Look what $60 bought me!

I was merely correcting your incorrect description of the UCC as federal law, not supporting the view that the OP had broken any law. To clarify, when a state adopts a provision(s) of the UCC, as every state & DC has to some degree, that UCC provision(s) is state law. Since state law obviously affects the modern marketplace, I can have it both ways. QED.

bmattock said:
Then state laws effect the modern marketplace and not the UCC - QED. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
 
gb hill said:
To sum this thread up, I quote these famous words. He who is without sin cast the 1st stone...Jesus the Christ, spoken somewhere around AD 32.😉
Click to expand...

Great quote of course, but I don't understand. Are you saying no one should criticise what he did?
 
Sound Mind said:
I know it's not a Rangefinder, but I still feel the need to brag about this.

A customer came into my work today (I work at a Wolf Camera in midwestern US), and 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 and it just was never hers. And upon looking at her camera, I noticed it was an F2. And not only an F2, but an F2 in REALLY good condition. And I noticed that the lens on it was a 50mm 1.4, again, in REALLY good condition. It had a UV filter on it that's probably been there since it came out of the box.

And she ALSO had a 300mm f4.5, again in REALLY good condition, again with a filter. Tripod collar, case and all was with the lens.

It was clear that she really didn't know what she had, so I asked her if she was interested in selling it. She asks me how much I want it for. I say an inital price of $55. She tells me she sell it all for $60, and I ran out to my car and grabbed my cash.

Here's a pic of the best $60 I ever spent. 😀
Click to expand...

This is the Rangefinder Forum!!
For stuff like that, you need to post in my forum!
www.nikoneers.yuku.com

Kiu
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
The first involves the perceived disparity in value paid versus 'actual value' that the item might have sold for in a wider marketplace. I posit that if the disparity were smaller, no one would have objected. We congratulate each other all the time over 'scores' on eBay for lower cost than we otherwise would value a particular item.
Click to expand...

If this were EvilBay she could have a reserve price. Her problem was she did not know what the price was to set I believe she went into the store in search for a resource to help her with it. We congratulate each other because we out bid the others out there. We found a bargin because the rest of the world was not looking in that corner of the world’s largest market place during the closing seconds.

I think you are right about the level of the disparity is directly proportional to the level of out cry. Then again isn't that why they have felonies and misdemeanors crimes, venial and mortal sins, dipping shrimp and JUMBO PRAWN?

I bring it back to if I was the woman reading this thread after she did the deal. If she had the time now to look up street prices and learned about current values, would she ever go back to that store again? Would she recommend it to a friend? I doubt it. It’s very hard for any brick and mortar shop to get customers these days. I would say it’s 10 times harder than it was say 15 years ago to win a customer back.

If she knew about the small shops that put your stuff up on EvilBay and give you a %, I bet she would have cleared three times that much from them. The wild west of the internet is not a bad place to play if you know how to shoot and ride. Finding a hired gun is a handy thing and it can keep you from getting scalped by folks like she met.

B2 (;->
 
I'm kind of surprised he did not comment on the Who Uses Nikon part earlier........

B2 (;->

(Smoking not me, just got back from Amsterdam with the family. Now on to Bucharest with the boss)
 
Shooting a low-ball price is no sin. It was on the sellers head to ask more in the initial negotiation. At the very least she should have done some research on values at her local library. When I was younger I would have done the same thing. Now that I'm older I would likely have told her the value and offered to help her sell it. I'll not condemn the buyer for being a good mule trader. In addition I would warn the buyer that things like this are hardly ever real. I suspect he may have bought a stolen camera outfit.
 
Wow! This tale grows in the telling. The camera ans lenses were stolen. The woman is a drug addict. She was selling stolen goods to buy crack. Where were these things stated in the original post?
And even if they were true, how are they pertinent to the story? The woman went into a photography store with photographic items and put herself in the hands of an expert hoping to receive good, honest advice. And she was cheated.
If we're going to speculate, why is it that there appear to be some mis-direction in some of the comments posted here? Perhaps the young lad is not the only one who has been less than forthright in purchasing valuable items from uninformed sellers.
 
Actually, it is not buying the stuff at $60 which is wrong, it is that he is working in a camera store, positioned to provide professional service and fair trade-in price, but opted to take advantage of customer's trust in their reputation as pro. That is against working ethics. If you can find such a deal on craigslist or ebay, brilliant, they are free markets; in a camera store from your customer, with price offered by you? Shameless!
 
No, just a computer geek who will be in Bucharest next week working with a company trying to get a new line of business started by July 1st. My project time lines have been trashed by many folks in Bucharest having this week off because of the Nato meetings there. Seems they want to keep traffic in the area low. Also they seem to have checks of people every 500 meters or so. I'm hoping that next week much will be back to normal.

B2 (;->
 
To tell the truth, 99.99% of the "bargains" excitedly oft reported found by RFF members turn out to be laughably NOT bargains.

Even if this is arguably not something the OP should have crowed about, I would venture that HE is the one that got gypped.

You could pretty much classify what he bought as "un-resalable" or "old junk" at this point in time.
 
PaulMc said:
Shooting a low-ball price is no sin. It was on the sellers head to ask more in the initial negotiation. At the very least she should have done some research on values at her local library.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you. Unknown in this story is if she went into the store with the ultimate goal of selling the equpiment.

If she DID indeed intend to unload the equipment, she could have spent 10 minutes on the internet researching the value ahead of time, or at a bare minimum she should have come up with a value in her mind that she would find acceptable (which is possibly what she did - maybe she was secretely hoping for at least $50).

If she DIDN'T originally want to sell the equipment when she left the house that day, she's essentially acted on an impulse upon hearing the offer from the store employee. Looking back with hindsight, maybe she should have told him she'd think it over and let him know the next day.

BTW I have a hunch I know which Wolf Camera location this was.

My opinion: her visit to the store was indeed motivated by her goal to sell the equipment, and she was delighted to get $60. A win-win for both parties.
 
Last edited:
What some posters do not know is that Wolf Camera, sister store to Ritz Camera is a large chain that has many many stores across USA. They don't even buy used equipment. Most of the employees are younger folks that don't even know what a Nikon F2 is!

It's not a REAL Photographic store, at least not the kind we use to see.


B2, I don't think the 300mm lens is the ED version, it is a regular Ai version.

Kiu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom