90 days to reach out to us, Jonathan has never reached out to us since his final email stating his satisfaction. You could have reached out to us any time within the 30 day period for an exchange as per our policies and agreement. And we continue to honor our exchange policy and our Lifetime Warranty. We make no guarantee of delivery date when a client has a custom setting, let alone a custom setting with over 14 versions. Your behavior, inconsistent with our clients, was met with patience and even apologized for not answering emails in between castings and design periods – there were no updated to provide at certain points and truth be told we wanted to avoid confrontation as you were highly aggressive throughout the process. You further attempt to disparage and slander our name by neglecting to mention the fact that you received numerous silver castings (one of which was erroneously casted, and yes, it did delay the process) and had over fourteen (14) versions of your ring designed. Even the casting sample that had been a wrong version casting that was sent to you, resulted in positive feedback and more revisions. In your previous response you slandered us by stating “A quick search of that company will show horrible review after review -- a company full of scams that is not Revdex.com accredited like Enchanted Diamonds. Online Diamonds International doing business as Enchanted Diamonds will be able to scam consumers for years to come.” And then again act disingenuous in your reply stating “FACT: We have said openly that when you search Enchanted Diamonds that your business has great reviews; which is why we trusted working with your company without ever meeting you.” I demand that you retract or prove this statement to be true by providing URL’s to said reviews. You are maliciously attempting to confuse the public and defame us: the company and brand Diamonds International is unrelated to Enchanted Diamonds and Online Diamonds International Corporation. And at this juncture you continue to misconstrue all timelines and facts in order to mislead and manipulate perception. Your entire story continuously changes (all documented) – and facts that you know are facts entirely changed or omitted by you in order to mislead anyone who will listen. In regards to the timeline, again you neglect to mention the FACT that we were working with you on a 200+ diamond ring that went through a process of 14 revisions. Finally the design was approved by both of you and was delivered to the satisfaction of [redacted]. The fact is that this alleged issue arose when you went to a jeweler attempting to re-sell the ring, indeed it was a competitor, which texted the client's you saying: “Also, I just noticed that the halo is slanted. The 3 people I that I took it to were not very complimentary about it…. which doesn’t help because it makes it harder to resell.” Would you not agree that the fact that the ring was in the possession of a an interested party, who was not only a competitor, but an interested party, interested in purchasing the ring, is the one who "discovered" that the ring was slanted is a questionable source? The offered $750.00 does not even cover the cost of the diamonds and the wholesale value of the platinum. Jewelers who are disingenuous are capable of much malice in order to make a sale. You too were and continue to be disingenuous on February [redacted] you sent two emails: 1….” We've had it appraised by four separate jewelers who have all stated the above flaws and agreed on the quality.” When asked about the qualifications of jewelers and the fact that they are in no position to appraise jewelry your story changed ever so quickly and conveniently: 2. “…I misspoke when I said it was appraised by four jewelers - we took it took a jeweler and then they had it independently appraised by three different companies who all came to the same consensus.” Yet you only provided one appraisal to the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (hereinafter “JVC”). JVC in turn provided me with the appraisal that you had done and further requested that they send the ring to GCAL for a second appraisal. Have you ever provided anyone or us with the three “independent appraisals” done prior to going to JVC? Are you sure you/they really had them done? The fact is your appraisal from Marla B[redacted] and GCAL’s appraisal contradict each other. Is that not something that you would find questions the authority of both the alleged “appraisals”? Did you ever contact GCAL? Did they ever say why they would not take my calls regarding their false/inaccurate/conflicting appraisal? Did you ever ask how they arrived at the "fact" that the ring was made in three pieces? You are aware of the fact that the ring was made in one single piece rather than the three pieces that Don P[redacted]i of GCAL claims the ring has been made in. Yet you continue to spin the story, lie, manipulate, omit facts and defame us. I previously provided you with the image of the single piece casting, proving that the ring was cast in one piece, have you had an opportunity to review it? Would you not agree that this puts P[redacted]i's entire appraisal into question? Wouldn't you agree the following questions of fact must be asked of P[redacted]i? a) How did he get to his assessment? b) Why is there evidence that is contradictory to his “assessment”? Does this fact not put into question the entire basis of your story? You allege that the appraisals are not in contradiction with one another. This too is highly disingenuous. In contradiction to your original “appraisal” Don P[redacted]i of GCAL states: “The diamond work is without fault as we see no immediate weakness. The prongs (beads) are large, probably in anticipation that the shank will take on the heaviest wear and tear as the ring is worn.” Further contradicting your original “appraisal” he states: “… the metal and diamonds are of high quality…” Which is in complete conflict with Marla B[redacted]’s “appraisal.” We had on many occasions asked Jo-Ann S[redacted] of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee that any appraiser should provide a curriculum vitae to avoid a situation such as this. I made this very clear to Jo-Ann as I wanted someone highly qualified to review the ring. Don P[redacted]i is clearly not. Neither appraisers are. Neither of the appraisers adhere to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). They make no mention of their qualifications, tools and equipment used, etc. This FACT can not be ignored: neither appraiser was ever qualified to appraise your ring properly. Nor was Don P[redacted]i ever agreed to, I was waiting for his curriculum-vitae to give my approval, which I never received and have never received. But likely for good reason, as its obvious by his “findings” that he is unqualified to appraise the ring. He may very well be qualified to appraise diamonds, but I question his authority to appraise jewelry as his “findings” are inconsistent with the fact that the ring was entirely cast in one piece and was NEVER produced in 3 pieces which were soldered together. You state: “We are not interested in working with someone as aggressive and unprofessional as you. You have no regard for industry standards or expert opinions as made clear by your refusal of two appraisals. You have robbed my fiancé and I of a blissful engagement that we can never ever get back. We are confident that if we gave you the opportunity to remake the ring that the undeniable craftsmanship and technique flaws would be replicated in the new ring. Therefore, we once again ask that you take the setting back (inclusive of the diamonds) in exchange for a refund.” Claiming that I am ignoring “the expert opinions” of the two unqualified appraisers is a false claim, I have never ignored their “expert opinions.” In fact, I have from the very beginning demanded to be provided with an explanation as to how they arrived at their “expert opinions” and “findings” as they are laughable without question and neither follow industry standards, which you claim to have knowledge of, all standards are completely disregarded by BOTH your appraisers and their “appraisals”. I have attached a proper appraisal for your reference. The attached example is what one should expect from a qualified appraiser. In fact as soon as GCAL and Don P[redacted]i’s “appraisal” and “findings” (that the ring was produced in 3 pieces) were unequivocally refuted. Jo-Ann S[redacted] essentially went into hiding and ignored my emails, it was days later when she responded but refused to set the record straight as CEO of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee was away on vacation, and mistakes could not be corrected without her in the office. Don P[redacted]i of GCAL refused to speak on the matter of his “appraisal”, and Cecilia G[redacted], CEO of the JVC became irate and unilaterally ended the mediation when I confronted her about Jo-Ann’s performance and GCAL’s grossly erroneous “appraisal.” G[redacted] began to yell at me when I made mention of the fact that I have all my calls with Jo-Ann recorded. Further, Jo-Ann had spun a web of lies early on, at that point I refused to participate in the mediation without yourself or Jonathan on copy to every email. When she refused to provide me with a curriculum vitae for Don P[redacted]i of GCAL or any other appraiser and laughed at me and belittled me for asking for one, I was shocked and disheartened. She also showed her hand not understanding industry standards when she claimed she would go to the head of the Gemological Institute of America for clarifications on questions I had about equipment used, standards, findings and accuracy. Shouldn’t a jewelry mediator have access to this knowledge? One would think so. Ask yourself, what do JVC and GCAL have to hide? Why didn’t they ever send me the curriculum vitae as I requested so many times? Why did Cecilia G[redacted], CEO of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee unilaterally end the mediation when the inconsistency of Don’s appraisal was brought to light? I personally have never heard of a scenario where a mediator ends mediation unilaterally. Nor have I ever heard of a mediation that recommends one and only one third party evaluator. Further, a mediation with absolutely no rules, structure or guideline? The people you should be asking a refund for are the parties mentioned. They are incredibly lacking in qualifications made apparent by all the inconsistencies and following no peer reviewable standards whatsoever. Further in response to your statement above, from the very beginning of the mediation with JVC we offered to remake the setting and have it independently appraised by a highly qualified independent jewelry appraiser at our cost. This is our offer and it’s a fair one, meant to set the record straight and to deliver you a highly loveable and meticulously crafted engagement ring. Our policy stands as does our offer to have the replacement independently appraised by a highly qualified appraiser does as well. Please don’t leave facts out. We didn’t just offer to remake the setting. We offered to remake the setting and have it independently appraised by a qualified appraiser. And continue to offer this as a resolution to this matter, even with all the lies and defamation – we still stand behind our Lifetime Warranty and your setting.
It is with sincere apologies and regrets that you do not accept the terms of our Lifetime Warranty (attachment 5). As a safeguard for all clients including incidental damage, we extend this service to protect all consumers in nearly every scenario, including this one. Initially when you had...
received your ring [redacted] stated: “[redacted] I received the ring earlier today and it's beautiful it's exactly what we wanted haven't told [redacted] yet I am meeting her in San Diego tomorrow afternoon and that's when I'll give her the ring no need to respond to her email tonight. “ Nearly 120 days after your exchange policy had expired you emailed us demanding a refund stating “I misspoke when I said it was appraised by four jewelers - we took it took a jeweler and then they had it independently appraised by three different companies who all came to the same consensus. While we understand it's a custom ring the flaws are undeniable; see attached.” And threatened us by stating: “We highly ask to you reconsider an alternative for this situation to avoid legal recourse. We have disreputable proof of the lack of deliverables your company provided from June through November 2015 and are prepared to file civil suit if we cannot collaboratively resolve this together. “ You also sent us a screenshot of a text message (See: attachment1) The Jeweler whom you said is your friend (recording available), stated: “Also, I just noticed that the halo is slanted – see the photo below. The 3 people I that I took it to were not very complimentary about it…. which doesn’t help because it makes it harder to resell” The jeweler is the one who all of a sudden noticed the bend shank? You never stated that in your original email. It could have very well been the jeweler who had possession of your engagement ring who bent the setting. Nonetheless – we stood behind our lifetime warranty and offered you a full replacement of the setting and to have it independently appraised for quality at our cost, with no cost to you whatsoever. You continuously declined our offer to resolve this. Instead turning to blackmail over a refund. And continue to state lie after lie to spin the story in your favor all while defaming our company and myself. You also managed to receive two conflicting appraisals that are in complete disagreement with each other and over the facts. Both of which make clear that the appraisers were not qualified to appraise jewelry and both entirely disingenuous. You cited Don P[redacted] of GCAL as a source who in fact disagreed with your original appraisal and stated “though the metal and diamonds are of high quality…” but irrefutably incorrectly said that the ring was “produced in three (3) parts which were later soldered together.” And “the under gallery was not attached evenly,’’’ These statements are grossly incorrect. The ring was cast in 1 single piece and was NEVER soldered together. The ring never had to be evenly attached as it was cast in one piece. (See attachment 2). He even agreed with our diamond setting standards: “The diamond work is without fault as we see no immediate weakness. The prongs (beads) are large, probably in anticipation that the shank will take on the heaviest wear and tear as the ring is worn.” We had on many occasions asked Jo-Ann S[redacted] of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee that any appraiser should provide a curriculum vitae to avoid a situation such as this. Don P[redacted] of GCAL and your appraiser in San Diego, Marla B[redacted] are in total disagreement with each other, and you are attempting to defame our company based on false information and findings. (see attachment 3 and attachment 4 for completely inaccurate and contradictory appraisals). Also, you mentioned that I called the appraisers. I only called Don P[redacted]i of GCAL who refused to discuss the findings with me at all. I don’t see calling the appraiser as something controversial. He made a huge mistake and should retract his appraisal and have a chance to set the record straight. Instead, you use his name and false findings to disparage the company and myself. The ring was cast in one piece as we had provided you with photo’s of the casting and you received silver castings and approved of such. You also are telling people to do a search of Online Diamonds International Corporation which has results and reviews show up for an unrelated company: Diamonds International, which has poor reviews. Please provide us with an unrelated example of a poor review of our company: Online Diamonds International Corporation. Or please retract such statements. Enchanted Diamonds aka Online Diamonds International Corporation continue to have A+ Ratings with the Revdex.com and 5 Star Ratings elsewhere. We have continuously offered you an expeditious replacement of the ring and post-production inspection from an independent appraiser of high-end jewelry free of cost to you. The remedy our company has available to you and any of its customers is here to protect you, a Lifetime Warranty that ensures you will always wear a ring in proper condition and appearance. See: [redacted] We'd love to replace the setting for you - please give us the opportunity.