Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. Dear Revdex.com and [redacted]--Having failed to conflate a completely separate estimate for chip repair on a different object with this one, Trefler's is now trying to conflate two different repair issues for the charger: repainting of a small area with paint loss in the center which was not pursued and a sealing of a hairline crack on the top edge which Trefler's recommended doing on their own initiative and which I accepted.There is still no explanation for the discrepancy between the estimate/treatment form (seal front and back... for hanging) and subsequent claims of doing something entirely different (just sealed the back), leaving us to assume it was only to hide the fact that it was work on the front which caused a chip. It certainly wasn't the light cleaning of the central area. In addition there was no mention of chips on Trefler's incoming form.Two attached "before treatment" photos (mine from the condition report as purchased and Trefler's as it was logged in) show the charger with no chips, the third shows it "after treatment" as it was returned to me with a large chip at the hairline crack. This was noticed at the time and remarked on but Trefler had no explanation and would not present any information from their end. My husband was also there with me and can attest to this. In addition, this should end the discussion about what I thought when I brought it in (beyond the fact that this is 17th century object with appropriate and acceptable condition related circumstances), the definition of a rim frit or the reputation of the source I acquired it from ([redacted]).No noticeable chips when it went in. Large ugly chip when it came out.
Regards,
[redacted]
the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. Dear Mr. [redacted] and Revdex.com. I am attaching two files, one is the response to David [redacted] of Trefler's point by point and the other is a copy of the Trefler's Repair Estimate Form. It is to support my contention that the damage to my property was caused by the work done at Trefler's, that the information they provided was not adequate or truthful and contained contradictions which addresses lack of credibility.Their offer does not make me whole and their request for me to go to their store is inappropriate since they already saw it, many photos and other documentation have already been provided. I would not agree to have them work on my item again. Thank you for your attention to this.Sincerely yours,[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. Dear Revdex.com and [redacted]--Having failed to conflate a completely separate estimate for chip repair on a different object with this one, Trefler's is now trying to conflate two different repair issues for the charger: repainting of a small area with paint loss in the center which was not pursued and a sealing of a hairline crack on the top edge which Trefler's recommended doing on their own initiative and which I accepted.There is still no explanation for the discrepancy between the estimate/treatment form (seal front and back... for hanging) and subsequent claims of doing something entirely different (just sealed the back), leaving us to assume it was only to hide the fact that it was work on the front which caused a chip. It certainly wasn't the light cleaning of the central area. In addition there was no mention of chips on Trefler's incoming form.Two attached "before treatment" photos (mine from the condition report as purchased and Trefler's as it was logged in) show the charger with no chips, the third shows it "after treatment" as it was returned to me with a large chip at the hairline crack. This was noticed at the time and remarked on but Trefler had no explanation and would not present any information from their end. My husband was also there with me and can attest to this. In addition, this should end the discussion about what I thought when I brought it in (beyond the fact that this is 17th century object with appropriate and acceptable condition related circumstances), the definition of a rim frit or the reputation of the source I acquired it from ([redacted]).No noticeable chips when it went in. Large ugly chip when it came out.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed...
the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. Dear Mr. [redacted] and Revdex.com. I am attaching two files, one is the response to David [redacted] of Trefler's point by point and the other is a copy of the Trefler's Repair Estimate Form. It is to support my contention that the damage to my property was caused by the work done at Trefler's, that the information they provided was not adequate or truthful and contained contradictions which addresses lack of credibility.Their offer does not make me whole and their request for me to go to their store is inappropriate since they already saw it, many photos and other documentation have already been provided. I would not agree to have them work on my item again. Thank you for your attention to this.Sincerely yours,[redacted]