[WhiteCrow]

yea, but after e-mailing them asking for a refund and getting back an NO we wont give you a refund for your fake product WE sold you but we will give you a fraction of what you paid for your trouble... oh by the way you owe us for shipping. yea I lost it.

 

[minusblindfold]

They sent me this e-mail:
 
[size=11pt]Thanks for your e-mail.  Your refund will be 100% of the amount paid, including shipping, if we confirm the headset you received is indeed defective.  If it is normal quality for this item, then shipping would be non-refundable and a re-stocking fee of 20% would also be applicable.  We have offered to send a brand new headset, free of charge, and it seems that you have declined that offer, so return shipping would be your responsibility.  [/size]
 
They deny that it's a fake pair. I did talk to a customer service rep on amazon and explained what happened, they said if I don't receive a full refund to file a claim against the seller. I'm sending the headphones back tomorrow, then I'll just have to wait and see if they send me a full refund (I don't think it's gonna happen).
 
I was wondering, maybe the seller doesn't know they're fake? (Unlikely though)

 

[Argyris]

EDIT: I read that all wrong. Let me fix this up.
 
If I understand correctly, the e-mail you quoted was from the seller. I would do what Amazon says, but make sure you keep some photographic evidence that clearly identifies the features of your pair that you feel prove it's fake. That way you won't be caught high and dry without proof if you need it later on. If nothing else, if you do get a real pair of PPs in the future, you can post a thread here showing the difference as you said yourself that there was nothing of that sort on Head-Fi.

 

[Ultrainferno]

I would check all the things shown in the http://loveray.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-identify-fake-koss-porta-pro.html page and take some pictures of it before shipping it back. You could even send that then to Amazon if your seller doesn't refund you

 

[minusblindfold]

Argyris, yes the e-mail was from the seller. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
 
And good idea guys, I didn't think about taking pictures as proof - I'll defintely do that before I send them off.

 

[minusblindfold]

I took a few pictures, thought I'd post them. Couldn't take any pics of the box as it's long gone in the trash. Sorry about my horrible photography skills.
 
Pictures of the real PP are from: http://loveray.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-identify-fake-koss-porta-pro.html 
 
Real- (black pad)
 

 
Mine- (bluish pad)
 

 
Real- (nice-looking sticker)
 

 
Mine- (crappy sticker)
 

 
Real-
 

 
Mine-(notice the crooked o's)
 

 
Real- (beautiful, shiny jack)
 

 
 Mine- (Rough-looking jack)
 

 
Real-
 

 
 Mine- (Has more of a background pattern inside the square)
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

That sucks.  Remember, if you paid with a credit card, a chargeback is always an option.

 

[Argyris]

The third pair is the cincher, I think. I notice you date-stamped the pictures, which is smart--they couldn't argue you just found these on the Internet because the likelihood that somebody else took pictures of fake PortaPros on the same day is infinitesimally small.
 
Now you've not only got the link you posted earlier, but also this thread with your own pictures of the fakes in it. Send links to both to whomever you're dealing with if need be.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Yeah, but anybody can add a date to a photo they find...  Watermarks only prevent/reduce uncredited image theft, not prove by whom/when they were taken.  Image authentication for DSLRs can do that, and having a same-day newspaper in the photo can essentially prove that the photo isn't any earlier.

 

[Argyris]

Quote:

Yeah, but anybody can add a date to a photo they find...  Watermarks only prevent/reduce uncredited image theft, not prove by whom/when they were taken.  Image authentication for DSLRs can do that, and having a same-day newspaper in the photo can essentially prove that the photo isn't any earlier.

That's very true. It's always going to be an inductive argument no matter what you do, and as this is a lot of trouble to go through for $30 if I were the seller or Amazon I'd be compelled to believe the pictures, even as what you say is true. The newspaper idea would have been a nice addition.

 

[KneelJung]

When you get your money back, shoot over to a Best Buy to pick up your Porta Pro's. They have a 30 day return policy.

 

[buffalowings]

Quote:

When you get your money back, shoot over to a Best Buy to pick up your Porta Pro's. They have a 30 day return policy.

 
forget about finding portapros in bestbuy stores, they recently discontinued carrying them in store, but you can still choose store pick up from there website

 

[sumathias]

Quote:

your post reminds me of folk who bought the HD201 expecting the HD600 for < $50. Aint gonna happen.

I concur. The portapros are good at their price point. But that isn't saying that much when compared to other great cans like the senn 600s which are also great for their price (which happens to be more than 10x more)

 

[minusblindfold]

I'm thinking of buying a pair from this seller: http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-KOSS-PORTA-PRO-PP-Folding-Headphones-Deep-Bass-/200565717224?pt=Other_MP3_Player_Accessories&hash=item2eb2a5f8e8 

 
They've sold 72 pairs and have excellent feedback, so they seem to be a genuine dealer.
 
If I get another fake pair though, I'm gonna jump off a bridge.

 

[jamato8]

He charges 23 dollars for shipping! Priority would cost 6 or 7 at most. So that makes them cost around 41 dollars, not a bargain. 
 
I like the PortaPros a lot but if you must jump off a bridge, if it doesn't work out, try one that is about 1 foot off the ground first. See how you like it.