Arc will no longer be guaranteeing cosmetics

Effective immediatly, Arc flashlight will no longer guarantee cosmetic quality of any flashlight we make.

Cosmetics include patterns, smudges, scratches, lines, tint variations, etc in the anodize, lens, reflector, optic, button, etc. If it does not affect the operation of the light (brightness, corrosion resistance, interoprability of parts), we will not replace the light at any time.

You may return the light of course during the 30-day satisfaction guarantee period but not replace it with another light.

Again, there will be no replacements because of a cosmetic issue.

People have been repeatidly replacing the same order over and over. Our FedEx charge for 1 flashlight order can exceed hundreds of dollars while a picky individual samples all of our lights in stock. We have gone through a half dozen maching shops/platers trying to find ones that can make the perfect appearance we seek but it has cost us 10's of thousands and the cosmetic quality has not improved one ioata. Until the day I am rich and can afford my own machining and plating process, the way our product looks is the way it is going to be.

I imagine this will anger a bunch of people but we have perpetuated this myth by repeatidly replacing the lights 5 or more times to get it "perfect".

I will update our website with a disclaimer to this effect.

Peter

I bet the Army never sent a tank back because it didn't look "pretty"

Good for you Peter...
Arc's aren't supposed to sit behind a glass case anyway.

Yet another example of how it is the few who ruin it for the rest of us.

Peter, Im actually surprised you did this in the first place, I wouldn't have thought there was any guarantee over the cosmetics of a utility device. That you did it in the first place amazes me.

sounds fair...i imagine surefire's customer service was equally frustrated with all the L4 returns due to the LED tints /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif IMHO if someone wants to be able to pick out the perfect light, he/she should bear the expense of doing so by buying a whole bunch of them, then selling off those that don't meet the mark (like what TIN does).

just being curious, but what happens to units that are returned due to cosmetic issues? are they sold as seconds or repackaged and sold again?

May I suggest that arc stcok up on some ALUMA-HYDE II to touch up miniscule flaws before shipping? My LSH-P has a slight blemish at the base of the lanyard mount point. The anodizing just missed that area. A skillfully applied touchup at ARC would have kept me from ever noticing it. As it is, it took weeks to notice. Some day I'll order some ALUMA-HYDE to finish off the twisty caps I bought too.

The Dark Parkerizing Gray has been found to be a good match. Another poster pointed out that it could be found at http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=1117&title=ALUMA-HYDE+II


Scratches are man made, and should be covered under warranty of workmanship, but that's just my opinion.

Daniel

I dissagree to a certain level. Some things can't be controlled, such as HA color matching. Other items when blemished (IE: fingerprints, scratched reflectors, smudges on the inside of the lnes) are all signs of neglect and constitute a defect in my opinion. Although it may be done unintentionally, it's still a flaw that one should not expect to be "normal". I don't care whether it affects the usage of the light or not.

How many people do you know that purchase a new car, discover a very noticable scratch and let it go as being "normal and acceptable"? I'm pretty dissappointed by this new policy.

Does the light output tint included in cosmetics?

My guess is that in an extreme case Peter would still replace the light, he just needs to protect himself from the unconditional subjective interpretation of what "blemished" means to the overly picky customer...

I like perfect products as much as anyone. When I got an LSL first from ARC a few weeks back, it had a slight blem in the finish on the bezel near the lens but I didn't mind because I bought it "cheap".

If I buy a new light for $180 or more (like the Arc4+), I expect it to look and function perfectly from the beginning - no excuses.

Marty

Why can't the flashlight be returned for a replacement because of a cosmetic issue if the customer pays the shipping? That way everyone would be happy...

[ QUOTE ]
Marty Weiner said:
I like perfect products as much as anyone. When I got an LSL first from ARC a few weeks back, it had a slight blem in the finish on the bezel near the lens but I didn't mind because I bought it "cheap".

If I buy a new light for $180 or more (like the Arc4+), I expect it to look and function perfectly from the beginning - no excuses.

Marty

[/ QUOTE ]

... and I think that's where I"m going with this Marty. I guess it depends on each person. I personally could give two-sh**s about miss-matched HA. To others, that may be a big deal. What totally pisses me off is fingerprints in a place that can't be cleaned by the user or a reflector which was obviously miss-handled by either scratching it to hell or touching it leaving prints all over it. That's the sort or of stuff that I find inexcusable.

That's fine by me, at least I think. But doesn't that negate the whole concept of "Premium" offerings? Wasn't that the whole point of the premiums? Wasn't that the whole point of the Arc4x?

I don't view major LED tint variations as a cosmetic issue. If the light is being used by a doctor or in forensics, major variations in LED tint can make the light less useful. Minor variations however, are more likely to be simply cosmetic.

We are continuing to sort our LEDs by tint and you will continue to get the exceptional tint from us that you are used to receiving.

Peter

I think nascar makes some good points. And if the shipping costs are the main problem, then why not just have the customer pay for shipping, or maybe just a small fee? Or maybe limit the number of times you can exchange it.

Color mismatches in HA are obvious, but what about more typical issues which are not obvious?

I recently sent back an Arc 4+ due to a ding in the head which also had associated HA damage on the edge of the head. It also appeared that the o-ring was being abraded as a result.

Was this an innappropriate return based on cosmetics? How do we as concerned consumers draw this line, Peter? Do we assume that if it gets past your internal QA that by definition the light is cosmetically appropriate?

This particular issue looked like it slipped by QA. How do we resolve this sort of issue without costing you (and us) money?

jbk

A flaw is a flaw. be it cosmetic or not. if I buy a premium product I want it flawless, and I cannot accept the manufacturer telling me that I have to accept some imperfections because they do not change the output of the light.
This is the typical too strong reaction to some people abusing a very friendly system. Not good either, and the public pays, as usual.
bernhard

Peters a reasonable guy, I won't force him to make any promises but I bet if there's a big gash on the side of your light, or a big honkin' fingerprint in a spot inaccessible to the user, he'll work with you. Notice he's saying that Arc will no longer guarantee cosmetic blemishes, not cosmetic flaws.

Have to agree with nascar and Peter. If there's something obviously wrong such as a deep scratch or many smaller scratches on the lens or a fingerprint on the reflector, signs of obvious mishandling, these are things IMO that are completely unacceptable for a light that costs this much. For this price I would expect not a single obvious/noticable scratch on the reflector or lens, nor any fingerprints on the reflector or inaccessable places, with no obvious/large scratches in the HA.

I'm not exactly sure what problems there are that would cause someone to return the light over and over.. are there really that many scratched or fingerprinted lenses, or is this simply something simple and fairly meaningless like the tint variation of the HA or a very minor scratch in the HA? My guess is that it is just a few extremely picky people returning the light because of a pinhead sized scratch on the body or tint in the HA they didn't expect.



My guess is he'll handle each light on a case by case basis, but for legal reasons, has decided to make a broad statement about cosmetic issues to avoid these types of obvious picky returns. I really don't see this as a major issue.. if someone wants to return the light for whatever reason, they can still get their full money back.

Wow, this is very surprising.

Understandable, but surprising.
I cant beleave some ppl were sending lights back 5 or more times, what pricks.

I hear most all the Arc4 tailcaps dont match,,,, well, tough crap !!! Lets see anyone else get the HA perfect.
SF sure doesnt.

Like everyone said, if its an actual defect, or major scratch or something, Peter will work with you anyway.

Arc has always went WELL above the normal customer service, so even if they do HALF as good as they used to, it will still be better than most companies.

Here is my 2 cents worth: If the product has a very obvious cosmetic defect, that is a defect that does not have to be scrutinized to be evident, should be considered replaceable. Different shades of finish or color should not be an issue. Case in point: I own eight ARC products. I won't return any of them due to varations in finish or shade of color. Anodizing is performed in batches and for someone to insist that every batch look EXACTLY like the previous batch is being unrealistic. lets face it, this is not a perfect world. But say I received an ARC product that was dented, scratched down to the bare aluminum, had NOTICABLE scratches or defects on the lens or NOTICABLE defects with the reflector, then I would expect a replacement.