Plane janes luxury boutique A reseller on www.malleries.com plane janes luxury boutique malleries fake bag mesa, Arizona

plane jane email

1 of many emails from janet reid unedited

most photos on malleries stay on for quite a while.The fake blue jean kelly pictures were removed by janet reid, within days of its sale.I allways book mark a site so i can see what is on its way.I could no longer view her photos within a few days of the sale,as the listing was removed,and even when googled,the listing came up till recently,but with no picture.You'd just be directed to a malleries page,which is what happened at the time.I allways make notes on the bag.serial number if chanel,in this case a (i) 2005 kelly.Hence why, while The AA listing was still up,i got janet to view the bag online,so she could compare, to her own pictures.She could see nothing wrong with it.The aa listing could be viewed up until recently,i can still see the main photo.Also even if its not my credit card,i wouldn't carry on buying items through janet if i though,there was a remote chance i may get a fake.More items were purchased afterwoods.As stated she has been offered any information documents she needs.If a person does not respond herself or through a lawyer,to us its clear,she is pulling a fast one.Elizabeth worked for a bank,everything is in order,she has receipts and documents dating back to the 80'' and beyond.

As clearly stated,Elizabeth purchased the bag in 2009 for ME!.The fake stayed in Elizabeth's house where i also stayed, until sept 2010.It was then sent to AA,this is the same bag listed on ebay,which janet reid viewed,and could see nothing wrong with.The pictures were viewable for a long time online,via goofbay.Janet was asked to compare photos of her own to the AA listing, as both bags have the same markings.The handle is the give away of the bag .This is the same bag,although AA went bust,they ran off with the money,but very smartly returned all  bags.All my bags  returned , were the same items i sent,no switches .I'm sure they will re-open with another name in the future.This is the same bag given into hermes,and the same one i have back now.Janet refused to except the bag back,when AA offered to ship it directly to her,this was before they went bust!.Janet has been offered by the next of kin,any documents she needs,they have always been happy to send them.Janet ignored emails from me and them after being informed ,paris had said the bag was fake.Janet reid does not want to pay,no matter what information documents she is sent,she knows full well this is her bag.Betty's death is the excuse she has used all along.She is correct i didn't buy this bag,but she had been emailing me and next of kin for months.You didn't know betty,one thing she didn't like,was to be taken for a ride,and that is what janet reid is doing.Betty was a fighter,and would not stand for being ripped off.she would want people to know she is not just a name,but a person.I took betty's photos off the forum when she had just passed,and had put it up before with her concent. I have no concern in your thoughts at all,for printing betty's photo,you did not know her,i did.As i know she would be happy for it to be there,and her family are happy for me to expose janet.sorry i posted before,without reading,what was written,and in reply to a email,which said a reply from janet..sorry im in scotland ,and not london,i only have 1 ip address,which im sure is checkable

To the author.... I read your posts on Effen Haute Forum.  You have stated that you were NOT the actual buyer-of-record of the Hermes Kelly bag, nor the actual purchaser from Plane Jane Boutique.  Per your posts, the bag was purchased from Plane Jane in 2009, so someone has had possession of this bag for over a year. 

You posted that you sent the Kelly to now defunct UK consignment store, Always Authentic Manchester, to re-sell around the time that your employer died in Sept 2010.  AAM did list an Hermes Kelly for sale on ebay around this same time, that was deemed fake on tPF.  And I presume that AAM claimed the bag in the listing was yours.  Photos on ebay have been removed, so the photos in the AAM ebay listing now cannot be compared to the bag sold by PJB.

You have also publicly posted complaints against UK reseller Always Authentic Manchester, claiming that they still owe you money from prior transactions.  The bag deemed counterfeit by Hermes is in fact the bag that was returned to you by UK seller Always Authentic Manchester.  Is that accurate? 

My point is that you have a receipt showing that someone other than ourself bought "an Hermes Kelly" from PJB, over a year ago.  You have photos of a Blue Jean Hermes Kelly.  You have a letter from Hermes stating "an Hermes Kelly" is not authentic.  And you claim to have in your possession a fake Hermes Kelly that was returned to you by AAM.
If the bag has markings unique ONLY to this ONE bag, then possibly comparison of photos from PJB's original listing, AAM's ebay listing, AND the bag you have in your possession may could prove without doubt that all of these bags are one-in-the-same. Otherwise, over a year has gone by since the bag was purchased from PJB, and this bag has "passed hands" several times, which makes this entire scenario all the more difficult.

*******************************

To reference the current post #5:  it appears that this comment has been made by the author.  The posting styles are exactly the same in lack of punctuation.  The author's posting style is unmistakable. 

*******************************

Author:  You have lost some credibility in your public posting of your deceased's employer's photo here and her personal name and address on Complaints Board.  I find this very disrespectful and I have to wonder if this woman's family has given you explicit permission to do so, or is even aware that you have done so.  Doing so without explicit permission may not be legal.

I also do not comprehend why you have posted this complaint, then attempted to respond to your own complaint under a 2nd ID. 

The cheek of the reseller,to write that crap. she has been in contact with mrs rae's carer ,and power of attorney for months.She is disgracefull,the reseller just won't pay,for the fake she sold.you should print her emails,as they reveal,her true colours.she should at least reply, to mrs Rae's executor of the estate.As that is who, she should refund the money to.she may not have the money,but clearly is not going to refund,if she can get away with it.Very sad,as mrs Rae is deceased ,in my book,that makes what plane Jane is doing even worst.The executor can prove,the bag was bought from plaine jane,but she also admits it,in her emails to you.Hope you get your hard earned wages back!.I think you have more chances of wining the lotto,better put your numbers in.

There are, indeed, two sides to every story - however, why do I still feel I've only heard one?

As a friend of the author of this report and also, someone who works in consumer advocacy, I have been kept informed of the entire situation and even after reading the (supposed) rebuttal, still have no reason, whatsoever, to believe that the author's side of the story is incorrect.

I am always eager to maintain an open mind, as far as is humanly possible. However, in this instance, it is extremely hard for me to believe that the seller has not just decided to use the complications of the situation (i.e. the death of her customer) as a convenient smokescreen, to try to avoid her legal responsibilities.

Otherwise, why wouldn't she have attempted to answer the complaint fully? As opposed to just denying all knowledge of it and half-heartedly, dismissing the author as just another potential competitor?

I also would have thought that it would be perfectly possible to, categorically, prove that a bag of this type was purchased from Plane Jane, by the late employer of the author, via the aforementioned credit card statement?

I'm sure a document, with photos, could be provided, to prove that it is the same bag, rather than a switched one, too?

If Plane Jane has some information that proves that what the author is saying, regarding this situation, is incorrect in any way, then I think she should, of course, post it here.

However, if her only argument is that the author wasn't (technically) her customer and that of course she wouldn't do this sort of thing, with her reputation, then her argument seems extremely weak, to me...?

janet reid,there are lots of resellers,who sometimes get caught out,with the odd fakes slipping through.

janet reid,you know full well Mrs elizabeth rae purchased this bag from you, in nov of 2009.It has been explained to you, by me and mrs raes next of kin,the bests! ,that i worked for mrs rae as a care giver.

The individual who wrote this post is not currently, nor was she ever registered with Malleries.com.  She has not purchased so much as a single item from any Malleries shop owner, including Plane Janes Luxury Boutique.  I dont know what her motivation is for her negative post.  Perhaps she is planning to compete. 

I have been a Malleries seller for nearly three years, and am one of the top sellers on the site.  Although you cant please all of the people all of the time, as they say, it would not have been possible for me to have reached this level of success had I engaged in improper, illegal, impolite or inappropriate behavior in terms of my buyers.  Conversely, I have excellent feedback as well as an impressive list of satisfied repeat buyers.  Accordingly, it would be completely out of character for me to attempt to perpetrate a fraud.