StopSylviaBrowne: Followup to "Jewelry w/a 'Quality Issue'"

[RSLancastr]

Novus Spiritus - Followup to "Jewelry With a 'Quality Issue'" (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/novusspiritus_jewelryqualityissue2.shtml)

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

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Absolutely shameless.

[Monza]

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.

[Minarvia]

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?

[Zep]

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 :rolleyes:), 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?

[Fnord]

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.

[Slimething]

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.

[rjh01]

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).

[SezMe]

The sentence:

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

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

[Pythra]

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?

[wahrheit]

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.

[RSLancastr]

Absolutely shameless.Agreed.

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.

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.

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.

4) Not Sylvia's fault.[/B]:)

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.

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.



The sentence:
...
is awkward. A clearer, simpler statement isNot sure I agree. I'll think about it. Either way, thanks for the suggestion!

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.

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.

[QUOTE=wahrheit;2590306]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.

[Miss Anthrope]

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.

[JeffJ]

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. :)

[pgwenthold]

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.

[wahrheit]

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 ****. :newlol

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Novus Spiritus - Followup to "Jewelry With a 'Quality Issue'" (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/novusspiritus_jewelryqualityissue2.shtml)

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.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If you rank a car dealer morally higher than Sylvia, then she is in really deep ****. :newlol

Sylvia's only a psychic because she doesn't have the moral fiber to be Nigerian email scammer or a pyramid schemer.:D

Car dealers hardly deserve to be in the same sentence with her.

[RSLancastr]

Have you forwarded this whole mess to the AG of CA? He might be very interested.Yes I have.

[Minarvia]

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.

[wahrheit]

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.

[Minarvia]

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.

[ChristineR]

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?

[Soapy Sam]

Would a genuine psychic not be able to tell she was being fleeced by her suppliers?

[PastBrowneFan]

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 (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/novusspiritus_jewelryqualityissue.shtml) 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.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

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? :confused:

[wahrheit]

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.

[Ducky]

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? :confused:

Nope. I would not put it past her either.


RSL, very well done. However I agree, the deadline is bulls***. Fraud is fraud.

[Zep]

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? :confused: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.

[ChristineR]

Well, on E-bay a found what claims to be a diamond bracelet (http://cgi.ebay.com/8-inch-Diamond-tennis-Bracelet-14K-White-Gold-4-5-ctw_W0QQitemZ320111166707QQihZ011QQcategoryZ43348Q QcmdZViewItem) 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.

[Minarvia]

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? :confused:

Heck no. I just, in a weak moment, think that maybe she wouldn't be so stupid as to try it. :(

[rjh01]

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.

[Professor Yaffle]

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.

[Diamond]

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.

[wahrheit]

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.

[Pythra]

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.

[Zep]

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. ;)

[wahrheit]

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. :)

[Zep]

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.

[ChristineR]

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.

[wahrheit]

I sure would like to see a picture of Browne's stuff.

:eek:

[ChristineR]

:eek:

I'll never learn... :blush:

[PastBrowneFan]

Can't recall if RSL mentioned this on the orig. article, but anyone that has purchased these pieces should contact their local States Attorney Generals Office.

Since many of these pieces were sold at the Hay House lectures, they were sold within the jurisdictions of these States Attorney Generals, and many of these do not take kindly to out-of-state companys doing fraud in their state.

I also know that products sold at lectures were not taxed on top of the sale price, and I have been told that no sales tax payments have been made to the states where these products were sold. I know for a fact that "customers" were advised that sales tax was included in the sales price at the lectures, even including the sale of the fake jewelry.

Since most checks were made out to SBC or SBE, depending upon what was purchased, they can not claim tax exempt status, and would clearly be violating the state laws where they sold products at lectures by not collecting and paying the required state sales tax.

[Zep]

This is the particular item I was referring to. The 4.5 carat top-of-the-line pendant.

(Image linked to from StopSylviaBrowne.com (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com))
http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/images/novusspiritus_jewelryqualityissue_1.jpg

I counted roughly 18 to 24 stones in the piece, being about 10pt to 20pt each, and it was advertised as being 4.5 carats of diamonds. The problem I had was that there is nothing to scale this picture to, so it could be altogether tiny, or it could be a Mr T sized neck-breaker.

I have now thought of another point - maybe they were indeed tiny stones, in the region of 5 points each. Which would mean that even with 30-odd stones in the piece, that is a total of less than 1 carat total gem weight, not 4.5 carats as advertised. Even if the manufacturing costs did fall below the retail sales price.

If so, that again is fraudulent advertising and sale on a grand scale. Misrepresenting your goods with the purpose of defrauding your customer is an indictable offence in all US states, I believe I would be rather sure of saying that.

[PastBrowneFan]

Zep,

You are the type of person that SB and Co. never wanted to find out about this issue, because logic can see through fraud in any form it takes.

I'll again state that if SB and Co. were victims of fraud themselves, then why did they not advertise it instead of hiding it until RSL contacted them and told them he was writing an article about this?

Taken from the NS "Q & A" book:

"Wealth does not deter one's spiritual evolvement. Greed however, can literally capture a person and make them a slave."

Looks like SB and Co. are captives to their greed, and it looks as if Greed has blinded them.

[ChristineR]

Zep--that's not the $4990 pendant. That appears to be the $144 "Eclipse" pendant...yep, the name of the jpg is Eclipse. The Eclipse is still for sale, and advertised as having .25 ctw of diamonds.

I can't tell how big it is either, but it weighs a mere 1.6 grams as opposed to 4.6 grams for the ring version. The stud earrings are also .25 ctw, so this little guy is the size of two earrings. It looks to be on the order of 10 mm, and all that would fit with roughly 1 pt diamond chips.

[Zep]

Zep--that's not the $4990 pendant. That appears to be the $144 "Eclipse" pendant...yep, the name of the jpg is Eclipse. The Eclipse is still for sale, and advertised as having .25 ctw of diamonds.

I can't tell how big it is either, but it weighs a mere 1.6 grams as opposed to 4.6 grams for the ring version. The stud earrings are also .25 ctw, so this little guy is the size of two earrings. It looks to be on the order of 10 mm, and all that would fit with roughly 1 pt diamond chips.Hmmm... You do look to be right. My mistake in linking to that particular pic! :o

However my point remains unchanged: It simply does not matter what the jewellery looks like. To obtain 4.5 carats of diamonds as raw material would cost more than the $4,000 sale price of the finished piece. Usually WAY more. Which means Sylvia Corp. has been trying some sort of scam somewhere along the line.

Incidentally, even with 1pt diamonds - chips - their price is about $10 each (i be checkin' a bling-bling websites makin' de grillz, yo!). So 4.5 carats is 450 x $10 = $4,500 - still more than the finished product sale price. So Sylvia Corp. were still fibbing their arses off, even if they were selling tiny real diamonds!

ETA: 25 pts at $10 per 1pt stone = $250. Selling for $144???!! So is she STILL at it?? ;)

[Zep]

Zep,

You are the type of person that SB and Co. never wanted to find out about this issue, because logic can see through fraud in any form it takes.

I'll again state that if SB and Co. were victims of fraud themselves, then why did they not advertise it instead of hiding it until RSL contacted them and told them he was writing an article about this?

Taken from the NS "Q & A" book:

"Wealth does not deter one's spiritual evolvement. Greed however, can literally capture a person and make them a slave."

Looks like SB and Co. are captives to their greed, and it looks as if Greed has blinded them.Thanks. Logic is simply stating more clearly what is, so everyone can understand.

And I would suggest that she chose Greed as her god and lodestone right from the very start. All the rest, the spirituality, the "churches", the hypnosis, the books and media, have been simply mechanisms to attain that goal.

Now I have no issue with people being greedy and making the best of life and striving and amassing huge fortunes if that is their desire. But only if it is through totally legitimate means and does not harm other people as a result. Which is why I heartily endorse Rob's endeavours with regard to Sylvia Browne. She fails dismally on both counts.

[ChristineR]

These people (http://item.express.ebay.com/Jewelry-Watches_Loose-Diamonds-Gemstones_Loose-Diamonds_25-x-0-008-ROUND-CUT-LOOSE-DIAMOND-G-COLOR-SI3-I1-1-4MM_W0QQitemZ140109074038QQihZ004QQptdnZLooseQ20Di amondsQQddnZJewelryQ20Q26Q20WatchesQQadnZLooseQ20D iamondsQ20Q26Q20GemstonesQQptdiZ198QQddiZ611QQadiZ 617QQcmdZExpressItem) will sell you .21 carats of 1 pt diamonds for $99. And here (http://item.express.ebay.com/Jewelry-Watches_Loose-Diamonds-Gemstones_Loose-Diamonds_10-x-09-Round-cut-loose-Diamond-G-color-SI-2-9-mm_W0QQitemZ120041656728QQihZ002QQptdnZLooseQ20Dia mondsQQddnZJewelryQ20Q26Q20WatchesQQadnZLooseQ20Di amondsQ20Q26Q20GemstonesQQptdiZ198QQddiZ611QQadiZ6 17QQcmdZExpressItem)'s a 1 carat lot of 10 point stones for just $760.

Now for all I know these people may be more crooked than even Sylvia, but I don't see any reason why that $4990 necklace couldn't have been made with 45 cheap stones for 4.5 * $760 + all the other costs involved in jewelry making.

[PastBrowneFan]

These people (http://item.express.ebay.com/Jewelry-Watches_Loose-Diamonds-Gemstones_Loose-Diamonds_25-x-0-008-ROUND-CUT-LOOSE-DIAMOND-G-COLOR-SI3-I1-1-4MM_W0QQitemZ140109074038QQihZ004QQptdnZLooseQ20Di amondsQQddnZJewelryQ20Q26Q20WatchesQQadnZLooseQ20D iamondsQ20Q26Q20GemstonesQQptdiZ198QQddiZ611QQadiZ 617QQcmdZExpressItem) will sell you .21 carats of 1 pt diamonds for $99. And here (http://item.express.ebay.com/Jewelry-Watches_Loose-Diamonds-Gemstones_Loose-Diamonds_10-x-09-Round-cut-loose-Diamond-G-color-SI-2-9-mm_W0QQitemZ120041656728QQihZ002QQptdnZLooseQ20Dia mondsQQddnZJewelryQ20Q26Q20WatchesQQadnZLooseQ20Di amondsQ20Q26Q20GemstonesQQptdiZ198QQddiZ611QQadiZ6 17QQcmdZExpressItem)'s a 1 carat lot of 10 point stones for just $760.

Now for all I know these people may be more crooked than even Sylvia, but I don't see any reason why that $4990 necklace couldn't have been made with 45 cheap stones for 4.5 * $760 + all the other costs involved in jewelry making.

Will jump in here with my diamond math:

100 points equals one carat.

On the first Ebay lot, you get 25 diamonds, each with .0084 points, which equals a total lot of 21 points, or .21 Total Carat Weight for all 25 diamonds.

To be a 4.5 Total Carat Weight, or 451 points of diamonds, one would need 535.72 of these diamonds as sold in the first Ebay lot, which would equal 21.43 lots of diamonds, at $99 each, would total $2,121.57 just in raw material, not counting shipping charges.

[Zep]

Don't forget to add the cost of the gold and manufacture and packaging and shipping, plus the jeweller's margin. And 500+ diamonds? They would cost a fortune to set, especially the small ones.

You also need to appreciate that such tiny stones would look more like sparkly mica than "real" diamonds. Not a Sylvia style at all.

[ChristineR]

The first lot (.21 carats) is a possible fit to the $199 necklace. There are 25 stones in that lot, and although it looks like there are more than 25 stones in the Eclipse necklace, these would be smaller stones and hence less than $99.

The second lot is 1 carat of 10 pt stones (10 stones). So 4.5 carats of these would be 45 stones, or 4.5 lots for $3420. These are very cheap stones, but apparently about the same quality as the stone used in the pendant, G/H rounds (see the Wayback ad). The cost of the rest of the materials and workmanship I estimate at about...oh $199.

So it is not unreasonable to estimate a cost to Browne for the necklace at around $3600, which she then sells for around $5000.

A legitimate zirconia jeweler would probably charge around $200 for the piece. Zircon jewelry tends to have honking big stones though, especially when they put 4.5 carats of them into a piece. That's why I wish we could see the pictures.

At this point I'm pretty well convinced that we do not have enough information to say "Those pieces are too cheap to be made with real diamonds."

[ChristineR]

Don't forget to add the cost of the gold and manufacture and packaging and shipping, plus the jeweller's margin. And 500+ diamonds? They would cost a fortune to set, especially the small ones.

You also need to appreciate that such tiny stones would look more like sparkly mica than "real" diamonds. Not a Sylvia style at all.

Some cross posting here...

No, 45 low quality 10 point stones will only run you around $3420. A typical gold necklace set with zircons can be had for $200, so that's my estimate of the other costs.

And that bracelet with 135 stones was comparable in price and carat weight, so the gold and labor of setting 135 stones is plausible for a piece that price.

[Pythra]

~fin

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Lol at the cartoon :)

RSL, I have a question. You have said alot of the people who go to the site are already suspicious and read one thing that's the last straw and brings them to this side of the fence.

Which article usually is it that does it for them?

For me, it would probably be Opal Jo Jennings or Shawn Hornbeck cause those are the cruelest and most dramatic examples.

[ChristineR]

Now I'm confused.

The notice on Browne's site mentions the "Eclipse" line. The Eclipse are the relatively cheap pieces with small, cheap stones. They are still being sold. They seem to be made with 25-30 1 point diamonds, which are only about 1 mm diameter.

The pieces that have been removed were the "Trinity" and "Signature" lines. These pieces were thousands of dollars and supposedly contained enough diamonds to be worth thousands of dollars. Assuming these pieces contained fairly big stones, you would make a lot of money by misrepresenting zircons as diamonds.

The Signature pendant claimed to contain 4.5 carats of diamonds, which could be 45 10 pt stones. Replacing these with zircons would be profitable, and $4990 would be a reasonable price for a diamond Signature.

If they were actually more like 9 half-carat stones then the pendant should cost more than $4990.

You could put zircons in the Eclipse pieces but it wouldn't help much. Those are junk diamonds which look pretty but have no real value. It doesn't seem likely that someone would take a $250 ring to a jeweler for an insurance appraisal.

So I have these questions:
Which pieces had the "quality issue?"
Are the pieces which were removed from the site the pieces that had the quality issue?
Were the cheap ($200-300) pieces the ones with the problem?
Why would anyone misrepresent zircons as junk diamonds? I doubt if it's profitable to even make cubic zirconias that tiny.

Oh, and who know what when. ;) That's still the real question.

[Pythra]

I am really curious why the larger, more expensive ranges have been erased from the site without even a mention. Since the notice only mentions Eclipse jewellery it would imply that the larger pieces were okay, but I would be very suspicious. It would be great if somebody who owns one of those pieces could get it appraised and tell us what the verdict is. Surely some of SB's supporters would love to prove to us the quality of the product?

[PastBrowneFan]

I was told all of the diamond jewelry, yet Rev. McClellan, or TU Designs, are only recalling the Eclipse Line. But, as pointed out, the more expensive lines have been discountinued, and as I recall, they were dropped around the same time that the "diamond issue" was really discovered.

There are so many webs woven withing the office and the corporations that it is hard to tell sometimes.

[Klaymore]

Really, really great work PastBrownFan and RSL!

The "deadline" is total crap. The only "deadlines" in this case are the applicable statutes of limitation on consumer fraud.

"Standing" is an issue for civil actions, not criminal ones. For instance, if I see a woman (or a bunch of SB fans) being brutally raped, I can report the crime to the appropriate authorities. Even though I am not the victim, the rapist (in this case, SB and NS), can be investigated and indicted.

I followed this jewelry issue for a couple of weeks after PBF first posted on the "Go Sylvia Brown" thread. It's the kind of charge that's particularly sticky for a defendant. If she--or anyone at NS--had knowledge (or perhaps even notice, which is slightly different) of the "defects," they are party to the fraud.

Their pathetic attempt to cover their asses by putting a notice on their website would, I think, make both a prosecutor and a jury laugh.

This is the kind of stuff that brought Al Capone down; she can't now deny that she knows about the fraud, since she's posted notice of it on her website. Even if she were making a good-faith effort to remedy the issue (which she has not), it wouldn't matter. You can't "uncommit" a crime.

I'm sure that RSL has this well in hand, but I'm going to look at the relevant California Criminal and Consumer Protection codes, and see what there is to see. I really think that this could be very, very serious for SB and NS, and that it's worth staying on!

[PastBrowneFan]

Just wanted to bring this fraud back up top, and keep rubbing it in the face of SB and her staff.

I do hope that the CA AG really looks at this case long and hard, plus not much time left until their deadline comes up to return the jewelry.

[Zep]

Now I'm confused.

The notice on Browne's site mentions the "Eclipse" line. The Eclipse are the relatively cheap pieces with small, cheap stones. They are still being sold. They seem to be made with 25-30 1 point diamonds, which are only about 1 mm diameter.

The pieces that have been removed were the "Trinity" and "Signature" lines. These pieces were thousands of dollars and supposedly contained enough diamonds to be worth thousands of dollars. Assuming these pieces contained fairly big stones, you would make a lot of money by misrepresenting zircons as diamonds.

The Signature pendant claimed to contain 4.5 carats of diamonds, which could be 45 10 pt stones. Replacing these with zircons would be profitable, and $4990 would be a reasonable price for a diamond Signature.

If they were actually more like 9 half-carat stones then the pendant should cost more than $4990.

You could put zircons in the Eclipse pieces but it wouldn't help much. Those are junk diamonds which look pretty but have no real value. It doesn't seem likely that someone would take a $250 ring to a jeweler for an insurance appraisal.

So I have these questions:
Which pieces had the "quality issue?"
Are the pieces which were removed from the site the pieces that had the quality issue?
Were the cheap ($200-300) pieces the ones with the problem?
Why would anyone misrepresent zircons as junk diamonds? I doubt if it's profitable to even make cubic zirconias that tiny.

Oh, and who know what when. ;) That's still the real question.You need to take your highlighted point and add the following:

Remember the REAL reason this stuff was for sale in the first place: Sylvia Browne is in this scam business solely to make great scads of money...by ANY means... So the less overhead costs she has, the better.

So it would be entirely expected and typical for her to go the route of minimal cost for maximum income by selling a $200 CZ piece for $5,000, and not the $3,500 cheap diamond version, espoecially if she thinks she can get away with it. So see if you can guess - will she choose the $1,500 profit or the $4,800 profit?? ;)