ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags stop sylvia browne

Reply
Old 9th May 2007, 05:17 PM   #1
RSLancastr
 
RSLancastr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 17,134
StopSylviaBrowne: Followup to "Jewelry w/a 'Quality Issue'"

Novus Spiritus - Followup to "Jewelry With a 'Quality Issue'"

Is Sylvia Browne making a "good faith effort" to replace fake diamonds? You decide.
__________________
Who is "Kaz?" Read about her at www.StopKaz.com.

Curious about Sylvia Browne? Read about her at www.StopSylvia.com.

Ever wonder "What's the Harm?" with psychics, alternative medicine, etc?
RSLancastr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2007, 06:25 PM   #2
EeneyMinnieMoe
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,221
Absolutely shameless.
EeneyMinnieMoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2007, 06:40 PM   #3
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,160
Shameless is right. Regardless if one believes in the psychic issue or not, this is poor business practice, if not downright fraud. And Robert deserves applause for his work on this issue alone.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2007, 06:50 PM   #4
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
That makes me sick. People invest good amounts of money for phony diamonds and have little recourse? Disgusting. Would a cheated customer have grounds to sue her if they are unable to return their piece by June 1st?
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2007, 07:17 PM   #5
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Actually, it's entirely predictable. It is precisely the sort of underhanded tactic that the Browne organisation is expected to employ, given their past behaviour.

In fact, I'll make a [cue Outer Limits music] psychic prediction! as to what happens next: Anyone who DOES send their jewellery back will have it returned a week or two after the deadline with a note to the effect that it was too late, how sad.

That way the Browne team can publicly say they did address the issue legally and fairly (yeah, right ), and their customers have been compensated. But they will not fork out one red cent, nor replace one fake item with a real one.

I don't know how this works in the USA or California, but it's plainly obvious the the Browne organisation is trying to wriggle out of its legal obligations here. Rob, can I suggest that the local consumer support groups with clout in the appropriate jurisdictions be notified of this totally inadequate response to a serious customer rip-off situation. I would suggest to them that a vendor is trying to avoid the legal obligations with unlawful wiffle and unconscionable actions. Wind 'em up and point 'em in the right direction?

Last edited by Zep; 9th May 2007 at 07:20 PM. Reason: Fixed a phrase or two
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2007, 08:06 PM   #6
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
From the Encyclopedia Novus Spitatus:

fraud (n): 1) A quality-control issue. 2) A vendor's failure to meet specifications. 3) Standard policy within Novus Spitatus Church administration. 4) Not Sylvia's fault.
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory;
Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things;
and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things.
Belief itself proves nothing.
Fnord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2007, 08:28 PM   #7
Slimething
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,790
Originally Posted by Zep View Post
Rob, can I suggest that the local consumer support groups with clout in the appropriate jurisdictions be notified of this totally inadequate response to a serious customer rip-off situation. I would suggest to them that a vendor is trying to avoid the legal obligations with unlawful wiffle and unconscionable actions. Wind 'em up and point 'em in the right direction?
I entirely agree with Zep. Someone has to clue in the relevant State's Attorneys General on this charade. I'm not an attorney but I suspect that RLS does not have "standing" in this case as he has not personally suffered a loss. Robert, please urge anyone who purchased these baubles and contacts you to phone their state's AG right away. Saliva's half-hearted attempt to honor the conditions of the sale, or better stated her fully intentional attempt to get away with fraud is simply intolerable. Yes, people dumb enough to believe in this b1tch may deserve a fleecing but this is too much.

BTW, RSL, excellent sleuthing and exposition as usual on this and other Browne substances. Many thanks.
Slimething is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 12:43 AM   #8
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,243
I think a comment needs to go in Robert's article to say that if anyone has bought jewelry they should contact their local law enforcement agencies.

I will go further. Any jewelry sent back is in danger of getting lost. It should be sent back registered post (so that proof of postage is obtained).
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 12:54 AM   #9
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 24,645
[nitpick]

The sentence:

Quote:
I have since seen the May 2007 issue of the Novus Spiritus newsletter (see above), and again, the jewelry situation is not mentioned.
is awkward. A clearer, simpler statement is

Quote:
The jewelry situation is not mentioned in the May 2007 issue of the Novus Spiritus newsletter.

[/nitpick]
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 02:21 AM   #10
Pythra
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 218
The custom jewellery range is limited. Once somebody has already bought an ugly pair of diamond earrings or whatever, the very 'best' pieces on offer, what are the chances that they will return to the website to buy something else?

What if somebody bought the jewellery as a gift for someone else? What about the people who buy Sylvia's jewellery from her lectures and other events, and never even visit her website?

If I had bought some jewellery and saw a notice like that on the webpage, I'd assume it was some tiny flaw in the metalwork and not go to the trouble of returning the piece. I have a feeling Sylvia's staff had the same thought.

The 1st June deadline set by the manufacturer is interesting. Does anyone know if it's normal for such a short deadline to be given, or is it likely that Sylvia's staff received this email a long time ago and have been withholding it?
Pythra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 02:35 AM   #11
wahrheit
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,485
They know perfectly well that even if one of their customers does read the note, all she [the customer] will do is look at her earrings and think "Well, there's nothing wrong with them. Why send them in?"

Even an expert can't tell the difference between a well made zirconia and a real diamond just by looking at it. Well, only that the zirconia is worth less than 1/1000 of a real diamond.
wahrheit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 07:26 AM   #12
RSLancastr
 
RSLancastr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 17,134
Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe View Post
Absolutely shameless.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Shameless is right. Regardless if one believes in the psychic issue or not, this is poor business practice, if not downright fraud. And Robert deserves applause for his work on this issue alone.
Thanks, Monza. Most of the credit goes to PastBrowneFan for bringing it to my attention.

Originally Posted by Minarvia View Post
That makes me sick. People invest good amounts of money for phony diamonds and have little recourse? Disgusting. Would a cheated customer have grounds to sue her if they are unable to return their piece by June 1st?
I would think such a suit would be successful, and I would imagine that Browne & co. would settle it before it got that far.

Originally Posted by Zep View Post
Rob, can I suggest that the local consumer support groups with clout in the appropriate jurisdictions be notified of this totally inadequate response to a serious customer rip-off situation.
Working on it, chief.

Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
4) Not Sylvia's fault.[/b]


Originally Posted by Slimething View Post
I entirely agree with Zep. Someone has to clue in the relevant State's Attorneys General on this charade.
Someone has. We'll see what happens.

Quote:
BTW, RSL, excellent sleuthing and exposition as usual on this and other Browne substances. Many thanks.
Thanks, Slimething. But as usual, my "sleuthing" consisted of just being a learinghouse for information that people wanted to contribute.

Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
[nitpick]

The sentence:
...
is awkward. A clearer, simpler statement is[/nitpick]
Not sure I agree. I'll think about it. Either way, thanks for the suggestion!

Originally Posted by Pythra View Post
If I had bought some jewellery and saw a notice like that on the webpage, I'd assume it was some tiny flaw in the metalwork and not go to the trouble of returning the piece. I have a feeling Sylvia's staff had the same thought.
That was my interpretation as well.

[quote[The 1st June deadline set by the manufacturer is interesting. Does anyone know if it's normal for such a short deadline to be given, or is it likely that Sylvia's staff received this email a long time ago and have been withholding it?[/quote]I don't think it is "normal," but I don't know. If by "email" you mean the letter from ITC, then they have had a version of the letter for at least a month (see my earlier article), but I don't recall it mentioning June 1st.

Originally Posted by wahrheit View Post
They know perfectly well that even if one of their customers does read the note, all she [the customer] will do is look at her earrings and think "Well, there's nothing wrong with them. Why send them in?"
Yup.
__________________
Who is "Kaz?" Read about her at www.StopKaz.com.

Curious about Sylvia Browne? Read about her at www.StopSylvia.com.

Ever wonder "What's the Harm?" with psychics, alternative medicine, etc?
RSLancastr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 08:29 AM   #13
Miss Anthrope
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,575
According to my gal pal who is an attorney in the LA area, the deadline is bunk. Fraud is fraud. You can't sell CZ as a diamond, and it's a criminal offense.
Miss Anthrope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 08:35 AM   #14
JeffJ
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 103
It (she) just gets more and more repulsive. What a piece of crap. The only good part to this is that Robert obviously makes an impact on that ugly c**t which is made obvious by her pathetic mention of the jewelry problem only after his article was put up.
If you keep up all this good work you just might be the one to take her down altogether.
JeffJ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 08:52 AM   #15
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,778
They should do the equivalent of a recall. They should be sending notices to everyone they know bought the defective product, with a full disclosure of the problem.

That's what the car dealer does.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 09:04 AM   #16
wahrheit
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
They should do the equivalent of a recall. They should be sending notices to everyone they know bought the defective product, with a full disclosure of the problem.

That's what the car dealer does.
If you rank a car dealer morally higher than Sylvia, then she is in really deep ****.
wahrheit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 09:11 AM   #17
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,018
Originally Posted by RSLancastr View Post
Novus Spiritus - Followup to "Jewelry With a 'Quality Issue'"

Is Sylvia Browne making a "good faith effort" to replace fake diamonds? You decide.
Robert,

Have you forwarded this whole mess to the AG of CA? He might be very interested.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 09:23 AM   #18
EeneyMinnieMoe
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,221
Originally Posted by wahrheit View Post
If you rank a car dealer morally higher than Sylvia, then she is in really deep ****.
Sylvia's only a psychic because she doesn't have the moral fiber to be Nigerian email scammer or a pyramid schemer.

Car dealers hardly deserve to be in the same sentence with her.
EeneyMinnieMoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 10:40 AM   #19
RSLancastr
 
RSLancastr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 17,134
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Have you forwarded this whole mess to the AG of CA? He might be very interested.
Yes I have.
__________________
Who is "Kaz?" Read about her at www.StopKaz.com.

Curious about Sylvia Browne? Read about her at www.StopSylvia.com.

Ever wonder "What's the Harm?" with psychics, alternative medicine, etc?
RSLancastr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 10:58 AM   #20
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
A friend of mine had a grandmother who had a lovely wedding diamond that she proudly wore for over 50 years. It finally needed to be fixed and it was discovered that the diamond was fake. Some very clever forger decades ago sold her husband a fake. She was very hurt and angry that they had been fooled for almost her entire life. After so long she couldn't bear to part with the ring, but she never could look at it and not feel like that forger was still laughing at her and her husband. And how many other people parted with hard-earned money during the Depression just to get a fake?
Sylvia is no better. If she was she would make certain that ALL customers who purchased the CZ would obtain new and genuine pieces.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 11:14 AM   #21
wahrheit
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by Minarvia View Post
A friend of mine had a grandmother who had a lovely wedding diamond that she proudly wore for over 50 years. It finally needed to be fixed and it was discovered that the diamond was fake. Some very clever forger decades ago sold her husband a fake. She was very hurt and angry that they had been fooled for almost her entire life. After so long she couldn't bear to part with the ring, but she never could look at it and not feel like that forger was still laughing at her and her husband. And how many other people parted with hard-earned money during the Depression just to get a fake?
Sylvia is no better. If she was she would make certain that ALL customers who purchased the CZ would obtain new and genuine pieces.
I doubt that the idea of selling cheapo fakes instead of real diamonds came from $ilvia. At least, I have not heard of any evidence that would point in that direction. And personally, I find it very unlikely.

My wild guess is that somewhere in the chain of production and distribution something went very, very wrong. I mean, let's say you are in the business of producing those ugly rings. If you have a client ordering 1000 pieces of this or that "diamond" ring, you definitely know the difference between the phone number of De Beers for an order, or the phone number of a make-me-a-fake factory.

My second wild guess is that $ilvia Corp. wants to play this low profile, because having experts check the diamond(s) of such a (relatively) cheap piece might exceed the value of it.
wahrheit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 11:21 AM   #22
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
You're right, selling cheapos certainly did not originate with $ilvia. It's probably my own moral weakness, but if I were in this situation I would do everything I could to make things right with my customers.
You're second guess is probably the right one. I doubt she wants to risk losing the money to have everything checked out properly.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 02:01 PM   #23
ChristineR
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,180
If the factory sold Sylvia zirconias at (wholesale) diamond prices, she should be able to force the factory to reimburse her. Furthermore, she should be able to demand an apology which she can then pass on to her customers.

If they don't play nice, then she might be able to sue them for harming her reputation, as well as fraud.

If an employee is responsible, then why did no one notice the difference in factory prices and sales prices? Perhaps the employee was pocketing the difference. This person needs to be identified and arrested, and possibly the money needs to be reclaimed.

Did she sue them? Has she reached a private agreement? Was someone arrested? Does anyone have any information about this?
__________________
Avatar (c) Neopets.com
ChristineR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 03:16 PM   #24
Soapy Sam
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,751
Would a genuine psychic not be able to tell she was being fleeced by her suppliers?
Soapy Sam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 03:32 PM   #25
PastBrowneFan
Critical Thinker
 
PastBrowneFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 373
Originally Posted by ChristineR View Post
If the factory sold Sylvia zirconias at (wholesale) diamond prices, she should be able to force the factory to reimburse her. Furthermore, she should be able to demand an apology which she can then pass on to her customers.

If they don't play nice, then she might be able to sue them for harming her reputation, as well as fraud.

If an employee is responsible, then why did no one notice the difference in factory prices and sales prices? Perhaps the employee was pocketing the difference. This person needs to be identified and arrested, and possibly the money needs to be reclaimed.

Did she sue them? Has she reached a private agreement? Was someone arrested? Does anyone have any information about this?
One would think that if you, as the retailer, were swindled by the supplier that you would not only sue, but do so openly, and highly publicize that you were wronged, and likewise your customers were wrong. Especially when one is selling an item that is designed for a non-profit, religious organization mainly selling said items to their followers, and potential members via public appearances and speaking engagements.

One does seem to show complicity when one tends to hide disclosures such as NS did, and by stating, as can be seen here that they were going to notify and publicize this, they only continue in showing deception and a huge lack of respect for those who purchased these items in good faith.

I would strongly advise those involved at NS headquartes to go back and read what a church is really about, why people join a church, and what the mission and purpose of a church is, and to see if their actions are in harmony with such.
PastBrowneFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 03:39 PM   #26
EeneyMinnieMoe
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,221
Am I the only one here who wouldn't put it past Sylvia to knowingly sell fake diamonds as yet another way to fleece the naive?
EeneyMinnieMoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 03:40 PM   #27
wahrheit
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by Soapy Sam View Post
Would a genuine psychic not be able to tell she was being fleeced by her suppliers?
Shouldn't she have known all this years before? "Ah, no. Let's not start even thinking about selling this diamond jewelry stuff. *burp* Francine told me this will come to a bad end."



@PastBrowneFan: Thank you for all the information and thoughts you provide.
wahrheit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 03:52 PM   #28
Ducky
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,933
Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe View Post
Am I the only one here who wouldn't put it past Sylvia to knowingly sell fake diamonds as yet another way to fleece the naive?
Nope. I would not put it past her either.


RSL, very well done. However I agree, the deadline is bulls***. Fraud is fraud.
Ducky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 06:59 PM   #29
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe View Post
Am I the only one here who wouldn't put it past Sylvia to knowingly sell fake diamonds as yet another way to fleece the naive?
I thought about this point a few weeks back when this topic was first raised, and did some rule-of-thumb research. Here's my thinking on it.

1) Real cut diamonds, unmounted, are expensive. And their price goes up exponentially as the size of the stone increases. Lots of small diamonds making up a certain carat weight will always cost less in total than one big diamond of the same weight.

2) Unset diamonds of about one quarter carat (25 points) medium quality would cost a jeweller very roughly US$400 each trade price.

3) The largest piece sold by Sylvia Corp. (now withdrawn from sale) was a pendant in white gold with 4.5 carats of "diamonds" in it. From the picture of it, these appeared to be roughly 15 or so stones. So I estimated the pricing for eighteen 25 point stones.

4) Arithmetic: 18 x $400 = $7200. Add the cost of the white gold, the jeweller's margin, and sundry packaging and handling costs, and you are looking at an approximate US$8,000 to US$8,500 wholesale item cost to Sylvia Corp. If the jeweller was any sort of business-man, this would have been negotiated and made very clear prior to any transactions and shipment.

5) And yet the RETAIL price from Sylvia corp. to their customers for this particular item was US$4,000!!! That is, they would have made a $4,000-plus loss on each one, had they been real diamonds.

6) If the jeweller was trying to rip off Sylvia Corp. by selling CZ as diamonds, this would have been a major business mistake. Such a ripoff could not be hidden for long. And given the litigious nature of Sylvia Corp., the jeweller's name would have been on court documents from Sylvia Corp's lawyers at the speed of light long ago. As far as I'm aware, this never happened. So a rip-off scenario by the jeweller seems extremely unlikely.

So there are two possible conclusions:

a) Sylvia Corp. was indeed taking roughly a $4000-plus loss on every such item sold. Given what is known of Sylvia Corp., and the fact they would more likely be making a 100% profit off each one instead, this seems highly, HIGHLY improbable.

b) Sylvia Corp. knew damn well from the outset they were NOT real diamonds when they purchased them. It is far more likely they ordered them made from CZ right from the beginning. Which means the original advertising to their customers was a deliberate falsehood. And as mentioned above, I don't know what the legal situation is in CA and the rest of the USA, but it needs official review...and hopefully strong action.

Last edited by Zep; 10th May 2007 at 07:01 PM. Reason: slight spelling
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 08:10 PM   #30
ChristineR
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,180
Well, on E-bay a found what claims to be a diamond bracelet with 4.5 total carat weight.

This bracelet has 135 diamonds. That's the only thing comparable I could find. All the Wayback images seem to be busted--can't say if they are 135 itty bitty zirconias or not.
__________________
Avatar (c) Neopets.com
ChristineR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2007, 08:36 PM   #31
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe View Post
Am I the only one here who wouldn't put it past Sylvia to knowingly sell fake diamonds as yet another way to fleece the naive?
Heck no. I just, in a weak moment, think that maybe she wouldn't be so stupid as to try it.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 12:57 AM   #32
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,243
Something is not right here with the above reasoning. The link to e-bay says that a 8 inch Diamond tennis Bracelet 14K White Gold 4.5 ctw is worth US $4,525.00. This is not much more than the pendant Zep has mentioned. It Bracelet does appear to have smaller diamonds though.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 01:00 AM   #33
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,613
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Something is not right here with the above reasoning. The link to e-bay says that a 8 inch Diamond tennis Bracelet 14K White Gold 4.5 ctw is worth US $4,525.00. This is not much more than the pendant Zep has mentioned. It Bracelet does appear to have smaller diamonds though.
Exactly, a bunch of small diamonds will be a lot cheaper than a single diamond of the same weight.
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 01:56 AM   #34
Diamond
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,726
StopSilviaBrowne.com comes at #3 on Google when searching for "Sylvia Browne". This is pretty good going for such a young website.

I would recommend that everyone who has a blog link to SSB to raise the rankings still further.
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 02:01 AM   #35
wahrheit
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by Zep View Post
I thought about this point a few weeks back when this topic was first raised, and did some rule-of-thumb research. Here's my thinking on it.

1) Real cut diamonds, unmounted, are expensive. And their price goes up exponentially as the size of the stone increases. Lots of small diamonds making up a certain carat weight will always cost less in total than one big diamond of the same weight.

2) Unset diamonds of about one quarter carat (25 points) medium quality would cost a jeweller very roughly US$400 each trade price.

3) The largest piece sold by Sylvia Corp. (now withdrawn from sale) was a pendant in white gold with 4.5 carats of "diamonds" in it. From the picture of it, these appeared to be roughly 15 or so stones. So I estimated the pricing for eighteen 25 point stones.

4) Arithmetic: 18 x $400 = $7200. Add the cost of the white gold, the jeweller's margin, and sundry packaging and handling costs, and you are looking at an approximate US$8,000 to US$8,500 wholesale item cost to Sylvia Corp. If the jeweller was any sort of business-man, this would have been negotiated and made very clear prior to any transactions and shipment.

5) And yet the RETAIL price from Sylvia corp. to their customers for this particular item was US$4,000!!! That is, they would have made a $4,000-plus loss on each one, had they been real diamonds.

6) If the jeweller was trying to rip off Sylvia Corp. by selling CZ as diamonds, this would have been a major business mistake. Such a ripoff could not be hidden for long. And given the litigious nature of Sylvia Corp., the jeweller's name would have been on court documents from Sylvia Corp's lawyers at the speed of light long ago. As far as I'm aware, this never happened. So a rip-off scenario by the jeweller seems extremely unlikely.

So there are two possible conclusions:

a) Sylvia Corp. was indeed taking roughly a $4000-plus loss on every such item sold. Given what is known of Sylvia Corp., and the fact they would more likely be making a 100% profit off each one instead, this seems highly, HIGHLY improbable.

b) Sylvia Corp. knew damn well from the outset they were NOT real diamonds when they purchased them. It is far more likely they ordered them made from CZ right from the beginning. Which means the original advertising to their customers was a deliberate falsehood. And as mentioned above, I don't know what the legal situation is in CA and the rest of the USA, but it needs official review...and hopefully strong action.
Zep, I don't think you can calculate the cost of such pieces like this if you can't have them examined by an expert. There are way too many unknown variables and too much guesswork in that calculation for my taste, such as quality, size and number of stones.

I'm not an expert either, but some years ago had the oportunity to talk to an expert from De Beers, and she explained quite a lot to me. This was in preparation for a TV show where the contestants could win a diamond worth $500,000. Long story short, this whole diamond business is very complicated, without an expert looking at one of those holy rings we are in the dark.
wahrheit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 02:08 AM   #36
Pythra
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 218
I have no idea about the cost of diamonds or the quality of the jewellery sold on SB's site, but I do find it interesting that after the diamond debacle was brought to the attention of her staff, some lines of jewellery (Trinity and Signature) disappeared from Sylvia's site completely without a trace. Only the Eclipse range is named in the notice.

Perhaps the reason they're trying to downplay this issue is because they were knowingly using CZ in the more expensive pieces but got fleeced themselves with the Eclipse line. They wouldn't want to bring attention to the fact that dodgy diamonds might be associated with Novus Spiritus jewellery. This is only speculation of course, but I agree with PBF that it's strange how Sylvia & co are trying to keep quiet about this rather than loudly express their outrage.
Pythra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 02:22 AM   #37
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Originally Posted by wahrheit View Post
Zep, I don't think you can calculate the cost of such pieces like this if you can't have them examined by an expert. There are way too many unknown variables and too much guesswork in that calculation for my taste, such as quality, size and number of stones.

I'm not an expert either, but some years ago had the oportunity to talk to an expert from De Beers, and she explained quite a lot to me. This was in preparation for a TV show where the contestants could win a diamond worth $500,000. Long story short, this whole diamond business is very complicated, without an expert looking at one of those holy rings we are in the dark.
Well, I suppose should have shown my research, but I did go to a number of diamond merchant sites, and also the current wholesale diamond markets. And I also contacted a number of manufacturing jewellers. The reason I didn't show details was that it's a VERY closed market, and the people are well known to each other...it's considered good business practice to be discrete.

And as mentioned above, the pricing can vary greatly depending on the sizes of the diamonds being used, and also their quality. So there is certainly some variability possible in my figures.

For example, if I had calculated using low grade 10pt diamonds, the piece price drops to about $5,000 all up, which MAY be reasonable, although still well above the price the finished items as being sold by Browne. But 10pt diamonds are about the size of a pinhead, and about 45 of them would be required to make 4.5 carats. The picture of the pendant was definitely only in the order of a dozen to 20 stones in it. Not masses of tiny diamonds set like marquesite.

By comparison, a single 4.5 carat diamond is going to set you back somewhere from $50,000 to $100,000, and a fine grade stone significantly more than that! But we are talking Elizabeth Taylor engagement rings here. Should Browne have been flogging a single diamond of that size, she would have been seriously insane selling it for $4,000.

What I SHOULD do is the same calculations using CZ. However I understand a rough guide is to use a cost price of ~10% of the equivalent sized diamond price, with the other materials and manufacturing costs being the same. And my impression is that, due to the fact it is man-made and not "found", CZ pricing is linear depending on the size - a 2 carat CZ is approximately twice the price of a 1 carat CZ. Hence its attractiveness for making affordable showpiece jewellery - it's price-effective! I certainly I stand to be corrected on this at this time.

But using this as a guide, and considering the original example I used, a 25pt CZ would cost about $40, so 18 x $40 = $720. Plus ~$1000 for metal and manufacture, a CZ items comes to ~$2000. Selling at $4000 means a 100% markup, which is almost precisely what would be expected from Browne Corp.

Last edited by Zep; 11th May 2007 at 02:24 AM. Reason: wrong term
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 02:37 AM   #38
wahrheit
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,485
I didn't want to question your research, sorry if it came across like that.

Regarding your math, also take into consideration that CZ are considerably heavier than real diamonds. Cubic Zirkonia weigh roughly 75% more than a natural diamond of the same size. In other words, a CZ stone the size of a 1ct diamond weighs approximately 1.75 ct. That's why the crap they sell on television homeshopping channels has more carat than your Queen's Crown Jewels.
wahrheit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 03:06 AM   #39
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Originally Posted by wahrheit View Post
I didn't want to question your research, sorry if it came across like that.

Regarding your math, also take into consideration that CZ are considerably heavier than real diamonds. Cubic Zirkonia weigh roughly 75% more than a natural diamond of the same size. In other words, a CZ stone the size of a 1ct diamond weighs approximately 1.75 ct. That's why the crap they sell on television homeshopping channels has more carat than your Queen's Crown Jewels.
I did not know that! That would mean you can get less size of CZ for the same weight (carats). Which means cheaper still!

As I said originally, this could all be very variable - many factors involved. But I think the point remains: based on the prices of the raw materials and approximate manufacturing costs, all indications are that Browne Corp. KNEW IN ADVANCE they were CZ items, and then deliberately advertised them falsely as diamonds. And that's fraud.
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2007, 04:38 AM   #40
ChristineR
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,180
The e-bay bracelet says it uses .08 pt and .06 pt diamonds. There has to be an error somewhere. She apparently means 8 pt and 6 pt diamonds. Not all the 135 diamonds are that big--only 1/3 of them, the center stones. I found a chart that says a typical round 10 pt diamond is 3 mm, which is bigger than most pinheads, but certainly pretty small.

Anyhow, it looks like Browne's price and carat weight is plausible only for a piece that uses hundreds of 2-3 mm stones. I sure would like to see a picture of Browne's stuff.
__________________
Avatar (c) Neopets.com
ChristineR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.