Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Some of what you say makes sense. But being "lazy"... I don't think that's how I described the events. And "fear among sellers"? Hmmm... maybe something should replace "caveat emptor", but I don't think its fear.
Caveat Emptor ethics
- Thread starter Jamie Pillers
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 69
- Views 4K
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Oldoc,
Who is "open road photography"?
Jamie
Who is "open road photography"?
Jamie
Gumby
Veteran
See posts 34 and 43 of this thread.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Usually what I do on aftermarket sales is agree to a specific test period for the equipment. I usually suggest something reasonable -- say two weeks. But I always take into account what I have going on, in case 14 days isn't enough time to run a roll of film through the equipment and see what any issues are. Only twice has there been an issue. Once a lens needed cleaning and this was not obvious from a visual inspection. I paid for the cleaning and this brought the lens into line with what the market price "should have been" for a lens in clean condition. I was steamed because I didn't get the great deal I thought I had, but other than not buying anything from the seller again, I didn't make out too badly as the lens was, post-cleaning, "worth" the total cost I'd invested. The other time, the "asymmetry" worked against me. I set the inspection period too short to discover what wound up being a rather radical problem -- lens parts cemented together so strongly that no competent repair person could get them apart. The focus on the lens could not be tweaked to match my M8.
I will re-sell the lens with an accurate description and at a loss.
Ben Marks
I will re-sell the lens with an accurate description and at a loss.
Ben Marks
W
Willy Elder
Guest
Let's pretend you bought a camera from an inexperienced seller who had a camera body that he described as a common model, worth about $100.
When you received it, you discovered that it was a very rare model of the same make, worth $2000. Not only that, but it also had a lens on it worth $1000, which the seller didn't even realize and didn't even mention it.
1) When you found out the true value of the camera, would you contact the seller, let's say after one month, and offer to return it to him and get your $100 back?
2) Or would you offer him an additional $1500 to make the deal "fair"?
3) Or would you do nothing, and keep it?
Answer honestly, what would you do?
When you received it, you discovered that it was a very rare model of the same make, worth $2000. Not only that, but it also had a lens on it worth $1000, which the seller didn't even realize and didn't even mention it.
1) When you found out the true value of the camera, would you contact the seller, let's say after one month, and offer to return it to him and get your $100 back?
2) Or would you offer him an additional $1500 to make the deal "fair"?
3) Or would you do nothing, and keep it?
Answer honestly, what would you do?
djonesii
Well-known
just bought a 50 year old camera ....
just bought a 50 year old camera ....
I just bought a 50 year old speed graphic .... of the bay, described as in excellent conditon ...
There are a few places where there are obvius dings, and they were filled in with a Sharpie....
The back is a spring back, and I really wanted a graflok, looking at the pictures, this is clear, rereading the text, the back type is not mentioned.
I'm pretty sure the first time that I cocked the shutter on the lens, it fired first time, no it seems I have to cock, fire, then recock .... As this is the first time I have used a speed, it easily could have been someting that I did. As near as I can tell, the rear curtain works.
An now to the point .... I was willing to fully risk X on this camera. I actually paid a bit less than X. X is about 50% of what a rebuilt one from more reputable source costs. In this case, I belive the seller was on the right side of the fraud line, and I deal with the risk.
From all I have read in this thread, it seems to be that the seller is on the right side of that fraud line. ie ... no sawdust in the transmission. It sucks, but if you want KEH guarantees, you need to pay KEH prices. Interment defects are just that intermittent, and if a buyer cannot live with that risk, they should not be buying used equipment sight on seen.
Just my opinion on the matter ...
Dave
just bought a 50 year old camera ....
I just bought a 50 year old speed graphic .... of the bay, described as in excellent conditon ...
There are a few places where there are obvius dings, and they were filled in with a Sharpie....
The back is a spring back, and I really wanted a graflok, looking at the pictures, this is clear, rereading the text, the back type is not mentioned.
I'm pretty sure the first time that I cocked the shutter on the lens, it fired first time, no it seems I have to cock, fire, then recock .... As this is the first time I have used a speed, it easily could have been someting that I did. As near as I can tell, the rear curtain works.
An now to the point .... I was willing to fully risk X on this camera. I actually paid a bit less than X. X is about 50% of what a rebuilt one from more reputable source costs. In this case, I belive the seller was on the right side of the fraud line, and I deal with the risk.
From all I have read in this thread, it seems to be that the seller is on the right side of that fraud line. ie ... no sawdust in the transmission. It sucks, but if you want KEH guarantees, you need to pay KEH prices. Interment defects are just that intermittent, and if a buyer cannot live with that risk, they should not be buying used equipment sight on seen.
Just my opinion on the matter ...
Dave
W
Willy Elder
Guest
I understand the case law, for example, this is currently being litigated in the case of the dealer who bought a trunk of Diane Arbus Hubert Museum photos from a flea market vendor.
But my question was directed to the OP. He was crowing about "caveat emptor". What would happen if he got the best of a deal, involving two non-professional camera hobbyists?
(I agree 100% about GM. My tax money has been stolen to make me a non-profit-sharing investor/owner in an automobile company, and I can have nothing to say about it.
Those who responsibly saved their money for years are now being made targets to be milked as their savings are rapidly devalued.)
But my question was directed to the OP. He was crowing about "caveat emptor". What would happen if he got the best of a deal, involving two non-professional camera hobbyists?
(I agree 100% about GM. My tax money has been stolen to make me a non-profit-sharing investor/owner in an automobile company, and I can have nothing to say about it.
Those who responsibly saved their money for years are now being made targets to be milked as their savings are rapidly devalued.)
W
Willy Elder
Guest
PS: On the other hand, it doesn't matter if they steal my tax money to buy automobile companies. If they run out of tax money, they'll just print plenty more out of thin air.
Either my great-grandchildren will have to pay it off, or, more likely, they'll declare the dollar dead and issue some "newbucks" to punish the saps who lived responsibly.
Either my great-grandchildren will have to pay it off, or, more likely, they'll declare the dollar dead and issue some "newbucks" to punish the saps who lived responsibly.
W
Willy Elder
Guest
I'd like my money back for everything I bought my entire life.
I want to send it all back and make them pay.
I want to send it all back and make them pay.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
The check is in the mail...
