rayfoxlee
Raymondo
In December 2009, I bought a mint chrome M7 (with box, warranty card, instructions etc) from a prominent London Leica specialist and paid what appeared to be a pretty ‘full’ price – as expected coming from a London shop. During the pre-sales telephone conversation, I ascertained the camera was 3+ years old – the age was important, given the problems with some of the early cameras. I asked if the camera had the upgraded viewfinder and, after inspecting it, they said that they ‘thought so’. When the camera arrived just before Christmas, it was in very nice condition, but on using it, it became immediately apparent that the shutter fired at about 1/500th, no matter what speed was set. The camera was duly returned to Solms to be overhauled by Leica and had a new optical DX reader fitted at the same time. All well and good and the camera works just fine.
Trawling the web this week (as you do during the dark days of the UK winter), I came across information that put the year of manufacture at 2002 – an early model and not what I expected from a camera that was sold new (I thought) in November 2006. I asked Solms for the date of manufacture – confirmed as 2002. Emailed the shop to ask the history of the camera that had been made in 2002, yet the warranty card showed the buyer’s name and address and the dealers stamp dated November 2006. Two versions of the date are on the card – both in different writing. You are beginning to form a feeling about this yet? Me too!
I asked the dealer what had happened to the camera between 2002 and the ‘first sale’ in 2006 – ‘surely Mr Dealer, it had not sat on your shelf?’ No, I was told, it was second-hand when the man whose name appears in the warranty card bought it. So, not only was the camera older than I was told, but also had a name on the warranty card of the second owner. I called Leica UK and the long and short of it is that the warranty card should only show the name of the first buyer. So, the 2 year warranty described in the card would not have applied to the previous owner to me, as he was the second buyer. Leica UK agreed with me that I should have been able to rely on the information of first owner’s purchase and, thus the date of that first sale.
Charitably (I think!), I suggested that perhaps an inexperienced member of the shop’s staff may have stamped a blank card that may have been with the camera, thus inadvertently giving the impression that the camera was new in 2006. Yes, says the shop, that must have been the problem, but, of course, very difficult to prove.
We have a saying here in the UK – to be ‘stitched up like a kipper’ or was this all misguided error. What do you reckon? And what would you now do??
The problem as I see it is how does one explain this to a subsequent buyer – and if you were that buyer, would you run a mile?
Your thoughts??
Ray
Trawling the web this week (as you do during the dark days of the UK winter), I came across information that put the year of manufacture at 2002 – an early model and not what I expected from a camera that was sold new (I thought) in November 2006. I asked Solms for the date of manufacture – confirmed as 2002. Emailed the shop to ask the history of the camera that had been made in 2002, yet the warranty card showed the buyer’s name and address and the dealers stamp dated November 2006. Two versions of the date are on the card – both in different writing. You are beginning to form a feeling about this yet? Me too!
I asked the dealer what had happened to the camera between 2002 and the ‘first sale’ in 2006 – ‘surely Mr Dealer, it had not sat on your shelf?’ No, I was told, it was second-hand when the man whose name appears in the warranty card bought it. So, not only was the camera older than I was told, but also had a name on the warranty card of the second owner. I called Leica UK and the long and short of it is that the warranty card should only show the name of the first buyer. So, the 2 year warranty described in the card would not have applied to the previous owner to me, as he was the second buyer. Leica UK agreed with me that I should have been able to rely on the information of first owner’s purchase and, thus the date of that first sale.
Charitably (I think!), I suggested that perhaps an inexperienced member of the shop’s staff may have stamped a blank card that may have been with the camera, thus inadvertently giving the impression that the camera was new in 2006. Yes, says the shop, that must have been the problem, but, of course, very difficult to prove.
We have a saying here in the UK – to be ‘stitched up like a kipper’ or was this all misguided error. What do you reckon? And what would you now do??
The problem as I see it is how does one explain this to a subsequent buyer – and if you were that buyer, would you run a mile?
Your thoughts??
Ray
