benedictjames
Member
I bought a camera off ebay recently, that the seller described as having 'no flaws', that was used 'a couple of times' before storing away for 20 yrs, and thus giving me the impression that it was close to unused/'mint' condition. The seller - being a camera tech - refurbed the camera (new seals, lube), and said it was THE best example of its kind I would get on that marketplace. I opened the box, and was presented with what you see in the photos here, so got back to the seller saying I was 'EXTREMELY disappointed' with the condition. The seller almost immediately replied (having not seen these photos yet), saying that their 'jaw dropped' and I was 'kidding, right' etc. Am I justified saying that 'no flaws' means cosmetically (at least) excellent, and being extremely disappointed at what I got? The seller has hundreds of good feedbacks, and does claim to have sold 'thousands' of cameras worldwide. They did not picture this part of the camera shown here, and after sending this and other pictures back to them to show what I see as 'flaws', I am still waiting the hear back at this point. I have not demanded a refund, only that they look at my pictures and explanation of them as what I consider somewhat different to 'no flaws', and expected A LOT better. How do I describe the cosmetic condition seen here (what word, i.e. 'mint-; exc++; exc+; very good; ... what rating?). I need some backup here, which I could then point out to them, if they don't actually see it here themselves (seller, if you're here on this forum too, I think I'm legitmately seeking a second opinion or two on this!). This is not an RF camera but an SLR, and I put this here in OFF TOPIC as I don't belong to any other forums and thought I might get some experienced opinions on here. :bang:
