Data Recovery Case File · Second Fixes & Trade Handoffs · Reading the Other Quote
Their diagnosis was right — here's how to read it: the four-step plan decoded line by line, why head-swap recoveries cost what they cost, and the structural questions that make any two quotes comparable
He arrived holding something this archive wishes every second-opinion case brought: the first firm's full written diagnosis, quoted verbatim. His 1.5TB Samsung: "when powered, the drive clicks and spins down… drive opened within a clean lab for internal examination… failing read/write heads preventing access to data… partition tables unreadable due to read/write failure." Their plan: "1. Drive disassembled within a clean lab facility. 2. Drive rebuilt with compatible donor heads. 3. Drive placed on Data Extractor to improve stability and the read/write process. 4. Attempted sector-by-sector image." His reason for shopping on: "they gave me a very high price." So let this page do something rarer than a rebuttal: validate the other firm completely — that diagnosis is textbook and that plan is precisely correct, down to naming the same imaging instrument this archive's own cases run on — and then serve the need he actually has: a line-by-line decode of what each step involves, why this class of recovery carries the cost it does anywhere honest, and the structural questions that let a person compare two recovery quotes as like for like, rather than as two frightening numbers.
| Media | Samsung 1.5TB hard drive — clicks and spins down on power; previously opened and diagnosed in another firm's clean facility; failing heads confirmed; donor rebuild and sector imaging proposed |
| Reported situation | Full written third-party diagnosis in hand, technically sound · owner deterred by the quoted price · seeking a comparable quote and an honest read of the plan |
| Fault class | Confirmed head failure requiring donor service under filtered air — second-quote case; diagnosis validated, pricing structure compared transparently |
| Equipment used | Prior findings reviewed and confirmed (Atola Insight Forensic verification) · laminar flow bench donor-head service, matched parts · PC-3000 Express with Data Extractor head-mapped sector imaging — the same instrument their plan named · one fixed written figure, no-recovery-no-fee, stated before work |
The decode: the plan line by line, the cost anatomy, and the questions that compare quotes
Their four steps, translated: Step one — clean-facility disassembly: a drive is opened only under filtered air, because platters tolerate no dust at the heights heads fly; this step is the admission fee of every mechanical recovery, and their having already done it for diagnosis was proper practice, not presumption. Step two — compatible donor heads: the failed assembly replaced from a matched donor drive — and "compatible" is the word doing heavy lifting: donors must match closely enough that the patient's recorded calibration accepts them, which is why donor sourcing is a hunt with costs of its own. Step three — stability on Data Extractor: the rebuilt drive is not trusted like a healthy one; it's driven by a professional imaging platform that manages a fragile mechanism — per-region control, tight timeouts, retries budgeted — and yes, that is the very instrument named throughout this archive's own case files: their plan and this bench's converge on the same tool because it is simply how this job is done properly. Step four — attempted sector-by-sector image: everything readable captured once, completely, with "attempted" as the honest word — outcomes on rebuilt mechanisms are worked for, not promised. Verdict on their document: sound in every line. The diagnosis explains his symptoms exactly; the plan is the industry's correct plan. Nothing he was told deserves doubt — only the price deserved a second look, which is a different question entirely.
Why this class of job costs what it costs — anywhere honest: the cost anatomy, stated without theatre: a matched donor drive is purchased and consumed; the rebuild is skilled hours under filtered air; the imaging of a rebuilt 1.5TB mechanism runs long under supervision; and behind all of it sits the equipment and the years that make step two survivable at all. High quotes for head-swap recoveries are not automatically gouging — this is genuinely the expensive end of the trade — which is exactly why the comparison between firms should never be the number alone, but the structure around the number.
The questions that make quotes comparable: ask both firms the same five: Is the assessment free? Is the figure fixed and in writing before work begins — or an estimate that can grow? Does it include VAT and the donor? Is it genuinely 50% of parts and labour upfront with the balance only on success — and what counts as "recovery" in their terms? And is the timescale in writing? Two numbers with different answers to those five aren't two prices for one service; they're two different services. The structure here is stated for the record — free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT, 50% of parts and labour upfront with the balance only on success — offered not as a jab at anyone's number, but as the like-for-like his comparison actually needed.
On the bench
The prior firm's findings were confirmed rather than re-litigated: the Atola Insight Forensic verified the head failure their clean room had seen, and the plan proceeded exactly as their document had laid it out — because it was right. Matched donor heads were fitted under the laminar flow bench; the rebuilt mechanism went onto the PC-3000 Express under Data Extractor — step three of their plan, performed on the instrument they'd named — and the sector-by-sector image ran head-mapped to completion. The partition tables their diagnosis had flagged unreadable were rebuilt on the image, the volume stood up, and his data was verified and delivered — under the fixed written figure he'd been given before a screw turned, owed only because the recovery succeeded.
The outcome
The recovery performed to the first firm's own correct plan, under this structure's terms — one fixed written figure including VAT, stated in advance, 50% of parts and labour upfront with the balance only on success — and his data delivered verified. The second-quote doctrine, posted for everyone comparing frightening numbers: a sound diagnosis deserves validation wherever you take it, and theirs was sound to the letter; head-swap recoveries are honestly the costly end of the trade everywhere; and the real comparison between firms is never the number but the structure — free assessment, fixed written figure, VAT and donor included, genuine no-recovery-no-fee, timescale on paper. Ask all five of both. Then choose with the fear taken out of it.
Holding a recovery quote that made you look twice
Separate the diagnosis from the price: a written workup describing clicking, failing heads, clean-room donor rebuild and sector-by-sector imaging is the correct plan for that fault — shopping on doesn't require doubting it, and a second firm worth using will validate sound findings rather than trash them. Then compare structures, not numbers: is the assessment free, the figure fixed in writing before work, VAT and donor included, the no-recovery-no-fee genuine, the timescale on paper? Head-swap recoveries are legitimately the expensive end of this trade everywhere — but a fixed written figure you risk nothing to obtain turns "very high price" into a decision you can actually make. And stop powering the drive while you decide; the clicking is spending it.
Bring the paperwork — call Edinburgh Data Recovery on 0131 202 0491; findings validated honestly, the same correct plan under one fixed written figure including VAT —.
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.