Lodgewood Mfg., Ltd.

I ordered both a fully assembled lockplate and spring for my 1842 Springfield. Both arrived and very quickly. I think this company is a great company to order from if you are a reenactor, living historian, or collector of period firearms. They do a wonderful job and I would strongly urge those interested in getting a period firearm to go to them before going anywhere else. The cost is much less then if you go to a regular sutler. They do seem to specialize in Civil War weaponry but I do see them spreading out to other eras. Thanks again for all your help and I will buy from you again.

On the invoice that we sent to Mr***, it clearly states that customers can only return items that are in the same condition as they were when they were originally sentIt also states this on our websiteThe item that Mr*** returned to us was not in the same condition as it was when it was originally sent (please refer to my second attachment which compares the bridle that Mr*** returned [pictured on the right] to another bridle from the same lot [pictured on the left]When comparing the two, it is quite evident that the bluing on Mr***'s bridle is scratched). So, I suppose, if I had adhered to our policy as strictly as Mr*** would have liked, I should have denied his refund altogetherHowever, because the item was merely scratched, but still usable (just not worth quite as much as a mint, unissued bridle), I thought that a 15% restocking fee would be more reasonable. If you look at the course of this entire transaction, you'll see that every attempt was made on our part to meet Mr***s requests to a reasonable degree: we first sent him a bridle that didn't meet his specification and we gladly ammended the situation by not only sending him another bridle, but also refunding his return shippingThen, when that bridle didn't meet his specifications, we gladly accepted it back for a refundUpon receiving the bridle we noticed that its condition had been altered, and thus we were within our right to deny him a refund altogetherBut, yet again, in an attempt to satisfy the customer as much as possible, we decided instead to simply deducted a 15% restocking fee from his refund (which amounted to $6.00)

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]The bridle on the right in attachment does better represent the second bridle business sent me. However, the condition of bridle in attachment is indicative of the way that I not only received it, but also the way I returned it to business. Again, I never installed or altered item in any manner. During exchange process via telephone, I was told by business that they had to look hard to find a bridle in a condition that matched my request. Oddly, I was only made aware, after complaint was filed, that they had others in mint condition. There is no proof that bridle in attachment was the exact one sent to me. I must base my case on the fact that the terms on printed invoice that was included, after the fact, with item differs from online policy and according to business online terms supercedes all other terms. Again, there is no mention of a 15% fee online. Currently, business offers favorable online terms for the potential customer, but makes certain they hit unsuspecting customer with terms that further favor business in event of a return with printed invoice-after the sale. Is this a favorable practice?
Regards,
*** ***

The customer ordered an original bridle on 7/and the bridle that we sent was not in good enough condition to fit his needsWe took responsibility for this mistake and sent him another bridle at our cost (we did not charge any additional fee for shipping, as it was our mistake) we promptly sent
another original bridleThe bridle we sent was in mint condition and had never been installed in a musketIt was made by the Springfield arsenal in the 1860sIt was made by the arsenal as a spare part for its muskets during the civil warIt was never installed on a musket because the was a much larger surplus of parts than was needed during the warAfter the war, these bridles, along with other lock parts were purchased by *** ***, Americas first surplus dealerThese parts sat on ***'s Island until the 1950s when a handful were purchased by a private collector,who kept them in his personal collection until 2010; when he sold them to me. because these parts were unissued, the heat bluing (a bi-product of the hardening process) were in perfect, mint conditionThe replacement bridle that we sent to the customer was one of these mint pieces(We can provide pictures of the other bridles that were in this lot for comparison). The customer thought that this unissued bridle was a reproduction (it is an original, however and we can provide proof of this; but for the sake of keeping this concise, I won't go into the details of 19th century metallurgy in this email)When we received the returned bridle, the finish showed evidence of having been installed in the lock as it was scratched (I can provide photons of this).according to our return policy, we could have refused this bridle for a refund based on the fact that the condition had been alteredBut in an effort to work with the customer, we opted to instead deduct a 15% "restocking fee" which is also outlined in our return policy

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]Please review attached documents to see contradiction between their online terms and invoice that was included with item received.  No mention of 15% restocking fee is made in their online terms.  I was unaware that I'd be charged this fee when I was authorized per female co-owner to return second bridle via telephone conversation.  Part was never installed on musket lockplate and was returned in exact same condition I received it in.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: I ordered a part called a bridle for an antique rifle musket from Lodgewood via telephone with [redacted] on 7/3/15. At time of ordering, I specified that I wanted an original part, not a reproduction, that would match the condition of musket which is very good. They stated they had part fitting description. I received part a few days later and it was in very poor condition. It had a stress crack in metal, was pitted from corrosion and had most of original finish sanded off. I followed their online terms and contacted them for an exchange. This time I spoke with [redacted] and was informed that my original request for a very good condition part was mistakenly passed along after item was shipped. They sent me a replacement part week of 7/27 that was a cheaper reproduction not original as evidenced by CNC machining marks which wasn't available 150 years ago, weight was lighter than original, the pin that fits into lockplate of musket was longer than original. It was too nice to be a 150 year old part. I showed it off to a few reputable antique firearms dealers and they agreed with me that part was a reproduction. I then contacted [redacted] on 7/8 about this dissatisfaction. As of 7/24 I did not receive replacement part, called back and was told it would be shipped out. I received replacement part week of 7/27. I contacted them early august about desire to return item for a refund and was authorized by [redacted] to do so. I explained reason why. She authorized return for refund. I received credit card statement recently and 15% was deducted from item price of $40. Reproduction sell for $30. I emailed about this and got a response that part was returned in condition less than received. My concern also is that their online terms differ than what is stated on invoice shipped with item. Online terms are more favorable while invoice terms are more strict regarding returns. They also state online terms supercede any other form. According to online terms, there is no mention of a 15% charge as stated on invoice. Seeing difference of terms left a dishonest feeling with me about this business. I do have copy of invoice and pictures of items.Desired Settlement: $6 credited to account.

Business

Response:

The customer ordered an original bridle on 7/3 and the bridle that we sent was not in good enough condition to fit his needs. We took responsibility for this mistake and sent him another bridle at our cost (we did not charge any additional fee for shipping, as it was our mistake) we promptly sent another original bridle. The bridle we sent was in mint condition and had never been installed in a musket. It was made by the Springfield arsenal in the 1860s. It was made by the arsenal as a spare part for its muskets during the civil war. It was never installed on a musket because the was a much larger surplus of parts than was needed during the war. After the war, these bridles, along with other lock parts were purchased by [redacted], Americas first surplus dealer. These parts sat on [redacted]'s Island until the 1950s when a handful were purchased by a private collector,who kept them in his personal collection until 2010; when he sold them to me. because these parts were unissued, the heat bluing (a bi-product of the hardening process) were in perfect, mint condition. The replacement bridle that we sent to the customer was one of these mint pieces. (We can provide pictures of the other bridles that were in this lot for comparison). The customer thought that this unissued bridle was a reproduction (it is an original, however and we can provide proof of this; but for the sake of keeping this concise, I won't go into the details of 19th century metallurgy in this email). When we received the returned bridle, the finish showed evidence of having been installed in the lock as it was scratched (I can provide photons of this).according to our return policy, we could have refused this bridle for a refund based on the fact that the condition had been altered. But in an effort to work with the customer, we opted to instead deduct a 15% "restocking fee" which is also outlined in our return policy.

Consumer

Response: