Champlain Islander

My point wasn't anything about paying extra for any warranty. The hook for many upstanding companies was always customer service. That along with a good reputation is what often determines what products are purchased. The product lifetime rather than lifetime warranty probably evolved over having customer service and reputation fall below corporate profit margins as a driving factor in some companies. I feel the core mission often goes out the window after a buyout.

kidoggy

I agree . and my post was merely to point out that customer service on warranties isn't an issue if you but a dependable product in the first place.

CalHunter

Perhaps even more telling is that this post was made on September 24th of this year. That's maybe 2 weeks ago and this thread was started only a few days ago. Kudos to bman940 for trying to help and make things right.

miketodd58

NOPE no catastrophic accident on those Nikons. Those Nikons had been sent back to the factory about 5 or 6 years ago for exactly the same issue. The bridge was simply not holding and would not support the tubes. They were well used binoculars that saw some hard service life. Nothing as harsh as what they depict in their commercials such as dropping them off cliffs or off the back of trucks but probably harder than your average hunter would use them.

AS YOU CAN see I have been a loyal supporter of Nikon in the past. I can see there has been a concerted effort on your part to probably hide what NIkon does not want the world to find out and that is that they are trying weed out their lifetime warranty by replacing units that have seen "end of life" as both CS reps explained to me with units that will not carry the lifetime warranty. I have support proof of that.

I do not intend to carry this conversation on any longer with YOU! I would suggest you be VERY CAREFUL in how you address me in the future and that you consult with Nikon legal about how you might be characterizing or suggesting that someone might be committing fraud without proof. Accusations of such or even the appearance of such can open you and Nikon up to all sorts of civil liability.

miketodd58

Well while your trying to hang me out to dry let me bring you up on a few facts.

I first contacted Nikon from my Online Nikon account about these Binoculars on 2-17-2015 about the bridge issue. .There is a detailed record of that account and a reply from Nikon.

These were shipped to Nikon Via Fed Ex on 9-15-2015 and received on 9-18-2015.

Bman940 is getting totally DIFFERENT information than I am getting from two different CS people. One of them being a supervisor.

bman940

Mike, We all understood that, that is why I entered into this thread. I got you the correct information so you would understand that your NEW bino's ARE covered by Nikon's No Fault Policy. A mistake was made then it was corrected. All this other origintaed form you, including,"I MAY have to have a catotrophic accident or two on a couple of models and test the waters on the warranty and see what happens and see if I can get a "upgrade"
miketodd58", came from you. Maybe you followed through with the above maybe you didn't, only you really know for sure. I'm a forgiving guy and ready to move past this thread as I"m sure many of you are since it has kind of turned into a soap opera.

miketodd58

I can appreciate your efforts. I really can. Problem is you don't work for Nikon. YOU will not be there for me when and If I have a problem with these binoculars 5 10 or 15 years from now. The people in charge...the people at NIKON that makes the warranty decisions are telling me that these binoculars are only carrying a 6 month warranty. THEY (the people at Nikon one being a supervisor ) are telling me that they are replacing END OF LIFE units with Binoculars that only carry a 6 month warranty. I cannot explain it any clearer than that.

CalHunter

You should probably reread the entire topic, start to finish. If you'll notice my initial posts, I was pretty supportive. Once your "quote" was posted, I went back and researched it. You did make a post that would cause one to wonder about your intentions on updating some of your equipment.

Maybe you don't remember that post, Maybe it was in jest. Maybe you were falling asleep when you made it or were partying and either way don't recall. If this was some post made 10 years ago, maybe not so much notice would be paid to it. The fact that it was made less than 2 months ago makes it appear to be a lot more relevant to this topic.

None of us are mind readers. We all tend to go by what you post. You're the only one who knows for sure exactly what you were thinking and, perhaps more importantly, what you've done or not done. The rest of us are left reading your posts and assuming you're posting something accurately.

From what I've read in this topic, Bman940 has honestly tried to help you resolve your product issues with Nikon. He found a strange post you made recently and quoted it. In return for his offered help with Nikon and quote from YOUR post, you've implied Bman940, Nikon, et al may have "civil liability issues" if you're addressed in a manner you find offensive, etc. If that's really the road you want to go down, have at it. I've already saved a copy of this entire topic and your previous quote. You're kind of at a crossroads here. But then you already knew that. Good luck with either decision you make.

Oldtimr

Cal, the not so subtle threat to bman pretty much has made up my mind as to what the truth is, problem is, the defense to liable or slander is the truth, and we all have seen the truth in writing and since you saved it it won't be hard to present if needed, plus there are many witnesses.

CalHunter

Agreed. Not my first rodeo.

At any rate, he gets to decide how to proceed or not from here. If I were in his shoes, I would politely ask Bman940 if Bman940 could have that Nikon President's Customer Service Director email or mail him some form of lifetime warranty that covered his replacement binos, etc. As he pointed out, years down the road, everybody else might not be around.