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.