Brett: Closeness Guaranteed Get Closer or Your Money Back

Brett after shaving with my razor this morning, I noticed I wasn't getting the same results as when I opened it some time back, I hope the Guarantee is unlike your hammer, I wouldn't ever want to buy a razor again!

He is not home.Went to go postal down at the Estwing Hammer Co.

Yu'se guys are brutal......darned Estwing.... LOL

PS, that 28 oz framing hammer will always be a favorite though, warranty or not, hope they don't go the same route as vise grip or channel lock..

This post is an example of the, child like, attitudes that are ruining this board and others on this site.

you know I think rather than fuss I would shape me a wooden handle, slice it into, hollow it out so I could attach it to the hammer with screws, then dip it in some of that liquid plastic.
You can have my estwing when you pry it from my cold dead fingers

Well Sean, I suppose if you had bought the "razor" based on your father and grandfathers recommendation that they had a lifetime no bs warranty, and if you had grown accustomed to having the razor repaired every 10 years or so and if that razor had been in your family for 50+ years and if you had bought 6 or 7 others of various weights and styles over that time and if you had worked at a lumber yard in your youth where every Estwing "razor" was unconditionally accepted for replacement or repair and if you had had one repaired as recently as 6 or 7 years ago and had given those "razors" out as gifts to friends and brothers and brother in laws over the years because "they were the best"....then yes, I guess you would be a bit put off.

I guess I'm just living past my time. I post a complaint both looking for help and as a warning and I somehow end up being called a jerk and cheapskate by a bunch of suburban cowboys who've probably never driven a nail. Amazing.

BTW Shaun, I mean Shawn, whoops! Sean, it's Bret, not Brett. With your rapier like wit and superhuman intellect I thought you'd catch that.

There I go thinking again.....

Quit crying, the consensus is you are a cheap skate, and any time you want to match nail count bring it on. When I buy a good tool if it has given me good service I'm willing to spend money on a replacement when it is WORN OUT. Farm Fleet is running an ad right now for those hammers for $18.99. That's and 1/2 weeks of your tax adjustment.

Howdy
Never could figure out someone that would rather sit home and shine up his old tools instead of getting lost among all the shiny tools in the tool isle. Every time I buy a new tool I have to fondle it for a few days before I put it to work, never mail in a warranty card, I might miss out on an opertunity to buy a new tool to replace a broken or worn out one.
Bob S.

Hi Bret,

Twice that I can remember I've gone to small claims court with arguments that were as simple and logical and common sense based as yours. In each of those cases the judge found for the other party on reasoning that I found to be preposterous (in one case the representative for the company I had brought the action against told me after the ruling that she was surprised because she had thought it was open and shut in my favor.) I won't say that I'm not a sore loser sometimes, or that I don't know how to hold a grudge, but I do believe in reason and I am a reasonable person, and I've had to admit that I was wrong often enough that I can do it without bursting into tears. So when someone counters my perfectly reasonable argument with something that makes no sense whatsoever, and everybody else involved says "Yeah, that's right," I know when it's time to keep my opinion to myself. But that doesn't mean that I have to believe something that's absolutely stupid just because that's what the authority or the majority decided.

When you get right down to it, the business of America IS business, and good thinking has never been our strong suit, nor ever much respected. Someone, I think it was one of the founders of Procter and Gamble, speaking about advertising said when you appeal to reason you appeal to four percent of the population. That was almost a hundred years ago and I'd estimate that that figure would be too high for today. Your mistake, I think, was trying to make an appeal to reason.

All the best, Stan

And the consensus is you're a moron Gary.

I very well could be a moron, but I'm pretty sure it takes more than one to form a consensus. So now it's a draw, you think I am and I'm kind of sure I'm not.

Howdy
Could not have said it better myself, Stan.
I also believe that a judge's ability to reason is equal to a postal workers ability to be pleasant.
Bob S.

So we each have a consensus of one? Good enough for me. Shoot, I knew I was a moron a long time ago.....

Stan in Oly, WA
Your post reminded me of the time I sued a guy in Small Claims for non-payment of a circuit board my small company designed and built for him TO HIS SPECS.

Guy changed his mind on the specs AFTER we shipped the product. Like you, I figured it was a slam dunk in front of a judge. WRONG! After several other encounters with local judges, I have come to realize that having a robe on does not mean they are smarter than the average person. In fact, I think they are LESS intelligent and LESS logical and believe the only reasons they ran and got elected were a) they usually have a prominent name in the community, b) they were lousy lawyers who couldn't make it on their own.

We have a local judge who retired during an investigation into mismanagement of his court (couldn't account for several hundred thousand in fines received) and who had his wife and sister-in-law on the court payroll but his wife was absent most of the time (ostensibly due to illness, cough, cough). SIL and wife were fired, he retired.

Now, he's a lawyer in private practice and has been charged with embezzlement of client's money.

Hi JML755,

Your small claims court fiasco is even more clear cut than the one I had which I consider the most flagrant case of judiciary stupidity I've ever been involved in. I'd describe it to you to get another unbiased opinion about it but it would take too long to explain circumstances which were largely self explanatory in a small claims courtroom in Honolulu in 1978.

Several years ago I was forced to be involved in a small claims proceedings on behalf of the defendant, a management company which was being sued by an apartment resident who had clearly been screwed over by our criminally incompetent resident manager (a young woman who almost single-handedly destroyed my belief in basic human decency and the effectiveness of the American educational system.) The judge spent a good deal of time explaining to those in the courtroom whose cases would come before him that morning the benefit of settling matters before they came before the bench. Then he required all the plaintiffs and defendants to move together and make a serious effort to work things out right there. There were trained mediators who moved around the room to help facilitate negotiations. The judge told us that he wouldn't even hear the first case until we'd spent at least half an hour trying to work things out among ourselves. It was remarkably effective. Now THAT was a good judge.

(By the way, we gave the plaintiff what she was asking for. I called the regional manager and told him that the resident manager had lied and that the plaintiff had documents to prove it---it was insane that it had ever been allowed to get to the point it had. He said, "Well, settle! Why are we even there?" Good question, I thought. And another one is why don't you fire that worthless piece of ship resident manager? But that incident didn't hurt her career in the slightest, as far as I could tell.)

All the best, Stan