Data Recovery Case File · Trust, Practice & Honest Limits · Triage Before Cost
Two Drives Is Two Questions, Not One Price
Her enquiry has a history attached to it. Two external drives holding "things I made at the start of my career, and at the time I wasn't in a position to" pursue it. She is now. Two drives are rarely one job — they will have different faults, different prospects and very different costs — and asking for a single figure covering both is the thing most likely to make this look unaffordable when part of it may not be.
| Media | Two external hard drives of considerable age holding early professional work — recovery previously deferred on cost grounds |
| Reported situation | Two external drives of considerable age · early career work held · recovery considered at the time of failure and not pursued on cost grounds · drives retained since · assessment now sought |
| Fault class | Two independent cases requiring separate assessment — prospects and cost differing per drive; dormancy effects present on both |
| Equipment used | Each drive assessed independently before any figure was given · content overlap between drives established · dormancy effects assessed alongside original faults · scope narrowed to material identified as required · imaging performed per drive on restored readiness |
The decode: the order that makes this affordable, or shows that it is not
Why one figure for two drives is unhelpful: the two will not have failed the same way. One may not read at all and the other may need only an adapter; one may be a straightforward capture and the other mechanical work. A combined number hides that, and somebody looking at it reasonably concludes the whole thing is out of reach when half of it may cost nothing.
So the order is: assess both, then decide. Assessment is free, and it produces two separate positions with two separate figures. At that point the choice is real — do both, do the cheaper one, do the one holding the material that matters, or do neither. Nobody should be choosing between drives before knowing what is on them or what each would take.
The question worth answering early, because it can shrink the job substantially: how much the two overlap. Work migrates between drives as people upgrade, and material from the start of a career has usually been copied forward at least once. It is entirely common for two old drives to hold largely the same thing, in which case only one of them needs recovering.
The second question: what specifically she wants. Early professional work is usually a subset — particular projects, particular pieces — rather than everything on a drive. Naming it lets imaging be directed to reach that material first, confirmed, and delivered, which is faster and cheaper than reconstructing two entire volumes.
On having deferred it, honestly: that was a reasonable decision and this archive is full of it. But it is worth knowing that deferring has a physical cost on mechanical drives, which is not true of the decision itself. Lubricant thickens over years of stillness and heads resting on a platter can adhere, so a drive that was serviceable when she first enquired may be harder now. The delay did not damage the data; it may have added mechanical work.
What that argues for: assessing them now rather than waiting for a better moment, since a free assessment costs nothing and the position only gets worse from here — and knowing the figure is not the same as committing to it.
What not to do meanwhile: not connect them repeatedly to see which one still works. A long-dormant drive may not survive many spin-ups, and the one that responds today is the one worth protecting.
On the bench
Each drive was assessed independently before any figure was given — two drives rarely sharing a fault or a cost, and a combined figure obscuring the possibility that one requires little or nothing. Content overlap between the drives was established, early work having usually been copied forward at least once, which frequently makes one drive sufficient. Dormancy effects were assessed alongside the original faults, and scope narrowed to the material identified as required before imaging was performed per drive.
The outcome
Each drive assessed and priced separately, overlap established and scope narrowed before any imaging. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT per drive; where a drive has to be opened, 50% of parts and labour is payable upfront with the balance only on success — otherwise no recovery, no fee. The decode: ask for two assessments rather than one price. Two drives will not have failed the same way, and a combined figure hides the possibility that one needs almost nothing. Establish how much they overlap, because early work is usually copied forward — and say which projects you actually want.
Two old drives and a limited budget
Ask for them assessed separately rather than quoted together. They won't have failed the same way — one may need only an adapter while the other needs mechanical work — and a combined figure hides that, so the whole thing looks unaffordable when half of it may cost nothing. Assessment is free, and two separate positions let you actually choose. Two questions shrink the job further: how much the drives overlap, since work from early in a career has usually been copied forward at least once and one drive may be enough; and which projects you specifically want, since naming them lets the capture be directed there first. Don't keep connecting them to test which still works.
Ask for separate assessments — call Guildford Data Recovery on 01483 901310; each assessed independently before any figure, overlap established, scope narrowed to what you actually need.
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.