I would simply utilize another SA if I wasn’t happy with service received. Also it’s VCA so the likelihood of a stock piece never being tried on by anyone seems unlikely especially given the inventory shortages. Given the issues with super fakes it’s not a good idea to Photograph serial numbers of items in boutique you haven’t purchased IMO. Especially if you’re planning to contact VCA management to complain and plan on using that as proof. Given you don’t have a SA or extensive purchase history you could be flagged. So tread lightly.
How would you deal with a dishonest SA?
- Thread starter Kayceedee88
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
- Status
Great point about pictures of serial numbers! I did not think of that.
One thing I do know is that VCA monitors this forum closely. So it would not surprise me at all if VCA is not aware of this situation at some level, especially given the attention-grabbing thread title.
I said in my op that I was surprised myself that I captured the serial number of the piece in the boutique. It’s not like I used super zoom to take a picture of the serial number and it’s not like serial numbers are top secret. The SA would have told me not to take pictures if that was the case, so they don’t mind at all that people take pics.
Since I’m not posting my name, my SA’s name or even the location of the boutique, why should I worry that they could ban me. I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous. Their attorneys have better things to do than going after someone who was lied to by their own SA and who by coincidence took pictures of a serial number. That’s the least of my worries. If anything, I could sue them. LOL.
That point really set up a flag for me. Why take pictures of serial numbers on merchandise that you haven’t purchased. This could lead to VCA not allowing us to photograph pieces we are trying on for consideration. I rely heavily on pics from you lovely ladies as there is no boutique in my state.
Anyway, from what I gathered from all these comments is that most of them tell me just to let the incident slide and work with another SA going forward. I agree that that is the smartest thing to do. I at least feel better knowing that what she did was unethical and super sneaky if it was intentional. I’ll give her the benefit of doubt and move on. Thanks to those who understood the point of my post and agreed that they would have felt the same when an SA treated them the same way and that her actions were not ok if this was done intentionally. We spend so much money for our luxe items and expect some level of respect and shouldn’t be lied to (again, if it was intentional).
I’m well aware that photos can be taken in the boutiques. Most of us do this regularly and post them in this forum so that we have visuals to help one another. We also have numerous discussions about fakes on this forum and how important it is to protect serial numbers of pieces as counterfeiters have been using real serial numbers to add fake VCA pieces. In addition I was referencing to your comment about if you should call and complain about the SA. I was just saying tread carefully there because if you mentioned that you had pics of the serial number and clearly that would raise a flag to VCA management that you were recording the serial numbers on their pieces before you purchased. Just like we don’t know the SA intent on selling you the piece in question one could argue that your intent on photographing the serial number was unknown as well. Enjoy you purchase.
All premier luxury companies have a discreet client research division or section, but this scenario is more likely to generate rolled eyes from VCA than not. Regardless of issues raised, the provocative title of this thread would be of interest to corporate. (I say this solely based on what my own premier luxury SAs have told me, at VCA, Verdura/Belperron, Bulgari, Briony Raymond, and Foundrae, as well as the fine jewelry divisions at Hermes, Chanel, and Dior.
I do believe a client should only purchase from someone they are completely happy with, but once an item is purchased, I personally have an issue with returns for reasons other than product defect (Just my own personal opinion which is often more stringent than posted return policies). I also believe that if one is extremely picky, that the onus is on the client to examine an item personally before purchase.
I also don’t think that the request for a brand new, never been out of plastic, item would be taken seriously by VCA, especially when, as in this case, it appears that the item does not have flaws. If these types of requests were taken seriously by VCA, or any other premier jewelry brand, then these companies would be loath to allow prospective clients to handle any items unless they were reasonably sure of purchase, and they would also be loath to accept any form of return for fear that the said item would no longer be considered saleable. VCA has kindly allowed me to try on numerous pieces ranging from a high jewelry piece costing more than my luxury prewar, classic six condo (a piece that I told them I would never ever purchase); Romeo and Juliet pieces; a diamond zip necklace; numerous liane lariats; and, the buton d’or line. I am sure I am one of many who have been offered this opportunity, and this practice would no way deter a serious prospective purchaser
Someone above posted that given product scarcity, most pieces would be tried on, and another posted that after she tried one on, it was simply returned to the plastic. Agree. So, an item with a different serial number would not indicate a brand new piece. It could even be a returned piece. I believe it would be difficult to find an SA who could trace the chain of custody of a mass produced piece, or one who will accommodate requests like this for an item that is not individually commissioned. And, honestly most SAs would prefer not to have clients who express these demands.
With respect to the photographing of pieces, my SAs have never had an issue with action shots, but given the proliferation of the replica industry, I believe that the photographing of serial numbers should be discouraged as a matter of general practice.
JMO and YMMV.
ETA: IMO I don’t think these actions remotely rise to the level of SA malicious falsehood or misconduct, nor do I think any of this could remotely be grounds for lawsuit. Many may disagree with me, but I also don’t think that the SA did anything significantly out of line with established practice in the premier jewelry industry as a whole. The client’s recourse is to refrain from purchase, but I think that @etoupebirkin’s suggestion to simply enjoy the purchased item is more constructive. Not sure what more can be said, in support of either position, regarding the subject of this thread.
ETA: some posts have suggested that the SA should have simply stated I can only sell you this piece for XYZ reason. There are many reasons why an SA chooses to be more opaque about sales policies that come from management, and one of them, of the top of my head, is not to encourage these questions bc it may hinder the salability of other items, and provoke even more adverse reaction.
I do believe a client should only purchase from someone they are completely happy with, but once an item is purchased, I personally have an issue with returns for reasons other than product defect (Just my own personal opinion which is often more stringent than posted return policies). I also believe that if one is extremely picky, that the onus is on the client to examine an item personally before purchase.
I also don’t think that the request for a brand new, never been out of plastic, item would be taken seriously by VCA, especially when, as in this case, it appears that the item does not have flaws. If these types of requests were taken seriously by VCA, or any other premier jewelry brand, then these companies would be loath to allow prospective clients to handle any items unless they were reasonably sure of purchase, and they would also be loath to accept any form of return for fear that the said item would no longer be considered saleable. VCA has kindly allowed me to try on numerous pieces ranging from a high jewelry piece costing more than my luxury prewar, classic six condo (a piece that I told them I would never ever purchase); Romeo and Juliet pieces; a diamond zip necklace; numerous liane lariats; and, the buton d’or line. I am sure I am one of many who have been offered this opportunity, and this practice would no way deter a serious prospective purchaser
Someone above posted that given product scarcity, most pieces would be tried on, and another posted that after she tried one on, it was simply returned to the plastic. Agree. So, an item with a different serial number would not indicate a brand new piece. It could even be a returned piece. I believe it would be difficult to find an SA who could trace the chain of custody of a mass produced piece, or one who will accommodate requests like this for an item that is not individually commissioned. And, honestly most SAs would prefer not to have clients who express these demands.
With respect to the photographing of pieces, my SAs have never had an issue with action shots, but given the proliferation of the replica industry, I believe that the photographing of serial numbers should be discouraged as a matter of general practice.
JMO and YMMV.
ETA: IMO I don’t think these actions remotely rise to the level of SA malicious falsehood or misconduct, nor do I think any of this could remotely be grounds for lawsuit. Many may disagree with me, but I also don’t think that the SA did anything significantly out of line with established practice in the premier jewelry industry as a whole. The client’s recourse is to refrain from purchase, but I think that @etoupebirkin’s suggestion to simply enjoy the purchased item is more constructive. Not sure what more can be said, in support of either position, regarding the subject of this thread.
ETA: some posts have suggested that the SA should have simply stated I can only sell you this piece for XYZ reason. There are many reasons why an SA chooses to be more opaque about sales policies that come from management, and one of them, of the top of my head, is not to encourage these questions bc it may hinder the salability of other items, and provoke even more adverse reaction.
Last edited:
For selling you a piece you wanted that is in perfect condition?
(Please don't take this as anything other than a joke because, I am joking).Here's the thing, your SA probably made a mistake. It's so unlikely that a trained SA from a luxury brand would be devious. Her commission relies on your sale- why would she sabotage herself?
You seem very upset but, that's only because you're assuming the worst. You have a beautiful piece of jewellery that you say is in perfect condition. Please enjoy it!
Like others have said, even if you'd been given a fresh piece in plastic, it doesn't mean that it's never been tried on before. In fact, perhaps another piece wouldn't have been as nice as the one you tried on, or would have been defective in some way. Consider this your good fortune that the piece you tried is the same one you bought so there are no unexpected problems.
ETA: I know your issue is that your SA lied to you and not whether the piece has been touched before. I'm just saying it's best not to assume she lied because this was probably just human error, and anyway, you're lucky that the piece is perfect. I hope you can focus on that and enjoy it.
Last edited:
May I ask why you did not want to buy the piece you tried on?
What was wrong with it? Someone else might have tried it on?
Why would this be so bad if the piece is in perfect condition?
What do you expect them to do with pieces people touched?
So many questions...I'm so confused by this.
What was wrong with it? Someone else might have tried it on?
Why would this be so bad if the piece is in perfect condition?
What do you expect them to do with pieces people touched?
So many questions...I'm so confused by this.
Like others have said, even if you'd been given a fresh piece in plastic, it doesn't mean that it's never been tried on before. In fact, perhaps another piece wouldn't have been as nice as the one you tried on, or would have been defective in some way. Consider this your good fortune that the piece you tried is the same one you bought so there are no unexpected problems.
That's a very valid point...I'd rather take the pendant from a boutique with less traffic and tried on by fewer clients, than a 'new' one that's being transferred from a flagship (quite probable since they tend to get more shipments) that's likely been tried on by many
It sounds as though OP is more concerned about the SA being dishonest, or at the very least, negligent to the initial request of getting her a different piece. I do understand why OP feel the way she does though, most of us would prefer a SA that listen and pay attention to small details, and not someone who'd drop the ball on fulfilling a basic request.
I understand that and am sympathetic that OP is unhappy. However, what are the odds that the SA was being dishonest here? Her commission and her job security relies on happy, returning customers. No SA would knowingly jeopardize that. It's more likely this was just a mixup. One necklace in plastic looks very much like another.
Of course we want our SAs to pay attention to our small requests but, this was hardly negligence on a scale that would require an escalation to SM or Corporate as was suggested by the OP. Certainly it's nothing worth the back and forth going on in this thread, with OP getting increasingly angry at other tpf members if they don't agree with her that her SA is conspiring against her.
Life's short. OP has a beautiful necklace she could be enjoying right now, instead of spending time stewing over...a perceived slight. The SA didn't leave her waiting too long, or forget her order entirely, or give her a damaged piece, so I'm hoping the OP can find it in herself to give the SA some grace, given that this is likely just human error, and focus on enjoying her necklace. Just my opinion.
- Status