Wow! Incredible selling price!

jsrockit said:
That's the key. I'm aware of shilling, but I just didn't see it here necessarily. Only one zero bidder was in play (at a semi normal price)before it got bought by a zero bidder for too much loot. The seller got a great price and I doubt he was that greedy to win his own auction.
Click to expand...

No problem if you win your own auction while shilling - just wait a few days and make a Second Chance Offer to the underbidder, saying the 'winner' refused to pay...
 
well maybe it's because summer holidays are coming up so a lot of people want to upgrade their kit....Also body prices have risen recently...
 
akiralx said:
No problem if you win your own auction while shilling - just wait a few days and make a Second Chance Offer to the underbidder, saying the 'winner' refused to pay...
Click to expand...

Thats why i never accept those, unless its still a good deal or about what i wanted to pay. Because I'm not going to let some shady seller jack up the price with his second account, then offer me at that price or even slightly lower. Dont trust that, though sadly im sure there are honest sellers who didnt shill. Just saying, safer to reject those offers unless its a good deal.
 
sc_rufctr said:
That M2 in hammer tone with a matching visoflex looks beautiful.

I can see why the price was so high.
Click to expand...

But doesn't the asterisk mean it's a repeat serial number from a previously unrepairable body? i would think that would affect value negatively...no matter how nice the finish. Although, I admit, the evidence is stacked against me in this particular case.
 
Everyone, I want to warn everyone about an eBay seller who I believe to be dishonest. The merchant name is amana2000. I made a BIN purchase of a 50 Summicron DR from him for a premium price because it had the box and was described as having "perfect glass". The lens arrived with significant internal fogging, and a major internal scratch.

I emailed the seller and was offered a full refund including shipping, which seemed very reasonable - I thought he made an honest mistake and so I agreed that I wouldn't leave negative feedback. After I returned the lens, the seller refused to refund my money, accused me of buyer's remorse, and offered me $300 (I paid $1800 - I know it's a lot, but for a perfect collector-condition lens, I was willing to pay the premium).

I have taken it up with my credit card company. I don't expect I will lose any money except my return shipping, but I would deal cautiously with this seller. His evaluations are not accurate and he did not keep his word with me or behave honorably when there was a problem.

It's curious because he has a lot of positive feedback and has sold a lot of gear. I went out of my way to be exceedingly polite in my interactions and even thanked him in my "dispute" (not "claim"!!!) description for being so reasonable and responsive. Then things went bad.

Two other lenses I purchased from another seller (one of which is discussed in this thread) arrived with fungus, haze, and separation inside of pristine lens bodies. This seller has also agreed to full refunds, hopefully he will keep his word.

Happy bidding!
 
As an update, I am leaving the seller negative feedback. I am sure I will take a hit with a retaliatory negative feedback, but I think people like that need to be revealed. I have never had a problem like this on any buy/sell board in the photography community, I am happy to say!
 
Sellers cannot leave buyers negative feedback, atleast not for the last few years. I have had some bad experiences as a seller, and it was a bit disconcerting that I could not leave an honest negative feedback for a bad buyer. It should benefit you in this instance however.
 
SolaresLarrave said:
Looks like a bidding war ensued, and one of the participants did NOT win the auction... Ironic... :eek:

Some years ago, when Nikon started with their G-lenses, I saw an auction for a 70-300 AF lens take the price all the way to $140.

This were the days when you could get one new for $99 at B&H.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of an episode of Nova called "Mind Over Money" where behavioral economists were challenging the tenant of neoclassical economics that "people always make rational economic decisions that serve there best interest". If a vending machine has a bag of peanuts for $1.00 in the "J" slot, and in the "K" slot is the identical bag of peanuts for $1.01... all things being equal everyone will buy the cheaper bag of peanuts...

The Nova episode showed behavioral economists conducting a variety of tests disproving this. One of the tests was an auction where someone paid $28 for a $20 bill beating a second bidder who bid $27 for it.
 
I bought my (working) M2 for little more than the price of that empty box... and a DR Summicron (of which I am aware that it won't fit the M8/M9) for 250E...with glasses, caps and yellow filter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom