What a huge waste of time and money!
I rarely leave negative reviews, but I feel other customers should be aware of my experience with SGD3D.
I ordered a set of SLA 3D printed parts that I had previously printed successfully myself many times. The only reason I outsourced the work was because I had recently developed a severe allergic reaction to uncured 3D printing resin and wanted to avoid further exposure by using a professional printing service.
Unfortunately, the parts I received were of a much lower quality than expected. They had noticeable vertical print artefacts, poor surface finish, inconsistent reproduction of fine details, and fused threaded features. The 3D printed parts were completely unusable for their intended purpose.
Even more concerning, I found what appeared to be uncured resin inside several of the parts after delivery. Given the reason I outsourced the printing in the first place, this was particularly worrying for me.
I contacted SGD3D immediately, supplied detailed photographs, and tried over several weeks to resolve the matter through emails and telephone calls. Rather than accepting responsibility, the company maintained that the service provided met their standards and attributed the issues to my design. They offered a partial refund or a reprint, but I requested a full refund because I had lost confidence in the quality of the manufacturing and post-processing.
As we were unable to reach an agreement, I have had to issue a claim through the County Court to seek recovery of the purchase price. That claim is currently ongoing, so I will not comment further on the legal aspects until it has concluded.
Based on my personal experience, I cannot recommend this service. I hope sharing my experience helps others make an informed decision and avoid the headache of wasting time and money.
Update response to SGD 3D:
I appreciate that the matter is now before the County Court and I will allow the Court to determine the disputed issues. My review reflects my genuine experience with this order.
One point remains particularly difficult for me to understand. I received parts containing uncured resin inside internal cavities. I photographed this immediately after delivery and have retained both the photographs and the original parts. As someone who had recently developed a medically treated allergy to uncured photopolymer resin, this was the very reason I chose to outsource the printing to a professional service. From my perspective, receiving professionally finished parts in that condition should have resulted in an immediate apology and a full refund rather than a dispute over responsibility.
I also note that your position is now that my design approached your published minimum feature recommendations. The same design had been successfully printed by me numerous times before placing this order and has continued to be successfully printed many times since, producing fully functional parts. Since investing in improved personal protective equipment, I resumed printing the same design myself, and it has since become the basis of a successful product. If you genuinely believed the design approached the practical limits of your SLA process, I still do not understand why I was not contacted before production, warned that the design might not produce functional results, or given the opportunity to revise it before you accepted payment and manufactured the parts.
SGD 3D - UK 3D Printing Service ããã®åç
We are sorry that we were unable to resolve this matter.
As this dispute is currently the subject of ongoing County Court proceedings, it would not be appropriate for us to comment publicly on the disputed technical issues or the parties' respective positions.
What we can say is that we take product quality and customer service extremely seriously. Throughout this matter, we engaged with the customer in an effort to reach a practical resolution.
Our position has consistently been that the customer-supplied design approached the published minimum feature recommendations applicable to the selected SLA process and material, which are set out in both our own design guidance and the manufacturer's published guidance.
All parts are manufactured and post-processed in accordance with the manufacturer's published guidance and our documented quality procedures.
On that basis, we offered to re-manufacture the parts free of charge once the design had been revised to meet those published recommendations. We also made commercial settlement offers in an attempt to avoid litigation.
The customer requested a full refund and did not accept our offer to re-manufacture the parts free of charge.
Since this order was produced, we have manufactured over 83 litres of SLA resin parts without receiving any comparable complaints regarding our SLA manufacturing process. During the same period, we have also received seven independent 5-star reviews specifically praising the quality, detail and finish of our SLA printing service. We encourage prospective customers to read all of our reviews and form their own opinion.
We operate an ISO 9001 certified quality management system, and during our most recent independent surveillance audit zero non-conformances were identified, reflecting our commitment to maintaining robust quality processes and consistently high manufacturing standards.
Our quality management system is independently audited by UKAS accredited auditors to ensure our manufacturing and inspection processes remain consistently controlled and documented.
We also publish comprehensive design guidance to help customers optimise their designs for additive manufacturing. Whilst we perform basic automated checks, customers remain responsible for ensuring that submitted designs are suitable for their intended application and comply with the published design recommendations.
The customer supplied only STL files with limited dimensional data and did not provide any technical drawings, tolerances or thread specifications against which the manufactured parts could be verified.
We remain committed to delivering high-quality parts and excellent customer service to every customer. As this matter is currently before the Court, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further until the proceedings have concluded.
