This is an issue near and dear to my heart. It is the ONLY area I have had (the most) problems with on almost every trip.
RANT PORTION:
1. Wrong trophy being shipped. At least the taxidermist paid all expenses for getting it corrected. I got my trophy after a lot of PIA. Documented here on AH. (NAMIBIA)
2. Another taxidermist hoping I was stuck and would have to use them. A quote on tanning that exceeded what I can have work done for in North America! That was the last straw. Because I did so much homework beforehand I had all the trophies moved to another taxidermist I had found myself. I was not stuck. He lost three sets of trophies from that trip and all subsequent work by being a greedy ... (SOUTH AFRICA)
3. Not getting replies to requests for quotes BEFORE the work was even received. Monopoly. The hunter is stuck, there is no one else to turn to. The price quotes, when finally presented, changed along with the fees for paperwork. (Never to return to the country to hunt and be taken hostage) (BOTSWANA)
4. Shipping company sending a subsequent invoice to shipment being paid in full. They were charged more than they thought by the airline. So I should pay for it? Insane. (NAMIBIA)
5. Having trophies rot and spoil at the Outfitter waiting for the Taxidermist to get their act together. I did not bother to count the number left behind. (BOTSWANA)
6. Having the LARGE trophies magically disappear enroute. It happened in the taxidermists control. We had them take pictures before they took possession and we got pictures taken on delivery at the next leg. (I knew the old
would be coming) The largest trophies substituted with some other sample.
The solution offered was to send all other trophies that were abandoned for free! Who gives a damn about the free shipping of garbage. The theft is complete and my trophies were gone.The garbage was thrown out when it arrived. (BOTSWANA)
You have to TRUST someone and the taxidermist is shielded by the good reputation of the Outfitter. Client's tend to rely on the Outfitter's recommendation and not screen the taxidermists properly. (Many clients not knowing the "commission" being provided to the Outfitter by the taxidermist for work received. Nor is it ever disclosed)
One of the best in the world was just roasted in another AH thread for failing to communicate with clients. He is going to be making changes in his operation. No one can afford to have the "bad news" getting out. AH sends the bad news around the world.
Australians, Kiwis, American customers in this thread alone Louw. Hmmm.
...........
.............. the quality of their mounts as it doesn’t affect me, but let’s just say that what I saw varied quite a lot. .............
Skulls were well cleaned, the smaller guys were a little chalky from bleaching but on the whole I was happy with the skull preparation. The capes however, were a different matter. It soon became obvious that they hadn’t been shaved properly, with a large portion of the face on each cape not thinned, a thick lump of rock hard hide being the result. ...............
As a taxidermist myself, ............... I'm simply astounded that they would use a chemical on customer’s skins that wasn't thoroughly tested beforehand! In hindsight, the varying quality of mounts I witnessed in their showroom should have been a warning to the obvious lack of consistent quality control that this company displays.
..................... Tim
@Louw Nel Glad you showed up to reply but, there are bigger questions.
Typically, it takes a lot to get someone to post a negative report. Like DWI charges it takes a lot of repetitions of the same behavior to get caught out.
Shipping replacement capes is pretty well the minimum action required. You destroyed someone's property!
"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done."
Counting on the distance and frustration of addressing these issues from a foreign country is a prevalent practice. Apparently
@Wheels has been subject to the methodology.
What is the solution being afforded for the LARGER problem?
QUALITY CONTROL
Not testing a new process before using it on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY!
Why should anyone trust this kind of decision making in a business?
How hard is it to have someone who actually KNOWS what they are doing to REVIEW EACH PIECE?
Those capes of
@blacks are pretty obviously not completed. Someone being paid piece work did the easy bits and then threw them into the "complete" pile.
So, why do YOUR staff not give a damn about what they are producing?
"The purpose of the reasonable man ... is to determine whether a particular plaintiff has failed, judged by a community standard, in the duty of care he or she owes....."
I honestly wish you well solving your problems.