View Single Post
  #9  
Old 18-02-2013, 08:52 PM
CDKPhil's Avatar
CDKPhil
Phil Liebelt

CDKPhil is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd View Post
Thank you your response. I honestly do hope SB has implemented a better QC. I have a question - did you not feel that a $9000 mount shouldn't have had to have it's worm replaced?
Absolutely!
I was not expecting to have any problems with a mount of this dollar value, nor should I.
It is a shame that a few others shared in this experience. It has put a tarnish on a superbly engineered mount.
Definitely factory testing would have caught the problem before it ever went public.

This story could have easily gone the other way, but Software Bisque stepped up to the plate and did the right thing without complaint or accusations. Now my mount operates well within spec and I am very happy with it.

If I could do this all again knowing what I know now, I would still choose the MX over any other mount in its price range. I really enjoy using it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd View Post
Threads like this don't fill me with confidence: http://www.bisque.com/sc/forums/t/16...px?PageIndex=3
I have been following this thread, and I hope this persons issues are promptly sorted out.
Reply With Quote