To CLA or not before sale?

[cz23]

I've got a Rolleiflex 3.5 TLR that I'm going to sell. It probably could use a CLA. For example, the shutter speed dial is really stiff.

Is it usually best to have that done before the sale or sell as is? The reason I ask is, I've read that some folks don't trust seller claims of CLAs and assume they'll get one done anyway.

Thanks.

John

 

[shyoon]

If it's not a massive problem, I wouldn't bother getting it CLA'd. Otherwise you're only going to lose money on it.

 

[maddoc]

A good Rollei CLA, e.g. by Harry Fleenor, costs some money and takes about 3 month. I doubt that you will get the money so I would leave it to the buyer of the camera.

 

[bwcolor]

If you are honestly representing the camera, you should end up with the same money in your pocket either way.

 

[Doug]

Maybe just for your own satisfaction in being able to represent the camera as freshly serviced and working well. But in general, one isn't able to recoup the cost in the selling price. Financially it's better to sell the item as it is, and let the new owner invest in service, whether routine svc or serious repairs. True for selling vehicles or houses, or....

 

[Mister E]

You'll never recover a CLA on sale.

 

[chris00nj]

If the shutter was not working, I would say the CLA would be worthwhile. With just a stiff dial, I would expect a 5%-10% reduction in sales price. I imagine the minimum CLA cost (with two-way shipping) to be $200.

 

[Tim Gray]

If it didn't work, I'd get a CLA. If it does, I'd skip it. I don't think you'll recover the cost.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Problem with doing a CLA and then selling the camera: who benefits from the repair warranty if something goes wrong? You or the buyer?

Just explain that the camera needs service and price it accordingly. The new owner will be more interested in investing in a CLA and also having the repair warranty under the owner's name, just in case the repair fails to meet expectations.

 

[Paul_C]

I've read that some folks don't trust seller claims of CLAs and assume they'll get one done anyway.

I've never understood the obsession with CLAs. Cameras are complex pieces of equipment and unless something specific requires it, why in the world would I want its guts torn out and reassembled?

If something is stiff enough to bother you, why not get that fixed or fix it yourself? Why dump all the cash into a CLA if a much simpler procedure will handle it?

Seller claims of CLA are meaningless to me. Even if there was a complete, back-to-factory-specs overhaul done recently, that doesn't tell me the camera wasn't dropped in a lake the next day. A clear, honest description of the condition of the camera is much more useful to me as a buyer.

And no, I never assume I'll get one done anyway. They're most often just ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Darshan]

True for selling vehicles or houses, or....

This I have found to be very true, not from my personal experience but from friends' and family's.

As for the camera, I agree with the others. If I were a buyer, I would rather buy a camera as-is and get it CLA'd if and when it needs it...that will give me more satisfaction. 🙂

 

[JohnTF]

If you can locate the right guy and get it done reasonably, it is always easier to sell a good camera with "CLA" in the listing.

You may find you lose 2/3 of the value if someone has to figure in a CLA for a Rollei, so it may be very much to your advantage to have it serviced.

A buyer has to assume the worse, when it very well may be a minor cleaning needed.

Regards, John

 

[cz23]

Thanks very much, everyone. Consensus seems to be sell as is. Really appreciate your advice.

John