Raven Phantom Glock Contract Over-Runs Available

[Willard]

Honestly, I'd go with DSG or JMCK over these, support a site sponsor, take less money from the bank, buy ammo, and still feel like I had a better holster.

However, I would not have the sanitized patch where someone important previously had a logo.

Mission drives the gear train I suppose.

[RCSMichael]

Your "close out" didn't have the unique rectangle, showing it had been built for, but never actually sold to, or used by, ".gov/.mil clients," making them "rare pieces of gear," and justifying the high price.

What's the old saying about a fool and his money?

The reaction to this closeout has been comical, albeit predictable. I've spent the better part of a year being told by people on the internet that I was an idiot to discontinue the Phantom. Then, when I make available surplus inventory that had been produced for a .gov client, I'm told that I'm charging too much, and a bunch of people act like I'm trying to fleece my customers.

Apparently, everyone wants Phantoms, unless they cost EXACTLY WHAT THEY USED TO COST. Prior to being discontinued, the Phantom cost $94.99, and the Phantom LC cost $104.99.

Bundles #1 and #2 are priced just like they always were before we discontinued the Phantom.

Bundles #3 and #4 are discounted $30 and $50, respectively.

These models of Phantom and Phantom LC have been issued to a few different entities, both domestically and among friendly foreign governments. Some of those entities took delivery of product that had standard commercial markings. Some requested specific markings for inventory control purposes. These holsters are from the latter example, and --for obvious reasons-- it was necessary for me to laser over those markings. Had I not explained why they had a weird orange rectangle on the back of them, customers would have bitched about the big ugly mark. But since I did, and pointed out that such a marking (albeit not aesthetically pleasing) makes them a rare acquisition, apparently I should be mocked.

There are days where I wish I had just tossed them in the material grinder and written them off. It would have been a lot less hassle.

[RCSMichael]

They just released another "overrun" today that is just their Perun holsters without any markings. Because of this they marked it up $60, so you pay $99. I am not sure why any one would pay that...

Probably but they shouldn't cost $60 more to do it.

You mean a company shouldn’t charge more to do less? <sarcasm>


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? See the last sentence of my previous post.

I actually like the "sterile" version, but it's certainly not worth a 150% markup, especially when the thing is supposed to be CONCEALED.

This batch of holsters was produced right before the mold was textured, at the request of a .gov client. The didn't know how many they would need long-term, so we ran a quantity for about twice what their anticipated requirement was. We explained to them that the quantity we produced was all there would ever be, since once the mold was textured, there was no going back. Because it was an off-catalog item, and because it was a finite supply, it was given a unique SKU and priced to the client at $99 each (which was basically the same price as a Phantom). Eventually, the requirement for the holsters to be sterile was dropped, which then left us with non-standard inventory.

We held on to this batch in case the need arose again but it never did. So we decided to clear out the inventory before the end of the year to avoid having to pay taxes on it. These holsters are priced exactly as they were to the client.

This isn't a case of us "charging more to do less." The holsters required no more nor no less work than a commercial variant to produce. This is a case of "charging you what the .gov was paying, because discounting them to the public could potentially cause problems for me on the .gov procurement side of things later." It's one of the hassles of doing business with the government, because once you establish the price on a particular SKU, you're kinda married to that price.

Just like with the other close-out bundles, if I didn't explain that these were unique holsters from a finite supply, people wouldn't understand why they didn't look 'right,' and would complain. But when I explain it, some people complain (wrongly) that I'm trying to hustle my customers. It's a no-win situation for me, I suppose, but I'd rather the customer understands what makes them special. THESE are special. The value of that uniqueness will vary from one person to the next, so maybe they aren't worth dropping a C-note to you, but plenty of other customers think it's perfectly reasonable. Some people are just end-users. Some people are collectors. Some people are both.

At the end of the day, if you think 99 bucks is too much for a Perun for your G19, I remain more than happy to sell you one with commercial markings for a mere 40 bucks.

[DMF13]

Originally Posted by DMF13:
Your "close out" didn't have the unique rectangle, showing it had been built for, but never actually sold to, or used by, ".gov/.mil clients," making them "rare pieces of gear," and justifying the high price.

What's the old saying about a fool and his money?

The reaction to this closeout has been comical, albeit predictable. I've spent the better part of a year being told by people on the internet that I was an idiot to discontinue the Phantom. Then, when I make available surplus inventory that had been produced for a .gov client, I'm told that I'm charging too much, and a bunch of people act like I'm trying to fleece my customers.

It's surplus inventory, by your own admission. You weren't offering this stuff up due to people decrying the demise of the "Phantom" on the internet.

Apparently, everyone wants Phantoms, unless they cost EXACTLY WHAT THEY USED TO COST. Prior to being discontinued, the Phantom cost $94.99, and the Phantom LC cost $104.99.

Nope, I don't want a Phantom LC. I had one, and frankly they didn't meet my needs. The one I had I sent back to be fixed, because it didn't come close to holding the gun and light securely enough for serious use. Even after the fix it was WAY too loose. Before I ordered it, and when I sent it back, I was clear what I needed, and was promised that would be delivered, but the holster wasn't up to snuff. I described what I was looking for to your employees, just like I did in the post where I described my thoughts on the Perun: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ven#post789647

These models of Phantom and Phantom LC have been issued to a few different entities, both domestically and among friendly foreign governments. Some of those entities took delivery of product that had standard commercial markings. Some requested specific markings for inventory control purposes. These holsters are from the latter example, and --for obvious reasons-- it was necessary for me to laser over those markings. Had I not explained why they had a weird orange rectangle on the back of them, customers would have bitched about the big ugly mark. But since I did, and pointed out that such a marking (albeit not aesthetically pleasing) makes them a rare acquisition, apparently I should be mocked.

You're being mocked for trying to justify your attempts to recoup money on overstock, by calling them "rare pieces of gear," and implying their special because they were made for ".gov/.mil clients."

There are days where I wish I had just tossed them in the mterial grinder and written them off. It would have been a lot less hassle.

If you really believed that, that's just what you would have done, but you wanted to make some money off that overstock. Some of us, myself included, can see through the marketing nonsense to justify the price, and are expressing our opinions on that.

[DMF13]

This batch of holsters was produced right before the mold was textured, at the request of a .gov client. The didn't know how many they would need long-term, so we ran a quantity for about twice what their anticipated requirement was. We explained to them that the quantity we produced was all there would ever be, since once the mold was textured, there was no going back. Because it was an off-catalog item, and because it was a finite supply, it was given a unique SKU and priced to the client at $99 each (which was basically the same price as a Phantom). Eventually, the requirement for the holsters to be sterile was dropped, which then left us with non-standard inventory.

Yeah, but you chose to produce twice as much as they requested. A gamble on your part, and you were stuck with the overstock.

This isn't a case of us "charging more to do less." The holsters required no more nor no less work than a commercial variant to produce. This is a case of "charging you what the .gov was paying, because discounting them to the public could potentially cause problems for me on the .gov procurement side of things later." It's one of the hassles of doing business with the government, because once you establish the price on a particular SKU, you're kinda married to that price.

Really, care to cite which portions of the US Code and/or Code of Federal Regulations prevent you pricing overstock/surplus inventory at any price other than what a "government" contract price was set, especially when the contract has been fulfilled, the government no longer wants the product you have, and you produced that product by your own choice, not at the request of the government entity you contracted with for the original order? I'm really interested in seeing those citations.

Just like with the other close-out bundles, if I didn't explain that these were unique holsters from a finite supply, people wouldn't understand why they didn't look 'right,' and would complain. But when I explain it, some people complain (wrongly) that I'm trying to hustle my customers. It's a no-win situation for me, I suppose, but I'd rather the customer understands what makes them special. THESE are special. The value of that uniqueness will vary from one person to the next, so maybe they aren't worth dropping a C-note to you, but plenty of other customers think it's perfectly reasonable. Some people are just end-users. Some people are collectors. Some people are both.

At the end of the day, if you think 99 bucks is too much for a Perun for your G19, I remain more than happy to sell you one with commercial markings for a mere 40 bucks.

Neat story, but aside from a few delusional fools, who probably also have a collection of toe nails clippings and belly button lint, most people do not consider a plastic holster a rare collectible item. It's a holster, not a Porsche 550, or a Van Gogh painting. So if want to point out that we think it's foolish to pay a 150% markup for the product, that's our right.

Further, you weren't merely explaining why it looks different, you are offering it a HUGE markup from the other version, and trying to justify the markup based on the fact it is loosely related to a government contract.

I get it, you don't like criticism of your company/products, and want to defend your business decisions/products. That's normal, but your attempts to defend them come off as you having very thin skin. However, you too have the right to act that way if you choose.