Do I have a chance?

[mojojones]

A month or so ago I bought a 35mm 'cron, 4th version, germany off ebay. I paid a bit of a premium price, little over a G, for what appeared to be a LNIB specimen. I figured, like new, german made so why not. Well I open the box and it's beautiful, no sign that it's even ever been mounted. Then I put a loop and some light thru it. Is that dirt on the rear element I see? No, it won't clean off. It turns out to be a pool of fine debris on the inside rear element. An analysis of the problem by my local trusted source gives a diagnosis the the aperture was misadjusted at the factory which caused the blades to close too tightly on themselves and flake off fine particles of the coating.

Needless to say I was ticked and got the seller to refund the cost of repair to have the work done locally. But I'm wondering, since this clearly seems like a manufacturer's defect, do I have any chance of getting Leica USA to take care of the repair at little or no cost. I'm pretty persistent at working an angle on manufactures but I've never dealt with Leica USA and don't know whether they're willing to work with you or not.

What's your experience?

Thanks,

John J.

 

[ch1]

Not to be rude - but you bought it on eBay (i.e. second hand) and you want the manufacturer to reimburse you under some form of "warranty" for a production defect?

If they say anything other than a polite, No - please let us know.

 

[waileong]

Even if it was a manufacturer's defect, is it still within the warranty period?

 

[vizioneer]

So you got the seller's money, and now want to double bill this item by having Leica repair it for free? Why?

Warranties are warranties, it's an old lens. I had a V35 Leica enlarger whose lens had specks of debris from the blades as well. I don't think it's a matter of the blades being too tight together, more like the finish just getting dried out over time and shedding. I've seen plenty of older Leica lenses with brassing on their blades.

I hope you are not successful. 😀

 

[vishal.vora]

Vizioneer -

a little mean i think -

i say go for it - speak to Leica and see if they will sort it out for free! you'll probably be with the lens for about 3 months but the repair bill may be free!

i have a similar experience with Contax - now Yashica. they sorted out a problem, sent me a bill, I questioned it - they sent me the camera back FOC!

happy days...

happy snapping -

 

[jlw]

I was slightly outraged by mojo's question at first -- but when I thought about it, I realized it makes perfect sense.

Leica probably will say either that they don't agree with his buddy that it's a manufacturing defect, or that their warranty only applies to the original purchaser... but hey, there's no harm in asking them. (They're already paying the repair technician's salary, so it's not going to cost them any additional money to have him/her clean it out.)

And whether Leica agrees to repair the lens for free or not, mojo is still entitled to a price adjustment from the seller for failing to disclose this defect, right? After all, if he had known the lens had this problem, he wouldn't have been willing to pay as much.

So, good luck, mojo, and do let us know how it turns out!

 

[Traut]

I agree 100% with jlw and mojo.

 

[ch1]

How old is this lens, anyway? I don't shoot Leicas and don't know their products.

But I do know that things wear out - even Leicas. Unless it's of fairly recent manufacture I doubt it's still under warranty.

Also, many product warranties are not transferrable - so it may well have "expired" when the original owner sold it.

 

[mojojones]

The lens was made in '93 but it looks like it was never used. My tech's analysis was that it was a "manufacturer problem". Even though there is clearly no requirement for them to fix it I was asking to see if anyone here had experience with them to say wether they might be conscientious enough to fix the problem or that they are pretty strict about policy.

John

 

[Ben Z]

If you don't ask you'll definitely have to pay the repair bill yourself, so if it were me I'd go for it, but not in such a way as if they owe it to you, because clearly the lens is out of warranty. Perhaps with the right diplomacy they may come to a compromise, to get at least some money from you vs having you send it elsewhere, and at the same time engendering some goodwill. I would contact Brenda Olesin, she's kind of in charge of the repair/customer-service, rather than just whoever answers the 'phone because they doubtless don't have any authority on such matters. Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

But I do know that things wear out - even Leicas.

No my lad, they just sort of evaporate after the first millenium of hard use. 🙂

In all seriousness, the only thing that I have had wear out on a Leica is a cloth shutter curtain, and that was over 50 years old. Oh, and some dratted electronics in an M6, but that was after being dropped onto a marble floor from a great height. Sickening, really.

My IIIa is going on 70 years old. . . and still chugging along. Of course, that proves nothing as it could have been kept in a protected environment for the first 50 years. . . but the scuff marks say it ain't so.

Mojo - no harm in asking. . .but it probably would not cost a ton of coin to fix.

 

[ch1]

Mojo - no harm in asking. . .but it probably would not cost a ton of coin to fix.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the Seller reimbused Mojo for the cost of repairing the lens. It was the repair tech that said there was a manufacturing defect.

And if it was a manufacturer's defect what does that say about Leica QC?

Anyway, it seem that going to Leica now for a replacement or whater is a bit of "double dipping".

But if Leica agrees - hey why not?

 

[jlw]

At first I also thought going to the seller and also to Leica was a "double dip," but having thought it over I feel differently.

After all: If this defect had been disclosed clearly when the item was offered for sale, people wouldn't have offered as much. Mojo overpaid because the condition of the item was not as good as described; so, it's reasonable that the seller should reimburse him. How to decide the appropriate reimbursement? Well, the amount it would cost to bring the lens into its advertised condition seems a reasonable figure.

So, the reimbursement he obtained from the seller was not a "double dip," no matter what happens with Leica -- it was a price adjustment to reflect the fact that the item was not in as good a condition as the seller had represented.

 

[MCTuomey]

jlw, you are right except that the intention between mojo and the seller was that the partial refund represented the cost to repair the lens rather than a "price adjustment." Of course, the monetary effect is exactly the same, no matter how the intent is characterized.

Mojo's decision to pursue a zero cost repair without telling the seller after accepting the refund is what smacks of "double-dipping." Whether this is unethical depends on how you construe his intent. Mojo, if you received a full repair of the lens at no cost to you, what would you intend to do with the refund? I'm curious and do not imply any judgment - this is an interesting ethical dilemma. (Yes, I enjoy this sort of hairsplitting - and, no, I'm not an attorney.)

 

[jlw]

Let's look at it from the viewpoint of the original seller, assuming he's an honest person. He advertises the lens as "like new" and prices it at X dollars. Then, he notices there's crud inside the rear element. He's got two choices: pay a repair technician to bring it up to the condition he advertised; or sell it at a lower price of, let's say, Y dollars.

However, the seller did NOT notice this, and went through with the sale to mojo. Instead, it's mojo who notices the problem. Since he paid X dollars for a lens that's worth only Y dollars, what's the fair thing for the seller to do? Refund mojo (X-Y) dollars, it seems to me, and apparently his seller agreed. Good man!

Whether mojo then decides to spend his refund having the lens fixed, or leave it alone and use it as-is, or try to fix it himself, or send it off to Leica with a request for a "goodwill adjustment" -- well, it seems to me that that's up to mojo.

I think the whole problem here is not WHAT mojo is trying to do, but simply how he wrote it up. When I first read his post, I also got the impression he was trying to pull a fast one. But in terms of what he's actually doing, it's no different from what I'd do in the same circumstances (and I think of myself as being a bend-over-backwards-to-be-honest type.)

Mojo, when you get in contact with Leica, you might be able to benefit from the reactions of people here: your actual conduct seems ethically impeccable, but the WAY you tell your story seems to suggest a scam to some people, so a little more wordsmithing might produce a better result for you. One of the things I've learned in the PR trade is that it's HOW you say it that counts! Good luck!!

 

[ch1]

And please tell us how it turns out. 🙂

 

[Ben Z]

Mojo's decision to pursue a zero cost repair without telling the seller after accepting the refund is what smacks of "double-dipping."

The seller sold the lens for a price that was too high for the condition it's in, and he then adjusted the price to reflect the actual condition, which may coincidentally amount to the original sale price minus the cost of professional repair. If..and it's still an "if" and a big "if" at that.. Leica does the repair at reduced or no cost, as a goodwill measure, it will be because of Mojo's time and effort and powers of persuasion. I really don't see any ethical dilemma or obligation toward the seller here, other than if Mojo's feeling charitable he might leave positive feedback for the guy, even though he had to take his time to contact the seller and ask for a price adjustment and will have to wait who know's how long until he can use the lens, and most likely pay for the repair. Anyway, that's how I look at it.

 

[vizioneer]

1993, it's possible the blades are too tight. Sounds plausible. But, a warranty is a warranty.

 

[mojojones]

Thanks all for your responses. I understand the how it might sound like double dipping but I was seeing more as a price adjustment as jlw saw it. The seller had only reimbursed $100 when the local estimate was $150. And that would only clean and adjust the blades, not bring it up to the like new condition it had been advertised as. (In fairness to the seller, he did offer to fix it in his shop for free but not knowing his quality I declined.) I'm guessing Leica will charge me 2 or 3 times that. Well, ya pays ya money and ya takes ya chances. I'll think I'll give Leica a try and heed all of your advice. Thanks Ben Z for the contact.

John

 

[vizioneer]

Sorry for the terse replies previously. Good luck getting the porblem fixed, which is the important thing here. Everyone deserves to be happy with their gear! :angel: