eBay

musicforyoureyes · ‎08-09-2017

I'm not stressing over this, but you all know best what direction I should take.

I got a return so of course I clicked to make the refund after the item is returned. So far, on that we are on track.

Here's what's going on "behind the scenes": He took one of the diamonds to GIA, a grading business. It's common to do this for a good gem, but not for testing to see if a gem is real because it costs $70.00 to do the lowest level of grading. (Appraisal is about $150.00 which would give a more involved grading and a value price).

My buyer said in the return that he doubted the stone was a real diamond, so he sent it to GIA. It hadn't come before he started the return and asked for me to refund the $70.00 along with the original $66.00 (free ship). Since then he's messaged me to demand the $70.00 to his Pay Pal account. Then, in the next days, he got the report and sent me a photo of it. Of course it says the diamond is real. It's been treated (irradiated/heat) for color.

Also, he's threateed my feedback if I don't give the $70.00 to his pay pal account. I told him if ebay tells me to do that, I will. I know they won't. (He could have just as easily taken the diamonds to a jeweler for a free test.)

This is what I'm wondering: Do I wait for this to end and then see what the feedback is from him, or contact ebay and send/tell them he's threatening feedback revenge and wants me to send $ outside ebay's site? I have the messages for proof but the refund is pending so his feedback is not there yet.

My gut says to wait. Correct? Or a mistake?

BTW, I've been polite, said I'm happy to make the refund (and I am!) and already BBL'd him.

Thanks a bunch!~~Barb

penguins_dont_fly · ‎08-14-2017

@ersatz_sobriquet wrote:
Wow. This thread has taken a turn. $35 free shipping on a pink diamond was perhaps too good to be true in the first place. Showing a picture of the GIA website homepage which means nothing, and the comments in the listings about "I thought about getting them tested" doesn't sit well with me.
I don't see a sold or completed pink diamond at the higher price, but ebay has been hiding completed listings lately, sold listings, not showing up on sellers histories.
The carat size appears to be accurate, so this would match up, but there's no way to prove that the GIA assessment belongs to the diamond, however I tend to believe it does.
If the facts are true in the buyer's thread then the negative feedback was earned and should have stuck.
Buyer beware on diamonds, whether the OP buying for resale or the end user. Buy from a reputable source, not just anybody with a price too good to be true.

I think that this is the stone in question.

If it is, the whole description is SNAD per the GIA report ... size carat, natural/treated 😞

http://www.ebay.com/itm/263075629334

penguins_dont_fly is a Volunteer Community Mentor
Buying and Selling since 2013

odditiesandantiquities1 · ‎08-14-2017

@penguins_dont_fly wrote:
@moondogblues wrote:
Was the diamond treated or not...I buy here also and would like to know.
I have the same question...All of the OP's listings stress "not enhanced or treated" ... but that GIA report in the first post says "Treated for color".

So ... which is it?

Penguin, I'm not so sure it was a good idea to tell him the post was here.

odditiesandantiquities1 · ‎08-14-2017

Just to clarify the diamond color bit. There are two common forms of enhancing the color of diamonds. Irradiation and HTHP. The first process requires a great deal of care of the diamond, no washing dishes, or working with chemicals while wearing as the color is not stable.

The second is HTHP which means High Temperature, High Pressure. This is the most stable of the enhancements and you don't need to do any special care for the diamond as the color will never change. It is a permanent coloration.

Considering the real price of Naturally occurring colored diamonds, it isn't likely many of us could afford them, except for the champagne, which regularly occurs naturally as does the black.

penguins_dont_fly · ‎08-14-2017

@odditiesandantiquities1

I understand the difference ... but the OPs listing stresses the fact that these stones are untreated in any way.

The diamond was listed as "Natural, not enhanced".

eBay's diamond policy says that they need to be listed as "Enhanced" and that any treatment is to be disclosed, and the word "Enhanced" needs to be in the title.

https://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/jewelry.html

Click on "Diamonds" to see the specific diamond rules.

penguins_dont_fly is a Volunteer Community Mentor
Buying and Selling since 2013

odditiesandantiquities1 · ‎08-14-2017

@penguins_dont_fly wrote:
@odditiesandantiquities1

I understand the difference ... but the OPs listing stresses the fact that these stones are untreated in any way.

The diamond was listed as "Natural, not enhanced".
eBay's diamond policy says that they need to be listed as "Enhanced" and that any treatment is to be disclosed, and the word "Enhanced" needs to be in the title.

https://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/jewelry.html

Click on "Diamonds" to see the specific diamond rules.

Yes I agree with you. It should have been listed with the type of treatment used. Given the price between enhanced and non enhanced, it is pretty bad.

penguins_dont_fly · ‎08-14-2017

odditiesandantiquities1 wrote
Penguin, I'm not so sure it was a good idea to tell him the post was here.

Why not? We told the seller that the buyer posted ... shouldn't the buyer get the same "courtesy"?

penguins_dont_fly is a Volunteer Community Mentor
Buying and Selling since 2013

odditiesandantiquities1 · ‎08-14-2017

In addition, almost all naturally occuring pink diamonds are found in Australia not Africa.

Here is more pertinent information from that site.

Natural colored diamonds are extremely rare. The ratio of colorless diamonds to colored diamonds is said to be 1 to 10,000. To be more blunt, it means that a mere 0.0001% of the diamonds that are mined are natural colored diamonds.

odditiesandantiquities1 · ‎08-14-2017

@penguins_dont_fly wrote:
odditiesandantiquities1 wrote
Penguin, I'm not so sure it was a good idea to tell him the post was here.

Why not? We told the seller that the buyer posted ... shouldn't the buyer get the same "courtesy"?

Just a little worried about the possible interaction on here between the buyer and the seller, that's all.

ersatz_sobriquet · ‎08-14-2017

That's why I called it too good to be true. Could someone snag something on ebay that is worth 10k more than sold for? I have no doubt that it has happened, and more times than ignorant sellers would like to know, just how much they have lost. Not calling the OP ignorant, just talking about general profits that can be made off ebay.

This listing was too good to be true. Buyer should have recognized this as well as the seller. I understand that gray line between natural and enhanced natural, it's purposely blurred, should not be so, but per ebay rules the listing was snad. Buyer was made whole per policy with the refund. GIA costs are on the buyer only. Buyer spent $70 to find out if he scored a 10k diamond. He did not, however the lottery has gone up again!

ersatz_sobriquet · ‎08-14-2017

@odditiesandantiquities1 wrote:
@penguins_dont_fly wrote:
odditiesandantiquities1 wrote
Penguin, I'm not so sure it was a good idea to tell him the post was here.

Why not? We told the seller that the buyer posted ... shouldn't the buyer get the same "courtesy"?
Just a little worried about the possible interaction on here between the buyer and the seller, that's all.

I agree it could be a problem and I think if I was the seller I would abandon the thread if the buyer shows up, and refuse to engage the buyer any further, whether on here or in messages. The case is closed.

odditiesandantiquities1 · ‎08-14-2017

@ersatz_sobriquet wrote:
That's why I called it too good to be true. Could someone snag something on ebay that is worth 10k more than sold for? I have no doubt that it has happened, and more times than ignorant sellers would like to know, just how much they have lost. Not calling the OP ignorant, just talking about general profits that can be made off ebay.
This listing was too good to be true. Buyer should have recognized this as well as the seller. I understand that gray line between natural and enhanced natural, it's purposely blurred, should not be so, but per ebay rules the listing was snad. Buyer was made whole per policy with the refund. GIA costs are on the buyer only. Buyer spent $70 to find out if he scored a 10k diamond. He did not, however the lottery has gone up again!

That is so true. I'm pretty sure what the buyer was hoping for but lord that is a lottery where you will very very rarely win. That being said, with eBays Guarantee, he wasn't going to be out anymore than his GIA fees and if it had been real, well, I'm sure the cost of getting appraised would not have mattered.

odditiesandantiquities1 · ‎08-14-2017

@musicforyoureyes wrote:
I'm not stressing over this, but you all know best what direction I should take.
I got a return so of course I clicked to make the refund after the item is returned. So far, on that we are on track.
Here's what's going on "behind the scenes": He took one of the diamonds to GIA, a grading business. It's common to do this for a good gem, but not for testing to see if a gem is real because it costs $70.00 to do the lowest level of grading. (Appraisal is about $150.00 which would give a more involved grading and a value price).
My buyer said in the return that he doubted the stone was a real diamond, so he sent it to GIA. It hadn't come before he started the return and asked for me to refund the $70.00 along with the original $66.00 (free ship). Since then he's messaged me to demand the $70.00 to his Pay Pal account. Then, in the next days, he got the report and sent me a photo of it. Of course it says the diamond is real. It's been treated (irradiated/heat) for color.
Also, he's threateed my feedback if I don't give the $70.00 to his pay pal account. I told him if ebay tells me to do that, I will. I know they won't. (He could have just as easily taken the diamonds to a jeweler for a free test.)
This is what I'm wondering: Do I wait for this to end and then see what the feedback is from him, or contact ebay and send/tell them he's threatening feedback revenge and wants me to send $ outside ebay's site? I have the messages for proof but the refund is pending so his feedback is not there yet.
My gut says to wait. Correct? Or a mistake?
BTW, I've been polite, said I'm happy to make the refund (and I am!) and already BBL'd him.
Thanks a bunch!~~Barb

Barb, if I were you, unless you have grading showing that all your colored diamonds are in fact naturally colored and not heat treated or irradiated, I'd strongly suggest you change your listings to reflect that.

ersatz_sobriquet · ‎08-14-2017

Like you pointed out though, country of origin was Africa, not Australia, so the buyer didn't need a GIA to tell him/her that it was not a natural pink diamond.

Buyer stated: "I am fancy diamond collector with more than 100K worth of value stones."

Yep...buyer was hoping for a real one. That GIA cost was on him.

Problem appears to be that blurry area of calling a stone "natural" when enhanced, and ebay policy that does not embrace that, so yes it was snad.

Anybody who wants to gamble this way buying on ebay, of course the GIA cost is on THEM.

rolenboy01 · ‎08-14-2017

@odditiesandantiquities1 wrote:
@ersatz_sobriquet wrote:
Wow. This thread has taken a turn. $35 free shipping on a pink diamond was perhaps too good to be true in the first place. Showing a picture of the GIA website homepage which means nothing, and the comments in the listings about "I thought about getting them tested" doesn't sit well with me.
I don't see a sold or completed pink diamond at the higher price, but ebay has been hiding completed listings lately, sold listings, not showing up on sellers histories.
The carat size appears to be accurate, so this would match up, but there's no way to prove that the GIA assessment belongs to the diamond, however I tend to believe it does.
If the facts are true in the buyer's thread then the negative feedback was earned and should have stuck.
Buyer beware on diamonds, whether the OP buying for resale or the end user. Buy from a reputable source, not just anybody with a price too good to be true.

I responded to the other post. "Natural" is a term that can be used for a colored diamond that has been removed from the ground. It is whether a diamond has been enhanced by various methods that is another quality of the diamond. If the buyer had a good understanding of naturally occuring pink diamonds and their value, he would have been trying to get a really really good deal.

On the site naturaly colored diamonds, they have a .11 carat pink diamond that is listed for $10,950. That is the "real" price for a pink diamond all natural. 90% of the colored diamonds you see here have been treated in some form or fashion, but are still considered natural.

Sounds like a typical flipper who thought they were getting something for peanuts and were mad when it didn't pan out for them.

odditiesandantiquities1 · ‎08-14-2017

@ersatz_sobriquet wrote:
Like you pointed out though, country of origin was Africa, not Australia, so the buyer didn't need a GIA to tell him/her that it was not a natural pink diamond.
Buyer stated: "I am fancy diamond collector with more than 100K worth of value stones."
Yep...buyer was hoping for a real one. That GIA cost was on him.
Problem appears to be that blurry area of calling a stone "natural" when enhanced, and ebay policy that does not embrace that, so yes it was snad.
Anybody who wants to gamble this way buying on ebay, of course the GIA cost is on THEM.

Completely agree with you there. If he is a fancy diamond collector, you would think he would have spotted several factors. But, just the same, it's on his dime, the GIA report.