Misrepresentation of jewelry item condition
I recently purchased a mid-century jewelry piece from this online store—a piece I had always dreamed of owning. Before completing the sale, I raised concerns with Elizabeth, the sales associate, based on the item’s photographs. I identified several issues, including worn holding loops, extensive staining on the back, and a lack of movement in the pendant—a feature clearly designed to function. I specifically requested that the item be cleaned and thoroughly inspected prior to shipping. Elizabeth answered: “I will have our jewelers take a look at them before boxing them up for shipping and inspect them to make sure nothing is bent. The bottom sections do move freely.”
The item was ultimately described and sold as being in “very good condition” according to their point-of-sale documentation.
However, upon arrival, the jewelry broke the moment I removed it from the box—hardly the hallmark of a piece in “very good condition.” Alarmed, I consulted two local jewelers to explore repair options. Both confirmed that the piece had been previously repaired using tin. Tin complicates further repairs, making all subsequent repairs prone to new fractures, spreads uncontrollably, and permanently stains gold. The jewelers also identified other undisclosed issues: chipped stones, a broken prong, worn loops, and a soldered pendant that could no longer move as designed. The complexity of any future restoration left me questioning whether the item’s condition had been intentionally misrepresented.
When I brought these findings to the store’s attention and said I prefer to keep the item and detailed the discrepancies between the described and actual condition of the item, the defects, and the significant challenges and costs of potential repairs, the owner, Mark Zimmelman, initially communicated the following: “Mark Zimmelman here, co-owner of Lang’s. Please contact me at your convenience and I will do my utmost to rectify your negative experience. We aim to please.” and then again: “Mark Z. Business Owner. Please contact me (the owner) at your convenience. I assure that we will settle the matter to your complete satisfaction. Promise. Mark Zimmelman …” When I contacted him, he only agreed to fix the damage “that may have occurred during shipping,” and after that, they stopped communicating and did not return either phone calls or emails. What about other complicated repairs the item needed in order to be used securely and as intended?
This experience left me with the impression that the store prioritizes making a sale over ensuring transparency and honesty about the true condition of the items they sell. The idea of reselling antique jewelry is a wonderful one, but its success hinges on the seller maintaining customer trust by providing accurate, complete information and pricing items appropriately based on their condition. Regrettably, this store failed to meet that standard, leaving me with a beautiful yet damaged item requiring costly restoration, a frustrating experience, and no confidence in their business practices—all of that for a repeat customer and someone who paid in full.
17 November 2024
Unprompted review
