Sea and Sea MX-10 DID NOT honor warranty on manufacturing defect

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Reef Fish, May 1, 2004.

  1. Reef Fish

    Reef Fish Guest

    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
    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    similar problems and complaints, and had been replaced by the present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

    I do not know if the former technician who refused to honor the
    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
    as a new one.

    My thanks to all.

    -- Bob.

    From: Reef Fish ()
    Subject: Sea and Sea MX-10 DID NOT honor warranty on manufacturing
    Newsgroups:, rec.scuba, uk.rec.scuba,,
    Date: 2004-02-09 10:18:59 PST

    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
    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.
    Reef Fish, May 1, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Reef Fish

    Scott Guest


    Recognition appropriately noted.

    Matthew Endo is a square shooter.
    Scott, May 1, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Reef Fish

    Matthew Endo Guest

    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

    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.
    Matthew Endo, May 3, 2004
  4. Very good - I went ahead & changed the subject.
    Glad to hear it. I've a Motor Marne II ex -very nice!
    Dennis \(Icarus\), May 3, 2004
  5. Reef Fish

    Reef Fish Guest

    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

    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

    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,

    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.
    Reef Fish, May 3, 2004
  6. Reef Fish

    Reef Fish Guest

    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.
    Reef Fish, May 3, 2004
  7. Reef Fish

    Matthew Endo Guest

    Yeah, I might be square, I'm sure a shooter, but sometimes can't shoot
    Matthew Endo, May 3, 2004
  8. Reef Fish

    Matthew Endo Guest

    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.
    The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.
    To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
    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.
    Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
    Japan by the US service tech.
    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
    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.
    Uh oh, I knew I would get flamed for that remark!
    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.
    Thanks for the followup!
    Matthew Endo, May 3, 2004
  9. You need to shoot more during your trips back to California.
    Jason O'Rourke, May 4, 2004
  10. Reef Fish

    Matthew Endo Guest

    Agreed! But have you seen the latest hunting license fees in Kali? All
    the rates for everything have increased incredibly. Thanks, Guv!
    Matthew Endo, May 4, 2004
  11. Reef Fish

    Reef Fish Guest


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

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

    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.

    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 <>

    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

    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):

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

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

    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.
    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). :)

    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".

    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.

    Thanks for your followup to my followup!

    -- Bob.
    Reef Fish, May 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.