INTRO
Let me preface by stating outright that it is not my intent to malign the member who sold me this knife--nor is it my intent to accuse him of any intentional wrongdoing. I am, however, going to criticize what I believe to be his negligence and carelessness in conducting this transaction. In making my case and asking fellow members for their advice, I will attempt to present an objective, accurate account before entertaining a discussion about whether or not it's fair to request a transaction reversal. Since the member who sold me the knife has initially indicated a willingness to "work things out", his identity will remain secret. However, since I'm leaning toward asking for my money back, my fear is that things will devolve into gridlock disagreement.
BACKGROUND ON THE ZT0500
The knife at the center of controversy here is the Zero Tolerance 0500, also known as the "MUDD folder". For those not familiar with this particular model, it was designed for ZT by Grant and Gavin Hawk as the ultimate "hard use folder". It is unique not only because of its industrial aesthetics, but for the fact that the pivot and locking mechanisms are literally impervious to dirt or mud. This feat was achieved by sealing the entire housing holding the pivot and locking mechanism with neoprene and rubber. Because of the difficulties involved in manufacturing this complex sealing system, ZT later discontinued the knife, and it's price on the market went from about $100-$110 to about $140-$150.
THE PURCHASE
I came across a member on the exchange forums who was trading a "new in box" ZT0500. I emailed the member asking him to confirm that the knife was in fact "new in box", telling him that if it was I would like to buy it outright. He confirmed this to be the case and I obliged, sending payment via PayPal. The salient facts I wish to highlight here are 1) that he listed the knife as "new in box" in his post, 2) that he confirmed it's condition as "new in box" via email, and 3) that I honored my half of the transaction by paying him for the knife.
THE PROBLEM
Plainly stated, my claim is that this transaction was completely unfair to me because the knife sent was not "new in box" as described.
The knife arrived at my home in short order, and while I was appreciative of the quick ship, my heart sank when I saw how the knife was packaged. Apparently the seller simply placed the knife in it's Zero Tolerance box and then stuffed that box into an empty cardboard USPS envelope (no bubble wrap, packing paper, etc).
As an aside, I'm curious to hear others' opinions about this method of packaging. As a knife collector I prefer to keep my Benchmade, Spyderco, ZT, etc. boxes clean and undamaged. I feel it adds value to a knife to also have its original box in good shape. It stands to reason that, all things being equal, most people would prefer having a new looking box over a beat up box when buying a "new in box" knife from somebody. If any of you purchased a knife from me, I wouldn't dream of shipping it in a flimsy cardboard envelope. To me, it's sort of disrespectful, bordering on insulting. But I understand that different people may have different views about this. I'm wondering how other members would feel if their newly-purchased "new in box" knife arrived this way?
In any case, it's really not that big a deal that the box was crumpled around the edges during shipping due to poor packaging. After all, it's just a box. The reason I mention the packaging is to convey what my state of mind at the time. That is, my aggravation and disappointment with the packaging served to place me on high alert over the condition of the knife inside. Needless to say, I was anxious to check it out. The reason this point is important is because the seller later suggested that I may have damaged the knife through use. But put yourself in my state of mind after seeing the careless packaging--I almost immediately anticipated a problem and as such was looking for signs of damage from the very beginning. Unfortunately, I found them in spades.
The first thing I noticed when I opened the knife and held it against a lit background was that the very tip of the blade was chipped off (see arrow 2 in pic).
Furthermore, there was a section leading up to the tip (from arrow 1 to arrow 2 in pic) where the grind on the blade was smoothened and polished, as if sharpened or otherwise run over something metal. Not the biggest deal in the world, but certainly not what one wants to see on a "new in box" knife.
Next I noticed the rubber gasket which seals the edges around the ram lock switch was damaged. Specifically, it was ripped in three different places: one rip directly above the sliding switch (arrow 3), a much larger rip directly below the switch (arrow 4), and a rip in the groove where the rubber attaches to the handle itself (arrow 5, hard to see). You can also see a white mark on the switch itself (2nd pic, no arrow) where the black paint is chipped away. Definitely not "new in box" condition.
Finally, check out the neoprene rings that seal the pivot area and ram lock from dirt entering the housing. In the pic below, compare the ring on the left to the analogous ring on the right. Arrows point to areas where the seal has completely separated from the side of the handle frame. Look carefully at the area the middle arrow is pointing to. That bronze color you see is actually the pivot washer. You can see right into the center of housing! The seal is useless.
I ALERT THE SELLER
Once again, my claim is that this knife is not "new in box" as the seller represented. I immediately emailed the seller with my concerns along with these pictures (and by immediately I mean same day, within about 20 minutes of opening the cardboard envelope).
Here's the email correspondence (mine are red, the seller is in blue):
I received the knife today and really appreciate the quick ship. However, I do have a problem with the transaction in that I don't feel the knife is in the condition you stated. If you recall, you indicated that the knife was "NIB". Yet the tip of the blade is chipped off and the rubber surrounding the ram lock switch is ripped apart in two different places (both above and below the switch). There are also various chips in the black paint that suggest this knife was used a bit. Is it possible that you have two of this model and sent me the wrong one by mistake?
I only had one.
It was purchased new and never used.
I opened it and closed it a few times when I first got it and then put it into storage.
It was shipped NIB with papers.
was the packing in good condition upon your receipt?
The wear I see is not the result of the poor packaging. I've attached a few pictures of the knife you shipped. Can we at least agree that this knife is not in "new in box" condition?
What is your name on the forums?
My username is "Bryan J".
Which forums?
I originally saw your post on bladeforums.com and contacted you from there. Are we in agreement about the condition of the knife?
I do not agree with you. The blade was in the condition that I had stated.
I don't recall any trouble with the gasketing but maybe it was dry when I got it and tore a bit when you used it.
ZT stands behind their products and will undoubtedlt replace the gasketing, which if you look in their manual, should be replaced periodically.
I am trying to see it from your perspective. I'm going to give this further thought.
I will be available on Monday. Let's talk then and work this out.
Please don't insinuate that I'm lying or that I damaged the knife. I did no such ting. What you see in the pictures is what you sent me. Now I'm not accusing you of *intentionally* misrepresenting the condition of the knife, but you did in fact misrepresent it. That much is clear. I acted as quickly and responsibly as I could. Within 15 minutes of discovering that the knife was misrepresented, I contacted you. I've even sent you pictures: a picture of the blade with arrows indicating the defects and pics of the rubber which is ripped in two places. I've indicated the part of the switch where the paint is chipped off. There's really nothing more I can do. I'm the one holding the short end of the stick here.
I stand by my original remarks Bryan.
ZT will replace the gasketing for you at no charge. I will call them on Monday and then we'll talk again.
Now, the first thing I want to drive home here is that this was a contract that involved an exchange of $130 for a "new in box" Zero Tolerance 0500. Clearly I have honored my obligation and clearly I did not get a knife that was in "new in box" condition. I did not even get a knife that was "like new in box". I received a knife that is damaged in three different, independent places. I tried to contact him immediately so as to avoid any charges that I was responsible for the damage, but as you see from the email exchange he is suggesting that I am responsible.
My intention was not to buy a knife that I need to ship off to Zero Tolerance for 4-6 weeks hoping they restore it to "new in box" condition. I really don't think it is fair to expect that of me given what the contract was. Plus, if I'm reading ZT's warranty policy correctly, it only applies to the original purchaser of the knife. I simply do not wish to deal with all that. So I'm leaning toward asking for a full refund here. But I don't wish to be pushy or unfair about it. I'm not taking this personally and I have no ill will toward the seller. I'm assuming he simply made a careless mistake by not understanding the condition of the knife in the first place. Am I being fair here?
Let me preface by stating outright that it is not my intent to malign the member who sold me this knife--nor is it my intent to accuse him of any intentional wrongdoing. I am, however, going to criticize what I believe to be his negligence and carelessness in conducting this transaction. In making my case and asking fellow members for their advice, I will attempt to present an objective, accurate account before entertaining a discussion about whether or not it's fair to request a transaction reversal. Since the member who sold me the knife has initially indicated a willingness to "work things out", his identity will remain secret. However, since I'm leaning toward asking for my money back, my fear is that things will devolve into gridlock disagreement.
BACKGROUND ON THE ZT0500
The knife at the center of controversy here is the Zero Tolerance 0500, also known as the "MUDD folder". For those not familiar with this particular model, it was designed for ZT by Grant and Gavin Hawk as the ultimate "hard use folder". It is unique not only because of its industrial aesthetics, but for the fact that the pivot and locking mechanisms are literally impervious to dirt or mud. This feat was achieved by sealing the entire housing holding the pivot and locking mechanism with neoprene and rubber. Because of the difficulties involved in manufacturing this complex sealing system, ZT later discontinued the knife, and it's price on the market went from about $100-$110 to about $140-$150.
THE PURCHASE
I came across a member on the exchange forums who was trading a "new in box" ZT0500. I emailed the member asking him to confirm that the knife was in fact "new in box", telling him that if it was I would like to buy it outright. He confirmed this to be the case and I obliged, sending payment via PayPal. The salient facts I wish to highlight here are 1) that he listed the knife as "new in box" in his post, 2) that he confirmed it's condition as "new in box" via email, and 3) that I honored my half of the transaction by paying him for the knife.
THE PROBLEM
Plainly stated, my claim is that this transaction was completely unfair to me because the knife sent was not "new in box" as described.
The knife arrived at my home in short order, and while I was appreciative of the quick ship, my heart sank when I saw how the knife was packaged. Apparently the seller simply placed the knife in it's Zero Tolerance box and then stuffed that box into an empty cardboard USPS envelope (no bubble wrap, packing paper, etc).
As an aside, I'm curious to hear others' opinions about this method of packaging. As a knife collector I prefer to keep my Benchmade, Spyderco, ZT, etc. boxes clean and undamaged. I feel it adds value to a knife to also have its original box in good shape. It stands to reason that, all things being equal, most people would prefer having a new looking box over a beat up box when buying a "new in box" knife from somebody. If any of you purchased a knife from me, I wouldn't dream of shipping it in a flimsy cardboard envelope. To me, it's sort of disrespectful, bordering on insulting. But I understand that different people may have different views about this. I'm wondering how other members would feel if their newly-purchased "new in box" knife arrived this way?
In any case, it's really not that big a deal that the box was crumpled around the edges during shipping due to poor packaging. After all, it's just a box. The reason I mention the packaging is to convey what my state of mind at the time. That is, my aggravation and disappointment with the packaging served to place me on high alert over the condition of the knife inside. Needless to say, I was anxious to check it out. The reason this point is important is because the seller later suggested that I may have damaged the knife through use. But put yourself in my state of mind after seeing the careless packaging--I almost immediately anticipated a problem and as such was looking for signs of damage from the very beginning. Unfortunately, I found them in spades.
The first thing I noticed when I opened the knife and held it against a lit background was that the very tip of the blade was chipped off (see arrow 2 in pic).
Furthermore, there was a section leading up to the tip (from arrow 1 to arrow 2 in pic) where the grind on the blade was smoothened and polished, as if sharpened or otherwise run over something metal. Not the biggest deal in the world, but certainly not what one wants to see on a "new in box" knife.
Next I noticed the rubber gasket which seals the edges around the ram lock switch was damaged. Specifically, it was ripped in three different places: one rip directly above the sliding switch (arrow 3), a much larger rip directly below the switch (arrow 4), and a rip in the groove where the rubber attaches to the handle itself (arrow 5, hard to see). You can also see a white mark on the switch itself (2nd pic, no arrow) where the black paint is chipped away. Definitely not "new in box" condition.
Finally, check out the neoprene rings that seal the pivot area and ram lock from dirt entering the housing. In the pic below, compare the ring on the left to the analogous ring on the right. Arrows point to areas where the seal has completely separated from the side of the handle frame. Look carefully at the area the middle arrow is pointing to. That bronze color you see is actually the pivot washer. You can see right into the center of housing! The seal is useless.
I ALERT THE SELLER
Once again, my claim is that this knife is not "new in box" as the seller represented. I immediately emailed the seller with my concerns along with these pictures (and by immediately I mean same day, within about 20 minutes of opening the cardboard envelope).
Here's the email correspondence (mine are red, the seller is in blue):
I received the knife today and really appreciate the quick ship. However, I do have a problem with the transaction in that I don't feel the knife is in the condition you stated. If you recall, you indicated that the knife was "NIB". Yet the tip of the blade is chipped off and the rubber surrounding the ram lock switch is ripped apart in two different places (both above and below the switch). There are also various chips in the black paint that suggest this knife was used a bit. Is it possible that you have two of this model and sent me the wrong one by mistake?
I only had one.
It was purchased new and never used.
I opened it and closed it a few times when I first got it and then put it into storage.
It was shipped NIB with papers.
was the packing in good condition upon your receipt?
The wear I see is not the result of the poor packaging. I've attached a few pictures of the knife you shipped. Can we at least agree that this knife is not in "new in box" condition?
What is your name on the forums?
My username is "Bryan J".
Which forums?
I originally saw your post on bladeforums.com and contacted you from there. Are we in agreement about the condition of the knife?
I do not agree with you. The blade was in the condition that I had stated.
I don't recall any trouble with the gasketing but maybe it was dry when I got it and tore a bit when you used it.
ZT stands behind their products and will undoubtedlt replace the gasketing, which if you look in their manual, should be replaced periodically.
I am trying to see it from your perspective. I'm going to give this further thought.
I will be available on Monday. Let's talk then and work this out.
Please don't insinuate that I'm lying or that I damaged the knife. I did no such ting. What you see in the pictures is what you sent me. Now I'm not accusing you of *intentionally* misrepresenting the condition of the knife, but you did in fact misrepresent it. That much is clear. I acted as quickly and responsibly as I could. Within 15 minutes of discovering that the knife was misrepresented, I contacted you. I've even sent you pictures: a picture of the blade with arrows indicating the defects and pics of the rubber which is ripped in two places. I've indicated the part of the switch where the paint is chipped off. There's really nothing more I can do. I'm the one holding the short end of the stick here.
I stand by my original remarks Bryan.
ZT will replace the gasketing for you at no charge. I will call them on Monday and then we'll talk again.
Now, the first thing I want to drive home here is that this was a contract that involved an exchange of $130 for a "new in box" Zero Tolerance 0500. Clearly I have honored my obligation and clearly I did not get a knife that was in "new in box" condition. I did not even get a knife that was "like new in box". I received a knife that is damaged in three different, independent places. I tried to contact him immediately so as to avoid any charges that I was responsible for the damage, but as you see from the email exchange he is suggesting that I am responsible.
My intention was not to buy a knife that I need to ship off to Zero Tolerance for 4-6 weeks hoping they restore it to "new in box" condition. I really don't think it is fair to expect that of me given what the contract was. Plus, if I'm reading ZT's warranty policy correctly, it only applies to the original purchaser of the knife. I simply do not wish to deal with all that. So I'm leaning toward asking for a full refund here. But I don't wish to be pushy or unfair about it. I'm not taking this personally and I have no ill will toward the seller. I'm assuming he simply made a careless mistake by not understanding the condition of the knife in the first place. Am I being fair here?
Last edited:
