Connect with us

When a University Foundation Director Calls Him on the Carpet, How Should This Store Owner React?

An appraiser undervalued a client's jewelry donation to the university.

mm

Published

on

GORDON THOMAS WAS the third-generation owner of Thomas Family Jewelers, a highly regarded store in a Southern college town. Gordon’s rather forward manner was far different from that of his humble and reserved father. Bumps in the road had been regular occurrences over his four-year tenure, but despite the challenges, the store, with its strong, professional team, continued to thrive.

ABOUT REAL DEAL

Real Deal is a fictional scenario designed to read like real-life business events. The businesses and people mentioned in this story should not be confused with actual jewelry businesses and people.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kate Peterson is president and CEO of Performance Concepts, a management consultancy for jewelers. Email her at kate@performanceconcepts.net

Elinore Billington, a well-known mover in the town’s social circles, had been an important client of Thomas Family Jewelers since the days of Gordon’s grandfather. When Elinore passed away late last summer at 93, her final charitable act turned into a nightmare for Gordon and his team.

As specified in her will, Elinore elected to donate one of the more impressive pieces she’d purchased from Thomas Family Jewelers to the charitable foundation attached to her alma mater, the state university at the heart of everything in the town.

The piece was a platinum ring set with a 4.22-carat, intense blue, unheated oval sapphire surrounded by 1.5 carats of high-quality diamonds that had been specially made for her by a designer featured by the store. Elinore paid $22,400 for the ring when she bought it in 2014.

Several months after her death, when Marc Chou, the newly appointed director of the university foundation, received the ring, he processed it in the same manner as other material gifts (jewelry, art, collections, etc.). He reviewed the accompanying insurance evaluation and began looking for options for converting the donation to cash. Having moved to town recently, he was not familiar with Thomas Family Jewelers, or with other local resources. Relying on his past experience in another part of the country, he chose to start by taking the ring (without original documentation) to a jeweler in a neighboring town who listed appraisal service on his website to get an independent opinion of the value. When Marc picked up the ring and the appraisal several days after leaving it at the store, he was shocked to see that the ring was only valued at $8,500. He also saw that there were discrepancies between the jeweler’s one-page appraisal and the original sale document in diamond weights and quality and in the weight and description of the sapphire. He noted that the appraisal said “weights estimated by measurement” and that the descriptions were vague, but he was nonetheless very concerned.

Advertisement

Since his ultimate objective was to convert the ring into cash for the foundation, he then took it to a local store that was known for buying estate jewelry. The estate buyer looked the ring over, weighed it, measured the sapphire and diamonds, and made Marc a cash offer of $4,200. With the huge gaps between the original insurance documentation provided by Thomas Family Jewelers, the value stated by the local appraiser and offer made by the estate buyer, Marc was convinced that Mrs. Billington had been ripped off.

The next day, he called the Thomas store and asked to speak with Gordon. The conversation started calmly enough, with Marc explaining the situation he and the university were in with the ring, and Gordon trying to lay out the differences between retail pricing and resale value. Marc became more assertive when Gordon challenged the credentials of the appraiser, and things went downhill quickly. Gordon suggested that perhaps Marc needed to learn more about the business before making unfounded assumptions. Marc accused Gordon of being a charlatan who takes advantage of the elderly and promised to make sure everyone at the university, within the Billington family and in the community was made aware of his price-gouging practices. The call ended with both men hanging up in anger.

Lora Goldberg, Thomas’ store manager of 10 years (who had sold the ring to Elinore originally), was a lifetime resident of the town and the chair of the university’s alumni association. She heard about the situation between Gordon and Marc the next morning when she arrived for an alumni association meeting on campus. Marc cornered her within earshot of a number of other members and repeated his accusations about the store’s lack of integrity, including her in the mix. He also said that the store owner had been very rude and belligerent in their conversation, and that he and the university would have nothing to do with anyone representing the store going forward. Extremely upset, Lora turned the meeting over to her vice-chair and left. She went to the store and confronted Gordon, accusing him of mishandling the entire situation and ruining both the store’s and her personal reputation.

The next day, Gordon called the foundation office and left a message for Marc, offering a sincere apology for the direction of the conversation and asking for an opportunity to meet in an effort to resolve the situation. Three days later, he had still not gotten a reply.

The Big Questions

  • What can Gordon can do at this point to make things right with his manager, with Marc and with the foundation?
  • Is there any action he can take to deal with the unqualified “appraiser” who seriously mischaracterized and undervalued the ring?
  • What do business owners need to know about real value and charitable donations?
  • What can Lora do now that she is caught up in what appears to be Gordon’s diminishing ability to sustain important relationships his father and grandfather built in the community?

Expanded Real Deal Responses

Karen M.Oneonta, NY

The discrepancies in value here are easily understood, in light of the unheated sapphire and designer credentials of the piece. An outside appraiser without this information could easily miscalculate these factors. Had Gordon kept his head and reviewed the record of the transaction, he would have understood this enough to explain. But by reacting first, he did inflame the situation. His hot temper is probably also why his longtime manager was so quick to lose confidence, even though Thomas Jewelers did nothing wrong. Gordon should take a deep breath and offer to look into the matter before jumping off the deep end.

But the real shocker here is the behavior of the foundation director! In the course of handling one transaction, he managed to insult an important member of the alumni association, discredit a longtime member of the business community and completely sour the climate for estate giving! By offending everyone involved, he has seriously damaged the school’s relationship with multiple future funding streams. This might be the biggest miscalculation of all!

Patrick D.Little Rock, AR

Gordon and the store manager should offer to send the ring to GIA for evaluation and cite the origin of the sapphire. Second, after the lab report is complete, they should offer Marc copies of the GIA report once all is completed, and the ring should be evaluated for an insurance appraisal by a GIA-trained appraiser. Gordon should present Marc with copies of both, and next should offer to purchase the ring from the university at the store’s list of original costs and expenses involved in purchasing stones and making the ring. If the other store appraisal was faulty, it will automatically be exposed, and hopefully, with forgiveness in order on both sides, Gordon’s family store reputation will be restored. Gordon had best move quickly.

Ursula P.Naples, FL

There are so many missteps in this story.

– Marc was wrong in not taking the ring personally to Thomas Jewelers to discuss his desire to convert it into cash. Thomas Jewelers deserved the courtesy of the first consultation.

– Gordon was wrong in engaging in this spirited conversation, rather than requesting a face-to-face meeting.

– Marc was wrong in divulging the details of his findings and disparaging the good name of Thomas Jewelers.

– Marc violated the first principle of development: that fundraising is friend-raising. He alienated just about everyone involved in this situation.

– Lora was right in leaving the alumni meeting when told of the situation. As the original sales contact to the late buyer, she should have been the first one to be consulted.

Marc placed the university in a very awkward position. Future donors of valuable items will think twice if they learn of how he handled the Billington bequest.

To conclude: brashness almost never leads to a good outcome.

Advertisement
Neil M.Modesto, CA

I would call Marc and ask him if he is having an auction of some sort coming up and say that I can get the $20,000 for the ring at the charitable auction. I would put together 100 CZs with one being laser inscribed “winner,” charge $200 for a 1 in 100 chance of winning a $20,000 diamond (have an independent appraiser re-appraise it). Announce it all through the night (you will usually sell about 65-70 through the first three-quarters of the night). If you HAVE found the “winner” CZ, you announce that there are 30 left and say you really want to sell out of the CZs and will give anyone who purchases one now a $200 gift card to your store with every purchase of the CZs. If the winner has NOT been found, you offer to anyone who wants to buy the rest of the CZs to raise their hands and have them come up and draw a card. Highest card gets to buy the ring for the amount of the remaining CZs.

William C.Paterson, NJ

Ths store owner should have offered to purchase the item during the phone conversation. Given he did not, that still would be the best thing to do now. Explain that it was a terrible misunderstanding. All the appraisals in the world won’t set things straight. If you want to prove it’s worth that to everybody, then buy it back. Write a check for $20,000. Done.

Lance G.Victoria, BC

Wow! First off, the manager needs to understand the value of the jewelry she’s representing, and how appraisals are done. According to the AGS, “If an item is trademarked, the client should be advised to procure an appraisal from the designer.” If Lora sold the original ring, she would know that it was an untreated sapphire, and one of that size would retail for a considerable sum. She should have set Marc straight right then.

So often, other jewelers are willing to low-ball a value without having ANY qualifications, or any understanding how fine jewelry is made. For Marc to then take the piece to “a place that specializes in estate jewelry” — a pawn shop no doubt — and expect to get the highest value makes me think he’s an idiot.

Legal action could be taken against the “appraiser,” but step one would be researching their credentials. We had a similar situation, and the appraisal was rescinded before we went to court. I’m on Gordon’s side on this one.

Michael J.Port Charlotte, FL

It’s quite apparent that Marc doesn’t realize the difference between a retail selling price and a liquidation value, which seems like what he was offered by the estate buyer. He should’ve obtained multiple quotes, not taken the word of ONE buyer. Gordon questioning the appraiser Marc used is definitely not out of line; a lot of “appraisers” aren’t even remotely qualified. As for Marc threatening to disparage the name of the store, that needs to be addressed immediately. Gordon took the high road and apologized as he should have; now it’s up to Marc to be a professional and sit down and have a civil discussion with Gordon and Lora since she knows both sides and sold the ring initially.

Rex S.Houston, TX

There are a number of issues presented, such as tortious interference by the retailer who issued an “appraisal.” It is unethical in the business of buying OR selling a product to appraise that product. It is just that type of thing that created the last financial crisis. Secondly, the “appraiser” did not properly disclose the valuation method or the purpose of the appraisal. A qualified personal property appraiser would have informed their client which valuation method was being used after asking the client for what purpose the appraisal was intended. The university needed a value to liquidate the item; it was the appraiser’s duty to inform the client of the appropriate values and methods of calculation. The defamed store has a cause of action against the unethical and unqualified appraiser.

Gary Y.Ames, IA

While I understand Marc felt he did his due diligence regarding assessing the value of the ring, it is clear he dealt with individuals who were not intimately aware of valuing one-of-a-kind pieces such as this ring.

From where I sit, Marc owes Gordon and everyone else involved a sincere apology. Gordon and others were slandered by Marc’s accusations, and from where I sit, they have every right to sue for the damage to their reputation.

Marc F.Houston, TX

Just because everybody else is going crazy doesn’t mean that you have to, too. Gordon should have accepted the questions from Marc and then, ask to examine the ring, (it could have been switched) with his gemologist, salesperson, and lawyer present. All original documents relating to the ring should be presented to Marc (copy form, notarized). Then examine the appraisal with the team to verify it is or is not the same. At that point, the other appraiser may be challenged. The estate buyer will need to be interviewed by the team as well, as all this is “he said, she said.” The insurance policy bears witness to the replacement, not sale/liquidation value. The State Board of Insurance will be of help establishing benchmarks for values/melt/purchase prices. This is tedious but necessary to preserve the company’s good and longstanding reputation.

Melvin W.San Francisco, CA

In order to keep good faith with the community, I suggest that Gordon’s offer to buy back the ring at their original cost.

Jim C.Fayetteville, AR

If I can’t handle a client or someone upset on the phone, I always invite them in for a face-to-face to work things out. In this situation, I may even go directly to the person. People tend to keep their calm in person better than over the phone, text, email, etc. At this point, though, I would offer to either buy the ring at $12,000-15,000 or match any donation that the ring brings.

Marcus M.Midland, TX

This Marc guy sounds like a pretty unreasonable dude who is not willing to find the best solution to this misunderstanding. First, it seems like Gordon did what he needed to by calling and leaving his sincere message. He apologized and reached out for a civilized meeting, which is about all he can do at this point. Now the ball is in Marc’s court. I would side with Gordon here. Knowing his family’s business reputation, I would bet they sold Ms. Billington exactly what they said it was. Did anyone even check the accreditation of the other appraiser? He could be inexperienced. I would leave another message with Marc suggesting the ring be sent to a gem lab and get the full report. Once that is done, then give Gordon the chance to make the right move from there. Is this a scrape on Gordon’s family business? Sure. But with the right treatment … the wound will heal.

James D.Kingston, NH

Marc has quite a headache, and Lora needs to decide where her loyalties lie. It is odd that she would go after her boss instead of automatically defending him until she had heard both sides of things. Moreover, since she sold the ring, she should have explained the costs of a custom ring, its certified sapphire and quality diamonds. Obviously she is infatuated with her status in academia and her associations in it. Dr. Chou is a self-aggrandizing buffoon who thinks he knows everything and poor Gordon is the victim who is only going to be minced by his pomposity. Gordon could sue for slander, but it is difficult to prove. Instead, he should have Lora call and explain retail versus resale and replacement value versus quick-sale value. If she won’t, I would look for a new store manager. Luckily these days, college foundation presidents change often.

Advertisement
Dennis F.Poughkeepsie, NY

Gordon should make another attempt to contact Marc, even if it means making a visit to his office. He should also immediately pen a letter of apology and state his side of the issue in a concise, forthright manner. This is not the time to be reticent or stubborn when dealing with such a high-profile community institution. He should offer to have the piece independently appraised for replacement (retail) value, at his expense by a certified appraiser from another area. Hopefully the ring will appraise at close to or above the selling price. At this point, Gordon must stress the relationship between retail, estate and wholesale values. If the store is able to, perhaps Gordon should offer to purchase the ring back at a price taking into consideration wear and condition. Clearing this up is critical not only to the reputation of his store but also in how it could potentially impact his manager, Lora. Her role in the alumni association could be severely compromised and he could lose a valued employee.

Steve W.Poplar Bluff, MO

At the store’s expense, have the sapphire graded by GIA and have them determine that it is indeed untreated. Explain that jewelers that are buying off the street to re-sell without a buyer lined up for a custom ring will naturally pay well below retail because their working capital is tied up for no telling how long. An untreated sapphire is far more valuable than a treated one. Without provenance, the buying jeweler cannot pay that difference. With all of these considerations, the discrepancy in offer and evaluation is understandable. The original jeweler should have been able to explain that. The college representative should be able to understand that. The same holds true of the discrepancy in the weight of the diamonds. To measure mounted is an estimate. If you’re off a little times several, that adds up to a lot. But if he truly misrepresented his product, let him hang.

Michael W.Lancaster, PA

This is a real situation that has been brewing ever since the Internet has shed light on past darkness in our industry. “Donations” of unique, unsellable “dogs” should be included in this shameful discussion. Here’s the thing: jewelry (or any other item/service) is worth the fair trading price at the time of trading. Stray from this truth at your own (deserved) peril.

Bruce A.Sherwood Park, AB

Gordon has made the classic mistake of mounting an instant defense rather than listening to Marc’s concerns. Excluding the amount offered by a jeweler that purchases estate pieces, something has definitely gone wrong between the Thomas Family Jewelers appraisal and the one received by Marc. Appraisals vary, of course, but this is a $13,900 difference! It may well be too late, but Gordon should enlist Lora to help him arrange a face-to-face meeting with Marc. He should start with a sincere apology for being unreasonable with their first telephone interaction and acknowledge Elinore’s incredible memoriam. Although the university eventually received $4,200, Gordon should offer to split the $13,900 difference between the two appraisals and write a check in Elinore’s memory for $6,950. This will not necessarily alter the bad reputation that Thomas Family Jewelers may have incurred by Gordon’s ham-fisted handling of this issue, but it acknowledges his place in the community as someone attempting to make right a wrong.

What’s the Brain Squad?

If you’re the owner or top manager of a U.S. jewelry store, you’re invited to join the INSTORE Brain Squad. By taking one five-minute quiz a month, you can get a free t-shirt, be featured prominently in this magazine, and make your voice heard on key issues affecting the jewelry industry. Good deal, right? Sign up here.

Kate Peterson is president and CEO of Performance Concepts, a management consultancy for jewelers. Email her at kate@performanceconcepts.net.

Advertisement

SPONSORED VIDEO

Wilkerson Testimonials

Having a Moving Sale? Let Wilkerson Do the Heavy Lifting

For Jim Woodard, owner of Woodard’s Diamonds & Design in Tullahoma, Tenn., when it was time for a moving sale, there was only one company to help with the event: Wilkerson. “They brought in the right team for us,” he says, remarking about the sale’s extraordinary results, including a nearly 500% monthly sales increase compared to the previous year. “I wanted to have the best in the industry. And that’s the main reason why I contacted Wilkerson.”

Promoted Headlines

Real Deal

A Vendor Raises an Item’s Memo Price After It Is Sold. What Should This Store Owner Do?

The ring was sold for less than the vendor now wants for it.

mm

Published

on

GUILD AND STONE WAS a second-generation, high-end store in the Pacific Northwest. Store owner Dean Callen had used his 28 years as the company’s general manager to expand on the strong reputation his father built with an extensive vendor network and a local client base that included most of the town’s VIPs.

ABOUT REAL DEAL

Real Deal is a fictional scenario designed to read like real-life business events. The businesses and people mentioned in this story should not be confused with actual jewelry businesses and people.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kate Peterson is president and CEO of Performance Concepts, a management consultancy for jewelers. Email her at kate@performanceconcepts.net

Back in April, Sharon Sanderlund, president of a local construction company and one of Guild And Stone’s best customers, came in to talk with store manager Jennifer Lee about finding a pendant to match the fabulous Art Deco citrine earrings she had just inherited from her aunt. Since there was nothing workable in the store’s estate collection, Dean recommended that Jennifer contact Ed Ansell, one of the store’s regular estate vendors who specialized in vintage colored gemstone pieces. Jennifer spoke with Ed and he agreed to memo several pendants for her to show.

The day the package arrived, while it was sitting on Dean’s desk waiting to be opened, Jennifer received an email from Ed letting her know that in addition to three citrine pendants, he had also included a number of other pieces in the shipment, all from an estate he had recently purchased and all on memo to the store. Since the lot was very well priced, he thought she and Dean might want to keep a few of the pieces for stock.

Advertisement

When Dean opened the package, he was surprised to see that it contained a total of 13 pieces. As he checked them in, he had to agree that the prices were great, but he was further surprised to see that there was one item in the package — a vintage aquamarine and diamond bracelet — that was not listed on the memo. He contacted Ed immediately to report the error. Ed apologized and emailed an updated memo within the hour.

Later that week, Sharon Sanderlund came in to look at the pendants. She chose a beautiful art deco citrine and diamond pendant from the memo and a vintage chain from the store’s collection for a total of $4,550. While she was still in the store, Jennifer remembered the additional items that Ed had sent and brought them out of the safe to show Sharon. Sharon was immediately drawn to a Victorian sapphire and diamond ring — a cushion-shaped sapphire surrounded by 13 Old European Cut diamonds in 18K gold. Jennifer checked the memo and saw that the store’s cost for the ring was $3,500. She checked with Dean, who assigned a retail price of $6,100 to the ring — then promptly sold it to Sharon.

The next day, Dean sent Ed an email reporting the sale of the two items, adding a list of three more pieces from the lot that he wanted to keep for stock and asking for an invoice. Ed called back an hour later to let Dean know that there had been a mistake on the memo. He said that he had mixed up two rings from the estate — that the sapphire in the ring Jennifer had sold was unheated and that the actual cost for the piece was $7,500, not $3,500. He told Dean that the invoice would reflect the $7,500 price. Dean struggled to remain calm and rational while he very clearly explained to Ed that the ring was sold based on the memo price, and that was the price he would pay. The conversation got rather loud as Ed suggested that Dean contact the customer to get the ring back — something Dean flatly refused to do. The call ended with Ed insisting that the ring would be invoiced at the $7,500 price and subtly suggesting the possibility of legal action if Dean chose not to pay.

Advertisement

Dean remembered thinking that like the rest of the lot, the ring was a great value at $3,500 cost, but he did not believe that price to be unreasonably low for an estate item. In an effort to be fair and to preserve a vendor relationship, he called Ed back the following day and offered to split the difference — to pay $5,500 for the ring. In his view, since the ring didn’t need sizing, that would leave him with a small profit once he paid Jennifer’s commission. Unfortunately, Ed refused to move off of his demand that Dean pay the invoiced amount for the ring. Dean hung up when Ed mentioned that as a professional, Dean should have noticed that the price was not right for a ring of that caliber in the first place.

The Big Questions

  • What should Dean do?
  • Is it reasonable to think that Ed might be right — that someone at Guild And Stone should have noticed that the price was too low for the ring?
  • Should Dean contact Mrs. Sanderlund and explain the situation in an attempt to either recover the ring or to re-sell it at a higher price?
Kevin P.
Newark, OH

When you write down a price on paper or write it in an email and send it, that is your responsibility to be correct. Once a vendor or a retailer gives a price, it is a done deal. In 40 years, I have never backtracked on a sale. A few times, I made mistakes in my calculations, once using per carat instead of net price to figure my cost.

In this case, I would call back the vendor and reiterate your offer to pay the $5,500 for the ring, as well as the second item and buy the three additional items. Remind him of the business you have done and may do in the future and ask him if he is willing to forget that. If he does not agree, I would send the amount he is asking for the two items and return the rest, and ask that your account be closed. There are other vendors who will behave in an honest and straightforward way with integrity.

John T.
Atlanta, GA

It was the vendor’s mistake and the vendor’s responsibility to catch and correct it before the sale was completed. The offer to split the difference from the jeweler was more than fair. Pay the memo price, and not a penny more, then find a new estate dealer; this one is crackers.

Oscar V.
Chicago, IL

Pay what is on the memo.

Stuart T.
Bel Air, MD

I always try to be fair with my trade partners, BUT in this case Ed is being unreasonable. Dave made a very fair offer to split the loss, and Ed refused to bend at all. Dave could have kept the Aquamarine and diamond bracelet but he was too honest to do so. Ed doesn’t have a leg to stand on, so let him sue, and loose a customer as well.

Michael J.
Port Charlotte, FL

I know the fine print on most memos says items are not to be sold until invoiced, but this can be argued since virtually no company actually holds to these words, so precedents have been set. The fact that Dean offered to split the cost at all was more than fair to the vendor, and in my opinion, should have been accepted without hesitation, especially if he had any desire to salvage the business relationship. The fact that Ed vehemently declined the offer means it should be rescinded and a check mailed for the price on the memo.

Albert D.
Fords, NJ

This is cut and dry. The store would only be liable for the original invoiced price. The fact that they were willing to give more was a very generous. I think the original vendor should have accepted their offer, considering that they know the ring was sold.

Advertisement
Colleen Z.
Hershey, PA

Ed is absolutely in the wrong here. It’s his duty to correctly identify and price his merchandise — and to eat the loss if he makes a mistake. If he ever wants Dean as a customer again, he needs to honor the original price on his memo. Dean should absolutely not let his client know what’s going on — it’s not at all her responsibility to deal with and it ruins the magic of the purchase. If he ends up having to pay the full cost so she can keep her ring and he can avoid legal action, then so be it. However, he should never work with Ed again. Dean went above and beyond to compromise, and Ed clearly doesn’t value the relationship in the same way. If his customer service is this poor, I wouldn’t trust Ed with other items. Dean should contact his lawyer for advice to handle the situation but above all else — keep Sharon out of it!

Jay S.
San Diego, CA

The retailer tried so hard to be fair. The supplier made the mistake and should live with it. When the supplier was not willing to work with his customer, I would have told him to sue me, and then I would have told him to pound sand!

David B.
Calgary, AB

When is a deal a deal? On both ends. Dean cannot go back to his client and ask for more. It makes him look unprofessional. It may even cost him a client. His offer to eat some cost was very fair. The consignor showed no professionalism. And getting an offer to split the difference was very fair. When I was a traveling salesman, this situation happened to me. I did not go back and ask my retailer for more money. I ate the loss and practiced better accounting. Further, the consignor making threats about court action is ridiculous. I know a fight is expensive, but where do you draw the line? Retailers get kicked in the backside at every turn, and even when it is a clear mistake, why are we expected to make it right? Dean needs to hold his ground.

Stewart P.
Lansing, MI

It is truly unfortunate that we all make mistakes in a variety of different ways. With 45 years in the trade under my belt, I can honestly say that I have paid a small fortune for the errors in judgment that I have made in an attempt to retain or strengthen the integrity of my business. I could have paid much less if I had chosen to place blame on others and refused to accept the responsibility. In the instance described, the error was clearly in the vendor’s corner. The retailer was completely blameless and should not be punished. We cannot function if we cannot rely on quotes and estimates from our vendors as written or stated.

Joe K.
Lantzville, BC

A deal’s a deal. The cost on the original invoice is all that should be paid. Looks like Ed is a little lackadaisical in his invoicing. Suck it up, Ed.

Jim G.
Champaign, IL

The ring as invoiced stands correct. If they had picked up the phone and told the new price before the ring was sold, then the new price would be in order. Too bad for the vendor.

Rex S.
Houston, TX

It is basic contract law. The items were sent out on consignment to be shown to a retail customer and allowed to be sold to retail customers based on the offer price listed on the memo. The retailer sold the item to the retail customer based on the price that the vendor sent to the retailer in good faith. It should also be noted that the vendor had previously told the retailer that this lot was an exceptionally well-priced estate lot; therefore, the retailer was reasonable in not questioning the pricing of the items. The retailer absolutely should not be asked, nor should they contact the retail customer, as that customer bought the item in good faith from the retailer and this has no duty to resend that sales contract. In short, the “memo” is in fact an offer to sell, and the retailer accepted that offer.

Norbert M.
Nairobi, Kenya

Especially in gem and jewelry trade, the customer is always right and therefore should not be bothered. Also, why should the initial seller want to unscrupulously transfer his error to his jewelry broker friend? This is wrong! He should accept the loss as his mistake and use the mishap as a future strength-point! Going to a court of law will only break their wonderful business association. Furthermore, 1) the untold truth is that estate jewelry is often bought at extremely lower price to exploit the owners and to sell off fast to make a quick buck! 2) the money involved is too low to cause the fuss considering the long-term business relationships. In a nutshell, for all the parties, let it be what has already been and move on. Hope I don’t sound too blunt!

Jim S.
Kauai, HI

Dean in good faith sold items based upon a written memo price. That the wholesaler made a mistake is not his fault. His offer of a compromise showed integrity and fairness. Ed’s response showed a lack of both.

Dianne H.
Eldon, MO

They must leave the satisfied customer out of the deal. That part is finished. The customer did nothing wrong. Neither did the jeweler. Carelessness by this supplier shows as the one bracelet was not even on the original invoice. Now the jeweler should prepare to get legal advice and not be bullied by the supplier! $10 payment per month FOREVER!

Marcus M.
Midland, TX

Dean should not pay a dime over $3,500. That is the price listed on his memo sheet, and if Ed tries to take any legal action, then Dean has the proof of the price Ed originally gave him. This is Ed’s mistake and should be his loss, not Dean’s. Also, Ed should probably realize how much money Dean was about to send him and be happy that he could probably recoup his mistake. If I was Dean, I wouldn’t do a bit of business with Ed again. There’s lot of estate dealers out there; go find another one who is more professional. And there is no chance I would call a great customer and ask her for the ring back or to pay more money. You would lose her for good if you did something like that.

Joel M.
New York, NY

Estate jewelry is tricky on value. We receive from our dealers and trust them to value the pieces. Thus, the store owner is not liable and his dealer should have taken the offer to split the profit.

Stuart S.
Egg Harbor City, NJ

This is an estate ring and could have just been an amazing value. Dean was very generous to split the difference. If the ring had not been sold, I’m sure Dean would have either returned the ring or agreed to the price. I feel bad for Ed that he made the mistake, but he has nobody to blame but himself. Ed no longer deserves the benefit of the split. Obviously Ed does not have the same respect for their business relationship as Dean!

Jon P.
St. George, UT

Ed’s mistake. Ed should eat the difference.

Tom C.
San Marcos, CA

You live with your mistakes. An error in pricing is the sender’s fault, not the buyer’s. It may affect any future dealings, but so what? If you can’t trust the sender’s memo pricing, what good is it to solicit goods from them?

Bruce A.
Sherwood Park, AB

Dean is required to pay the $3,500 plus applicable taxes. Anything greater than that requires a visit to his lawyer. When the dust settles, Dean should let Mrs. Sanderlund know the incredible deal she received and offer his services to appraise the item. Mistakes happen to all of us, and Dean’s offer of $5,500 was overly generous. Once rejected, I believe a judge would rule in Dean’s favor.

Valerie S.
Champaign, IL

If I’m not mistaken, this was fictionalized based off of my post on the Jewelers Helping Jewelers Facebook group. Fortunately, the wholesaler honored their memo price and we all moved on.

Ira K.
Tallahassee, FL

Let me see if I understand this correctly … The memo said one price, the vendor changed it (doubled), and then Dean offered to meet Ed halfway. Dean is a mensch; and Ed is a _______! (fill in the blank as you deem appropriate). I would send a check for the memo price — I would not buy the other three pieces that looked good and probably not buy anything else from Ed.

What’s the Brain Squad?

If you’re the owner or top manager of a U.S. jewelry store, you’re invited to join the INSTORE Brain Squad. By taking one five-minute quiz a month, you can get a free t-shirt, be featured prominently in this magazine, and make your voice heard on key issues affecting the jewelry industry. Good deal, right? Sign up here.

Continue Reading

Real Deal

How One Jeweler Raised a Stunning $100,000 for Charity

They did it in just eight months.

mm

Published

on

The Day’s effort to support children through JFC included a social media campaign and digital banners.

EACH YEAR, OUR December Real Deal tells a story that helps bring to mind the amazing privilege afforded us by our industry to make a real difference in our communities, and that reminds us why we do what we do. This year, we are honored to share the story of the Corey family and their amazing Day’s Jewelers team, who chose to celebrate their company’s 100th anniversary by raising $100,000 for Jewelers for Children.

Day’s Jewelers was founded in 1914 by Harry Davidson in the Old Port District of Portland, ME. Over the ensuing 30 years, Day’s became one of the most formidable jewelry chains in the east, as Davidson and his two brothers expanded the business to include 21 stores throughout northern New England. Among the many who built long-term careers starting with the Davidsons was a young man who entered the business as an 11-year-old stock boy. Robert Corey rose through the ranks to become the manager of the Day’s store in Caribou, ME, before he left the company to open his own store — Robert’s Jewelers — in 1955. Robert and his wife Enid raised seven children while building their business, each learning the value of hard work, integrity, quality and extraordinary service, as well as the importance of family and commitment.

In 1988, the original Day’s Jewelers company was offered for sale when the last of the Davidson heirs were ready to retire. The company was bought by Robert and Enid’s sons Jim and Jeff, Jeff’s wife Kathy and a business partner, Mark Ford. Today, Jeff and Kathy Corey are the owners of Day’s Jewelers, operating eight stores in Maine and New Hampshire. Their son Joe, vice-president of store operations, represents the next generation of Corey family leadership.

Advertisement

100 Years in the Making

Late in 2013, Kathy and Jeff Corey reached out to their employees for ideas regarding what the Day’s team could do to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the company’s founding. One of the many proposals was a plan to raise $100,000 — $1,000 for every year in business — for a charity. The Coreys really liked that idea, since philanthropy has always been at the core of Day’s culture.

Kathy and Jeff have never been afraid of challenges, but they both knew that they would need the commitment of every one of their 125 employees to make it happen.

The idea was presented at the monthly management team meeting in January 2014. Store managers, office managers, assistant managers and the Day’s executive team voted unanimously to move forward with the project, and Jewelers For Children was adopted as the charity. The team felt it was important to support JFC because the JFC charities (Make-A-Wish Foundation, St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital, CASA and Elizabeth Glazier Pediatric Aids Foundation) are meaningful to people in all of the communities in which Day’s does business, and a very high percentage of JFC donations go directly to the beneficiaries. In addition, the organization projects the jewelry business as an industry that — like Day’s — genuinely cares and gives back. The Day’s marketing department was charged with developing a strategic plan with specific initiatives, milestones and timelines to help ensure that the $100,000 goal was met prior to December 31, and Leo Gerrior, manager of Day’s South Portland store, was chosen as the spokesperson for the campaign. The plan involved careful orchestration and the engagement of employees, customers, suppliers, and communities at large.

The program was introduced to employees at store meetings in April and supported by a video message, in-store posters, and direct communication from the leadership team. Day’s associates were offered the opportunity to donate directly through a voluntary payroll deduction program. In addition, their other important role in the effort would be to engage friends, family, acquaintances and customers by telling the #ReasonsToGive story and by encouraging everyone who was able to participate.

The #ReasonsToGive campaign officially launched to the public in May 2014, with Day’s reaching out to its customers, vendors and communities to give in some way, no matter how big or small. “Every person has their own individual reason to give; a personal loss, a story that’s touched their lives, or simply knowing that one small act can make a difference,” said Kathy Corey at the time. “Mother’s Day is a perfect time to kick off this campaign where every dollar raised in the $100K Challenge will go to children and their families.”

Advertisement

Outreach to customers and communities involved in-store collateral, including bag stuffers, countertop signs, large posters and an innovative “Buy A Block” program, in which customers were encouraged to buy a paper block on which they would write their name and their personal reason for giving. Blocks were then affixed to a designated wall in each of the Day’s stores. The in-store effort was bolstered by a marketing drive that featured a high-impact press release and a formidable traditional component (primarily newspaper and radio), as well as a wide-ranging digital outreach. A moving #ReasonsToGive video was posted on social networks, featured on the Day’s website (where the campaign was explained in detail and where digital donations were accepted), and shown on in-store loops. Google, Facebook and banner ads were placed, and multiple email blasts were sent to the company’s extensive database. The company invited anyone inspired by the campaign to share their #ReasonsToGive on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram. Progress was reported to store managers and associates regularly and was tracked on large “fundraising meter” boards at the front entrance of each store, as well as on the Day’s website.

Maine governor Paul LePage (left) with Jeff Corey (center) and Charles Stanley of Forevermark.

The campaign culminated in a spectacular Day’s Jewelers For Children 100th Anniversary Gala held on Nov. 17, 2014 at the Westin Harborside in Portland — not far from the location of the original Day’s store. The event featured a cocktail reception, dinner and dancing, as well as live and silent auctions. Day’s suppliers were encouraged to participate both by attending the gala and by making sponsorship donations. Primary sponsors for the event included Forevermark, Seiko, Martin Flyer, Rembrandt Charms, Holden Agency and TD Bank. Maine’s governor and first lady, Paul and Anne LePage, were honored guests. The evening was a stunning success, raising over $50,000 for the campaign.In January 2015, on behalf of the entire Day’s Family — employees, suppliers, customers and communities — Jeff and Kathy Corey presented Jewelers For Children with a check for $102,000. Said JFC executive director David Rocha, “Jeff and Kathy Corey epitomize the term ‘community’; the community of the jewelry industry, the community they live in and do business in, and the community they have created for their employees. When they decided to raise $100,000 for Jewelers for Children to celebrate their 100th anniversary, they showed that they are at the center of those communities, and those communities pulled together to help them reach their goal and exceed it.”

Advertisement

In the five years since the #ReasonsToGive campaign, the Coreys and their Day’s community have continued to actively support Jewelers For Children with in-store fundraising, participation with industry-wide initiatives like “JFC Day,” involvement in “wish enhancements” (including send-off parties and shopping sprees for wishes granted to kids in their store areas), and the contribution of time and talent to the organization’s board of directors. Following Jeff Corey’s six years of service, Hannah Duguie, Day’s marketing director, was recently elected to the board. Hannah’s thoughts perfectly reflect the service-focused philosophy that has made the company a century-old institution, and that will carry it through a brilliant future:

“It is so important for jewelers — for any business — to give back to their community. Jewelers for Children is a great way we can band together and make a huge impact. The way you show up for the world as a business is the way the world shows up for you. I could not be more proud to be a part of the Day’s Jewelers family.”

PHOTO GALLERY (14 IMAGES)

{{gallery_holder}}

Continue Reading

Real Deal

A Teenage Girl Steals Silver From a Store, But the Owner Recognizes Her. What Should He Do Next?

He’s concerned about offending past and potential clients if he pursues her.

mm

Published

on

OVER NEARLY A century in business, Wheeler’s had become an institution in their small-town community and a fixture in the growing downtown shopping district. Like his mother and his grandfather before him, Ross McGovern enjoyed his role as “the jeweler” in his hometown and was committed to both the traditions that sustained them and the innovations that would enable future growth for the business.

ABOUT REAL DEAL

Real Deal is a fictional scenario designed to read like real-life business events. The businesses and people mentioned in this story should not be confused with actual jewelry businesses and people.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kate Peterson is president and CEO of Performance Concepts, a management consultancy for jewelers. Email her at kate@performanceconcepts.net

Ross and his sister Nicole worked hard to maintain merchandise that was moderately priced yet fashionable enough to keep town residents shopping locally. In addition to a strong bridal business, they’d built a significant fashion presence that included a variety of national brands across a broad range of price points, and had introduced some trendy fashion items directed at young women in the community. Most Wheeler’s customers had been doing business with the store for at least two generations.

In the past year, Ross had overseen the completion of two major projects for Wheeler’s. First, after several years in development, the new Wheeler’s website had launched the previous February. The new site offered a full range of “bells and whistles,” and, thanks to the advice of his 16-year-old daughter, was fully e-commerce enabled. While they hadn’t yet sold much from the site, both Ross and Nicole were pleased with the increase in foot traffic. More significantly, Ross had spearheaded a long-overdue renovation of the store interior that was finally finished in June. Designed by a local architect, the new store included an updated layout and showcase design, a state-of-the-art, visible-to-the-public-shop for his three jewelers, and a good amount of “experience space” for lower-end product that customers could touch and try on without help from a salesperson.

One particularly busy Saturday morning, Ross was working with a couple at the engagement ring counter, Nicole was in her office meeting with a diamond vendor, and their two salespeople were tied up with repair customers when three teenage girls came in. Ross acknowledged them, and they asked where they could find the silver and gemstone necklaces they’d found on the Wheeler website. Ross directed them to the tabletop display across the store from where he was working. They clustered around the table, trying on several necklaces and bracelets.

Trying to keep an eye on things while not distracting his diamond customer, Ross looked up and thought he saw one of the girls slip a piece of jewelry into her purse.

Ross was just at the point of closing his sale and the other two salespeople were still tied up at the service counter when the girls abruptly turned to leave. Rather than derail his diamond sale and make a scene over the $100 item that might have been stolen, Ross decided to deal with it later. He was sure he recognized one of the young girls (not the thief) as the daughter of a regular customer and golf buddy, and thought that if there really was a problem, a simple call to her father would easily remedy the situation.

After the store closed for the day, Ross and Nicole sat down to review the security video. As he suspected, one of the girls did, in fact, drop a silver and amethyst necklace into her purse, along with the matching bracelet. Ross was sure that he’d met one of the other girls at the club with her father. Nicole also recognized all three as classmates of Ross’s daughter and her son at the local high school, though she didn’t know their names. They went home with a plan that had Ross contacting his golf buddy in the morning.

Once he got home, however, Ross began to have second thoughts about the plan. He wondered how he might react if a store owner called him with the same kind of information about his own daughter and her friends, particularly if she denied any knowledge of the situation. He considered showing the video to his daughter and nephew, asking them to identify the actual thief, but then considered the consequences associated with putting them in such an awkward position. Talking to school administrators to get an ID was a possibility, but involving them would most certainly get the girl at least suspended from school and get him labeled as some sort of villain among parents. Of course, he could go directly to the police, but if he was going to be honest, he’d need to identify the girl he knew, running an even greater risk of creating a difficult situation with her family.

He found himself torn between the desire to do the “right thing” — deal with the theft directly to recover the merchandise and avoid the label of an “easy mark” — and his concern over the possibility of putting his kids in a difficult position and offending a social acquaintance and longtime customer of the store along with countless other parents in the community. He finally fell asleep that evening wondering if he should just let the incident go, thinking that there was no way this situation ended well for his business.

The Big Questions

  • Should Ross approach the father of the girl he recognized and tell him that his daughter has been hanging out with a thief?
  • Once he knows who she is, is it appropriate for him to contact her directly?
  • Should he involve the school or the police?
Ila  S.
Block Island, RI

I had similar situation. I contacted the girl privately and let her know exactly what was on camera. In an effort to HELP HER, I told her to bring back what she took and it would stay between us — no police, no parents, etc. I treated her seriously, but kindly. We met the following day.

She did return the item and we had a good talk at the ice cream shop next door (my treat).

This was a turning point for this kid; we are on good terms years later.

Steve L.
Irmo, SC

Contact her father and ask for him and his daughter to visit your store after hours to discuss a matter. Show them the video and let dad take over. We actually had this happen on a $5,500 piece about 15 years ago with a teenage young lady whose family shopped with us. We knew the family well, and they became even better customers after this. The young lady matured into a wonderful woman, and we later sold her fiancé her engagement ring.

Ralph H.
Connersville, IN

If there is no question that the camera images will identify the thief, the store owner should call the girl he knows and perhaps the father. Ask them to stop by, as there is something they should see. Let the tape speak for itself. They would know that their friend stole the items without the owner making the accusations. Just say, “I need some help here. If the items are returned within 24 hours, I’ll consider the case closed; if not, I really have no choice. Any help would be appreciated.” Everyone gets a “way out,” even the thief. Maybe you keep a kid from a life of crime? Oh, and put the darned jewelry back in locked showcases (don’t ask how I know this).

Jim G.
Champaign, IL

Have the police view the camera video. Let them handle the whole thing; they are the law. The school will allow them to identify and push the girls to confess. This type of shoplifting must be dealt with now. If left to go on longer, it becomes a serious problem for retail and society.

Chris J.
South Milwaukee, WI

As a jewelry store owner and a father of four kids who are often in the store, I would contact the police to report the theft, provide them with the video and what information I could, and let them contact the parents. If my children were involved in such activities, I would want to be made aware and take action before the scenarios worsened. We’ve all seen the unattended and undisciplined wiping their noses on our glass cases!

Kevin P.
Newark, OH

I would contact the school administration. I would show the principal the video, then identify the student. I would then ask the school to announce that a student took jewelry from a local jeweler, and the jeweler has video of the incident. I would offer that if the student returns the jewelry within one week, no charges will be filed, and the student’s name will not be revealed. Otherwise, the authorities will be contacted and they will follow up as they must.

This way, the student(s) can learn from the situation without the harsh consequences of the legal system, the other students all realize they cannot get away with stealing from Wheeler’s, and the customer relationship is preserved.

Pushpa R.
Marrero, LA

In this incident, I would talk to the girls directly and let them know of their behavior. Tell them you have video of this incident as solid proof, and to kindly return the jewelry within three days. If not, turn in this recording to police. In the future, these girls won’t have sticky fingers.

Jim W.
Fergus Falls, MN

Your fault since the merchandise was not secure. It was a temptation to the young girls. Just write it off as mysterious disappearance. You can’t win going after the girl. Forget it.

Janne E.
Cocoa, FL

Take the video to the police and let them track down the thief. They’re the ones with the resources to identify people. That way it’s not “personal”; it’s a store owner recovering stolen merchandise and making sure future potential thieves will think twice.

Stan G.
Charlotte, NC

I would get a positive ID on the perp and send her parents an invoice for the stolen jewelry along with a thumb drive of the video of her “in action.” A nice note saying you’d rather not get the police involved for a petty juvenile crime, marring her record, but need to recuperate the loss incurred at the hands of their daughter.

I have a feeling they send the daughter in there personally to “settle” the transgression. Oh, and make it clear only a payment will suffice. No worn and returned jewelry will be accepted.

Marcus M.
Midland, TX

Ross needs to do what is right and that’s find the identity of the thief and call her out. If he does nothing, he’ll beat himself up over this for years. More importantly, he’ll be doing this young girl a disservice. If she doesn’t get called out now and pay the price, then what’s next? He has a chance to possibly right her ship here, and he needs to put his worries aside and do what’s right. I don’t think there is a need to call the police and school, but he needs to call her out directly and make her parents aware of it as well. Our nation is losing its civility and it’s because of kids like this getting let off the hook. Hammer down and make her pay for her actions. She’ll thank you — maybe a ways down the road — but she’ll thank you.

Glyn J.
Victoria, TX

I believe the owners should ask the father and daughter to the store to view the video. Then explain he would like to have the property back and all would be forgotten. The father might be very upset with you, but explain the results that could take place if this was left unattended. Do not mention the future happenings that could take place if the stealing continues unchecked.

Bryce H.
Emeryville, CA

Ross should first try to identify the girl by going through their kids. Once he has that info, he should reach out to the girl directly to ask her to do the right thing and return the items. If she denies or refuses, he can show the video footage, but at that point, he needs to escalate by contacting the school. He should also find some way to secure the “play area,” just in case something like this happens again. This is a good lesson, for Ross and Nicole and their children.

Troy L.
Irvine, CA

Do the right thing, or this behavior will continue. I would show my kids, so they know who they are not allowed to hang out with and can help me identify them. Once I know who it is, I would call the parents or guardian and explain the situation and how they have her on video and that they please have a chat with her and to return the item promptly. If that fails, go to the police, as then the parents need a lesson!

Daniel S.
Cambridge, MA

Police. He should go to the police with the tape, show it to them and let them deal with it. The girl needs to be taught a lesson, and she isn’t going to jail over this. It also keeps him away from all of the personal stuff. He can just say to anyone who asks that he didn’t know/recognize the girls and that he gave it to the police to handle. They weren’t there during school hours, so it isn’t truly a school issue. But it is a police issue. If the girls were over 21, would he be worried about going to their college administrations?

J. Dennis P.
Johnstown, PA

I would contact my insurer, ask their thoughts and explain that my plan was to contact the parents. Full disclosure and transparency are necessary here. There’s a life lesson here for all three girls involved, which in itself would be valuable from here on out.

Stacey H.
Lincolnwood, IL

Ross should show his daughter the security video and ask her to tell him the girl’s name and get her phone number. He can call the perpetrator and tell her that he has video of what she did, and to come back in immediately to return what she stole, or else he will call the dad and show him the footage in front of the police. If she refuses, he should call her dad, ask him to come in to see the video and pay for the theft. (Leave out the police.)

Buddy B.
Wynnewood, PA

This is a dammed-if-you-do and dammed-if-you-don’t situation. I would show video to local police and get their opinion. It’s a shame to soil a teenager’s reputation and shame her, but if you do the crime, you do the time. The police will be a good source of information and may have had this happen before. If you handle it yourself, you risk an outcome that you might not like.

What’s the Brain Squad?

If you’re the owner or top manager of a U.S. jewelry store, you’re invited to join the INSTORE Brain Squad. By taking one five-minute quiz a month, you can get a free t-shirt, be featured prominently in this magazine, and make your voice heard on key issues affecting the jewelry industry. Good deal, right? Sign up here.

Continue Reading

Most Popular