Ebay authenticated used ring as having real diamond now buyer wants to return and says it is a cz

[plr0412]

I sold a used solitaire diamond ring with a natural diamond. I bought this ring from a reputable local auction house. I sold it sent it to ebay authenticator. They authenticated it and sent it to the buyer who now claims it is a CZ and not a diamond, so they want to return it for not as described. How can it not be as described it has already been authenticated? Ebay accepted the return back without giving me any chance to respond. Now it is being sent back to the authenticator and my funds are on hold. I am being told even though I don't accept returns this is allowed because it is a used item. If it isn't a diamond  when it gets to the authenticator that means they switched stones and it should be returned to them. If it is a diamond then that means it is as described and should be sent back to them, so I don't get why they agreed to this return? How can this be allowed? 

[toomuchstuffagain35]

So much for the seller protections offered by AG?

[kalyoth]

ebay Authenticity 

I would wait & see if they state it is the same item they first authenticated. The return is not because it's a used item. The return is due to the type of return reason chosen - was this an Item Not as Described INAD Return?

Only if the item is the same item they authenticated, you get it back & a refund is processed, in theory. The actions beyond this process are up to how it pans out & the type of buyer you have.

[benopiecat]

If it is authenticated as a diamond, it would be easier just to take the ring back and issue a refund to the buyer if he doesn't want it.  There is nothing worse then dealing with a dissatisfied buyer.  If it isn't a real diamond, I would think that you would need the proof / paperwork from the Ebay authenticator stating the diamond is real (if it isn't real, maybe they have insurance to cover such a case). 

[pjcdn2005]

The authenticator already said that the item sent to them and on to the buyer was a real diamond. If they determine that the item being sent back is not a diamond, they should refuse the return.  If they determine that the item sent back is the same as what was sent to the buyer, then the seller will receive it back and have to refund.

[pjcdn2005]

---

@plr0412 wrote:

I sold a used solitaire diamond ring with a natural diamond. I bought this ring from a reputable local auction house. I sold it sent it to ebay authenticator. They authenticated it and sent it to the buyer who now claims it is a CZ and not a diamond, so they want to return it for not as described. How can it not be as described it has already been authenticated? Ebay accepted the return back without giving me any chance to respond. Now it is being sent back to the authenticator and my funds are on hold. I am being told even though I don't accept returns this is allowed because it is a used item. If it isn't a diamond  when it gets to the authenticator that means they switched stones and it should be returned to them. If it is a diamond then that means it is as described and should be sent back to them, so I don't get why they agreed to this return? How can this be allowed? 

---

If you read the AG rules, jewelry that goes through AG can be returned if the seller has a return policy OR if the buyer files an item not as described return request.  The second reason does not require the seller to have a return policy.

[plr0412]

The rule should be if it has been authenticated then it is automatically as described. This is giving the buyer a loophole. 

[plr0412]

It is obvious it is not an honest buyer. The auction house I bought the ring from authenticated it as a diamond. I have a decent diamond tester that shows it as being a diamond, and eBay authenticated it as being a diamond. If the buyer is proven to be lying about it when it is authenticated again it should go back to them, but I am being told it will come back to me. So basically there is no "no return" policy with eBay. 

[plr0412]

I think my biggest issue is when someone lies to get their way. If the buyer had emailed me and said they didn't like the ring, I would have okayed the return, but to say I sent them a fake stone when I have sold jewelry for 20 years. I thought the authentication service would stop the abuse of the not as described policy. I have been told I can appeal the return after I get it back and I may just give that a try. 

[plr0412]

That's what eBay is telling me. What doesn't seem right is if it is a diamond then it is as described and the buyer is lying to be able to return. 

[plr0412]

The problem I have with this rule is that the buyer can lie about anything to return an item. Even if eBay authenticators prove the buyer lied you still have to accept the return. So basically a no return policy doesn't exist. 

[bennotbill]

I was under the impression that the whole point of authentication was to check the item was as described which also prevented a buyer claiming it wasn't as described.

Has something changed? Otherwise what is the point of authentication?

[pjcdn2005]

---

@plr0412 wrote:

The problem I have with this rule is that the buyer can lie about anything to return an item. Even if eBay authenticators prove the buyer lied you still have to accept the return. So basically a no return policy doesn't exist. 

---

That is true for the majority of items sold here.  But in this case, the fact that it went through the AG center and has to go through there again should be a guarantee that you get same undamaged item back.

Appealing the return once you get it back is unlikely to get you anywhere. If the ring is in the same condition, it is best to just refund.

[plr0412]

That is what I thought to, but apparently it is just to make sure you get the same item you sent back.