Vicmarc Trouble***

Re: How an different manufacturer handled a proble

e

>in addition to russ's comments, the packaging of a oneway lathe is spectacular. my 2436 arrived on the other side of the continent without a single item loose or scratched.

furthermore, all issues and problems have been handled with the same service as Russ reports.

I wish I could find a company like oneway to work for! they know their business and they know turning!

yeah Russ......

TDaniel

>I agree. When I was in manufacturing I always said "a properly handled problem is the best sales tool one has". that motor cost Oneway a couple hundred bucks but it probably produced about $20,000 in sales.

TD

Fog...

TDaniel

>The old saying "The buck stops here" is important. The guy at the top has the responsibility to direct company policy and procedure. It is his duty to establish how problems should be handled. Blaming an intermediate is merely politics. Bottom line is the guy at the top takes responsibilty and moves on. If his company is not going where he wants it to go he makes changes. If he is satisfied with things as they are it is his money to lose. I have been there; it is not easy. But every problem is an opportunity.

TD

Vicmarc's Response

Vicmarc Machinery

>Vicmarc Machinery would like to address the situation regarding David Wheelers lathe.

Vicmarc became aware of the problem that David Wheeler was experiencing through the seller, who had forwarded David Wheelers email regarding his problem on to Vicmarc. We tried to source and rectify the problem via various emails back and forth, which the seller was copied into. As we could not alleviate the problem we did state that a replacement lathe would be sent. Vicmarc Machinery�s policy has always been that if a customer is experiencing a genuine manufacturing fault that cannot be resolved we will gladly replace the product. The replacement lathe was made and was ready to be despatched until facts about the history of the lathe were revealed to Vicmarc Machinery at the recent AAW Symposium.

The seller informed Vicmarc Machinery that the lathe had rolled in transport and the insurance company had paid for this. The seller endeavoured to repair the lathe, which was sold to the buyer for a reduced price. This constitutes it now being a 2nd Hand lathe. During our meeting with the seller, it was decided that the lathe would have to be assessed to source whether the problem was because of the accident.

Vicmarc has, over 20 years, built a good reputation that we would not endeavour to damage with poor customer service. Customer satisfaction is our priority. In any other situation we would have replaced the lathe without hesitation but due to the circumstances we need to find out the real cause of the problem.

Regarding the comment of packaging made by the seller, we have sent wood lathes all over the world for many, many, years and have very little report of damage in transit. The lathe was damaged by the seller�s freight forwarder and Vicmarc cannot be held responsible for their actions. The sellers insurance company then reimbursed him for this.

With the full facts available to us we believe that the responsibility of rectifying the situation is on the seller. If Vicmarc and the customer had been fully aware of the situation I am sure we would not be in this position of justifying ourselves.

Victor Verrecchia

Owner/Managing Director

Vicmarc Machinery Pty Ltd

Re: Vicmarc's Response

David Wheeler

>I'll respond as soon as I hear from Terry. My initial reaction is that surly Vic misunderstood Terry.

Re: Fog...

Fog Tanner

>Terry,

You are right. I think that is what happened, Victor found out he could not be an absentee owner and had to look after business if he wanted to have a business. I think that getting rid of the GM was the first step and now he needs to step up to the plate and make things right again. I worked for a company where similar things happened. The owner had put his dues in, got interested in other things and turned the keys over to someone else. After having three different presidents screw things up, and all the hassles of setting things right again, he finally sold the company. The last president was a total screw up and should have been fired and the company would not have been sold. But he wasn't and it was, so I place some of the blame on the owner. Same situation at Vicmarc, the majority goes to the guy running the show with owner sharing some. If Victor doesn't take care of the problem, then he gets to have it all..

But, on a more promising note, it is good to know that there are still honorable men that stand behind what they sell. Your note emphaticly stating that you would repair the lathe shows there is still some hope in the world. Especially when the company you are representing expects you to foot the repair charges. Too bad more people don't appreciate people like you, if they did we wouldn't have Walmart. My hat is off to you and Paul J. for your support of Vicmarc under these conditions.

Fog

To all concerned:

TDaniel

>There seems to have been some communication problems with this matter. The problem WILL be taken care of. Whether the repairs are made by me or Vicmarc at my expense or theirs may be in doubt but I can assure both David and any interested party that the problems Will be fixed. I feel that any product that I sell is an endorsement of that product and that company; I do not sell a full line of turning supplies...just what I use daily in my shop and classes. Everything I sell I have confidence in; if I have no confidence in it I don't sell it. I am of the old school where service is everything. I look for companies to represent that agree with this way of doing business. As most of you know, I also represent VB lathes. Neither of these lathes are cheap but service costs a lot of money which takes profit and if the margins are too thin no one can offer fantastic service. This is something to think about when you purchase machinery.

Re: Vicmarc's Response

TDaniel

>Facts are a bit off here. The insurance company did NOT pay for the damages on this lathe. After months of haggling with them they finally agreed to pay for the cost of the parts to make the repairs and the cost of shipping was returned. (This payment was received months after I had sold the lathe) I received nothing for my labor or time. The reason they would not pay the full claim was the box that the lathe was packed in was too small and the lathe did not have the 2" of side clearance that UPS requires. Repairs made were replacing the tailstock shaft and power cord and the on-off switch. If this makes the lathe a second hand lathe then my apologies to everyone I have sold a Vicmarc lathe to because almost all have had some damage in shipment due to poor crating. This lathe was run in my shop prior to shipping to make certain everything was ok but it was not used enough to make it a 2nd hand lathe. As far as me being informed to what was being done, sorry, I was left out. I had to ask David to forward emails to me because Vicmarc did not copy me. David can speak here to this fact.

I stand by my earlier statements: Poor crating and poor communication caused all the problems. There has been no attempt whatever to misrepresent any fact at any time.

TD

Re: Vicmarc's Response

David Wheeler

>07/28/2004

Dear Vicmarc,

Vicmarc regrets that I posted in a public forum. But after considerable thought, I�m thinking it was the right thing to do. I think back on my equipment purchases (nearly all of which were many times the value of this lathe) over the last two years.

Powermatic PM66� fence and table damaged in shipping� promptly replaced no questions asked.

Felder K975 Saw� demo in Delaware before I received it� issues requiring a tech to address� always supported by manufacturer.

I could go on� but in every case the manufacturer supported their dealer and NEVER put the customer in the middle. Good grief how basic is this. Sh*t happens in shipping; especially internationally; it is a given. So what, the tail stock is damaged in shipping; the manufacturer supplies the parts, whatever; it is still a new lathe; worthy of all the support and backing a manufacturer must provide� it is NOT a USED machine� That is an unforgivable copout!

As to my VL100� if it was the tail stock that was damaged� that was obviously taken care of, because it is NOT an issue now. However, there is definitely something BAD going on with the motor/VFD/headstock bearings� who knows.

Clearly Terry didn�t do anything underhanded; otherwise he would not have told Vic about my lathe at the conference. For crying out loud Vicmarc was about to ship out my lathe! That Vicmarc did not communicate with Terry is NOT my problem� and really it is not Terry�s problem. Could it have been handled better� obviously!

So as the dust settles it is clear that Vicmarc needs to take care of this as they intended. You simply CANNOT put your customers in the box! Learn from the �miscommunication�; make a customer happy, even though you greatly increased his stress level; and regroup. These people here almost universally support your equipment. It is a quality product.

I can sympathize with Terry in all this. I have seven businesses that I run; my relationship with my vendors is critical� BUT NEVER would I put my clients in this position. It is simply unacceptable.

I only wish Vicmarc could have heard the GLOWING things Terry told me when he sold me the VL100. He SOLD me the lathe because he believed it it; and he made me believe in it. That is what he is supposed to do. Now, Vicmarc, do what you are supposed to do and support the lathe.

David Wheeler

Re: Vicmarc Trouble***

Bill Grumbine, Kutztown PA

>I've had my Vicmarc VL 100 since 1996. It is a great lathe, but it did not exactly come unblemished. It was missing a set screw, the pulleys were rough enough to cause damage to the belt immediately, and there were dings in the finish from the crating (or lack thereof). This might not sound like much, but try finding a metric set screw eight years ago - it was a long hard search, and I got no help from CS. They would not even take the time to find the size for me. I had such problems dealing with Craft Supplies that Dale Nish himself called me to harangue me, and the whole thing went nuclear at the 1996 woodworking show in Ft. Washington.

This is all ancient history of course. I got the parts I needed through my own efforts, I do not do any business with Craft Supplies ever, my lathe has more dings in it from hard usage over the past 8 years and so on.

HOWEVER - I have read this thread through from beginning to end, and Mr Verrecchia, if you are reading this, you are buying more bad press than you can afford with this incident. I like your lathe, and have even recommended the larger version to students of mine who did not want or could not get a Poolewood like I have. In fact, if it weren't for Craft Supplies being the only dealer I knew of when I bought my Poolewood, I would probably have your big machine as well.

If it were me, I would be sending Mr. Wheeler a new lathe regardless of who did what to what or who, and write it off as good advertising for exemplary customer service. As it is, you are presenting yourself as a miserly manufacturer who is concerned over a few pennies and missing the larger picture entirely. This can all be sorted out behind the scenes, but first and foremost, you need to take care of a customer. Of course, you have the freedom not to do so, but watch and see what happens to your sales numbers as a result.

Like I said, I am a happy Vicmarc owner, but dealing with a company that is on the other side of the world is a little scary for people, and if this memory is what sticks in peoples' minds, you are going to be restricted to walk in business before too long.

Bill

Thanks to All...

David Wheeler

>Thanks to all for your comments and support. It is certain that it is as important to buy from the right source as it is to buy the right equipment. You all know this.

I have gone to great lengths to be careful in everything I have said; and as best I know, everything is on the table. Terry�s commitment is well known and his reputation precedes him. However if Vicmarc abandons him they are inferring that he misrepresented them with my purchase; and, furthermore, they are using that judgment as an excuse not to support a customer. There is no good in this.

Terry sold me a new VFD VL100, chucks, and extension bed. Acting as an agent of Vicmarc he received the lathe with shipping damage. He put the lathe back in new condition; tested it; and sold it to me. He never misrepresented any part of the sale. He told me it was slightly discounted as he had demoed it to be sure it was in working order. I�m always happy to receive equipment with that understanding; a knowledgeable person, setting it up; using it; and it passing his inspection� I�ve learned that is worth a price!

Customer Service

Greg W. in NC

>David, I hope you get this worked out. I know how you feel. I bought a Delta BS, and after I got it home, found out the wheels weren't even in the same plane, and no way to adjust it out. Delta tested a new one in their warehouse and shipped it out to me, then picked up the old one. I'm not a big pusher of Delta tools any more simply because of quality, but I do remember that excellent service, and if they start making high quality tools again I'll step in line immediately.

By comparison to your lathe, my dad and I both bought a Oneway lathe. My dad's lathe was damaged in shipping, damaging the motor. Oneway, without question, immediately shipped out a replacement motor, since my dad indicated he didn't mind installing the new one himself. Heck, I even contacted Kevin directly at his home one evening (his invite) in order to reprogram the ramp up/down times on my lathe! Talk about customer service!

I really hope Vicmark thinks long and hard about their response, as they do have a good reputation for making a good lathe. However, if folks don't have the confidence in their customer service, that'll impact them on multiple levels. Just this situation has reduced their value tremendously in my eyes....glad I went with Oneway.

Good luck David!

Re: To the Group

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Over the years I 've seen quite a few problems between manufacturer/dealer/customer crop up on one or another turning group. I don't think I have ever seen one dealt with in such an informative and level headed manner as this thread. In no small part, I think it is because David set the tone (and IMO created a model) for how these things can be initiated. He openly shared background information (which in itself was respectfully worded) that allowed us to see the facts as the developed. All sides offered their views, and did so in a manner that gave us a good feel for how they approach and deal with problems, as well as the kind of people they are.

IMO it's been a good thread, that has been most informative, and will influence my future actions.

Re: Bottom Line

Malcolm

>The bottom line is, are you a man of your word? I don't care if your talking to a sales rep or the owner of the company, if that rep tell you the company will do something, he is the company. In this case it's the owner of the company, you need to stand by your word, even if you didn't think you had all the facts. When you said you would replace the lathe, you need to stick with your word and do it.

An Open Response to Vicmarc's Response

Binen Eastern Ia

>I found the entire tone of Vicmarc's response troubling and very accusatory to everyone but Vicmarc. The seller was at fault, the transportation company was at fault, the buyer was at fault. Vicmarc had no fault since their packing is fine they �ship all over the world many, many, years and have very little report of damage in transit.�

Your response here told me, as Paul Harvey would say �The Rest of the Story.� The last sentence of you reply says it all.

�If Vicmarc and the customer had been fully aware of the situation I am sure we would not be in this position of justifying ourselves.�

Late last year I ordered a Delta Unisaw. When I received it was obvious the one box had been crushed in shipping. The driver noted the damage on the bill and gave me the trucking companies 800 number. Being unsure of what I needed to do next I called where I ordered it Woodworker's Supply Inc. To make a long story short they told me they would put a new part on a UPS truck that afternoon. Three days later I received a part with a return label for damaged one. No question, no hassle, no waiting just shipped me a new part and they took care of dealing with trucking company insurance. Vicmarc can try and justify their actions all they want. In the end Woodworker's Supply Inc treated me more than fair and will continue to receive my business.

In another post it was suggested people email Vicmarc that we liked their product but not their policy. I suggest to Vicmarc and all companies we can buy your products anyplace. Delta, Jet, Powermatic, and a number of others all make the same products. When we choose to buy �your� product what we are really buying is your policy. The products with minor differences are identical and what we are truly purchasing is your policy dealing with us the customer.

Binen

Re: Not Quite A Bottom Line

Mark Mandell - Gone Round In Jersey

>Malcolm,

You pose a good general rule; that people adhere to their agreements, even if they later find they made a bad "deal." However, that concept presumes that both parties had all the same information at the time they reached the agreement. New "facts," originally known to one but not disclosed to the other (albeit innocently), which if originally "on the table" would have had a material effect on the original agreement, have always been equitable grounds for people to at least have the opportunity to reassess their position(s).

Vicmarc must be given the opportunity to assess whether its lathe or some part of it is defective before they simply send a whole new machine. After all, we're not talking about a bad switch or cracked tailstock casting here. However, the cost of that inspection should be born by the manufacturer. It is patently unreasonable to ask a purchaser to crate up 100 lbs of iron and pay to ship it all the way back to Australia; few, if any purchasers are going to do that, the demand will have the net effect of insulating the company from the service claim, and any company, Vicmarc included, knows that full well.

Indeed, that's why so many foreign companies have US branches and, at least, regional service agents; to handle just this kind of thing on the local level with expert analysis of the problem.

If Vicmarc really wanted the machine sent back to them, they should have it picked up, crated, and shipped at their own expense and risk. Of course when you figure up that cost, it might just be cheaper for them to send a new (well packed) machine, and have David pay (properly) to return the old one to Terry to either hold as "dealer parts inventory" or repair and sell as a refurb or "scratch & dent" unit for Vic's account.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

Mark Mandell

Re: Not Quite A Bottom Line

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I believe two factors impact on your assertions.

One, Vicmark had the opportunity to seek any information they wished prior to making a commitment as to how they would deal with the situation. They were not pressured into when or what their response might be, and could have offered a conditional commitment, but they did not. Instead, they offered an unqualified commitment to replace the lathe, and continued over time to indicate the approximate time table on which they would honor that commitment. Once made, any such commitment should be honored. That's not only good customer relations, that's honorable human behavior.

Second, they have left David without use of a lathe for several months, with him accepting the situation based on their commitment, one which they renewed in later correspondence. David's patience was based on both parties arriving at a mutually satisfactory solution to the issue (i.e, the Vicmark commitment to replacing the lathe with a newly built unit). Basically, because of Vicmark's commitment to providing a satisfactory solution, David accepted having made a purchase which was to be without functional value for an extended period of time (due to defects). There was now this contract between them Vicmark has now unilaterally abrogated that contract.

There are so many levels at which to renege on such a contract is unwise, if not dishonorable, (as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread) that any mitigating justifications (fair or not in therir specifics) fall far short of making the Vicmark actions acceptable in the larger context of what has occured.

A great shame, really,when managerial actions diminish the quality and value of products that are well designed and manufactured. But as others have pointed out, the attitude towards the customer (and dealer for that matter) are no less important than the product itself. It still amazes me when companies in such a small community as woodturning believe their actions towards an individual customer can not have consequence.

Re: Assertions?

Mark Mandell - Gone Round In Jersey

>Don't think I asserted anything, merely stated a few long established principals of contractual relations. If David had called Vicmark complaining of vibration after, in your prior example, "he had taken a hammer to it," and then gotten them to agree to replace the machine but withheld knowledge of his willfull abuse, David would have no rights whatsoever, regardless of what they agreed to, and, in fact, might be guilty of fraud. Would you still insist that "David The Defrauder" still receive his new lathe?

If Vicmark, who, absent the existence of a most extraordinary warranty, is responsible for manufacturing defects, was given "new" information that David was actually sold a damaged lathe and knowingly paid less than full price because of that damage, they have every right to investigate further, suspend honoring a warranty that might actually be properly void, and be more than a bit disturbed about what they weren't told. I suspect, however, based on what I know of Terry, that this whole mess has dragged on because Vicmark did not handle the matter properly at the beginning. In that sence, they may well be The Bad Guys for leaving a matter unresolved for so long and a customer hanging.

Terry said that there has been a failure of communication here. What it involved, when it occurred, who caused it or failed to prevent it all make little difference anymore. What is important is how matters are handled from this point onwards.

I will assert, however, that there is no doubt that Terry Daniels will do what HE needs to do to put things right for David, because, Vicmark or no, that's the kind of person he is.

I will also assert that Vicmark would do well to quickly determine the situation for the proper repair of David's lathe, being mindfull that, notwithstanding slight discounts, paint scratches and broken switchs DON'T cause vibration in a quality product. The company should therefore cooperate with its dealer in SOLVING THE PROBLEM rather than everyone throwing accusations based upon half facts at each other on an Internet forum.

I will lastly assert the purely personal opinion that we should all shy away from bashing one "side" or the other through absolutist views based upon missing information and factual assumptions that none of us are qualified to make.

Your mileage may, however, vary.

Re: Vicmarc's Response

Ken George

>After reading Victor's response I had to reply directly to him and did. He made the first mistake in this situation by offering to replace the lathe without discovering the facts. To keep the customer on a string for weeks then cut him off is shooting yourself in the foot. His business has been damaged and he will be some time recovering. I just hope that he has learned a lesson and will replace David's lathe promptly. And ship it with additional attention to the crating.

Re: Assertions

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>"Assertion" can be defined as "the action of declaring or postively stating" (OED), "positive declaration" (Websters). I'll leave it open to the group to determine if my use of the word with reference to your statements in the post appropriately characterizes some of its content.

The use of the word is neither overtly nor covertly pejorative.

Obviously we approach ethics in a somewhat different manner. Some of us may be more willing to embrace absolutes than others, and yes, my ethics and sense of justice are founded on a belief that certain courses of personal action can be described as right or wrong, good or evil.

Actually, in reading through your initial and subsequent post (the latter, of course, filled with self identified assertions), I don't sense we differ that greatly on whether there exists (or at least should exist) clearly defined correct courses of action, rather we differ on what constitutes the factors which should be considered pertinent to such a determination. That, of course, is what I was pointing out in my reply to your post.

In the end, I suspect a lot of purchasing recommendations and decisions are going to be influenced by this thread, and the extent to which information posted here shall spread beyond WC (which it already has). This thread has been revealing, not only of facts, but attitudes. TD, not surprisingly, has been consistent with the image so many of us already held of him. However, few of us had a pre-existing image of Victor. I suspect the image that has come about from this thread, and his post in particular, is not very flattering.

Ultimately the pragmatic impact of what has been revealed will be economic. It will result from the the individual decisions (ethical, social and economic) that will be made by large numbers of our peers, and transcend any individual statements either you or I will make.

Re: To the Group

David Wheeler

>It has been a long day of network installs for me. However the good part is that Vic called me. We talked for a bit and although his point about miscommunication is well taken; I insisted that being without a lathe for a year and waiting on the promised resolution since early May, that he honor his commitment to send the lathe. That there were communication issues I don�t doubt; but we are beyond that now. I insisted I was well past sending it to and fro to be diagnosed and fixed. I do not, will not, and really, cannot, get into the middle of problem between Terry and himself to resolve this.

In fairness to Vic, he said several times that he did not know that I had been without the use of my lathe for a year.

I told him I would post in Woodcentral when I received a confirmation from Linda that everything was a go... but I don't want to wait. I just want everyone to know that Vicmarc is responding. And in fairness to Terry he would certainly have held up his end of the deal, and assured me of that; and I believe it.

When I receive the replacement VL100, I will be sending my defective lathe to Craft Supply in Utah for their inspection; and Vicmarc will follow up with me about that, as well.

At issue here is that Vic feels Terry misrepresented the lathe to me. When Terry repaired the damage to the lathe, incurred during overseas shipment, Vic understands that to void (my assumption) their warranty; and (my assumption) now the agent/dealer is on his own. IOW, the dealer is selling a used lathe.

I guess I just disagree. If either the manufacturer or the agent puts the lathe back in new & working condition, for me that�s all that matters. (Terry had told me that it had received scratch and dents from shipping but that he had tested it out fully and it was ready to go. I received a small discount for this, I am sure) Vicmarc will just have to get all their dealers/agents on the same page, whatever page that is.

As to how I handled all this, I greatly appreciate Lyn�s and the other�s comments. I can�t tell you how I hated all this. But I did feel it was necessary to post (and here, as well, Vic disagrees with me). Also, it would not have served any of us well, were I to slant things to my side and misrepresent obviously good people. I have to live with myself and answer to my God.

I want to be able to contact Vic in the future if I need to (I plan on getting much good use from the lathe; and after making myself so public here, you guys might ask me how I�m doing with it from time to time; and that would be really bad if I cannot measure up); and it is important that no one feel abused in this transaction�. And I plan on visiting Terry if he�ll have me after all this, just to shake his hand and have him show me something wonderful on a lathe.

If I was at fault anywhere IMO, it was not being more insistent from the beginning. And I apologized to Vic for that. Although, it certainly is not an excuse, my innocence with the lathe got in the way of my insistence.

-David

You've got class David...

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>and it has benefitted us all to the extent we learn from this situation, including, I believe, Vic.

One can't ask for a better resolution than everyone in the end showing they want the right thing to be done.

final

TDaniel

>Well said Lyn...and that concludes this thread. David is getting his lathe replaced and that is what matters. From the beginning all I have said is that there was a crating problem and a communication problem, no more than that. Vicmarc makes a very good lathe and excellent chucks. If they will make an effort to improve in these areas it will benefit their company. A PM3520 now sells for about $2600; for another lathe to sell for $4500 there has to be a lot of difference for someone to pay that; that difference is service and attitude. I rest my case.

TD

Re: To the Group

Doug Trembath

>David, I, like Lyn, have seen a number of threads like this, which can be elevated way beyond hyperbole and venom. In my experience, it comes down to remaining level headed, and fair.

In that, congratulations.

Now, there are a few small points that I feel need to be made. In my own experience in dealing with manufacturers and dealers, it has always been a very well reasoned and justified practice of manufacturers to limit the warranty and service commitment when a product has been reconditioned outside the factory for any reason, be it damage from shipment, component failure, or others. In that regard, I have to side with Vic. If I were in his position, I'd probably have done the same thing.

Now, before you all rise up in righteous indignation, please hear me out.

IMHO, it is the dealer's responsibility to ensure a quality product goes out the door, no matter the manufacturer. Contrast this situation with the kind of customer service you get with Woodcraft, for instance. If the manufacturer IS the dealer, as is the case with many vendors, that obligation is not passed on, but retained along with the funds they save from the transaction by not having a middleman. Regardless of margin, when the dealer purchases a unit, and sells it to a client, it is incumbent upon them to ensure the customer is satisfied. The fact that you were so very long in distress must be laid at his feet. No matter the circumstances, he should have been performing the follow-up necessary to ensure a satisfactory conclusion. Surely no one here would insist Vicmarc back a product that had been reconditioned without their knowledge or control, again, outside their normal quality control process. This is demonstrated by the change in attitude when Vic learned the lathe had been damaged and restored, or reconditioned.

On the other hand, if the communication string had truly been going on as long as it seems to have been, both parties are at fault for not being more pro-active in their customer service, as it should not be the customer's responsibility to badger them into taking care of the problem. More is the pity, that many times remains the case in many, many industries.

I hope each of the parties learns a good lesson here, as well as the folks reading this thread:

Vicmarc MUST address the manner in which they package their equipment for shipment overseas, and acknowledge the problem it really is. They must own up to the fact that many of their lathes arrive damaged. This is common knowledge to me, as I was one of the folks in that dilemma, and have heard about the substandard packaging from more than a few others.

Terry should be more circumspect in his handling of customer problems and insist that he be kept up to date by insisting ALL communication be routed through him. He also should "own" the problem until it is resolved. I know that can be tough, considering the margins, but I believe it just comes with the territory when you agree to represent the manufacturer to the client, and bank the mark-up, no matter the amount.

David, as he has acknowledged already, needs to not procrastinate when having a problem such as this, since in our modern world, as it has almost always been, right or wrong, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

We in the discussion groups need to ensure we have all the pertinent information regarding a problem like this before we go up in arms against any particular element.

Like we all say, we all have the right to an opinion, this is just mine.

Doug Trembath

Studio in the Woods

Just to Doug

TDaniel

>I don't follow you Doug. Are you saying that any lathe that I receive with a broken switch or scuffed paint should be sold without warranty? This lathe was repaired. I replaced the bent shaft and nut in the tailstock and the switches with the full knowledge of Vicmarc. I bought the replacement parts and even emailed them photos of the damage. Let me assure you and everyone, Vicmarc knew about the poor packaging, the problems it caused, etc. Nothing has been done behind their back. When I emailed for assistance with David's problems I forwarded David's email to them. The choice of dealing direct with David instead of through me, the seller, was not my choice. Vicmarc took it upon themselves to communicate directly with David and they did not consult with me before offering a replacement lathe. I honestly do not think a replacement lathe was warranted but I did not participate in that decision. Once Vicmarc told him they were going to replace the lathe that is what they should have done. David did not purchase or receive a bad lathe; he knew from the beginning that the lathe had been damaged in shipment and the damages had been repaired and checked out. No one ever told me that this lathe would be void of warranty although they fully knew of the shipping damages. I have absorbed the cost of repairing shipping damages several times and not once has Vicmarc ever offered to re-imburse me for any of these repairs. If I get any more posts such as this I will post an album of all the shipping damages I have had to repair at my expense; I have fully documented every lathe that has had damage and can post photos of each one.

One more thing; in discussing the lathe with Victor at the show I found out that the headstock bearing has just been changed from a ball bearing to a thrust absorbing tapered roller bearing. Obviously the reason for this change was the problem that David is having with his lathe. This problem is a warranty problem all the way and that problem should be taken care of by the manufacturer and not the seller. I have maintained contact with my customer from the beginning and have not dropped the ball on this. Why do you suggest I could/should have done more?

Get real! The problem of packaging should not be the seller's, it is the manufacturer. Damages caused by inferior packaging shouldn't be absorbed by the seller. I represent another lathe company and have never received one shipment that has had a scratch, not one. And when there has been any problem whatever, they have taken care of it immediately. It is time someone steps up and says something like, "OK guys, we have not done right here and we would like to correct the problems and move forward". Any thing short of that and I will no longer endorse or sell this product.

Terry Daniel