Gumby
Veteran
Well, Brett... OK let's agree to disagree if you insist. I was just reading the words you wrote and respinding to those words. I don't really consider them a "veiled threat" but they are without a doubt open to the interpretation I made. I'm OK with that even though I find it amusing at the amount of self-appointed ethics police that seem to abound on the internet. Not that I think you are such a person... just saying I've seen many people who write similarly to the way you wrote in the conclusion of Post 1 who consider it their role in lfe to protect the innocent from the evil ebay sellers. As I said... I have no idea if you fall into that category or not, and I'm not making any assumptions one way or the other. Personally speaking, if I don't have a dog in the fight I stay out of it.
Re: replacement parts, look at it this way -- when you buy a "mint" car of older vintage, do you expect it to be delivered with the same oil as when it was manufactured? Obviously no. What about the windshield wiper blades, or as you may say 'windscreen' wiper blades. Again... obviously not. How about the same EXACT engine. Well, in vintage cars it is important that the correct engine is in the car and it works well, not necessarily the one it was originally delivered with. Maybe some really particular collectors will be offended by a rebuilt or replacement engine, but most won't. A "complete original car" goes indeed go for a premium, as does a "complete original camera". A car with, say, replacement paint that matches the paint code in the VIN will go for more than a car that was repainted with a non-matchin paint color. What really varies is the price and value, not necessarily the usability. We seem to agree with that. So what are we "agreeing to disagree about?
Maybe this is the issue. When buying vintage car, camera, etc. I either buy it because I know its what I want... or I walk away. Maybe what we are disagreeing about is the posting of "warning" information on the internet. I see little value in that. That is my opinion and you seem to have a differing opinion. That's OK... really, it is. I also see little value in talking about "what might have been" on a deal I walked away from (or in this case, a deal someone else walked away from). I see little value in that. That is my opinion and you seem to have a differing opinion. That's OK... really, it is.
There are others who have posted here that have taken a purely emotional and offensive response. I have taken a purely mechanical response, just to counterbalance the arguement that a camera with replacement parts, including the taking lens, can indeed be a decent user camera... if the replacement were done right.
I really don't believe we have much we disagree on, and prehaps not much need to "agree to disagree"... but whatever makes you happy will satisfy me.
Hope all is well with you and yours in Tasmania!
Re: replacement parts, look at it this way -- when you buy a "mint" car of older vintage, do you expect it to be delivered with the same oil as when it was manufactured? Obviously no. What about the windshield wiper blades, or as you may say 'windscreen' wiper blades. Again... obviously not. How about the same EXACT engine. Well, in vintage cars it is important that the correct engine is in the car and it works well, not necessarily the one it was originally delivered with. Maybe some really particular collectors will be offended by a rebuilt or replacement engine, but most won't. A "complete original car" goes indeed go for a premium, as does a "complete original camera". A car with, say, replacement paint that matches the paint code in the VIN will go for more than a car that was repainted with a non-matchin paint color. What really varies is the price and value, not necessarily the usability. We seem to agree with that. So what are we "agreeing to disagree about?
Maybe this is the issue. When buying vintage car, camera, etc. I either buy it because I know its what I want... or I walk away. Maybe what we are disagreeing about is the posting of "warning" information on the internet. I see little value in that. That is my opinion and you seem to have a differing opinion. That's OK... really, it is. I also see little value in talking about "what might have been" on a deal I walked away from (or in this case, a deal someone else walked away from). I see little value in that. That is my opinion and you seem to have a differing opinion. That's OK... really, it is.
There are others who have posted here that have taken a purely emotional and offensive response. I have taken a purely mechanical response, just to counterbalance the arguement that a camera with replacement parts, including the taking lens, can indeed be a decent user camera... if the replacement were done right.
I really don't believe we have much we disagree on, and prehaps not much need to "agree to disagree"... but whatever makes you happy will satisfy me.
Hope all is well with you and yours in Tasmania!
Last edited:
