Look what $60 bought me!

I personally don't agree with the operation not because of the circumstances of the sale (place and needs of the lady), but for what Nikonwebmaster says: Soundmind was in the store, on Wolf Camera's payroll, and should have addressed the customer's request by telling her there was nothing wrong with her gear. If after this she had inquired about selling it, he could have made a fair offer and finish the transaction on his time... or buy the camera on behalf of the store.

I don't think the lady ever felt ripped off, though, but Soundmind's behavior was not ethical.
 
Seems to me that if you hadn't misrepresented the value of that camera and bought it at fair value, then you'd have something to really be proud of..

If I were in your shoes I'd would feel like it were the worst $60 I ever spent..
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

I agree w/peter whole heartedly. This is the type of thing that scares the hell out me when we have to take our gear into shops for repairs or whatever we may need.
I don't think you represent most of people on this forum.🙁
 
Economically speaking, the seller didn't have all the information. Although she thought she did. She believed the OP was an authority on the item, and having that information made her exchange. For that micro-market $60 was where supply met the demand.

Now, since the OP didn't give her all the information, This makes him a Douche Bag. Plain and simple. Furthermore, why do you keep your cash in the Car!
 
If you read the original post again, you'll see that the lady went into the store looking for help, which she obviously didn't get as the salesman did nothing to try and fix the problem. On top of that, he took advantage of the situation and led her to believe that the camera and lenses were not worth a lot. (quote) "she asked me what was wrong with the camera she found in her closet. I don't know the story about why this stuff was just "found" in her closet, but it was soon apparent that she probably never used an SLR " (end of quote).

It would be a completely different story if the lady had just walked into the store wanting to sell a camera and lenses she had no use for. In that case, the store (not the salesman) can offer her a price and she is free to accept the deal or not. Of course, no store is going to buy second hand gear at current market value, as they will want to make a profit on the deal, will probably clean the camera up and do some basic testing, may even offer a short term money back guarantee if the person who will eventually buy it is not completely satisfied. That is why stores like KEH buy well below market value, but as a buyer I have never been disappointed with second hand gear I bought from KEH, quite the contrary.

If you walk into a shop wanting to sell your gear, or offer it for sale at a flea market or garage sale, then as a seller you should do your homework. If you agree to a sale well below it's true value, then you can only blame yourself. But here the salesman took advantage of a person who didn't know anything about the camera, didn't offer the help she requested and bought it from her under the false assumption that it was practically worthless. Not to mention the fact that as a salesperson he is representing his company. This guy ripped off a customer and ripped off his company at the same time.
 
If the buyer had been a poor, destitute woman who had a family to feed, but knew the value of the camera and that she could resell it for $200, and the seller had been a rich, greedy landlord who had just eaten a $400 lunch of caviar and porterhouse steak, but didn't know the value of the camera that he had found in the apartment of someone he had just evicted, how would you all then feel about the transaction?
 
M. Valdemar said:
If the buyer had been a poor, destitute woman who had a family to feed, but knew the value of the camera and that she could resell it for $200, and the seller had been a rich, greedy landlord who had just eaten a $400 lunch of caviar and porterhouse steak, but didn't know the value of the camera that he had found in the apartment of someone he had just evicted, how would you all then feel about the transaction?
Click to expand...


Then I'd know the landlord was a twat because no one but a cad has caviar with porterhouse steak!
 
I usually ask the seller how much does he/she wants for the camera.
If the price is OK, I´ll buy it, if not, I make an offer. The seller is allways free to decide. But I allways require the seller to sign a receipt with full name, address and ID number, just in case...

Cheers

Ernesto
 
Oh my good heavens! There sure are a lot of very naughty words being tossed out with apparent impunity. I sorta thought there was a filter that caught stuff like this. Certainly has expanded my vocabulary!

I'd suggest everyone with something to sell to be as informed about it as possible or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
 
"Jan, you are assuming that:
1: the lady did not want to sell the camera originally
2: the guy did not tell her that the gear is all fine.

None of these two are detailed in the original post."

Pherdinand,

Of course you are right, he doesn´t mention this in his original post. But then again, he doesn´t say if and how he helped her to check the gear was fine. Nor is it clear if the lady went into the store with an idea of selling, as far as we know she couldn't get it to work and that was the main reason she addressed the salesperson. We obviously don't have all the details to judge and maybe I'm assuming things that are not so. But it still feels wrong to me.

A friend of mine works in a camera store. He doesn't own the store, he's just an employee. One day I was there looking into some second hand Nikon stuff they had for sale, a guy walked in with a Nikon F801 (N8008 in the US). Same story, couldn't get it to work. My friend checked it, popped out the four AA batteries and put them back in. Turned out that one of the batteries was put in the wrong way. The guy walked out as a happy customer.

If I walk into a store with something that I can't get to work (be it a portable computer, a cell phone, whatever), I do so because the person behind the counter should have a better understanding of it than I do. It doesn't matter if I bought it there orginally or not, I expect the salesman to be more knowledgeable than me. As a result of this, as a customer I trust that the salesperson knows if it can be fixed or not, and if I wanted to sell it, what it would be worth in working order or broken.

I've had my share of incompetent camera salespeople, who couldn't tell the difference between an f/2.0 and an f/2.8 lens. Needless to say, I'd never buy in these places nor trust the advice given to me, but that is because I know more about cameras than this so-called salesperson did. In this case here, it looks to me the other way around: a customer with a camera that she doesn't know how to operate, and a salesman that tells her it's only worth $ 55. She gets $ 60, so she feels she's got a good deal.

If SoundMind had found this camera at a flea market, garage sale or through an ad in the local paper, I'd congratulate him for a great buy. I wish I could find an original black Nikon F with original prism for $ 20 😀. If I did, I'd buy it on the spot. But I still feel that SoundMind took advantage of his position as a salesman.
 
I really have no idea what happed in the F2 transaction, but I can say this. I've bought camera gear from local sellers in the Los Angeles area that did not even want me to explain to them what they had or what it was worth. They just wanted to "get rid of it", get the cash, and have me get lost. These were not people fencing stolen items either, they were respectable middle or upper-middle class folks in nice areas of town who came across some gear (typically given to them or inherited) for which they had absolutely no interest. They never made even the slightest effort to research the value, nor did they care! Even If I tried to go over with them what they had, their eyes would sometimes glaze over and it apparent they were anxious just to be paid and for me to haul it away.

This is the exception however, as most money motivated novice sellers grossly overprice items (like an F2) in hopes of cashing in somehow.

If they'd simply asked me for advice however, I'd cetainly tell them what I'd pay them for it, which would be somewhat below market price, but not unreasonably so.

There is another factor as well in buying used gear, and that's the hidden problem. Most likely that F2 needs a CLA - at the very least the metering head needs conversion to alkaline batteries. This is expensive work. I can't tell you how many times I've watched what seemed to be great deals evaporate because gear that I thought was great was tied up in the shop for weeks having expensive repairs -- not always successfully (usually due too due to lack of spare parts). There's nothing like the letdown of finding a spot of fungus on a complicated lens that you just bought, took home, and examined under a bright light. It's a deal breaker.
 
Last edited:
To paraphrase something I heard a long time ago:
God would not have made them sheep if he did not want them sheared

It may sound harsh, and I may have not done the same thing in the same situation but it sounds like everyone was happy with the deal at the time, and, after all, is that not what commerce is all about?
 
Last edited:
Bill, to a certain extent I agree with you in that the operation was "a tad shady." I'd prefer another noun; however, I respectfully disagree in that this is business just because both parties ended up with a satisfactory solution, and there's no harm done. I think this is NOT business; it's predatory behavior.

The OP does not rank high with me because of these actions: he offered to buy the gear, put the woman on the spot and did the transaction in his place of employment. If other store owners don't mind... that's their choice. I wouldn't pay employees to do their business in my place unless they contributed to the costs (rent, utilities, advertising and others). He deliberately didn't disclose to her that the cameras could fetch a better price elsewhere. Had she chosen a fast buck on a quick sale, I'd say "great", but... I simply won't agree with the operation because I wouldn't have handled it that way.

I've had my share of questions about gear and never downplayed a thing with the intent of purchasing.

Some time ago there was a similar discusion in Pnet, when someone bragged about having bought an M4 in very good condition for $200 from someone who placed an ad in the newspaper. The guy got disparaged for paying the asking price, not telling the seller, an old gentleman with no interest in photography, about the potential price he could ask for. In a case like this, same as the garage sale, it's a find... although we could discuss that ad aeterman, because, just like in the case that has us this busy, the Pnet contributor didn't tell the seller one thing about the camera.

The long and the short of it, to me, is that this behavior is simply predatory, and justifying it as "business" only fosters the idea that as long as one lines up the pockets with cash at the expense of someone else, the profits are legitimate. No wonder there is a major problem with the subprime mortgages and companies that inflate their earnings reports just to see their stock prices soar. There is a proper way to do business, and the OP, who has remained mysteriously silent since posting, didn't follow it. He doesn't deserve the insults he's received, but doesn't deserve any accolades either.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Mattock,
I was bein' facetious. This thread is pretty over the top.....I don't think she was a bad person at all. She just wanted to get rid of the equipment. I've sold (and given away) things for less than I know could get by being patient because I wanted to get rid of them. Thebuyer or receipient may have thought they were getting over. That doesn't mean anything to me. I don't think the buyer is a bad guy. Just a little naughty for taking advantadge of his position as a store employee. He got a nice wholsale deal on a kit. That's all. It's so funny, I bought a Rollei at a nice price and took it in for a CLA. The tech asked me how much I paid. I told him the truth. He accuses me of "stealing" it. Then proceeds to charge several hundred dollars for the repairs. Who was really stealing from who I wonder. By the way, I don't know mentioned this, but I'm not so sure counter help in a retail establishment requires "professionalism" to the extent of a fiduciary obligation.
 
As an employee of a camera store, you have the responsibility to give her an honest estimate of the value of the kit, or at least point her to someone who can. If you said something like "it's probably worth alot more, but all I can offer you is $60" and she accepted then that would be another story. You stole the camera from her, and gave her a few $$ to ease your conscience!
 
Dudes.

Read the post. The owner did NOT ASK for an estimate of the value of the gear.
She asked whart is "wrong" with the camera.
The 55$ was offered by the buyer. That's how much he wanted to pay, that's what he offered. It is NOWHERE written that that was his "value estimate" or anything like that.
The woman thought to make a better deal and asked for FIVE bucks more. If she was asking double that, just to see if she can rise the price, i'd say yes, she would be interested in the real value. She did not.
She just wanted to get rid of it.

We also do not know whether the buyer told her that there's nothing wrong with the gear.
Please re-read the post before you form your strong worded opinion.

As David M says, some people just do not care about the details of something they got for free and want to dispose of.
Frankly, many of them think you are NUTS if you pay 100+$ for old bulky and non-digital manual camera gear and they automatically consider it a good deal if they get ANYTHING for such stuff.
Could they sell it for somewhat more if they did days of research and bargaining with more camera shops/individuals? Probably. Would it be worth it? Hardly, unless they are unemployed gear enthousiasts, or utterly bored in their free time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom