Upload & Sell: Off
| p.17 #2 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater. |
Very interesting in how they say there is two sides to every story, eh dennisgibson? I was informed that a phone call conversation took place where he indicated that the AF-M was brassed and there was a screw missing, which he said he would make up for with the addition of lens cover didn't mention that did ya? If he knew all you would do was make a case on how you got ripped off instead of actually using the lens for it's intended purpose (the glass inside and the mechanization are in fact in mint condition, the only thing wrong is mere outward appearance of the lens) he wouldn't have sold it to you in the first place. It's funny how you don't mention that he also included a 12mm Extension Tube with gold contacts, an accessory foot for a Wimberly mount, and a Polarizer filter. I'm assuming the only reason this wasn't indicated was to make his case plausible, which is interesting because my father has no way of defending this because his account is locked and he has no way of replying. I do agree he shouldn't have listed it under "Mint" when selling it, but he indicated that there was some wear and tear to the buyer before the transaction ever took place. As far as I know his attitude pertaining to how my Father kept the lens "rolling around in the back of a truck" was an indication that he shouldn't even bother wasting his time on this manipulative looser. He did, in fact, have a food poisoning when you called him, and I can't imagine why he wouldn't talk to you especially with that attitude . If you've ever been around my father, he treats his gear better than his children, I can safely say that from first hand experience. Misleading and fallacious logic is never a good thing, please don't support it people. Next time put in the effort to do some research and form your own conclusions.