So, you really want to do this in public, Karl? It's easy for an anonymous screen name individual to bad-mouth a business which is visible to anyone on this forum. Although one bad review does nothing to diminish my 10-year reputation as a fair and honest business, I do feel like I need to respond:
The gun, a Colt 1860 Richards conversion is indeed in NRA excellent condition, as described on my website. The web page is still up, for anyone who wants to see it. After Karl bought the gun, he e-mailed me to complain that upon disassembly (why??) he noticed the hammer spring screw was badly mangled. I did not take the gun apart because there was no reason for it. It is functionally as perfect as can be expected from a 150 year old gun - no, it is just about perfect, period. Unnecessary disassembly is never a good idea, and I never do it unless I absolutely have to. Karl went further and continued to disassemble the gun (which is against my sales policies - read up on it, it's all over my website) removing the barrel and extractor housing, and found two numbers under the extractor housing which do not match the serial number. He immediately suspected that the gun had been "doctored" and made to look like it is original. Anyone who knows the history of the Colt cartridge conversions knows that they were assembled from percussion gun parts, after the expiry of the Rollin White patent of 1855. The number under the extractor housing is an assembly number used to identify parts after they had been fitted, and before they were finished. A very common practice with all firearms makers. This is what makes the conversions so desirable to collectors! There are very few out there in such fine condition, and they are much more rare than the percussion models.
Then, Karl proceeded to "slug the barrel", another no-no in my sales policy. You do not disassemble or alter the antique in any way if you intend to return it, and you do not perform any sort of "experiments" on it. This is a high-grade antique, not a Glock. Even though, I offered Karl a full refund, including the $423 of FedEx insurance he insisted on. Karl's reply was that I should come to his house in Victoria, cash in hand, to collect the gun, as he does not trust me. I repeatedly referred him to the "Terms & Conditions" on my website, and allowed for a return despite the disassembly. Then Karl wanted a $6000 refund and keep the gun, because he did not believe it was worth more than $4000. I declined, again offering a full refund upon return of the gun in unaltered condition. Then Karl demanded that I refund him the full purchase price BEFORE he returned the gun "promising" to return it once he had his money. There is no retailer on the planet who will provide a refund without the merchandise being returned first. I declined again, referring him to the return policy on my website. This was supposed to happen last Friday. I received no response. I offered to extend the return period for another three days to Monday. No response. Finally, I advised Karl that the matter was now closed, as I did not receive a response or indication that he had initiated a return. I pride myself on my fairness and ability to make things right with my customers. I endured threats, beratement and unfounded accusations from Karl, and frankly I am not inclined to pursue this matter any further. I apologize to the community for this being dragged into the public view. Karl, you have a very special and scarce revolver here. I have never, in 10 years, seen one like it. It's not "mint", but still in excellent condition for a 150 year old gun. I absolutely stand behind my assessment and the description on my website.
Best regards,
Chris
