Even though hundreds of employees at Signet Jewelers — the jewelry giant that owns the Zales, Jared, and Kay retail brands — have alleged they were victims of sexual harassment and discrimination for years, these claims were only recently brought to light. Now, some Signet shareholders are suing the company, saying it hid these allegations from them. [More]
A year after Sterling Jewelers’ Kay Jewelers found itself on the receiving end of thousands of complaints from customers alleging the company swapped out their diamonds for fake ones, hundreds of employees are alleging they were victims of sexual harassment and discrimination at Kay and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry. [More]
You may have heard about the recent accusations of gem-swapping at Kay Jewelers. Customers accused the chain of switching out the diamonds in their jewelry for lower-grade diamonds or human-made stones that aren’t diamonds. The news stories launched more accusations on social media, and far too many “Every [blank] begins with Kay” jokes. Now the CEO of Kay’s parent company is speaking out, and holding promotions to get sales up. [More]
Kay Jewelers wants everyone to know something after a particularly damning report yesterday in an influential tip sheet for investors: the company says that it is not systematically and intentionally swapping stones out when customers bring in diamond jewelry for repairs. Instead, the company says that the “allegations on social media” have been “republished and grossly amplified.” [More]
Signet Jewelers isn’t a household name, but you’re probably familiar with its brands if you watch TV: the British company owns the chains Kay Jewelers, Zales, and Jared, along with Piercing Pagoda and some regional brands. Today, a report from an influential investors’ tipsheet led to a drop in Signet’s stock price… though possible problems that would be dire for investors would benefit consumers in the long run. [More]
At Kay Jewelers, a popular mall chain and part of global mediocre jewelry corporate Voltron Signet Jewelers, owners of expensive diamond or gemstone jewelry can get a lifetime diamond or color gemstone guarantee, as long as they bring their jewelry for inspection every six months. Yet some brides who have tried to invoke the guarantee say that their stones were switched out during repairs, when they were in Kay’s possession. [More]
For many brides and brides-to-be, an engagement ring isn’t just a flashy new piece of jewelry, it’s a physical reminder of a pretty huge life event. So it’s no surprise that some customers of Kay Jewelers were pretty upset when their rings disappeared, came back damaged, or were replaced with sub-par jewelry.
We love to use wedding imagery when discussing corporate mergers, because it’s a useful metaphor: months of preparation and due diligence lead to a joyous union and (we hope) decades of happiness as life partners. In the case of the acquisition of Zale Corp. by Signet Jewelers Ltd., the comparison is just poor writing, since all companies involved are mall jewelry stores, where Americans buy their wedding bling. [More]
You can never have enough diamonds. If you’re Signet Jewelers that’s an accurate statement. The parent company of Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry is adding to its inventory by purchasing Zale Corporation, the parent company of jewelry store Zales. [More]
While we all have that one friend who is constantly littering our Facebook timelines with YouTube links to “Hilarius!” [sic] commercials, most of us hate advertisements. Even the ones that are funny or interesting the first time you see them will inevitably begin to grate after you see it for the 10th time in an hour. But some ads never even earn that initial chuckle, and instead go right to pushing that nerve that makes you want to body-slam your beloved 55″ TV. [More]
It seems that the only way Brian’s girlfriend could keep the necklace he bought her at Kay Jewelers from breaking is to not wear it, which isn’t really the intended use of a necklace. It has now broken three times in the same spot. He bought an extended warranty, which would have been a good idea if the store would replace the chain instead of repairing it over and over. Instead, he has to turn in the chain and pendant for store credit and buy something else. Why can’t they replace the defective chain and leave Brian the pendant? Because they just can’t.
David bought a charm bracelet from Kay Jewelers last Christmas, and allowed an employee to upsell him to a different type of clasp for an extra $20. After the second time it broke, they tried to exchange the bracelet for one with a sturdier lobster claw clasp, but were denied–Kay would have to refund the difference in price, which they weren’t about to do. A few months later, assuming the bracelet issue was a fluke, David bought his girlfriend a ring at the same Kay store. He presented it to her this Christmas, and one of the diamonds fell out within days. And the charm bracelet broke again. He made another trip to the store to get these two items replaced. Likely his last trip to a Kay store ever.
Consumerist readers may fault Michelle for patronizing a chain jewelry store, but she and her family have a solid relationship with their local Kay Jewelers store. Such a solid relationship, in fact, that when her boyfriend’s pocket watch needed repairs, she brought it back to the store in her hometown when it needed repairs. This turned out to be a mistake: she would have done just as well putting the watch under her mattress.
Good news! Reader Jennifer’s wedding set has returned from its long voyage to China for repair. The bad news: she writes that the repair work done in China was so terrible that her local store sent it back out to a US repair facility to be fixed. When Jennifer finally went to pick the rings up, she found their repair job unsatisfactory–the word “botched” comes up–and now they’ve been sent back. Again.
Jennifer and her husband bought her diamond wedding ring set in 2006, and the anniversary band to go along with it in 2007. They also bought an extended warranty for the rings, which was either a great idea or a terrible one, depending on how you look at it. It was a great idea because her rings seem to be defective. It was a terrible idea because she ultimately sent the jewelry off to the vendor in China for repair, and now Kay representatives are ducking her questions. She fears that the rings have been lost.
Kay Jewelers deformed Lisa’s wedding ring during a routine cleaning and refuses to provide a replacement ring. Lisa first noticed that a tiny diamond was missing, which Kay Jewelers found stuck in their cleaning equipment. In the process of reseating the diamond, Kay again deformed the ring, scratching out the ring’s beaded edges. Kay decided they couldn’t repair the destroyed ring, but rather than ordering a new one from the manufacturer, Kay decided to remake the ring using a low-resolution picture of the original as their guide. Shockingly, that ring didn’t work out either. It’s now been three months and Lisa wants her wedding ring back.