SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES......
There goes my Christmas present to myself (drats ! )
Hello from Wall Street Photo
We are sorry to report that we will not be able to obtain the
following item(s) from your order:
Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 Megapixel Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (3822B002)
Though we had expected to be able to send this item to you, we've
since found that it is not available from any of our sources at this
time. We realize this is disappointing news to hear, and we apologize
for the inconvenience we have caused you.
Wow - amazing that Amazon doesn't do a better job of weeding these things out. Seriously, how can they miss something this flagrant? Ah well. Happy holidays, and sorry to those of you who didn't get your camera this time around!
I see this sort of thing on eBay and report it each time there is a fraudulent offering I am aware of. To ebay's credit, each time the fraudulent listing is reported, they've removed it -- usually it involves a highjacked account that has been dormant.
To follow up: I received the following from the seller, Wall St. on Wed 12/14, following my inquiry --
Hello from Wall Street Photo
We are sorry to report that we will not be able to obtain the
following item(s) from your order:
Canon EOS 1D Mark IV 16.1 Megapixel Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) (3822B002) [ASIN: B001IT13IK]
Though we had expected to be able to send this item to you, we've
since found that it is not available from any of our sources at this
time. We realize this is disappointing news to hear, and we apologize
for the inconvenience we have caused you.
We have canceled this item from your order.
Your credit card will NOT BE CHARGED for this item because you only
pay for items when we ship them to you.
Your order is now closed.
We apologize for any inconvenience we may have caused. Let us assure
you this is not indicative of the high quality of service and products we
strive to provide our customers.
As a token of goodwill, Wall Street Photo is issuing a 5% discount or your next
for your next purchase at Wall Street Photo.
Please email us when you place a new order so we can apply the discount.
Sincerely,
Customer Service Department
Wall Street Photo
My response (after contacting Amazon customer service to report the matter and open an investigation on why I am unable to leave negative feedback at this time [may involve a 3-day delay after transaction]). Amazon noted that the credit card shows the funds are actually still in play from the Wall Street end, having been placed on hold but not yet fully charged, as of this morning.
Dear Wall Street,
I do not agree to cancelling my order, and I find your doing so to be an act of fraud and deceptive promotion and order taking beyond bait and switch practices.
This is unacceptable behavior and reflective of the independent reviews and feedback I have found regarding your past sales practices.
Your Amazon add clearly showed the Canon 1D Mark IV "IN STOCK" at the time of my order.
I purchased the item in good faith and I insist that you fulfill your obligation to ship the item to me at the purchase price or face follow-up through Amazon.
I am counting on this item as a Christmas gift, so I suggest you ship as rapidly as possible.
Thank you and please reopen the order and ship as promised.
William Harris
Gunzorro wrote:
B001IT13IK]
I am counting on this item as a Christmas gift, so I suggest you ship as rapidly as possible.
Thank you and please reopen the order and ship as promised.
William Harris
I think the "reasonable person" principle comes into play here, legally.
Since the price shown in the ad is ridiculously low, and since the photo attached to the ad is not of the item listed, a reasonable person should assume that the ad is a mistake.
Insisting that Wall Street Photo fulfill its "obligation" is not going to go anywhere.
BrianO wrote:
I think the "reasonable person" principle comes into play here, legally.
Since the price shown in the ad is ridiculously low, and since the photo attached to the ad is not of the item listed, a reasonable person should assume that the ad is a mistake.
Insisting that Wall Street Photo fulfill its "obligation" is not going to go anywhere.
Clearly it's a scam! They do the same thing, over.. and over... and over.... I think he's just messing with Wall St. Photo but it's interesting to note that they don't admit there's a price/description mismatch they just go with "out of stock"
What's the scam, then? Bait and switch? Nonsense! In order for bait to lure someone, it must be attractive. There's nothing attractive about a $159 1D Mark IV. Reasonable man? Let me be more blunt; only a blithering idiot would think that was a legitimate offer and plunk down money on it.
Yes, you're right - they're a totally above board seller. I don't believe (as you don't) that anybody would expect to get a 1d4 out of them for under $200, especially with the picture of a cheap Nikon lens there.
SO that's just an honest mistake and all these positive reviews are indicative of their good intentions.
Brian -- Yes, please read the reviews from the independent site that Trojan posted. Wall St. has been scamming people for years. What's to lose? Tell me, have you ever heard of companies that sell CC to third parties? My CC is being tagged for the $159 as held in reserve against the purchase.
Richard -- you'll also see Wall St. ads that tout a 1D Mk III boldly for $7999. How many of those would you need to sell to make a profit? It appears to the a 1Ds Mk III at that price.
I'm not trying to be reasonable. I'm trying to fight against scammers and identity thieves as I encounter them. The screw with people and foul the whole of internet commerce.
I've dealt with some wonderful, reputable companies, like B&H, Adorama, Tallyns, KEH, and more -- they are a pleasure to do business with. I've also bought from a lot terrific individuals on eBay. But I can't stand dishonest efforts that take advantage of the buying impulse on the internet. I guess it's just a personal foible of mine.
svass -- Ha-ha! Yes, maybe I should look for another gift. Perhaps a flail?
BrianO wrote:
I never said that. Don't put (idiotic) words in my mouth.
I'm not sure why you're being so cantankerous about defending a sleazeball organization like Wall Street Photo but your assertion was that the price discrepancy was a simple mistake. I attribute simple mistakes to above board organizations. Since they do it repeatedly and offer dramatically over priced older products, my presumption is they're scamming people. Coupled with the on line reviews at multiple sites, I think my guess is correct, and yet you keep coming back to argue the point.
TrojanHorse wrote:
Yes, you're right - they're a totally above board seller.
BrianO wrote:
I never said that. Don't put (idiotic) words in my mouth.
TrojanHorse wrote:
I'm not sure why you're being so cantankerous about defending a sleazeball organization like Wall Street Photo...
I'm not defending Wall Street Photo. YOU asked if this was a case of bait and switch; and I'm pointing out how IN THIS CASE it doesn't seem likely to be.
I am a proponent of logical thinking, and when I see people posting illogic, I'll point it out.
TrojanHorse wrote:
...your assertion was that the price discrepancy was a simple mistake. I attribute simple mistakes to above board organizations. Since they do it repeatedly and offer dramatically over priced older products, my presumption is they're scamming people. Coupled with the on line reviews at multiple sites, I think my guess is correct...
This is a prime example of an error in logic. Only honest people make mistakes? That's stupid.
Gunzorro wrote:
Brian -- Yes, please read the reviews from the independent site that Trojan posted. Wall St. has been scamming people for years. What's to lose? Tell me, have you ever heard of companies that sell CC to third parties? My CC is being tagged for the $159 as held in reserve against the purchase.
If they had been deliberately fishing for CC numbers I think they would have chosen to place an ad that would have at least looked somewhat legit. In this case, only a fool -- sorry, but it's true -- would have made a purchase.
Again, not defending WSP; their record is not exemplary. But IN THIS CASE it is not an example of "bait and switch," which is what this thread is about.
Really confused how any company could maintain a legit merchant account using their types of business practices. I know when I had my merchant account setup through my financial institution they make you aware that things like this aren't tolerated and they will yank your account if anything ever happens.
My CC is being tagged for the $159 as held in reserve against the purchase.