F.A.O Steve - fake hallmark?!!

[Dennis]

Ha Ha, what a fiasco.

[silverlining]

Indeed! And a bit stupid of the manufacturer too. Surely they knew the risks of plating wearing?!!!

[Aurarius]

The bizarre bit. The ring is indeed gold BUT it's white gold that the manufacturer had plated with yellow gold as they didn't have the right ring in stock in yellow and didn't want to lose the order....

That sounds very unusual practice to me. Maybe it isn't. Presumably there's an obligation to inform the customer at the time of sale that this is what has been done. If the customer wasn't informed, are there strong grounds for now demanding a free replacement with an unplated 18ct yellow shank?
Is the diamond heavier or lighter than described?
The whole thing sounds like a lesson in how not to sell someone a ring.

[silverlining]

From what I understand (will be given more detail later) the diamond appears to be around 20 points....

[ps_bond]

A yellow gold ring is a yellow gold ring, not a white gold ring with plating (nor a silver ring with gold plating for that matter).
Similarly, a .50 carat diamond is not a .20 carat diamond. A .5 carat diamond is around 5mm, while a .2 is a bit over 3.5 - a massive difference.

There's something decidedly odd about all of this.

[Patstone]

I have the same problem in reverse. My husband bought my wedding ring and an eternity ring later on, and both were plated gold, which we didnt know at the time it was sold as white gold. After a while the silver colour plating is now completely off, leaving one 9ct gold and the other is 18ct and that was from a reputable high street store. After 10 years I wont be complaining but it just shows it happens where you least expect it.

[silverlining]

It's quite interesting. Other complaints about the size of diamonds, from the same jeweller, being smaller than sold have cropped up. They aren't playing ball with the lady either!

The 'certificate' , as described, that came with it is rather interesting. States the diamond size, cut, colour and clarity then goes on to tell you that they cannot be held accountable for it being incorrect as it's all just a matter of opinion and not a science.

Not somewhere I'd buy from!

[pearlescence]

That exclusion clause has no standing in law. You can't get out of a legal requirement to apply a correct trade description by saying 'ohh but it might be wrong' on a piece of paper. Sale and Supply of Goods and Services Act and the Unfair Terms in Contracts regulations (and UCTA 77 etc). Plus basic contract law. If it went to court any judge would strike out that clause.
remarkable how so many quite big firms would not pass GCSE law. But of course that rubbish is enough to deter some complaints so it works, no matter how risible.

[ps_bond]

That's a fun one - as with medical diagnoses (and legal advice for that matter) there's a huge chunk of stone grading that is nothing more than (hopefully informed) opinion. Diamond colour grading seems particularly susceptible to differing opinions, sometimes varying by a couple of grades. That said, there are quantifiable, deterministic qualities too - weight being the easiest one.

The not accountable bit isn't going to fly though.

[SteveLAO]

On reputable certificates the colour grading of a single diamond is often done by several people and the average is taken, so that it's not just one person's opinion, which as ps bond says, can indeed be subjective. It's funny how in this day and age there are machines for recording the weight, the cut, the symmetry, even the clarity of a diamond, but not the colour yet! The human eye, like the human brain, is an amazing thing!