Vista - Unknowingly purchasing re-packaged RMA products

When I ordered my new case a couple of weeks ago, I also ordered an Accelero S1 Rev2 Twin Turbo to put on my 4850.

Today I decided to actually get around to installing it. When I opened the packaging and closely inspected the cooler, I discovered that the copper was dull and dirty, some of the fins were slightly scratched and dented and that there were scratch marks around the screw position adjustment area.

I can only believe that I have received someone else's refurbished RMA job, since the packaging itself was brand new and that the factory applied TIM looks factory fresh and unused. It's not a show stopper, but I am a little pi*sed that it's not 'brand new'.

I'm just curious if anyone else has received possible RMA products that they in good faith thought they were new and unused when purchased?

lol, it looks it's just me then

Don't be breaking something that you just bought Smarteyball.

G'Day Mate

You don't say who you got it through, but don't forget Trade Practices Act and the 'cooling-off' period for reconsideration, and return to Retailer.

Also, in sales info, was there any mention that cost was indicative of probable 'refurbished', near-new or returned, 'second' or second-hand, item being supplied?

lol I haven't installed it yet. (was too annoyed) so nothing is broken yet


I ordered it online through PCCASEGEAR (who seem to have a good a good rep) and there was no mention of it being refurbished (otherwise I wouldn't have bought it).

It's been in my possession for a couple of weeks now so any cooling off period has definitely cooled. It was only 2 days ago (or whenever I first posted) that I had actually decided to install it and noticed it's less than new appearance. Im still leaning towards the manufacturer not being forward with retailers about the stock they send.

I bought a Tuniq Tower from PCG and it came in pretty average condition (mind you it had come from Melbourne to Sunshine Coast). The box was a bit damaged but the heatsink was fine (thanks to MASSIVE foamage), looking at it now i do notice some fins are a bit bent but that doesn't bother me.

I will say that the copper plate was immaculate and screw holes clean so i think you just got unlucky. Email PCG and ask what their reselling RMA'ed policy is and if they deny it send them some pictures (make sure the box is in the shot to make it look as though you just pulled it out).

Sucks when you get ripped off like that though

I think the couriers have a lot to answer for with how they treat packages. The box that my case came in was absolutely soaking wet when I removed the packaging. It must have been sitting in the rain at Melbourne airport. At least the case was undamaged.

I might still fire off an e-mail, just for some clarification. I just hope they're not iffy about it, it's hard enough as it is to find reputable on-line retailers in OZ and I really want to find a place I can always trust. And the majority always seem to be in Victoria... :P

Hi Smarty,

If you use the bulk of this post as the basis of your eMail I would think that the company would easily see that you are writing to inform them of genuine concerns. It is in their interest to listen to their customers. It's more difficult when they have a virtual monopoly, but I have always found that a "concerned" enquiry is more effective than an "Angry" one.

G'Day Nigel,

I trust that you are in post-Christmas recovery, and training long and hard for the New Year.

While what you say has an element of ideal truth about it, the laws that are in place in this Country to theoretically 'protect' the consumer, are more effective as a 'shield' for unscrupulous retailers to hide behind. And I'm speaking from some hard-learned experience here.

This is primarily because the leading Consumer Advocate Agency is toothless, the individual State Consumer Protection Offices [of Fair (sic) Trading] wear dentures, and they then refer the poor Customer to the Federal Agency called the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission, which then asks for a Fee to conduct a 'Small Claims Tribunal'.

That Fee often exceeds the cost to the consumer of the original item, so in effect, the customer always ends up as the loser. The Retailer has the money, the customer is left dissatified, and the so-called Consumer Advocates and State and Federal agencies just don't give a damn.

I wish Smarty all the very best in his endeavours to gain any sort of satisfaction from the Retailer concerned.

The threat of adverse publicity, albeit from a forum, is often enough to scare them straight.