On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:21:37 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry Abrasha
<abrasha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>I wanted to send you a personal reply, but your email address is a fake.
>> Since I find this very rude, I don't really want to give you my
>>professional opinion. So I'll give you the redacted version.
Chuckle. As usual, Abrasha, concise and to the point. Entertaining too,
this
time.
I'll comment that not all readers find the lack of a valid return address
offensive, but some, like Abrasha, indeed do so. And it makes it
impossible for
someone to send a reply that they may not wish to post in a fully public
forum.
So including some means of personal reply is in the interest of a poster.
The
traditional way to both do this, and maintain some security from having
your
email address picked up by spammers, is to munge up your email address in
the
message headers, but provide, usually in some means readable by a human
but not
to a bot program, of deciphering the right address. Thus you see posts
where an
email address may include added blocks like "remove this" in the address,
or the
text of the message will include text describing how to edit the address
to a
correct form.
Other, perhaps simple methods work, such as signing up for a yahoo or
other
tem****ary email address and using this as a reply to address. Some ISPs
offer
throw away email addresses too. My own, Earthlink, for example, makes it
simple
to get several throw away anonymous email address added to my account.
When one
starts to attract spam, discard it and set up another.
As to the ring, people seem to doubt the value of this bargain.
First, a note on your observed complains. You say some folks complain
about
stones falling out? Sheesh, guy, that's about the same as some customers
complaining that a certain auto dealer sells cars from which wheels fall
off.
It's NOT normal. Stones, if properly set, should not fall out or loosen
until
the ring has been worn a lot, enough so much metal has been worn off the
prongs
or stone settings. If stones are falling out of new rings, that suggests
very
poor manufacturing.
Second, the link you show is an emerald ring, not a ruby. Clicking the
rubies
on the page may change the picture, but doesn't change the text, price, or
description. In short, this is a poorly written page indeed. That seems
somehow consistent with the quality I suspect exists in the jewelry.
Junk.
Third. 7 hundred dollars for a 14K ring with a decently large genuine
ruby? Who
are they kidding? Same for the emerald. Both these stones, if they are
of any
quality at all, should have at least one more decimal place in the price
of the
gem alone, not just the whole ring. If these are "real" gems, they've got
to be
garbage. While the public often hears about high markups on jewelry or
other
merchandise (you think jewelry is high, look at clothing, furnature, or
many
other consumer items...), the truth is there's no magic way for these
guys, or
any other manufacturer, to buy good quality gems at a totally insanely
lower
price than anyone else. The market in rare gems like ruby or emerald is a
sellers market. Fine gems always command decent prices, and these are too
low.
The only way these could be sold for the price listed is if they are not
what
the site implies, ie reasonaly good quality. Certainly, if they look as
good
as the photos, there's something fishy going on. Either some form of
major
enhancing treatment, beyond what's normal, or these are synthetics of some
sort.
Now the price might be right if this was listed as a good quality Gilson
or
Chatham synthetic, but not a good quality natural ruby. Not unless some
fool
has gone out of their head and is giving the things away for less than the
wholesale market, which is unlikely indeed.
Then finely, get out any decent piece of jewelry you own in the size class
and
metal of this ring. put it on a gram scale. Compare the weight of your
ring
with what they say this thing weighs. The site said something like 3 3/4
grams.
Guy, that's next to nothing for a design like this. Perhaps OK for a
small
delicate ladies ring, but the only way this ring can weigh that little is
if
it's hollowed out inside to a very large degree. A lot of really cheap
jewelry
is made that way, but it's just that, cheap junk. You really aren't
getting a
good buy when you get metal that's little more than foil thin. It won't
hold up
at all. Gold, when pure, is currently selling for over 800 dollars an
ounce,
and scrap jewelry can be sold back to refiners for only a few percent less
than
this any instant a dealer wishes to scrap in their old metal at these high
price
levels. 800 an ounce translates to a raw materials cost of about 16
dollars per
gram for just the 14K gold raw material, and it takes a little more than
the
final weight to make the ring. So the manufacturer has at least 65
dollars
invested in just the raw metal, plus other manufacturing costs. By the
time
you're done with that, the ring mounting alone should be costing maybe a
hundred
fifty or more, leaving even less of the purchase price for the gemstone,
and
that's assuming a foil thin crappy peice of cheap junk jewelry. Take
away the
stone, and the price might be reasonable for a well made, commercially
made
(custom work costs more) gold ring with no stones, or nothing especially
costly. It could be about right for an also well made commercial ring
looking
like this IF it's sold as being set with a decent synthetic gem (which
might
indeed be an attractive ring, just not valuable for a rare natural
gemstone.).
Anyway, as usual, I'm rambling. Sorry 'bout that.
But just remember. You get what you pay for. This is a really cheap
price. The
most you could buy for a cheap price is a really cheap ring. And chances
are,
there can be more fishy stuff to a site like this, unconnected as it is
with any
recognizable decent manufacturer or seller with any decent history, than
you
expect. Getting exactly the cheap ring this seems to be is likely the
best you
can get. it could be worse by far. The site does have a New York
contact
address listed for returns, but that's about it. I'd worry about that
quite a
bit if it were my 700 bucks on the like...
Peter Rowe
moderator
rec.crafts.jewelry
|
