Chloe's Claims

[Pinkpussycat]

Yet again I've just heard Chloe Cole Marshall state that some 14K New Yoik 14K pieces have been 'found' to have Rhapsody quality diamonds. Really?? :wonder: Uhm, well I've ordered many of these diamond items and sent all of them back because the stones were just not acceptable (to me) in terms of colour or brilliance and I just do not believe her claims that F/VS diamonds would ever be used. So, I challenge TJC to back this presenter's claims and tell me exactly what pieces she is referring to (with item codes) or has anyone on here got proof of it themselves??

 

[Sapphireblue]

Customer References

Hi

I have heard the same claims from other presenters, not just Chloe, about the New York range for quite a while.

From memory the presenters always put a caveat to say that the range has a minimum of H-I ....however

" Some customers have purchased items from this range that have been valued/graded at a higher quality .... Iliana or Rhapsody" ...." we cannot guarantee this, but this is what a some of our customers have told us"

I didn't purchase any of the New York items by the way that Chloe was referring to. I think they may be part of a collection of solitaire diamonds rings from about about 12-15 months ago.

I did however purchase .33ct diamond earrings under £100 Min grade SI G-H about 13 months ago. They are absolute stunning and their colour is similar to my Rhapsody diamond ring.

If I put in a valuation note to TJC and I don't want my details of my valuation letter disclosed or read out on TV or put on the website, TJC listen and act on my instructions.
I know this because I have had the conversation with TJC. I can't see TJC disclosing information without the owners permission.

Sapphireblue

 

[Pinkpussycat]

The item numbers wouldn't disclose anything about purchasers.

 

[annettka]

you seem to be making this personal

Its simple, if you suspect the channel's claims don't buy the jewellry. You also seem to be projecting some unpleasantness toward a particular presenter too - not attractive. If I didn't know better, I'd say you are harbouing quite alot of hostility - try stroking your cats more.

 

[Klosblue]

Its simple, if you suspect the channel's claims don't buy the jewellry. You also seem to be projecting some unpleasantness toward a particular presenter too - not attractive. If I didn't know better, I'd say you are harbouing quite alot of hostility - try stroking your cats more.

I believe PPC questionned the presenters claims which are often very exaggerated to say the least. As far as I can see no comments were made as to the channel making any claims.

I would suggest that you perhaps rethink your strategy in future. While everyone is entitled to come on here and express their opinion, it is not very clever to join a forum for the sole purpose of insulting a long term, well respected member. The presenter in question chose to be in a job where she is wide open to criticism so she needs to learn to use it as positive feedback to improve in her role.

In closing may I also suggest that you read your posts through before hitting the submit button. "Jewellry" is spelt JEWELLERY, "Harbouing" is spelt HARBOURING. I'm sure PPC will get much more pleasure from stroking her beautiful cats than you will from stroking your friend Ms Marshall's ego!

 

[Sacha]

:mysmilie_471:Klos.

I would share PPC's scepticism of the claimed quality of the diamonds 'found' in the New York range, because if they were VS quality and F colour, TJC would be saying so ...very clearly. And at the New York range prices, I'd be in there double quick!

. Whooooosh

 

[Marble]

I agree ... not the best idea for a first post to be somewhat attacking in nature.

Re: spelling, though ... also not such a good idea to pick someone up on their spelling, cos it will nearly always bite you on the bum!!! <coughs> you have an erroneous "n" in questioned, Klos!

"I believe PPC questionned the presenters claims which are often very exaggerated to say the least. As far as I can see no comments were made as to the channel making any claims."



... all said in good humour, of course

 

[Pinkpussycat]

Its simple, if you suspect the channel's claims don't buy the jewellry. You also seem to be projecting some unpleasantness toward a particular presenter too - not attractive. If I didn't know better, I'd say you are harbouing quite alot of hostility - try stroking your cats more.

Good afternoon Chloe...:mysmilie_483:

:mysmilie_62:

 

[argeybargey]

I'm heartily sick of "if you don't like don't watch/buy" arguments. If we all believed and acted on that then the TV would now be a part of history. We've all paid for the service one way or another and are entitled to expect news and documentaries, and shopping presented as honestly as humanly possible. Shopping may be quite trivial in the grand scheme of things but all sorts of people watch including the naive and gullible and it is unfair, to say the least, for presenters to use their advantage and experience to misguide. Shops can't do it so why do you find it acceptable on TV? Genuine errors are allowed, deliberate fairy stories and misreprentation by presenters are not. Annettka, I have to say that I think it is you who is making this personal by coming here, and starting out by lecturing at a long-standing member for your first post.

 

[Marble]

Nothing of value to add ... apart from I love that kitten! I want it ...

 

[Pinkpussycat]

Anyway, thank you to Anettka for drawing me back to this thread. During the same show I also heard Ms Chloe Cole/Jolie/Beckham Marshall state that the export of raw tanzanite was definately affecting TJC and that was why she had hardly any pieces in her hours to sell; she was followed by Sarah-Lou who then said that they (TJC) didn't know how the tanzanite ban might affect them. Uhm, I know who I believe out of the two of them and guess what....TJC had a dedicated tanzanite clearance show this afternoon. Hardly the actions of a channel struggling to source it. :emo: CM needs to reign in her runaway gob a bit imho.

 

[Avid]

I also heard Ms Chloe Cole/Jolie/Beckham Marshall

I think the name calling is the issue here PPC. It really is upsetting to the presenter.

Were you watching at the weekend? You may have heard her explanation for the claim...

 

[Meeshoo]

I've got to say that Chloe's Bond Street / Red Carpet / Celebrity references are awful. Honestly, how many of us shop in Bond Street or go to red carpet functions and does anybody give a fig what a Z list celebrity may be wearing? To be honest that'd be enough to put me off a piece!

More worringly, if Chloe has suggested that the diamonds in some of the New York range are of a better quality and akin to the more luxurious range then it's only right and proper that TJC are either asked to verify these claims OR make Chloe apologise. I'm sure that if this were to be reported to the appropriate watchdog, they would be happy to investigate also. I bet what's happened is that one or two people have bought items, had them appraised and found that one or two of the diamonds are of a better quality than expected. This wouldn't surprise me but it's a way off actually advertising the New York range like this - it's misleading.

At the end of the day we're a consumer forum so people here are entitled to their opinion and express concern at what they hear/see but Anettka why you think it right and proper, with your first post, to give a regular poster "what for" is beyond me. Unfortunately, this happens more and more regularly and over time it normally becomes clear that the person has an agenda or works for a channel or is a friend of a presenter etc etc. Honest opinions are welcome but veiled personal attacks are not.

 

[Avid]

In fairness to the presenter, an explanation was given at the weekend.

If any of you were watching on Saturday you may understand why Anettka may have felt compelled to post his/her opinion on here.

 

[Meeshoo]

In fairness to the presenter, an explanation was given at the weekend.

If any of you were watching on Saturday you may understand why Anettka may have felt compelled to post his/her opinion on here.

Avid - there are still ways of making a point without resulting to a personal attack and Anettka, regardless of how she felt should not have been so rude to PPC. If you want fairness then it should be applied both ways and PPC should be treated in the same manner.

To be honest, I haven't heard either the claim or the explanation BUT if people just heard the claim and not the explanation then there of course will be speculation. Unfortunately over the years, Chloe has made ridiculous claims (as have other presenters and it's certainly not limited to Chloe) and on occasion this has led to action against a channel (not just limited to TJC) so this forum most definitely has a part of play in "defending" the consumer.

 

[Pinkpussycat]

I think the name calling is the issue here PPC.
It's not name calling, it's a reference to her repeated use of celebrity name dropping and as good as TJC jewellery is there is no comparison to the kind of pieces that these people wear, plus it's boring in the extreme. :yawn:

It really is upsetting to the presenter.
Do you know her then?? :wonder:

Were you watching at the weekend? You may have heard her explanation for the claim...

Nope, can't put up with her waffle for long.

 

[Avid]

Avid - there are still ways of making a point without resulting to a personal attack and Anettka, regardless of how she felt should not have been so rude to PPC. If you want fairness then it should be applied both ways and PPC should be treated in the same manner.

My post was referring to fairness to the presenter. There was an explanation in the show aired at the weekend.

 

[Meeshoo]

My post was referring to fairness to the presenter. There was an explanation in the show aired at the weekend.

I understood that. As I said, fairness works both ways.

 

[Frazzled]

From Meeshoo's post "there are still ways of making a point without resulting to a personal attack"

Perhaps all sides should take on board Meeshoo's comment above

There have been a number of very personal and aggressive attacks by various people via this forum aimed specifically at Chloe Marshall. Maybe Annettka first post was a response to previous regular posts on the subject as well as this one.

Other presenters infuriate me and are just as bad at times with spurious claims. It was absolutely right to raise the issue here, and presumably with TJC direct, after all they are ones who should regulate what their presenters say. The criticism is valid, however, unfortunately it comes over as a veiled opportunity to "have another go" at this particular presenter

 

[Pinkpussycat]

Explain how repeating what CM said becomes a personal attack, veiled or otherwise.