Diamonique Tova Hour with Craig

[historymystery]

Tuned in to watch a bit of this just after 11 am this morning. On a positive note, the female guest actually said about one of the rings: "we recommend you go up one or two sizes, because of the design" (it was a barrel-shaped ring). At least she was telling us something relevant, instead of just a succession of the oohs and aahs about how "wonderful" it is, how "on trend" it is, or that it's worn by Kim Cardashforbus. But: Craig talks about a pair of earrings and then says "you just pay £8-50 plus postage". Er, no, Craig, you don't - you pay over twenty quid plus postage, because £8.50 is the easy-pay price. And considering these items are eek, although set in silver, should he comment that the cabochon cut gives colour to the "gem"? And is a fake stone a "gem" anyway? I think they need to be much more careful when selling fake stones: even though they may be set in silver, the stones are not gemstones, and I don't think they should be giving that impression by using the word "gem", nor should the easy pay price be mentioned without clarifying that it is the initial easy-pay payment only. Shades of IW?

 

[loveallthingsitalian]

This is one of the things which annoys me too. I can imagine some older less savvy viewer thinking they had got good value only to find that this was only half the price. Especially with Q's prices being OTT it understandable that half/third/even a quarter seems to be the total price. Think of some of the beauty brands and the clothes which are easily 3 or 4 times overpriced.

 

[shopperholic]

I've got three words for QVC.................. Adevertising Standards Authority.

 

[historymystery]

I confess I'm totally bemused (a) how these channels get away with it, and (b) why the ASA isn't closed down, if they are so toothless? If they are publicly funded, then I'd like my share of the money back, please, because the system ain't working. Shame, because I always liked Craig - I felt he was definitely one of the less egotistical, more down-to-earth types, who could be relied on to give accurate info. but it seems he might have succumbed to the relentless sell, sell, sell, pressure and the standards are slipping.

I've got three words for QVC.................. Adevertising Standards Authority.

 

[shopperholic]

I confess I'm totally bemused (a) how these channels get away with it, and (b) why the ASA isn't closed down, if they are so toothless? If they are publicly funded, then I'd like my share of the money back, please, because the system ain't working. Shame, because I always liked Craig - I felt he was definitely one of the less egotistical, more down-to-earth types, who could be relied on to give accurate info. but it seems he might have succumbed to the relentless sell, sell, sell, pressure and the standards are slipping.

Yeah I agree H, it certainly isn't working. When I used to buy from QVC I must say Craig was the only presenter I could listen to, he's good mates with Debbie Flint..........say no more. :mysmilie_17:

 

[Loveinamist]

Agree with everything said but listening to blurb of how these gems have been created by hurrying up the million year process to produce flawless replicas, well, the adjectives and effusion would still gall. Moissanite a point in question.

 

[donna255]

Julia Roberts always used to tell the viewers, you need to go up a ring size because of the shape. The rest just sit and worship in the glow of Tova.:mysmilie_17:

 

[historymystery]

Yes, Moissonite is a case in point - the implication was always that it was a type of precious stone, especially as it used to be set into gold. I know most gemstones are treated in some way and that it's accepted practice in the jewellery industry, but in my book a created "gem" isn't a gem at all, regardless of whether they've set it in gold or not and it really bugs me when they imply otherwise.

Agree with everything said but listening to blurb of how these gems have been created by hurrying up the million year process to produce flawless replicas, well, the adjectives and effusion would still gall. Moissanite a point in question.

 

[misschris]

Slightly off topic. I watched Craig on QVC the other day, can't remember the item or the type of show, but I was struck by how unprepared he seemed. He said nothing meaningful about the item, just swooned over the colour and what it would go with, then he went off on a tangent and told a 'story'. He didn't listen to the guest. He was filling in time and sounded really unprofessional. I normally don't have a strong opinion about Craig as a presenter, but at that moment he could have been making a video about how not to do the job. Very odd

 

[alter ego]

Tuned in to watch a bit of this just after 11 am this morning. On a positive note, the female guest actually said about one of the rings: "we recommend you go up one or two sizes, because of the design" (it was a barrel-shaped ring). At least she was telling us something relevant, instead of just a succession of the oohs and aahs about how "wonderful" it is, how "on trend" it is, or that it's worn by Kim Cardashforbus. But: Craig talks about a pair of earrings and then says "you just pay £8-50 plus postage". Er, no, Craig, you don't - you pay over twenty quid plus postage, because £8.50 is the easy-pay price. And considering these items are eek, although set in silver, should he comment that the cabochon cut gives colour to the "gem"? And is a fake stone a "gem" anyway? I think they need to be much more careful when selling fake stones: even though they may be set in silver, the stones are not gemstones, and I don't think they should be giving that impression by using the word "gem", nor should the easy pay price be mentioned without clarifying that it is the initial easy-pay payment only. Shades of IW?

I have a partially-sighted friend who has been caught a few times with their spiel about it "only costing (the first instalment plus P&P)" when describing stuff. AY is a repeat offender. When the item arrives and her partner reads the invoice out, she's shocked at the cost after expecting it to be a third of what she heard on the telly. I've finally got through to her that she should ring up and ask full details before buying these days and have apparently saved her a fortune on return postage (she can't use distance selling regs as she'll have opened the parcel before realising the price).

She buys a lot of family and friend gifts from QVC as she doesn't go shopping much. This kind of "selling" is not on and taking advantage of people who either can't see the full price or don't understand. The telly is a "friend" and company to a lot of older people. I hate to imagine how many other people are taken in by this. Very annoying!

 

[louise66]

Tuned in to watch a bit of this just after 11 am this morning. On a positive note, the female guest actually said about one of the rings: "we recommend you go up one or two sizes, because of the design" (it was a barrel-shaped ring). At least she was telling us something relevant, instead of just a succession of the oohs and aahs about how "wonderful" it is, how "on trend" it is, or that it's worn by Kim Cardashforbus. But: Craig talks about a pair of earrings and then says "you just pay £8-50 plus postage". Er, no, Craig, you don't - you pay over twenty quid plus postage, because £8.50 is the easy-pay price. And considering these items are eek, although set in silver, should he comment that the cabochon cut gives colour to the "gem"? And is a fake stone a "gem" anyway? I think they need to be much more careful when selling fake stones: even though they may be set in silver, the stones are not gemstones, and I don't think they should be giving that impression by using the word "gem", nor should the easy pay price be mentioned without clarifying that it is the initial easy-pay payment only. Shades of IW?

One of the benefits,of a cabochon gem, is light refraction. So, technically, he was stating a fact.

 

[historymystery]

As far as I'm aware, a piece of glass isn't a "gem", cabochon or otherwise, and shouldn't be described as such.

One of the benefits,of a cabochon gem, is light refraction. So, technically, he was stating a fact.

 

[shopperholic]

As far as I'm aware, a piece of glass isn't a "gem", cabochon or otherwise, and shouldn't be described as such.

You're right, a "gem" is a natural substance and comes out the ground, glass, no matter what fancy name it's given, is in no way, shape or form a "gem"