I like Proto. Hard to see them go down on quality and service, but that's the real issue here. We expect top quality and service, but SBD bought the name, and is using up the goodwill in the name while cheapening the product and service. Just like they did with Black and Decker and other names they bought.
I started out buying Proto, when it was expensive, but could be warrantied just by going into Willet Brothers parts store and handing them the broken one, and getting a new on off the wall board. Except if it was discontinued, then it was too bad.
Eventually, Willet Bros switched to SK, and I bought some metric tools from them, because I could no longer warranty Proto. The wrenches were great. The sockets were an experiment in alternative metallurgy and failed miserably. I bought Snap-on sockets instead, and they were universally great. Because of the great experience with the quality, I simply shifted my tool purchase over to Snap-on; the cost was worth it to have tools that actually worked right, and were readily available. The warranty and service were just bonus; and helped make the high cost more tolerable.
I just warrantied the struts on my top box. I looked up the receipt for that box, it was $2982 total cost in 1998. I can buy a pretty similar USG HF box for $599.99 list price today. Snap on sent me two $36 struts, that I could have just bought generic ones for $20 a pair on Amazon. Worth it? You be the judge. The box has worked for over 25 years for me, and is still in perfect condition. They've warrantied some latches before, again a somewhat trivial cost. But, for 25 years, I've not had to worry about the quality of that box. I don't miss the $2300 dollars extra that were spent to get it (even though HF couldn't have provided that box 25 years ago). But, I do appreciate that it's worked flawlessly for 25 years, and had small defects immediately corrected by the manufacturer at no cost. Spread out over 25 years, $100 or so per year to have a flawlessly operating upper box doesn't seem excessive. Unless you think a toolbox should cost $300 and last forever.
I recently had an expensive pair of work boots fail me, on nearly their first use. They're not cheap, at about $200; not top of the line, the top of the line is $699 and have 4 to 6 month lead time. My identical last pair performed flawlessly throughout their expected lifetime. I'm pondering what to do: 1) Should I try to get them warrantied? They failed in a moderately arduous job where they shouldn't have (designed for that exact job) so can I trust them again?
2) If they don't warranty, should I just pay $200 again, as they are exactly the right thing for my use, except for the failure. The last pair I had before these were satisfactory. Now, I doubt their dependability, based on my recent failure of BOTH boots. The failure was very inconvenient, the $200 seemed trivial in comparison to not having dependable boots when I needed them. The lack of protection for my feet with other shoes was a risk I would gladly have paid money to avoid.
3) Should I switch to another brand, in the mid-range price, and hope they're better? How will I know they won't also fail at the same arduous performance level that this pair did?
4) Should I just go right to the top and pay $699 for the best I can get? I know I can depend on them to not fail, and if they do, the company will do everything they can do to make it right. If they're out of warranty, they will rebuild them for a fee.
In tools, I have transitioned to just paying what it takes to get the best overall, with the highest cost. It's worth it to me to not have to think about the compromises on quality/service I'm trading off for dollars. As my first two choices, Proto and SK, moved away from top quality and top service, I simply pivoted to Snap-On.
I no longer have employment that will make the expensive boots as cost effective and their dependability a requirement of the job. Plus, the expensive boots are hard on my feet. So, it's really painful decision to buy a product I don't like, that's expensive, and is higher quality than I should need. But, I don't want to tolerate failure of a lesser product. To pay $200 for a product that failed on nearly the first use, wasn't very cost effective compared to $699 for a product that would have stood up to literally several hundred similar uses.
I feel the OP's pain. He bought what used to be a quality tool. It failed somehow, and the customer service to replace it is poor. If I was him, I'd worry the replacement, which is an imported lower quality tool than Proto has historically made, will also fail. However, he paid $40 for a ratchet that would probably cost $150 or so from Snap-On. He's a home gamer, doesn't need a top quality tool. Old Proto would have been a perfect level. New, cheaper Proto, with a now known failure history, doesn't look so appealing, even though it was exactly what he wanted when it was new and worked right. He's in exactly the same position as me with my boots. Should he pay a lot more, for a product that isn't exactly what he wants, just to get a quality level he can depend on?
It's an interesting dilemma to be in. At least, I can afford the boots. From what I see a lot of the lower quality tool users posting here, they use them because that's what they can afford, and they can't afford to buy all Snap-on. Sometimes it's a stretch to even afford Proto or other near top tier and they just have to start at the bottom or shop from an array of mid-tier, with somewhat unknown performance level. To do that, they have to live with a higher failure rate, lower level of performance, and sometimes less than perfect customer service.
I can say it's a pleasant alternative to not have to make those compromises, and just get the tool that you know will perform, even if the performance level is more than you could live with. But, not all of us use the tools at a level that makes that cost effective. Tradeoffs and choices of life.
