Cham, you already made up your mind when you decided to keep the knife as is rather than send it back.
So in hindsight, would you prefer to own the 3.5 with the lightly etched logo, or would you prefer that same 3.5 to be sitting in a factory in Idaho right now?
I get that you feel like these should have been factory 2nds, and maybe they should have, but they were discounted and you have a 3.5 in your hand.
So really your main point of contention here seems to be that you purchased what you were told was a factory 1st at a factory 2nd price, and you would have preferred (and still purchased) it be listed as a 2nd due to the engraving.
If they would have listed it as a factory 2nd, you still would have purchased it, right? So really the outcome here is the same. So no harm, no foul really.
Hey, if anything, it will be worth MORE since it was caused by a set of circumstances that no longer exist.
Rasco, your points are all well made.
Yes you are correct, I would have purchased a fac. 2nd. (
at a lesser price) if I was told (had it been disclosed) that the "non fac. 2nd." that I purchased would have have part of the steel type missing in the printing as well as the PHT (Peters Heat Treat) completely missing.
If you fellows see nothing wrong with that, that's your call.
I personally have an issue with not disclosing that prior to shipping them out.
Again, I am not the only one disappointed in receiving it like this, I am however the only one that had the onions to say something about it.
To those that seem to misinterpret what I'm saying, my issue is not that there's something wrong with the knife as in functionality, my issue is
not being told prior to purchase that the printing process (regardless if CO2 engraved (burned into) or etched) would be sent out the way it came out.
Quote: "
the CO2 engraving actually got worse on some of them, which is why some of the firsts have the lighter engraving."
On my 3.5 it's more than just "lighter engraving" but in fact has half the steel type missing and
PHT not even showing.
I'd have no issue if it was a Fac. 2nd. but it's not a fac. 2nd.
And it was not "dumbass cheap" as referred to below.
Price paid is no excuse for non disclosure of the (known) printing issue.
If the company rep. mentions
high standards when it comes to patches, I have to respond that the same high standards should apply to every aspect of the knife before letting it ship to the customer.
Bottom line: full disclosure is the best policy.
To the idea that this increases it's resale value, every savvy collector or dealer knows that having a logo and/or the printing on knife made by a known company that appears in any way other then clear and sharp or half missing is definitely a red flag as far as it's chances of being a knock off/counterfeit etc.
A blem is a blem, a fac. 2nd. is a fac. 2nd. the 3.5 was said to be neither.
Should it have been sold as a "blem", probably so.
Not asking for my money back, simply full disclosure in the future.
I'm sure the reps. get my point so no reason to discuss it any further on my part.