Has anyone bought a KEH "UG" lens?

[Abbazz]

I'm surprised so many people returned their UG condition lenses. It says on the website they won't be usable, what did you expect? Why should KEH return your money for selling you a properly described product?

Lenses rated as "ugly" will have defects ("Glass will have marks, fungus or haze that will probably affect picture quality") but they should be usable. If a lens is not functioning (stuck aperture, missing element), then it should be part of the "As Is" inventory, which is specifically for malfunctioning items sold for parts -- that's where the real bargains are, if you are handy at camera repairs.

My experience is that most lenses rated as "ugly" have fungus or scratches. I have been lucky a few time with "ugly" lenses having only a few dust spots or very small coating defects. Buying a lens rated as "ugly" is like gambling: you can't win all the time, but I wouldn't hesitate to return a non functioning lens, like the Sonnar bought by Raid for example.

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[BNF]

I see assumptions that KEH downgrades when they have a lot of inventory, but it is heresay.

I would think that they would just price it lower and keep the condition the same. Why risk demaning the grading scale?

I have only ever bought LN- and EX+ from them and I have seen the difference.

I too have read stories about buying BGN or UG and getting a "gem", but I am not sure I want to invest the time should my UG arrive and be UG (even though by definition that's what it should be).

Leicashop has been rigerous in their grading (as a buyer and a seller). Gear that I've sold them that I considered A was rated A/B and gear I've purchased that I expected to be marked was better than I thought. (Again this is consistent.)

I am just trying to say: why would KEH not just advertise "sale" or "special" instead of risking the reputation based rating system? It may have happened here and there, but it doesn't make me think highly if it was done so intentionally.

 

[Graham Line]

'Assumptions' is correct.
Out of maybe a dozen 'BGN' lenses over as many years, I've never felt the need to return one and always felt I received good value. But some looked nicer and less-used than others.
Based on what I see and hear, the standards seem much more narrowly defined for the upper-level categories.
I would agree with the person who suggested Leica is not their specialty.