CLA and Photos

[agricola]

Am I just being unreasonable?

I keep looking for gear which has had a recent CLA. And I look closely at the photos in the classifieds here and elsewhere.

When I ask for proof of the CLA by way of a scan of the invoice for the work I am often fobbed off with the comment that it has been mislaid - it was not important to the guy - and so it cannot be provided - and you just have to accept my word - and you are an unreasonable, distrustful S.O.B. if you don't.

Well I don't buy it. I have stepped back from things here and on some of the allegedly reputable sites when they react that way.

Then there are the photos. Ever since I used one of the early Canon Ixus point n shoots I was able to manage snappy macro images. Some of the stuff here and in other places is fuzzy in all the wrong places - like shutter curtains and all sorts of other interesting things.

Why give us this sort of stuff? Are we supposed to accept that the poor fella just had an unsteady hand that night? Give me a break.

Am I alone in this? I would really like to get a Barnack. I tool around the sites. They say it "has had a recent CLA" - sometimes even by DAG! - but there is no invoice. I ask politely how I will be able to convince anyone else if I want to sell it later. I am fobbed off.

What do you guys think?

Btw - I have had an M4 and three lenses CLA'd by Sherry Krauter and I kept the Invoice and all my communications with her. Because I reckoned they were worth money to me. How slack - or just plain fraudulent - are these blokes who say that she or Don Goldberg has worked on an item but that the paperwork 'is lost' ?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, I'm not convinced a CLA is worth much when selling something. While I'll mention if one has been done recently, I don't price it into the sale price for the camera. As for fuzzy photos, I would rather see nice, sharp ones.

 

[agricola]

But Pickett, if they mention the CLA as if it is worth something then surely they should be willing to back up the statement.

 

[Keith]

CLA or no CLA I expect a camera I buy in the classifieds to work perfectly unless the seller states otherwise when describing it's condition.

After your last couple of classified items Pickett I think you might be related to Santa Clause! 😀

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, Keith, that's the point. If the seller says it works, I really don't care if it has had a CLA or not. I have a lot of old cameras that work perfectly and have never had a CLA. I'll have one done if necessary, but I don't pay much attention to them as a buyer.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I've had 40 year old cameras that never had a CLA work for years, and recently CLA'ed ones break in weeks or months, regardless who CLA'ed them. Old stuff breaks. 🙂

 

[agricola]

Yeah Keith, I agree. The thing should work perfectly. But for guys like us on the Far Side of the World it matters that the item has had a verifiable CLA by someone who is vouched for on this forum as a good tech. I think I have seen posts by you referring to work you have had done which you thought was well done.

I am just getting sick and tired of these people who say that something has been done - the clear inference being that it will save ME bucks to have it done - then scuttle away when I ask for proof.

I don't know them. They know that most of the people reading their advert don't know them. Why should I be expected to trust them? In fact, of they say such things then shy away from proof of them, are they not proving that they are not to be trusted?

 

[agricola]

Pickett - I have no doubt that your gear is what you say it is if you decide to sell it. My point is different. These people are selling on the basis of a recent CLA by someone like DAG. If that is backed up by an invoice then almost certainly DAG or Sherry will stand by it if the thing malfunctions within a few weeks or months. If there is no invoice then you are in never-never land. You pay again to have it fixed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Generally, I'd be deeply suspicious of anyone who claims a CLA UNLESS it's from a respected repairer AND is backed up with the receipt. A CLA from one of the sluice-it-out-and-soak-it-in-oil brigade is worse than nothing --and I have heard that even a few of the well-regarded names use that approach.

Personally I'd prefer to buy a non-CLA camera that hasn't been f'd up by someone incompetent, and then (if it needs it) have it properly serviced by someone I trusted.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Keith]

Yeah Keith, I agree. The thing should work perfectly. But for guys like us on the Far Side of the World it matters that the item has had a verifiable CLA by someone who is vouched for on this forum as a good tech. I think I have seen posts by you referring to work you have had done which you thought was well done.

I am just getting sick and tired of these people who say that something has been done - the clear inference being that it will save ME bucks to have it done - then scuttle away when I ask for proof.

I don't know them. They know that most of the people reading their advert don't know them. Why should I be expected to trust them? In fact, of they say such things then shy away from proof of them, are they not proving that they are not to be trusted?

I've already bought one 'perfect' camera from the classifieds that required a trip to the US for repairs and like you say living on the wrong side of the pond potentially adds to the expense.

I agree with you though about the CLA proof ... nice to see it in writing. I got my Bronica RF645 from FrankS and he provided me with the receipt from Tamron in the US for the CLA it had just received.

 

[stupid leica]

i personally don't care if a camera was CLA'd yesterday- that has no bearing on how it's been used in the meantime or on any random equipment failure.

CLA just means that it may be in tip-top shape, but is by no means a warranty.

 

[agricola]

Roger

"Personally I'd prefer to buy a non-CLA camera that hasn't been f'd up by someone incompetent, and then (if it needs it) have it properly serviced by someone I trusted"

Thank you. Exactly.

It is simply a fraudulent ruse to claim a reputable CLA and then to dive for cover when a potential buyer asks for the paper trail. I would much rather pay a modest, market price for a good chassis and then pay to have the work done than pay the inflated price based on an alleged CLA.

In fact, people who claim a CLA should be required by this and other forums to post a suitably edited scan as a condition of being permitted to lodge the advert. I have seen them in the past by honest advertisers with details of the poster's private address blocked out.

 

[agricola]

>>i personally don't care if a camera was CLA'd yesterday- that has no bearing on how it's been used in the meantime or on any random equipment failure.<<

Look, that's not my point.

 

[stupid leica]

agricola,

i'm sorry to have interjected. I completely understand though, that if the seller is advertising something without anything to back it up, how it can be frustrating.

I am in the same boat as you- if i have any reason to doubt it, i'll take my $$ elsewhere.

 

[agricola]

Thanks SL from Okinawa - wow, what a legendary place. Much the same time zone, eh?

 

[John Lawrence]

I always keep receipts for all work done on any of my cameras, and I only use the very best repairers such as Malcolm Taylor for my Leicas.

This has usually resulted in a higher price when I've come to sell cameras, and in the case of rarities (such as black paint Leicas etc.) is invaluable in validating authenticity.

Just as with buying a used car, I'm wary of any seller who claims to have had work done, but has no documentary proof.

John

 

[dacookieman]

i agree on the part where higher quality, sharp closeups of the item should be furnished to prospective buyers in the first place. I mean whats the point of posting photos of camera, when the table top is in focus instead of the shutter curtains, which was the intended focus point. If you can't one cant be bothered to focus on the vital parts of the camera, then why bother taking the pics?

I definitely would want sellers to post in focus, and better quality pictures..

 

[David Hughes]

Well,I don't see it as fraud but that's because I've noticed a lot of people do pretty daft things and so assume that we are not all perfect.

Just look at the people who don't save or even know about credit card slips and throw them away. Even a nasty "pay up or else" demand won't change them. And do all cameras come with the original box, receipt, papers and instruction manuals? Those I buy over the inter net seldom do.

And things can get lost, mis-filed or even drop into the WPB.

And that's why I always assume the worst and price for it, then get the thing looked at and adjusted etc. And every now and then I get a pleasant surprise.

Regards, David

 

[nobbylon]

I have done most work on my own Leica's myself and if it's beyond what I can do it goes to Will van Manen. I always keep receipts. Unless it can be verified by this then the camera, lens etc should be priced accordingly.
My Nikon F2's have all been done by Sover Wong who provides a nice photo file and written report with his cla's.
My only criteria for anything is that it should work properly. The difference between a NON cla'd camera that is working properly and a cla'd one is zero to me. I only ever fix stuff when it's broken or not 100% functional.
My advice is find one you are happy with the price of and fix it if it's not up to your expectations.

 

[Darshan]

If the selling price if inflated due to a recent CLA, I would expect the proof of that CLA. If not, I don't care.

The seller is obligated to provide reasonably well shot photos of the item, that's a no-brainer.