Data Recovery Case File · Trust, Practice & Practicalities · The Second Quote
"The cost I have been quoted is well beyond the value I place on it": price-shopping a recovery, done honourably — the first lab's work respected, the second quote earned, the data recovered inside his number
His enquiry was unusually complete because someone else had already done half the work. A Western Digital external with head damage; "the drive has been evaluated by a data recovery company who have replaced the heads and are able to access the data." Their findings, precise to the decimal: 94.74GB across 1,884 folders and 18,152 files, offered with "a 95% or better confidence rating." Then his position, stated without apology: "the cost I have been quoted to recover the data is well beyond the value I place on it; therefore I am looking for more competitive quotes." And the direct question: on that information, can this laboratory quote? This page answers him properly — which means answering three things at once: what in his situation deserved respect, what a second lab can and cannot take on trust, and how a person in his position compares recovery quotes without being misled by anyone, this firm included.
| Media | Western Digital external hard drive — head assembly already replaced at another laboratory; ~94.74GB identified across 1,884 folders / 18,152 files |
| Reported situation | Prior lab's diagnostics complete, access demonstrated, high confidence stated · quoted price exceeding the owner's honest valuation · competitive quotes sought on the documented findings |
| Fault class | Mechanically serviced drive mid-recovery — technical risk low, handling and transfer risk the live consideration |
| Equipment used | Independent free reassessment on arrival · write-blocked imaging · extraction verified against the documented folder and file counts · fixed written quotation issued before any chargeable work |
The decode: what to respect, what to re-verify, and how to compare quotes at all
The first laboratory, given its due: nothing in his account suggests he'd been treated badly. Head replacement is genuine bench work; file-level counts of that precision mean real diagnostics were completed; a bounded confidence figure is more honest than a promise. What he'd received was competent work at a price his own valuation couldn't meet — which is a market, not a grievance. This page declines to make a villain where the enquiry offers none, and his even-handed framing deserved the same back.
What a second lab must verify itself: here is the unglamorous truth about competitive quoting in this discipline — no honest laboratory prices sight-unseen on another's findings. Not from disrespect: because a fixed figure is a promise, and promises are made on one's own assessment. The documented counts were valuable as a target to verify against; the drive still had to arrive and be assessed here, free, before a number existed. Anyone who'd have quoted him a binding price from the email alone was quoting fiction.
The mid-job practicalities, stated plainly: a drive part-way through recovery elsewhere carries specific logistics: settle matters with the first laboratory — their parts and completed labour are theirs to account for, and the fitted donor heads travel with the drive only by their arrangement; and a mechanically serviced drive in transit deserves proper protective packing, because the second quote means nothing if the patient arrives worse. He was walked through both before anything moved.
How to compare quotes like-for-like: the checklist this archive owes every reader in his position: is the figure fixed and in writing, including VAT, or a rate with a meter running? Is assessment free, or a fee that survives a "no"? What exactly counts as success — and is 50% of parts and labour upfront with the balance only on success in writing? Do parts (donor components, delivery media) live inside the figure or ambush it later? Two quotes are comparable only when they answer those identically; a smaller number with looser terms is not the cheaper option.
The recovery: verified against the manifest he arrived with
On arrival the drive was reassessed — free — with the prior lab's service found sound: the replacement heads flying true, the surfaces healthy. It was imaged write-blocked, and the extraction was verified against the documented ledger: folder and file counts squared with the 1,884 and 18,152 he'd been given, the estate confirmed complete. The fixed written figure, including VAT, had been issued before any of that chargeable work began — and it sat inside the value he placed on the data, which was the entire point.
The outcome
The data delivered verified on new media, at a price he'd accepted as worth it — with the first laboratory's diagnostic accuracy confirmed in passing, to their credit. His approach is commended to the archive: honest about value, precise about facts, fair to everyone in the chain. Second quotes are a customer's right; this is what one looks like when both sides play it straight.
Quoted for recovery elsewhere — considering a second opinion
Price-shopping a recovery is legitimate; do it with the same care you'd want shown to the drive. Get the first lab's findings in writing and settle their account cleanly — completed diagnostics and fitted parts are real work. Expect any honest second lab to reassess for itself before naming a fixed figure, and treat sight-unseen binding quotes as the warning they are. Compare terms, not just numbers: fixed and written including VAT, free assessment, no-recovery-no-fee, parts included. And insist on proper packing for a drive in transit mid-job — the saving evaporates if the patient arrives worse.
A fair second opinion costs nothing — call Edinburgh Data Recovery on 0131 202 0491; free reassessment, one fixed written figure.
Request a quote online →
Our case files are drawn from genuine enquiries received by our laboratory over the past ten years, anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Each one describes the diagnostic and recovery procedure our engineers apply to that fault, using the equipment listed.