batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I give up. Maybe you know somebody who works in law enforcement. Mention Craigslist to them some time, and be prepared for a long talk.
What should I pay for a Sawyer's Mark IV?
- Thread starter ornate_wrasse
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 30
- Views 12K
I give up. Maybe you know somebody who works in law enforcement. Mention Craigslist to them some time, and be prepared for a long talk.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Beautifully summarized. I am reasonably sure that a lot of people who are scammed are convinced that they are going to be scammed, but are too stupid, greedy or lacking in self-awareness to admit this to themselves.
What would I pay for a 127 TLR? Maybe $20 at the outside. That's what it's worth to me. But then, I understand that a ticket to a soccer match in the UK today costs the equivalent of $100. I think I'd pay at least $25 not to have to go. I'd probably pay $10 not to deal with the kind of Craigslist hassles that batterytypehah! seems to regard as normal. On the other hand, if I can examine something before I buy it. then it's down to me if it's NBG (No Bloody Good).
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Beemermark
Veteran
I'll have to talk to my daughter and her husband more often I guess.-🙂
Landshark
Well-known
$50 & drive to get it. $80 & meet 1/2 way.
$50 for something "collectible" that you really weren't looking for, Nah, it's not that good a deal.
Your money, your decision. Don't know if the guy's a jerk or not, but he's pushing the wrong buttons on my remote.
He dropped the price 50% & then refuses to meet you 1/2 way across the city.
Los Angeles or Kokomo?
$50 for something "collectible" that you really weren't looking for, Nah, it's not that good a deal.
Your money, your decision. Don't know if the guy's a jerk or not, but he's pushing the wrong buttons on my remote.
He dropped the price 50% & then refuses to meet you 1/2 way across the city.
Los Angeles or Kokomo?
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
I just got back from a weekend trip out of town, where I did not bring my computer and where I had no access to one. I must admit I had no idea my post would create such controversy on RFF!
To shed a bit more light on the seller and the camera. First of all, the camera is clearly not mint. He did reveal to me that the leatherette on the sides had peeled some. This came out after he stated the following in an email to me:
"Attached here though is a printout of the appraisal I generated online. This was before I noticed the "leatherette" on the sides had peeled some, but this will still demonstrate $85 to be a very reasonable price."
The appraisal turned out to be a price guide from CollectiBlend 2.0 where a condition of "very good" was $140-160" and "Mint" was $240-260. It doesn't appear anyone looked at the camera to give him this appraisal but it was rather a price guide based on past sales and auctions.
He did reveal the peeling leatherette to me, I give him credit for that. But I am curious if he intended to use the "appraisal" in dealings with others asking about the camera. And, how could he not notice the peeling leatherette?
Other facts about the camera that he told me: He used to work at a camera store. The store had purchased the camera from someone. The seller purchased the camera from the shop. When I asked him the last time he used the camera, he told me it was about 10 years ago.
I decided to post the additional facts about the camera and the seller in the vein of "full disclosure" so everyone knows everything that's transpired so far.
Ellen
Ellen
To shed a bit more light on the seller and the camera. First of all, the camera is clearly not mint. He did reveal to me that the leatherette on the sides had peeled some. This came out after he stated the following in an email to me:
"Attached here though is a printout of the appraisal I generated online. This was before I noticed the "leatherette" on the sides had peeled some, but this will still demonstrate $85 to be a very reasonable price."
The appraisal turned out to be a price guide from CollectiBlend 2.0 where a condition of "very good" was $140-160" and "Mint" was $240-260. It doesn't appear anyone looked at the camera to give him this appraisal but it was rather a price guide based on past sales and auctions.
He did reveal the peeling leatherette to me, I give him credit for that. But I am curious if he intended to use the "appraisal" in dealings with others asking about the camera. And, how could he not notice the peeling leatherette?
Other facts about the camera that he told me: He used to work at a camera store. The store had purchased the camera from someone. The seller purchased the camera from the shop. When I asked him the last time he used the camera, he told me it was about 10 years ago.
I decided to post the additional facts about the camera and the seller in the vein of "full disclosure" so everyone knows everything that's transpired so far.
Ellen
Ellen
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think there's anything extraordinary about this. The seller has a cetain price in mind as a minimum and it doesn't seem to sound all that attractive to you. But the thing is you can't get angry at people just because they don't want to meet your price. There's no ''real'' worth with used gear, just the price set by the seller. If he sits on the gear for too long he might reconsider the price but that's his call.
My advice is just move on and look elsewhere for a deal you can feel better about.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I couldn't disagree more. The seller is clearly withholding information about the camera that -- if the former camera store employee story is true -- he must be aware of. Mind you, we still haven't heard if it is functional at all, just that it was "last used about 10 years ago."
With collectible cars, this is known as "ran when parked." It's useless information.
You are also confusing value and price. For a mass-produced item that sells on a regular basis, there is indeed an inherent value, and that's the average of recent sales of items in similar condition. Sellers are free to set a price but if it's way out of line with the market, they're either wasting their time -- or waiting for a sucker who doesn't know any better.
retro
Well-known
What information is the seller clearly withholding and how did you
come by this knowledge?
oftheherd
Veteran
Not a great selection, but Freestyle sells it, and IIFC some others do as well. Freestyle also has IR in 127. I just bought a roll to use in my father's 9x12 hack.
I would not except for wanting to use the 9x12 hack, and maybe the OP also has a strong personal reason.
I would say you would have to want to use 127 though. 35mm and 120 would seem much easier to use. Especially when developming and printing or scanning.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Ellen has told us above that the seller only revealed the peeling leatherette later on in their correspondence. Since he also claims to be a former camera store employee, I agree with her that it is highly unlikely he didn't notice the issue sooner.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please remain polite and respectful of other users in the discussion, and avoid being argumentative and abrasive. It seems some have made their opposing points and should now be finished.
On the topic, I'll just add that, IMO, this camera is more a curiosity than a daily user... largely due to the current obscurity of 127 film. If I had one it would be a conversational piece that I'd use occasionally.
I have handled a Sawyers TLR, and used the similar "Baby" Rollei many years ago when I worked in a camera shop. I found it ergonomically awkward due to the small size in comparison to a 6x6 TLR. The focusing screen is small. I shot a couple rolls of Agfachrome in the Rollei... It's with slides that this format shines, as I think someone noted above; the "superslides" conveniently fit a standard projector yet the view of the picture is larger.
As to the current purchase/offer, I see advantages in personally inspecting the camera before purchase, and some concerns about the seller and circumstances. It might be useful to meet the seller, see the camera, talk it over, remain skeptical, and see how it develops from there. Good luck!
On the topic, I'll just add that, IMO, this camera is more a curiosity than a daily user... largely due to the current obscurity of 127 film. If I had one it would be a conversational piece that I'd use occasionally.
I have handled a Sawyers TLR, and used the similar "Baby" Rollei many years ago when I worked in a camera shop. I found it ergonomically awkward due to the small size in comparison to a 6x6 TLR. The focusing screen is small. I shot a couple rolls of Agfachrome in the Rollei... It's with slides that this format shines, as I think someone noted above; the "superslides" conveniently fit a standard projector yet the view of the picture is larger.
As to the current purchase/offer, I see advantages in personally inspecting the camera before purchase, and some concerns about the seller and circumstances. It might be useful to meet the seller, see the camera, talk it over, remain skeptical, and see how it develops from there. Good luck!