Willee, my comments and questions haven't been related to the quality of the blanks, either the originals or the replacements he sent.
(snip)
I was asking for clarification from Gary on specific comments he made- comments that indicated Russell had to prove that he'd bought the blanks here, and when asked why that was an issue, his response seemed to indicate that if they were sold here, he had to stand behind them but if they weren't sold here, that would be different.
Yes, I understand what you were asking.
Since Gary did replace them he did stand behind them so that is what you would call a MOOT question.
I chose to ignore that issue also because it did not pertain to the real issues of the original poster.
I just did not see any wisdom in going down that road at this time.
I realize this is most likely beating a dead horse, but:
This was a vendor review, not a transaction review (albeit based on a transaction). The reviewer indicated he was dissatisfied with the quality of both the original and the replacements. This portion of the review obviously has a lot of room for subjectivity. The reviewer posted pictures, allowing each of us to better determine our own subjective opinion. Some will think the blanks were fine, and there was not a valid basis for the negative assessment. Others, after looking at the pictures, may have also questioned the quality of the blanks. Those that think the blanks look fine will no doubt agree that Gary stood behind his product, and may agree that my asking Gary to clarify what his policy is was a moot question (and thanks for using that correctly, I see and hear so many folks calling that a
mute point!). Those that questioned the quality of the blanks may look at it from the perspective that having a poor product replaced by another poor product is not much of a guarantee (granted the subjective nature of what quality should be). It's a lot easier to say that replacing a broken camera bought on-line with another broken camera doesn't satisfy a manufacturers obligation, given the lack of subjectivity in having a broken camera. Willee, you indicated you "chose to ignore that issue also because it did not pertain to the real issues of the original poster", and I would agree somewhat if this was strictly a review of the transaction instead of the vendor. Generally it's pretty easy to nail down whether a vendor will stand behind their product or not. Gary is the one who seemed to indicate he had different standards based on whether you were buying from him through the most valued vendors classifieds or not. I asked for clarification, since this struck me as odd. In responding to my post, Gary indicated I had added words and he didn't understand why or what my thoughts were. As is obvious from this and my previous posts, I can tend to run on a bit. I know that. But after breaking it down in more detail, Gary put a non-response (in my opinion) out there (I have nothing more to add to this- the facts have been posted.).
From my perspective, I still have no clear idea whether he only stands behind his product if it was bought from the MVV classifieds, or if he always does, regardless of where it was purchased. And that is based on his posts. As Gary himself said, the facts have been posted. Those facts are that Gary replaced a set of blanks with another set of blanks that the purchaser was not satisfied with. Maybe the customers expectations weren't realistic, we'll all get to form our own opinion on that. It's also a fact that Gary posted a challenge/demand to Russell to prove that the blanks were purchased here, and specifically said that "buying an item other than here would be a different animal". It's also a fact that when this statement was questioned, the only clarification Gary offered was that if they were purchased through the MVV classifieds, he is required to stand behind them. Maybe I'm just burned out with all the double-speak and non-answers we seem to get out of the politicians in both parties these days, but come on- how hard is it to say I'll stand behind my product, regardless of how and when you bought it? Or if that's not the case, bluntly admit that you only stand behind your product under certain circumstances? Either way, it is what it is. It would just be nice to know. And if we don't know, "Caveat Emptor" (let the buyer beware) would seem to be appropriate. Gary, my apologies if you have provided a clear answer and I have missed it. Seriously. And if you haven't, and could provide clarification, I really would appreciate it.
I have been asked to give a review of the snake skin blanks. I hesitated to make the first post but have been encouraged to tell all publicly. The reason for this is not to hurt the vendors that make quality blanks, just those that are substandard.
