Notice for Newbie Ebay Sellers

john_van_v said:
I am proposing here that we write up a short but complete bulleted list of things to do to check out a camera or lens before posting it for sale as working, and that we post it on ebay and attempt to get ebay to make it an official guideline for "noob" photography sellers.
...
Click to expand...


Having a list here is a good idea for buyers to ask questions, but I wouldn't bother sending it to eBay for sellers.

As for buying on eBay, information and seller reputation affect sales price. An "inherited" camera from someone who "knows nothing" and selling the camera "as-is" won't sell for nearly as much as something from a reputable seller that can provide clear information regarding the item. People are pricing in the risk of needing to pay for a CLA.

I won't spend a lot of money if their feedback is low. Even if their feedback is high, if they don't sell many cameras, I'll consider that.
There are a lot of honest sellers on eBay.

That withstanding, here are my eBay seller gripes:
  • Calling something rare that clearly isn't, or the rarity isn't valued. i.e., a rare Zorki.
  • Saying something mint that clearly isn't. I also hate the word "minty." It sounds like a 2 year old is talking.
  • Blurry photos. Why even bother posting them?
  • People who call things "Leica Copy" that clearly isn't (like a fixed lens rangefinder).
  • Saying "worked when was last used". That doesn't mean it works now.
 
Last edited:
Gumby said:
Wouldn't the Mattock rule only apply to situation "a"?

Would a resonable/prudent buyer ever assume in situation "C" that the camera works perfectly?
Click to expand...

I would assume that the camera is broken in every case, and on average least broken in case C. There is a minor chance it might not be broken at all in A and D, but it will just as often be completely corroded to bits. As far as B is concerned, anything "minty" is almost inevitably a non-working display piece, externally polished but internally gone missing or BER.

Sevo
 
Gumby said:
d. Old camera. I think it is a Leica copy because I think a German person once used something like it. I read that on the internet. Looks good for a 50 year-old camera and worked good the last time my long-dead uncle used it. He told me recently it took good pictures, too! This is a rare camera and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the lucky bidder. I'd call it "minty" and I'm sure that you'll agree that this blurry picture depicts a "like-new" condition. The only problem I see is the chip in the front lens. I don't know anything about cameras but I don't think this is a problem. As is; all sales final. No refunds in any case.
Click to expand...

Very funny, except that they wouldn't mention the chip on the lens.
 
sevo said:
I would assume that the camera is broken in every case, and on average least broken in case C.
Click to expand...

... but would you complain if you bought a camera described in example C and it arrived:

aa. with a non-functioning self timer and slow shutter speeds?
bb. with a big chip in the front lens?
cc. and worked perfectly?
 
Why is it so damn hard for a seller to point out these kinds of flaws? I certainly don't expect every scratch or nick to be pointed out. But I think buyers definitely should be able to expect that a camera that is described as "fully operational" or "operates perfectly", etc., does so. As I said in my earlier thread, "caveat emptor" should NOT be an excuse for buyers to 'forget' to describe things clearly and honestly. Using the phrase "caveat emptor" to excuse abuses by sellers is irresponsible and lazy.
 
Gumby said:
I take calculated risks on eBay and haven't been seriously burned yet. Overall, eBay has been berry, berry good to me, too!
Click to expand...


I was going to use the berry, berry phrase.

Well ebay has been pretty good except for the crappo (non working) flash I probably should not have purchased. I got a refund from the seller.

The stuff I buy from ebay is retail store cheap, not usually ebay cheap. If you get my drift.
 
When I read "looks great for a 50 year old camera" or "seems to work", I see danger and I start asking lots of questions. But when the description is "operates perfectly" or "is in pristine condition" I certainly expect that to be so... 50 years old or 1 year old. Period!

Your argument that "one man's working may well be another's unusable" stretches this issue beyond reason. Working is working... Working means to me that the camera takes good pictures. If the shutter doesn't work properly, you cannot make a good picture. There's not gray here!

As I've said before, minor scratches, dings... these I could care less about. I'm not a collector of MINT stuff. However I think a collector that reads MINT expects MINT and that means no scratches or dings.

So I ask this community again... why do we buyers accept "caveat emptor" and let the sellers get away with this s**t???
 
I know you are right. As a matter of fact, I got called on this very thing once a couple of years ago. I didn't notice that the light seals were 'mushy' and should have been replaced before advertising the camera as "in perfect condition". I learned my lesson and paid to have them replaced.

However, this inability to see the true flaws in equipment is no excuse for not taking responsibility for it if its pointed out by the buyer. I've been lucky over the past few years to have dealt with honest thoughtful sellers in nearly every case. I've had to return a couple of things and once had something repaired at the sellers expense with no complaints on either end. Its when the seller claims no responsibility by saying "I sent it to you in perfect condition... you must have done this." Thats clear dishonesty, and I think it happens a lot more than I think we want to admit. Some of this gets swallowed by buyers that are too tired of dealing with sellers like this, or it just doesn't seem worth the effort to deal with it. But that doesn't make this behavior acceptable, and certainly should not be covered up by "caveat emptor"!
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Your argument that "one man's working may well be another's unusable" stretches this issue beyond reason. Working is working... Working means to me that the camera takes good pictures. If the shutter doesn't work properly, you cannot make a good picture. There's not gray here!
Click to expand...

So how does the average seller determine that a camera makes good pictures, if he himself can't, not even with a AF point-and-shoot?

Besides, a growing number of sellers is firmly convinced that film is not manufactured any more (as evidenced by it having vanished from every local drugstore) and that "working" for film cameras accordingly means "fit for duty as a display piece".

Sevo
 
I know that its not true that "all cameras and lenses purchased on eBay are presumed to be broken" because I've sold many things there that buyers were VERY happy with. Why? Because I described them exactly as they were. I do actually try very hard to "treat others as I'd have them treat me". So I believe I have the right to expect the same in return. And when I don't... I complain. And sometimes I even ask a community of buyers and sellers to think about possible incentives that could entice people to be honest! 🙂
 
How about RFF? It would be interested to see the statistics of percentage of inaccuracy in product desription for eBay, RFF, photo.net, craigslist, etc.. I bet the percentage is about the same at all places. Human nature?
 
One has no choice but to assume the worst case scenario as a buyer. One cannot assume honesty or correctness of description on the part of the seller for a very simple reason - there is no objective standard which can be applied.

A lens, for example. If a seller says it is free of scratches, what does that mean? If they are honest, it means free of scratches as they define it. Is it the same standard the buyer expects? That is not known. Perhaps and perhaps not. Every buyer has their own standard of what they think 'scratch free' means. Each buyer thinks that their standard is objective, and each buyer thinks that their standard is reasonable.

The seller cannot know what the buyer's expectations and standards are, despite the fact that the buyer thinks their standard are both objective and reasonable. Therefore, the chances that there will be disagreement concerning the scratch-free quality of a lens is high.

Assume the lens is scratched and bid accordingly. Failing to do so indicates an inability to apply logic in order to solve simple equations. If one prefers not to assume the lens is scratched, then Caveat Emptor applies correctly.
 
If you bottom buy from Ebay from an "I know nothing about cameras, but can see no reason why this will not work perfectly", buy it for parts.

If I died and someone inherited my collection, and had to sell them on Ebay, some good looking parts cameras would be on auction. So would some perfectly good cameras. Who would know?
 
Jamie Pillers said:
How about RFF? It would be interested to see the statistics of percentage of inaccuracy in product desription for eBay, RFF, photo.net, craigslist, etc.. I bet the percentage is about the same at all places. Human nature?
Click to expand...

I think I've bought 3 things here and was happy with each purchase. As a matter of fact the only item I have ever purchased , ANYWHERE, in which I was a little disappointed (besides a non-working flash) was a [BGN condition] lens from KEH. For some reason I was expecting "minty" cosmetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rob-F
Olive Repainted Leicas on eBay: How good is the paint job?
Replies
9
Views
516
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
J
  • Article Article
Buying on eBay: A Savvy Guide to the World’s Top Online Auction Site
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
WoodallP
WoodallP
B
Two Newbie Viewfinder questions
Replies
4
Views
641
brianentz
B
mackigator
Cheap point and shoot camera for kid going to summer camp
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
11K
Ray Kilby
Ray Kilby
J
Looking for Epson RD1
Replies
9
Views
3K
Jakk_
J
Back
Top Bottom