8mm Forum: Derann's GREAT customer service!

This is topic Derann's GREAT customer service! in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001640

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on December 16, 2005, 01:45 PM:

Derann had just received my copy of the "Fog" which I sadly had to return due to focus problems.
Here is their reply:

"I am in receipt of your return package and have refunded your MasterCard
account for xxxx less xxxx VAT, xxxx plus xxx (full amount) UPS
delivery, xxxx Pounds, with sincere apologies."

So they refunded the cost of the film PLUS the shipping charges. And it has already shown on my statement. Not tomorrow, not next week but the same morning they received the film.
That is GREAT customer service and thats why I truly love ordering from Derann.
Thanks Derann!!

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on December 16, 2005, 06:09 PM:

That's really great....but of course, why wasn't that print checked before they went to all the trouble to send it in the first place? Seems to me that should have been part of the customer service. Of course, it may have been a used print and I don't think they usually check those. But at any rate...Derann is great to customers ..always fair ...always ready to help when something like that happens. I'd love to find a sharp scope print of The Fog myself. I've always missed them ...being too late oni buying from lists...or too low in bidding.

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on December 17, 2005, 08:44 AM:

When I worked in a film lab they used to check prints on the High Speed Projector and only certain reels. The opening of the film, the logo looked fine. The problem is so intermittant and so slight that it would be hard to tell. Its just that the focus looks a little soft in many spots. I would assume in Derann's case it would be impossible to screen all those films they have. Plus the "Fog" is generally regarded as having sharp focus so the only thing to check would have been the general condition of the print. And the condition is very good.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2