Originally Posted by
John_N
Hap, this isn't meant in the least as a criticism of you, just a little bit of a "devil's advocate" stab at a possible explanation. Sure would be nice if you could find the text of that original email, as I suspect that would eliminate at least some of the speculation. 2+ weeks for acknowledgment is annoying to be sure, but the rest doesn't seem like that much of a stretch once a manufacturer has deemed it a non-warranty repair. $50 for shipping is a joke, but I read all the time now where manufacturers are charging that and more for shipping, "service fees" or some other ridiculous term for charges on even their warranty repairs, including those that were sold years back with warranties that, at the time, had no such provision in them. That last part particularly chafes me, but that's a topic for another day. So that leaves the $132 charge on yours. If I submitted a rod for repairs that I figured the manufacturer would consider outside their warranty, I would do so with some HOPE that they'd surprise me and say they'd cover it, but with the EXPECTATION that I'd be told I was going to have to pay something for it, and it sounds like that's what that email outlined for you. I'm guessing you got a replacement tip and maybe something like cleaning/reconditioning the ferrules on two of the other sections, and an estimate of $132 for that, which you presumably could have either accepted or declined. Again, not as great a deal as what I might have hoped for in the best of situations, but about what I could have expected for a $700 rod if it wasn't a covered repair.
As for the resale value, and again with all due respect, I don't see what effect this has on that issue. I buy used gear all the time, and I think anybody that buys used rods with the EXPECTATION that they're going to get warranty service is kidding themselves. If there's a blank warranty card, I might have higher hopes of getting away with that, but if not, I'm back to the hope vs. expectation thing described above, given that I'm clearly not the original owner. I'm not a Winston apologist, but other than being a little slow with response, I'm having a hard time imagining how this same scenario couldn't have taken place with any number of other manufacturers.