Gem Collector - ignorance

[Ant7t]

Of course! I hadn't twigged that "Gem Collector is now fully digital" could have meant that. It makes sense now.

In which case, I'm off to sell my photo at £5 a pop - digital of course - under my realistic looky-likey pseudonyms of Chrys Hemsworth and Jomes Dean. Let's see how much damn lead I can swing on those.

You'll make more than a £5. How famous are those people?

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Of course! I hadn't twigged that "Gem Collector is now fully digital" could have meant that. It makes sense now.

In which case, I'm off to sell my photo at £5 a pop - digital of course - under my realistic looky-likey pseudonyms of Chrys Hemsworth and Jomes Dean. Let's see how much damn lead I can swing on those.

Don't forget to attach a bit of Jade or shell to it. You can add an extra two zero's to the price tag then.

Yours sincerely.

Daffyd Trough.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Something I spotted over the weekend on Gem Collector (I can't remember if it was on Saturday or Sunday).

There was a themed 'Galileia Morganite' hour. Every item was a Galileia Morganite stone - except for ONE Cherry Blossom Morganite as the very last item in the list.

I'm struggling to see the logic in putting one completely different type of Morganite in that hour.

Was it a genuine mistake? Was it there to make up the numbers? Or, am I being cynical in thinking it had been put there in the hope that someone would check out quickly without reading it? I can't help but feel that it's perhaps a wishy-washy stone, or a return that keeps going back, that they're desperate to get rid of.

Now someone might think "It's still a Morganite - so what's the big deal?"

Well, the Galileia material, in my opinion, was the best Morganite that Gemporia ever had. In addition, it's colour is different to other Morganite. It has more of a peachy-pink hue rather than just pink. It, arguably, has greater monitory and/or collectable value because it's from a mine that is now closed.

If it was there simply to make up the numbers, then I'm sure leaving it out and having one less stone for sale wouldn't have been make-or-break for that hour. It's things like this that could be completely innocent, but combined with other things that are happening across the channels, they make you a bit sceptical / suspicious.

 

[AndyW]

There was a themed 'Galileia Morganite' hour. Every item was a Galileia Morganite stone - except for ONE Cherry Blossom Morganite as the very last item in the list.

I'm struggling to see the logic in putting one completely different type of Morganite in that hour.

Was it a genuine mistake? Was it there to make up the numbers? Or, am I being cynical in thinking it had been put there in the hope that someone would check out quickly without reading it?

It's difficult not to be cynical nowadays. The grumpy side of me would agree 100% with you.

Let's put this stock of low grade tiny stones, which we can't sell on Jewellery Maker, in an hour of better Morganite and hope that someone thinks it's a steal, when compared to the other items in the hour.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

It's difficult not to be cynical nowadays. The grumpy side of me would agree 100% with you.

Let's put this stock of low grade tiny stones, which we can't sell on Jewellery Maker, in an hour of better Morganite and hope that someone thinks it's a steal, when compared to the other items in the hour.

I can't help but think it was there for a reason.

There have been other hours where they 'mix' stones to make up the numbers - but there have been several of those, and they're grouped together so that it's obvious.

This one random Cherry Blossom Morganite, plonked at the end of a bunch of Galilaia Morganite's just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Marietta]

I can't help but think it was there for a reason.

There have been other hours where they 'mix' stones to make up the numbers - but there have been several of those, and they're grouped together so that it's obvious.

This one random Cherry Blossom Morganite, plonked at the end of a bunch of Galilaia Morganite's just doesn't sit right with me.

There's a lot more wrong with Gemporia than mixing stones - If it was only that simple.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Emily making it up as she goes along again.

She's currently flogging some Lehrer seahorses that aren't carved by Glenn Lehrer.

She's waffling on about how Glenn has integrity and will "only put his name to the very best quality stones". She then focus on the diamond 'eye' of the Seahorse.

"Glenn insists on the best quality diamonds - these are SI Lorique diamonds".

Well, if he only works with the best quality stones, SI grade is below VSI, IF and flawless............

And if the Diamonds are that good, why is there no information at all in the description other than 1.5mm diameter, White (no indication as to whether they're G-H, I-J, etc), Brilliant Cut and from Africa.

Oh, and the seahorses were carved from dyed Quartz, dyed Chalcedony, etc.

EDIT: She's now waffling on about the importance of the certificates of authenticity in this hour because of the name 'Lehrer'. She then implies that they're actually cut by Glenn Lehrer himself..................

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Gemporia strikes again. An hour of Verdelite.

Now, there's nothing wrong with the name 'Verdlite' - its actually the correct mineralogical name.

But......................... it's Green Tourmaline.

In the 13 years I've watched Gem Collector and Gems TV, they've always called 'Green Tourmaline' as exactly that - Green Tourmaline. So, why the name change now, after all these years?

Jim has just sold a 0.97ct stone for £49.99p - so I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

My suspicion is that this change was made in the hope that very few people will realise Verdelite is simply Green Tourmaline - encouraging those who already own Green Tourmaline to buy it, thinking it’s something new to Gem Collector and one that they don’t already have in their collection...

 

[AndyW]

This is either deliberate or incompetent.

This stone was 8.75 x 7.50. Do these images reflect this? An 8.75mm stone would be much smaller on the hand?

 

[TheManWithNoName]

This is either deliberate or incompetent.

This stone was 8.75 x 7.50. Do these images reflect this? An 8.75mm stone would be much smaller on the hand?

I noticed that on Friday with a different stone altogether. Really small stone - yet blown out of propertion on the jewellery image. Whether deliberate or not, it's certainly misleading.

It also shows that the photos on the Gem Collector website are doctored in Photoshop or similar graphics software.

If they're prepared to pull stunts like this, what's not to stop them adjusting hues of stones too? It's poor enough that, unlike GemSelect, they don't bother to photograph each stone individually - so the stone you buy could be wishy washy and not resemble the item shown on screen or the GC website.

At their current extortionate prices, they should be doing more to at least partly justify the price - such as taking photos of each individual stone.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Well, here we go again. I mentioned similar last week - and I gave the benefit of the doubt that, although I was sceptical, it may have been a genuine accident.

However, I'm now convinced it's deliberate in the hope that a buyer doesn't notice.

Spot the odd one out amongst this bunch in Jim's current hour..........

 

[Ant7t]

Well, here we go again. I mentioned similar last week - and I gave the benefit of the doubt that, although I was sceptical, it may have been a genuine accident.

However, I'm now convinced it's deliberate in the hope that a buyer doesn't notice.

Spot the odd one out amongst this bunch in Jim's current hour..........

View attachment 30251

Not sticking up for them, but 'could' it be that they are getting rid of the odd ones in the same series of stone? We have one of these, let's put it in so and so a show.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Not sticking up for them, but 'could' it be that they are getting rid of the odd ones in the same series of stone? We have one of these, let's put it in so and so a show.

If that was the case, there's nothing to stop them putting it right at the very end of the list (there are 7 other stones on the list to 'fill the hour' - 2 Fluorites, a Tourmaline, an Aquamarine, a Zircon, an Alexandrite, and a Sapphire box set). Why not lump it in with those so that it stands out as being different to the other Morganites? At the very least, put it at the end of the Morganites so that it sits below the untreated Galileia stones (although, in my opinion, that's still a bit sneaky).

By throwing a random irradiated stone amongst the untreated stones, it comes across as a deliberate attempt to deceive. It's a well know fact that the eye 'scans' rather than reading word-for-word.

I can't see any logical explanation as to why they either couldn't put it with the other 'hour fillers' at the bottom of the page, or at least at the end of the untreated Galileia Morganites to make some sort of effort to differentiate it.