M
measekite
Jan Alter wrote:
"TJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"TJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
justin david wrote:
...with a one year warranty?
A very interesting question, the more you think about it. I see several opinions here, mostly falling into two camps that rely on general principles. Essentially, one camp says no because one of these printers is more likely than new to have a problem, and the price differential, if any, isn't worth the risk. Members of the other camp have taken the risk, and most are at least satisfied. Neither side is likely to change the other's position.
What risk? What some take into consideration is that some "refurbished" units are band new, never been opened boxes. It is common knowledge that manufacturers often make "irregulars" that are perfect, but just marked that way so they can be sold a lower prices and not piss off the regular retail sales chain. Clothing, tools, electronics, are often marketed as refurbs. They can be a very good buy.
The "risk" may be perceived rather than real. Many of this thread's posters believe that most "refurbished" equipment is stuff that's been returned for one reason or another, and they think the usual reason is that it is broken. Units that were returned and replaced under warranty, then repaired, reboxed, and sold. They say there is an increased risk of getting a bad printer this way. That's what I'm asking. All we've heard here are perceptions, and a few personal experiences. Very few, considering the number of new and refurbished printers sold. I'm asking this: Is the failure rate of refurbished printers really significantly higher that that of new, and if so, by how much? I'm looking for the results of an independent study of the question. Is there one? So far we're all just guessing. When you come right down to it, the OP didn't have a risk, since he was receiving a one year warranty. But still, there's the hassle of a warranty return, and the lost time if you're without a printer because of it. So there IS a risk. There's a similar risk with buying new. If you're going to do a proper risk assessment, it's better to do so with cold, hard facts rather than perceptions that might not hold water.
There is minimal time lost in replacement from Epson should either a new or refurbished unit have to be returned. I've got 80 Epson printers running at our school which we have been accumulating since 1999. I've probably purchased another ten Epsons for myself since 1990. In these 16 years I've sent back probably two or three machines for repair among the total of 90 printers. Epson has gotten a replacement to me within less than a week in each case, paying the shipping both ways. The irony of the situation is that if one bought a new Epson R1800 and there was a problem that couldn't be corrected and it had to be returned it would be replaced with a refurbished one unless the original purchaser specifically expressed a repair of the one sent. I don't recall the turn around time from Epson when the purchaser wants the same printer back. The one year warranty would still be in affect for the remainder of the time the original purchaser bought the new machine. I can't speak for other printer companies, but my experience with Epson seems to indicate that they are made quite well, new or refurbished, despite the problems that the company has raised with its tactics to limit refilling
Ah now I now reminded why I always vote against school bonds.
and higher usage of ink due to design and software programming.
"TJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"TJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
justin david wrote:
...with a one year warranty?
A very interesting question, the more you think about it. I see several opinions here, mostly falling into two camps that rely on general principles. Essentially, one camp says no because one of these printers is more likely than new to have a problem, and the price differential, if any, isn't worth the risk. Members of the other camp have taken the risk, and most are at least satisfied. Neither side is likely to change the other's position.
What risk? What some take into consideration is that some "refurbished" units are band new, never been opened boxes. It is common knowledge that manufacturers often make "irregulars" that are perfect, but just marked that way so they can be sold a lower prices and not piss off the regular retail sales chain. Clothing, tools, electronics, are often marketed as refurbs. They can be a very good buy.
The "risk" may be perceived rather than real. Many of this thread's posters believe that most "refurbished" equipment is stuff that's been returned for one reason or another, and they think the usual reason is that it is broken. Units that were returned and replaced under warranty, then repaired, reboxed, and sold. They say there is an increased risk of getting a bad printer this way. That's what I'm asking. All we've heard here are perceptions, and a few personal experiences. Very few, considering the number of new and refurbished printers sold. I'm asking this: Is the failure rate of refurbished printers really significantly higher that that of new, and if so, by how much? I'm looking for the results of an independent study of the question. Is there one? So far we're all just guessing. When you come right down to it, the OP didn't have a risk, since he was receiving a one year warranty. But still, there's the hassle of a warranty return, and the lost time if you're without a printer because of it. So there IS a risk. There's a similar risk with buying new. If you're going to do a proper risk assessment, it's better to do so with cold, hard facts rather than perceptions that might not hold water.
There is minimal time lost in replacement from Epson should either a new or refurbished unit have to be returned. I've got 80 Epson printers running at our school which we have been accumulating since 1999. I've probably purchased another ten Epsons for myself since 1990. In these 16 years I've sent back probably two or three machines for repair among the total of 90 printers. Epson has gotten a replacement to me within less than a week in each case, paying the shipping both ways. The irony of the situation is that if one bought a new Epson R1800 and there was a problem that couldn't be corrected and it had to be returned it would be replaced with a refurbished one unless the original purchaser specifically expressed a repair of the one sent. I don't recall the turn around time from Epson when the purchaser wants the same printer back. The one year warranty would still be in affect for the remainder of the time the original purchaser bought the new machine. I can't speak for other printer companies, but my experience with Epson seems to indicate that they are made quite well, new or refurbished, despite the problems that the company has raised with its tactics to limit refilling
Ah now I now reminded why I always vote against school bonds.
and higher usage of ink due to design and software programming.