Texas woman buys $24K Taylor Swift ring from Jared. Then they refuse to give her: ‘Show me the documents’
A Texas woman bought a 35-carat pink sapphire Kallati ring from Jared’s website, only for the company to tell her that the ring was “unsalvageable” with little to no additional explanation. Confused, she asked for additional documentation, just for Jared’s employees to tell her the item was “reticketed” and possibly put back into their inventory.
Danielle (@deltalash), a licensed esthetician living in North Richland Hills, Texas, noticed something was off with the return almost immediately. It wasn’t until she started questioning the return that things truly started to go sour, resulting in disputes with her bank and issues getting her money back.
Danielle’s shopping experience with Jared
Danielle placed her order for Jared’s pink sapphire Kallati ring, but quickly realized that the company wasn’t going to send it over to her.
“On [Nov. 17], Jared let me know that because they were unable to deliver the goods, they were going to remove the ring from my account… [I] still [had] no documentation about anything that had happened to the ring,” Danielle said.
By Nov. 19, Jared had manually entered that there was an “in-store return” for the ring on her account. They later offered her around 25,000 in in-store credit for Claudia.com. They also offered her a replica, the ring’s mold, and other items that Danielle ultimately did not want. She just wanted the ring.
She tried to make multiple calls to Jared to receive a copy of her receipt, but she noticed the company seemed to dodge her attempts to get one. Finally, she got a copy by physically going in-store to the company’s Hearst location. That’s when she noticed some peculiarities, such as the letters “RTK” printed on her receipt, which to her indicated something bigger was transpiring.
She later made a call to Jared during her video to discover what “RTK” means. According to her, the company may still have the ring she bought, but they “reticketed” it.
“ Jared has told me that they cannot make Kallati give it to [them] to give it to me, so Jared doesn’t have it. OK. So this [reticketing] code is saying that I’m giving this item that I never received back to Jared to put into their inventory because it’s not damaged… So, it’s back in their inventory,” Danielle said.
Essentially, Danielle claims that Jared deliberately issued a return for the item despite it being “available” and will not send her the item she purchased now.
Wait, how expensive is the ring?
According to Page Six, the Kallati ring Danielle attempted to purchase is worth a jaw-dropping $27,120. It has a 35k Sapphire stone, with 1k carats of diamonds surrounding the center design. The ring is notable and even famous in some communities, as Taylor Swift wore it, alongside a velvet bodysuit created by The Blonds, in November.
Both the ring and bodysuit featured heavily in Taylor Swift’s “The Life of a Showgirl: The Crowd Is Your King” vinyl artwork, sold exclusively at Target. That’s something Danielle had noticed herself. “Taylor Swift had worn [the ring] for her Target vinyl ad on Nov. 13th, Nov. 14th and Nov. 17th,” Danielle said.
Danielle got the ring on sale. With her total return credit being $24,351.91 after Jared issues the return. Some theorized that Jared deliberately issued the “return” on Danielle’s behalf because they sold it to her for significantly less than what it should retail for. Swift wore it for some time, making it more valuable overall. She also clarified that the item is “one of a kind” and is, in fact, the same thing Swift wore for her photoshoots.
Tense discussions in the comments section—was Danielle justified in complaining?
Many people thought that Danielle was expecting too much from Jared after they processed her full return. Despite her not getting the ring back, she still did get recompensated.
“So you purchased a ring, and your order got cancelled?” one commenter asked. “Is that what you are saying? Happens quite often with most companies ordering online.”
One commenter wrote, “This is common practice for any company who cannot fulfill an order…. The company did right by you… Otherwise, you could be on the hook for any accrued interest if they waited. As far as providing purchase information, it is common to verify identification (id) before giving purchase/return information… ‘Family members’ are not privy to that information.”
Danielle replied, “Yeah, definitely not a common situation. This was a one of [a] kind item that they deemed unsalvageable without any proof or documentation. [They] then made me offer[s]… as long as I signed a document saying I wouldn’t discuss [it]. They didn’t return it right away, they waited until after 30 days.”
What do the sales numbers Danielle analyzed actually mean?
According to some commenters, Danielle also misinterpreted the “reticket” numbers.
“That’s not what the salesperson numbers mean,” said one viewer. “[The manager] is [the person] who originally got credit for the sale and therefore lost credit for the sale. The other salesperson number is who processed this transaction. RTK is short for ‘re-ticket,’ which is the category the staff can find the ring in. RTK is literally just a category, [and] any inventoried item can go in it.”
Danielle replied, saying, “There is no way a back end return is a higher up calling the original salesperson to give them personal information of the customer that they have to physically type in to process a return in the same store… [get the expletive out].”
Danielle has posted regularly about the incident and has contacted the Better Business Bureau, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Texas attorney general with her concerns.
The Mary Sue has reached out to Danielle and Jared for additional information.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
