Apostolos B.
Response to Diagaa pathetic answer
Their response is misleading because it combines two completely separate stages of this complaint. The ring already had visible quality issues when I received it. I contacted them about those problems and provided photographs. The later loss of a ruby was an additional problem that happened afterwards. This ring was specifically purchased as a Valentine’s gift, so I was put in the position of giving the gift despite already being unhappy with its condition. The fact that it was given and worn does not erase the condition in which it arrived. Their explanation about “natural inclusions” also does not address the full complaint. My issue is not simply that natural rubies contain inclusions. The ring subsequently lost its gold finish/colour, became misshapen and lost a ruby. These are issues involving the jewellery itself, not simply the natural characteristics of a gemstone. They also mention the $110 partial refund as though this proves the matter was resolved. The ring originally cost $221, plus $29.99 shipping. Saying that the refund reduced my “actual product cost” to $111 does not address whether the product was of acceptable quality in the first place. Finally, they now claim that the missing stone resulted from “external force” or accidental damage. I strongly dispute that conclusion. The ring had already shown quality problems before the stone was lost. I have photographs and the communication history documenting the condition and the timeline. I am leaving this update because prospective customers deserve to see the distinction between the ring’s original condition and what happened afterwards.