- Report: #498814
Complaint Review: Sam Yampell Jewelers - Haddonfield New Jersey
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Sam Yampell Jewelers
104 Kings Highway East Haddonfield, New Jersey, United States of America
Phone:
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Sam Yampell Jewelers Poor workmanship of my engagement ring which broke and I no longer have Haddonfield , New Jersey
My Fiance bought me an engagement ring from Sam Yampell in Oct, 2008. It is now Sept, 2009 and my entire setting is gone. The setting completely snapped off. When I reported this to Sam he denied fault. Well, it IS his fault because of the poor workmanship of him and his staff. I also had to wait 2 whole weeks for a response from him which I find completely unprofessional. I will never purchase anything from him ever again! I fear it will break and I will be without yet another piece of very expensive jewlery. Sam Yampell is a thief!
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Sam Yampell Jewelers
Haddonfield,New Jersey,
USA
80 years in business, Client's mind made up from start
#2REBUTTAL Owner of company
Mon, October 19, 2009
While disappointing and after 80 years in business a client issue could not be resolved. Yet it is my understanding that it is still pending. It was brought to my attention while I was out of town that a client brought her engagement ring into the store as the diamond prong setting which holds the diamond was missing from the base of the ring. The client immediately took the position that it was poor workmanship and I should be held responsible for replacing the stone. Upon inspection of the ring it was clearly apparent that the ring had some event occur which caused the prong to snap away from the setting. I determined this as the contact point of the prongs setting to the base of the ring was still soldered in but sheared in half. In a conversation with the client I indicated that if the entire prong setting and solder point was missing from the engagement ring band I would have agreed with her position and assumed responsibility. Since the part that holds the prong setting was still soldered and intact to the base of the ring and there was a clear break in the metal leaving 1/2 the prong setting intact I reasonable concluded that there may have been an impact which caused the break. The contact point which the prong setting is soldered to the band is still secure, the solder was not weakened or compromised and the fact that the base of the prong setting is still there leads to all of my above stated conclusions. When I discussed this with the client she profusely denied that there had been any contact. I then offered to show it to a few other jewelry repair experts who all agreed with my conclusion. She agreed to this. The other opinions were the same as mine. Since the ring was insured I offered to work with her insurance company to replace the diamond at my cost in an effort to get the ring back on her finger in an expeditious manner. I was clearly offering not to profit from this misfortune. She was now upset with the news and she instructed me to send the ring to her insurance company claim adjuster. I both sent it immediately along with a letter instructing them if they felt differently to contact me to discuss. I have heard nothing from them to date. Most importantly this lose to my client did not occur within a short time frame of owning the ring but rather after close to a year later of wearing.
I am heartbroken that my client felt the need to go online to vent her anger without truly relying on the resources available to her via her insurance company or even another expert opinion. Her position was rather that of. "this is your fault, you pay for it." After all this is why we have insurance for such important and frequently worn items of jewelry. To this account I invite who ever would like to comment on the matter to email me at [email protected]. If it is ultimately determined I am wrong I will of course stand behind my word and replace the stone. It was my understanding this was to be determined.
