The 1st order was the size 5 solitaire sterling ring which was returned for the apparent wearing down on top of the stone's peripheral. No paperwork was kept on the initial order.
The 2nd replacement order #P113324300016 dated 10-5-07, I rec'd 1 size 5 solitaire sterling silver ring with a 1.25CW, item #13909. On order #P114352600012 dated 10-22-07, I rec'd 1 size 5 classic sterling silver channel set ring with a 1.7cw, item #13950.
Again, I noticed the top flat of the solitaire wearing down. This time not near as much. So I looked at the channel ring and it had multiple fractures, pits and unevenness on it's stones also. Even the setting had a gouge in the channel.
I called and got an RA# for both of the rings and ret'd them. On order #P115682700018 dated 11-07-07 I again rec'd the classic sterling silver channel set ring size 5. Again, using the loop there were those fractures, pits, and even what appeared to be the same gouged setting. I again called for an RA# and ret'd it.
I called and spoke with Gwen on 1-7-08 @ 3pm and asked for Victoria who I had spoken with the previous time of the returns, and asking to verify with the manufacturer's what the potential problem might be. She said the vendor of the stones had not yet gotten back with Stauer. I refused a replacement at that time.
On 2-4-08 @ 2:45pm I spoke with Victoria and this time she said she had spoken with the vendor and that they said there were other vendors who make these stones. On 3-20-08 I rec'd my last ring, order #P125145700018 dated 3-14-08 for the classic sterling silver channel set ring size 5, hoping this would be a good order and sure enough, it too, had fractures and 2 of the stones had grinding marks on the top flats.
The man's name was I think was Sang or something like that. I asked if he would have someone inspect the order prior to shipment, and then he put me on hold for verification of my request. Back on the line he assured me that the next morning prior to shipping it would be looked at for any flaws. I might add that these grinding marks can be seen without a loop.
I still have this ring for proof. Their ads boast of the 5 C's even in their volume XX1V 2007 addition. They are for cut, color, carat, clarity and chemisty. And even mention on the web that these stones are a hardness of 8.5. Where as a mined diamond is a 10. I pose just that statement to Victoria that with this hardness of 8.5 these stones should not be wearing down, she agreed.
And I might add that with all the ads boasting there shouldn't be any fractures. Does that fall under clarity?
From 3-20-08 to 6-2-08 there has been multiple contact by email between the BBB of Minnesota and No. Dakota and Stauer and myself. Most recent receipt from Stauer to appease me, the customer, they sent another sterling silver channel ring order #P128603000012 dated 5-9-08 which I rec'd on 6-4-08, it too, has grind marks on the flats of the stones and a fracture in the middle of the center stone.
0 comments