30 Apr 2004 19:48:20
Reef Fish
Sea and Sea MX-10 DID NOT honor warranty on manufacturing defect

I am pleased to bring my case against Sea and Sea to a happy closure,
and publicly thank Matt Endo for his role as the go-between between
myself and Yamaguchi-san, President of Sea & Sea, as well as
Mr. Yamaguchi himself and the rep of a new repair/service center.


I had written the following, in private email to Matt, today:

RF > When I received this email of yours, I had suspected some kind of
RF > bureaucratic run-around, but I was extremely pleased and surprised
RF > upon phoning Mr. Dan Blodget to learn that he was most sincere
RF > and helpful, and in just one short phone conversation, he was
ready
RF > to send me a "replacement" (nearly new) MX-10 camera immediately.

Apparently the former USA "warranty and repair" center (in 2002) had
similar problems and complaints, and had been replaced by the present
one(s), including the one run by Mr. Dan Blodget.

The prompt resolution was beyond my expectation. I hope the present
MX-10 will serve me as well as the (stolen) one I had from 1992 to
2001.

I do not know if the former technician who refused to honor the
warranty
had followed my instruction:

RF > I told him to smash the camera with the biggest HAMMER he could
RF > find, and not bother to mail me back that POS.

But I am happy to get the replacement now, with the same 1-year
warranty
as a new one.

My thanks to all.

-- Bob.


From: Reef Fish (Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com)
Subject: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID NOT honor warranty on manufacturing
defect
Newsgroups: rec.scuba.equipment, rec.scuba, uk.rec.scuba,
aus.sport.scuba, rec.photo.digital
Date: 2004-02-09 10:18:59 PST

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1g8up0d.1sgod70qx8veoN@yahoobb219000172008.bbtec.net >...
> > Sea and Sea Japan is alive and well, I'll see Mr. Yamaguchi, the
> > present, today at the Diving Festival in Tokyo.
>
> Sorry, to correct my previous post, I meant President.

But Sea & Sea's UW camera is not alive nor well -- specifically, my
latest MX-10 (2002) which lasted all of ONE liveaboard dive trip,
within 60 days of the purchase, where MOISTURE (no water leak, mind
you) resulted in damage that required (according to the authorized
service
center in the USA) $270 USD to repair, which cost about the same or
more than buying a new one. It was obviously a MANUFACTURING defect.


I've used an MX-10 from 1992 to 2001 when the camera was stolen with
the rest of my luggage -- so it wasn't exactly a case of a newbie user
of the MX-10 not knowing how to grease the seal or take care of the
camera properly.


All this was carefully explained to the "technician" at the service
center, to no avail.


So, I told him to smash the camera with the biggest HAMMER he could
find, and not bother to mail me back that POS.

I don't know if he followed my instructions, but I did not get the
camera back.


I now have a nearly new (used one week, the same week of the MX-10)
strobe that I'll sell for $20 (or offer) postage paid by purchaser.


Matt, you know me.

Send a copy of this to Mr. Yamaguchi. Perhaps he SHOULD know how
his "technician" in the USA was handling his customers and his
manufacturing defects.


30 Apr 2004 19:56:54
Scott
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID NOT honor warranty on manufacturing defect

Bravo.

Recognition appropriately noted.

Matthew Endo is a square shooter.



"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0404301848.69471c9c@posting.google.com...
> I am pleased to bring my case against Sea and Sea to a happy closure,
> and publicly thank Matt Endo for his role as the go-between between
> myself and Yamaguchi-san, President of Sea & Sea, as well as
> Mr. Yamaguchi himself and the rep of a new repair/service center.
>
>
> I had written the following, in private email to Matt, today:
>
> RF> When I received this email of yours, I had suspected some kind of
> RF> bureaucratic run-around, but I was extremely pleased and surprised
> RF> upon phoning Mr. Dan Blodget to learn that he was most sincere
> RF> and helpful, and in just one short phone conversation, he was
> ready
> RF> to send me a "replacement" (nearly new) MX-10 camera immediately.
>
> Apparently the former USA "warranty and repair" center (in 2002) had
> similar problems and complaints, and had been replaced by the present
> one(s), including the one run by Mr. Dan Blodget.
>
> The prompt resolution was beyond my expectation. I hope the present
> MX-10 will serve me as well as the (stolen) one I had from 1992 to
> 2001.
>
> I do not know if the former technician who refused to honor the
> warranty
> had followed my instruction:
>
> RF> I told him to smash the camera with the biggest HAMMER he could
> RF> find, and not bother to mail me back that POS.
>
> But I am happy to get the replacement now, with the same 1-year
> warranty
> as a new one.
>
> My thanks to all.
>
> -- Bob.
>
>
> From: Reef Fish (Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com)
> Subject: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID NOT honor warranty on manufacturing
> defect
> Newsgroups: rec.scuba.equipment, rec.scuba, uk.rec.scuba,
> aus.sport.scuba, rec.photo.digital
> Date: 2004-02-09 10:18:59 PST
>
> matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message
news:<1g8up0d.1sgod70qx8veoN@yahoobb219000172008.bbtec.net >...
> > > Sea and Sea Japan is alive and well, I'll see Mr. Yamaguchi, the
> > > present, today at the Diving Festival in Tokyo.
> >
> > Sorry, to correct my previous post, I meant President.
>
> But Sea & Sea's UW camera is not alive nor well -- specifically, my
> latest MX-10 (2002) which lasted all of ONE liveaboard dive trip,
> within 60 days of the purchase, where MOISTURE (no water leak, mind
> you) resulted in damage that required (according to the authorized
> service
> center in the USA) $270 USD to repair, which cost about the same or
> more than buying a new one. It was obviously a MANUFACTURING defect.
>
>
> I've used an MX-10 from 1992 to 2001 when the camera was stolen with
> the rest of my luggage -- so it wasn't exactly a case of a newbie user
> of the MX-10 not knowing how to grease the seal or take care of the
> camera properly.
>
>
> All this was carefully explained to the "technician" at the service
> center, to no avail.
>
>
> So, I told him to smash the camera with the biggest HAMMER he could
> find, and not bother to mail me back that POS.
>
> I don't know if he followed my instructions, but I did not get the
> camera back.
>
>
> I now have a nearly new (used one week, the same week of the MX-10)
> strobe that I'll sell for $20 (or offer) postage paid by purchaser.
>
>
> Matt, you know me.
>
> Send a copy of this to Mr. Yamaguchi. Perhaps he SHOULD know how
> his "technician" in the USA was handling his customers and his
> manufacturing defects.




03 May 2004 15:22:30
Matthew Endo
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID NOT honor warranty on manufacturing defect

Scott <scottk@localaxess.com > wrote:

> Matthew Endo is a square shooter.

Thanks, Scott.

Feesh is one noisy customer (and should be). However, in this case for
whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan; the Sea and Sea
USA tech did not contact S&S Japan to get a warranty replacement
authorization.

It just happens that I know Mr. Yamaguchi who is the President of Sea
and Sea Japan and he was instrumental in resolving the issue promptly.

I know that Sea and Sea is very concerned about the reputation of their
products and they stand behind them.

Thanks very much to Dan Blodget, the owner of Sub Aquatic Camera repair
Co. who is the new repair center for Sea and Sea in the U.S.

--
Matt
matt@gol.com


03 May 2004 05:32:16
Dennis (Icarus)
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID honor warranty on manufacturing defect

"Matthew Endo" <matt@gol.com > wrote in message
news:1gd7tfp.84cpur1azs67qN@yahoobb219000172010.bbtec.net...
> Scott <scottk@localaxess.com> wrote:
>
> > Matthew Endo is a square shooter.
>
> Thanks, Scott.
>
> Feesh is one noisy customer (and should be). However, in this case for
> whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan; the Sea and Sea
> USA tech did not contact S&S Japan to get a warranty replacement
> authorization.
>
> It just happens that I know Mr. Yamaguchi who is the President of Sea
> and Sea Japan and he was instrumental in resolving the issue promptly.

Very good - I went ahead & changed the subject.

>
> I know that Sea and Sea is very concerned about the reputation of their
> products and they stand behind them.

Glad to hear it. I've a Motor Marne II ex -very nice!

>
> Thanks very much to Dan Blodget, the owner of Sub Aquatic Camera repair
> Co. who is the new repair center for Sea and Sea in the U.S.

Dennis
>
> --
> Matt
> matt@gol.com




03 May 2004 10:59:41
Reef Fish
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID honor warranty on manufacturing defect

"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid > wrote in message news:<109c7ng8851ihc9@corp.supernews.com>...


Dennis, thanks for posting this follow-up in the new subject.
I kept the old subject in my preceding posts for SOLE reason that
anyone who read the "Did NOT honor" THREAD would have realized
that it had been satisfctorily resolved, for the record.


> "Matthew Endo" <matt@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:1gd7tfp.84cpur1azs67qN@yahoobb219000172010.bbtec.net...
> > Scott <scottk@localaxess.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Matthew Endo is a square shooter.
> >
> > Thanks, Scott.
> >
> > Feesh is one noisy customer (and should be).

I take exception to the "noisy customer" label, though it was
qualified by the "(and should be)". I did not even bother to
complain in rec.scuba until I saw your (Matt Endo) post about
how well Sea & Sea was and that you were meeting its President
Yamaguchi.

So I took the opportunity (two years after the incident) to
suggest that you let Mr. Yamaguchi know what was happening to
his company in the USA, which did NOT honor the warranty on an
MX-10 I purchased.


> > However, in this case for
> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan; the Sea and Sea
> > USA tech did not contact S&S Japan to get a warranty replacement
> > authorization.

Let's get THIS record straight. In Matt's email to me, he included
Dan Blodget's email, in which Dan wrote:

DB > Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
DB > help you out with your MX-10 concern,

I had assumed the e-mail from Japan was referring to an e-mail from
either Yamaguchi or his Sea & Sea company representative.

It's now apparent that he was referring to YOUR (Matt Endo's) email.


> > It just happens that I know Mr. Yamaguchi who is the President of Sea
> > and Sea Japan and he was instrumental in resolving the issue promptly.

I think now that we got this far, you should perhaps let us know HOW
Mr. Yamaguchi was instrumental in resolving the issue.

It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.

That was why I said, in my post, and my email to Matt,

RF > When I received this email of yours, I had suspected some kind of
RF > bureaucratic run-around, but I was extremely pleased and surprised
RF > upon phoning Mr. Dan Blodget


So, if Dan did not get his info or directives from Mr. Yamaguchi or
his office, then he must have taken it upon HIMSELF to "help out"
as a friend of YOURS and as the new Service Center manager.

Matt > > However, in this case for
Matt > > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan

Matt, I thought you HAD, or had intended to, present my case, not
only to Japan, but to Mr. Yamaguchi himself!

I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.

Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
the cost of repairing them.

In another similar situatio, I had purchase a ScubaPro Sonar unit
that didn't work well. In a rec.scuba discussion about the use
of hand-sonar for find boats and/or objects, I merely expressed
the opinion that I did not have much success with it and my unit
had been shelved. That was two or three YEARS after the Warranty
had already expired. But someone in the company read my post,
and immediately offered me a new Sonar II (the much more expensive
and newer unit) without any cost to me.

THOSE are my only "replacement" experiences on scuba equipment,
both AFTER the warranty had expired, WITHOUT me asking for any
replacemnt!


As for Sea & Sea, I was unjustly REFUSED warranty coverage, haveing
used the camera on ONE trip, two MONTHs after purchase, when the
warranty was for 1 year.

It was now rectified, perhaps with less "class" than either of the
other two reputable companies Ikelite and Scubapro.

This is NOT a complaint. But since I was accused of being "noisy"
and even though I had thanked everyone publicly (without any of
the foregoing less-than-glowing details, I thought, for the record,
that such should be expressed, given Matt's present post.


In particular, now it seems to me that Mr. Yamaguchi did not really
play any role other than a name that had been thrown around. Am I
correct or not correct in this seemingless inevitable conclusion?


Matt > > However, in this case for whatever reason,
Matt > > his <Reef Fish, I presume> case was not presented to Japan


>
> Very good - I went ahead & changed the subject.
>
> > I know that Sea and Sea is very concerned about the reputation of their
> > products and they stand behind them.
>
> Glad to hear it. I've a Motor Marne II ex -very nice!


After my public post of thanks to all (unbeknownst to Matt at the time),
I received an email reply from Matt on my personal thanks to HIM,
suggesting that I should post something that are MUCH more
extravagant than Sea & Sea deserved, beyond what I had already posted.

So, I wrote this to Matt in my reply:

RF > I already posted a follow-up BEFORE I received either of your
RF > emails. I believe I gave the proper credits and acknowledgments,
RF > though not as your wording above might have suggested.

RF > Sorry. I am a simple soul who minced no words and give no
RF > extravagent praise, no more than I thought was appropriate.

RF > Thanks again. I am glad the case is now closed.



I hope the case is closed now, given the additional details pertinent
to it.


I am a "noisy customer"?

I might have expected that remark from Mike Cochran <G >, but not from
anyone else, even if it was intended NOT as a complaint, nor meant
in a derogatory way.

In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.

That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.


> > Thanks very much to Dan Blodget, the owner of Sub Aquatic Camera repair
> > Co. who is the new repair center for Sea and Sea in the U.S.
> > --
> > Matt
> > matt@gol.com

Given the NEW information by Matt in his post, I should AMPLIFY his
thanks and MINE to Dan Blodget -- who I think took several things
into his own hands (the nearly-new replacement, not charging me for
the postage, etc.) that would hardly be a "class act" if it had been
directed by the Sea & Sea President Yamaguchi.


My thanks to Matt Endo remain the same. He was instrumental in bringing
my case of complaint to whomever that led to the resolution.

(Matt did say it took him a long time to find the DIRECT mailing address
to Mr. Yamaguchi, not wanting his e-mail/letter to get lost in the
public letter piles; but I am not sure now if Yamaguchi EVER got the
facts I provided, or whether HE personally played any role in this
replacement act or terms), in view of this:

Matt > > However, in this case for whatever reason,
Matt > > his <Reef Fish, I presume> case was not presented to Japan

-- Bob.


03 May 2004 11:30:25
Reef Fish
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID honor warranty on manufacturing defect

"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid > wrote in message news:<109c7ng8851ihc9@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Matthew Endo" <matt@gol.com> wrote in message
> news:1gd7tfp.84cpur1azs67qN@yahoobb219000172010.bbtec.net...
> > Scott <scottk@localaxess.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Matthew Endo is a square shooter.

But not as straight a shooter as I had thought.

> >
> > Thanks, Scott.
> >
> > Feesh is one noisy customer (and should be). However, in this case for
> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan; the Sea and Sea
> > USA tech did not contact S&S Japan to get a warranty replacement
> > authorization.
> >
> > It just happens that I know Mr. Yamaguchi who is the President of Sea
> > and Sea Japan and he was instrumental in resolving the issue promptly.


See my preceding post giving VERY explicit detailed information, in
both the words of Matt Endo and Dan Blodget, which was MY
understanding of what transpired, but which is at the same time
at odds with what Matt described now.

-- Bob.


04 May 2004 06:35:40
Matthew Endo
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID honor warranty on manufacturing defect

Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com > wrote:

> > > > Matthew Endo is a square shooter.
>
> But not as straight a shooter as I had thought.

Yeah, I might be square, I'm sure a shooter, but sometimes can't shoot
straight!

--
Matt
matt@gol.com


04 May 2004 06:35:40
Matthew Endo
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID honor warranty on manufacturing defect

Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com > wrote:

> > > Feesh is one noisy customer (and should be).
>
> I take exception to the "noisy customer" label, though it was
> qualified by the "(and should be)".

Well, Feesh, you would, but I still reserve the right to tease you so!
The reason why companies get better is by having customers who demand
world class service. See my explanation below.

> DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,
>
> I had assumed the e-mail from Japan was referring to an e-mail from
> either Yamaguchi or his Sea & Sea company representative.
>
> It's now apparent that he was referring to YOUR (Matt Endo's) email.

The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> > > It just happens that I know Mr. Yamaguchi who is the President of Sea
> > > and Sea Japan and he was instrumental in resolving the issue promptly.
>
> I think now that we got this far, you should perhaps let us know HOW
> Mr. Yamaguchi was instrumental in resolving the issue.

To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
case.

> It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.

To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
a request for the text of the letter. Of course, Bob was on yet another
dive trip causing a few weeks delay, but after getting the original
text, I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
caused an additional delay on my part. I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi
responded the very next day after I had collected all the information
and sent it to him.

> Matt> > However, in this case for
> Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan

Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
Japan by the US service tech.

> I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.

I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
dissolved some time ago. So, probably they felt the best way was to
give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock. Just my
guess/opinion.

> Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> the cost of repairing them.

I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

> I am a "noisy customer"?

Uh oh, I knew I would get flamed for that remark!

> I might have expected that remark from Mike Cochran <G>, but not from
> anyone else, even if it was intended NOT as a complaint, nor meant
> in a derogatory way.

Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

> In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
>
> That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.

Thanks for the followup!

--
Matt
matt@gol.com


03 May 2004 23:09:00
Jason O'Rourke
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID honor warranty on manufacturing defect

Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com > wrote:
>> > > > Matthew Endo is a square shooter.
>> But not as straight a shooter as I had thought.
>
>Yeah, I might be square, I'm sure a shooter, but sometimes can't shoot
>straight!

You need to shoot more during your trips back to California.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com


04 May 2004 08:33:18
Matthew Endo
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID honor warranty on manufacturing defect

Jason O'Rourke <jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu > wrote:

> Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com> wrote:
> >> > > > Matthew Endo is a square shooter.
> >> But not as straight a shooter as I had thought.
> >
> >Yeah, I might be square, I'm sure a shooter, but sometimes can't shoot
> >straight!
>
> You need to shoot more during your trips back to California.

Agreed! But have you seen the latest hunting license fees in Kali? All
the rates for everything have increased incredibly. Thanks, Guv!

--
Matt
matt@gol.com


03 May 2004 21:35:24
Reef Fish
Re: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID honor warranty on manufacturing defect

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bbtec.net >...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. :-) In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) :-) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate. :-)

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com >

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt > OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10. :-)


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product). :-)


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time. :-)

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.