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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

But not as straight a shooter as I had thought.

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.