Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #11 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater. |
James Markus wrote:
Dennis, I don't know you or the seller of this lens. However, I am kind shocked at the facts as you have portrayed them. I'm also puzzled about taking this to the court of public opinion - when even the most basic questions are not being asked by the forum participants. For example: how well was the lens packaged? Was anything in the box with the lens? What did the box look like when it arrived? Why do the chips look so fresh...showing bright base metal where the paint had been?
Any item described as "mint" should not have a mark on it of any kind. It's condition should match "new" or "like new" - no exceptions. That the seller questions "what chips" could mean something happened between him sending the lens, and you receiving it. Everyone being so quick to interpret the little info we have, and to determine proper punishments - is what is motivating me to respond to this thread.
we are making our judgments based on the responses that Dennis got from the seller. a few years ago i sold a lens that was damaged in shipping. when the seller complained, my first response was "send me picture of the damage and i will take care of it" not " I thought I was selling it to a "seller" not a "collector". also, this sort of damage is NOT caused by shipping and i know that from buying and selling hundreds of items. this lens has been used and used hard in the field which is ok but you can't call it mint or even very good.