I have been doing everything in my power to stay out of this one, short of holding my trusty .45 to my head. However, I can no longer hold myself back. If I'm out of line with this post I'm sure someone will let me know and I'll take my knuckle rapping or remove the post or whatever. The cats already out of the bag on this thread anyway. I don't know personally know Mr. Voyles and I don't personally know Ed Edge. However, I have to make the following observations. Assuming Ed's account was accurate (I'm not questioning it; but only he and the seller have first hand knowledge), one would need to know whether this was an isolated handling of a situation or a pattern. The fairness of the refund/return policy might well rest on whether original shipping was refunded, whether original shipping was padded, and who pays return shipping, in a return situation. Most of us have encountered sellers on ebay who intentionally or carelessly overstate the condition of an item. They will cheerfully refund the shipping price if the buyer pays shipping both ways because they have picked up a few bucks on the original shipping and they'll sell the item again with the same description. Moreover, this type of seller knows that faced with paying shipping both ways, most buyers will keep the item unless it is really high dollar. I can't help but notice that the refund is based upon the seller agreeing that the item is not as described or illustrated. That sounds like it could be a real crap shoot. The same guy that called it mint when it wasn't now decides whether or not it is mint. What happens if he still thinks its mint? Does the buyer pay shipping the third time or lose his money altogether? Is this refund policy interpreted to mean that if you bought a Schrade and got a Case its not as described; but, if you bought a Schrade 15OT and you got one, oh well ... . If the buyer calls to try to get some clarification before he sends it back and gets blown off - oh well ... . Again, assuming the facts are as mentioned, anyone who puts three collectible knives unseperated in a zip lock and then puts them in an envelope has no business selling collectible knives or writing books about them, IMHO. I must wonder, is a guy who doesn't collect knives generally and doesn't collect Schrade's specifically really the guy to write the Schrade history? I would much rather read a publication by a guy like Codger who obviously has a passion for the subject and whose time investment in studying the subject is primarily driven by that passion. As to collecting cutlery catalogs, to play the devils advocate, wouldn't a guy whose sole interest in knives was money be smart to collect cutlery catalogs to that he could use them as an appraisal? One thing that shouldn't be overlooked, is that by virtue of Mr. Taylor's current control over the Schrade name and his financial backing of this publication, whatever Mr. Voyles writes is likely to have the imprimatur of being the "official" Schrade history whether so stated or not. Any subsequent publication, seeking to set the record straight or present the history from a different perspective may have a "tough row to hoe." Larry, we in North Carolina and the other southern originals, are also colonials, and like those in Australia we have a hard time "pretending the king has clothes". I would not make a final judgment on any of this until I had met Mr. Voyles personally or at least done business with him. However, I just can't help but play the devils advocate after reviewing the posts from both sides of this argument.