p.4 #1 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
John Caldwell wrote:
Was the original set of images you show here described by the seller as images of the actual lens being sold, or just images of what he felt was representative of the lens he was offering?
Read the first post please:
dennisgibson wrote:
Would you be upset if you called the seller who then asked "what paint chips" when you let him know you were disappointed and thought he'd misrepresented the condition of the lens? And then to have him say he took those pictures of it when he first got the lens, like it's no big deal? And then have him abruptly say he was sick and had to puke and that he'd call you back and hang up on you only to never call you back over the next 2 days? Only to ignore 2 emails and 3 PMs here and on Nikoncafe and 2 additional phone calls from you while he simultaneously logged onto Nikoncafe and posting several times throughout the day?
I've talked to him through email the last couple of days and I've gotten nowhere. He only respnded after i filed a dispute with paypal. He keeps asking me what my F'ing problem is and telling me I'm complaining about $hit and I should be glad he sold me the greatest lens Canon has ever made and I should just go shoot with it. ...Show more →
p.4 #2 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Folks here seem to have it all figured out - so I will leave you to it. BTW - you may want to look up the definition of "brassing", because that is not brassing on that lens.
trenchmonkey wrote: Wow!!!!!!! What a clueless response! That's BRASSING you're seeing, excessive wear.
It sure didn't come from shipping/packaging or lack thereof. It was ridden hard and put up wet.
Dennis received a beater, plain and simple. It takes years to turn "mint" to crap, years! Wow!!
p.4 #3 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
If that is "MINT", which implies great condition but used, I sure would hate to see what the seller classifies as BNIB!!! He had no other intention of delivering what he advertised - pure fraud. Good luck and don't ease up until you get your money back.
p.4 #4 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
John Caldwell wrote:
Was the original set of images you show here described by the seller as images of the actual lens being sold, or just images of what he felt was representative of the lens he was offering?
Good question, but IMO moot in this case. The 'before' and 'after' photos are both EF 200/1.8L lenses, but the former is in no way representative of the latter.
p.4 #7 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
I expect some lawyer wannabe to come along with the following explanation: the mint lens pictures are just the seller's artistic vision of the lens he sold to Dennis.....that is the way he actually "sees" that lens. After all, "objective reality" is a very complex philosophical problem. Just think of how many new parents you know who consider their baby to be less than perfect in features and intellect ?
Folks, the beauty and condition of a lens might be in the eye of the beholder.
p.4 #9 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
The description of the lens and the inclusion of photos showing what the lens used to look like, would seem to be the epitome of fraud. The reaction and behaviour of the seller in the aftermath seems to epitomize jackass. Good luck getting every dime back, you deserve nothing less.
p.4 #11 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
I'd follow him around every forum he posts to, and make sure everyone in every thread he posts in knows what a fraud he is. And do it non-stop until it's resolved.
p.4 #12 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
James Markus wrote:
Folks here seem to have it all figured out - so I will leave you to it. BTW - you may want to look up the definition of "brassing", because that is not brassing on that lens.
Brassing - Exposed metal where paint or plating has worn off.
p.4 #13 · 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....Show more →
James, there was no issue with the packaging. It was sent in its original case which was packed with padding in a box. He isn't denying the chips, missing screws, etc. He thinks I'm a puss for complaining. That's why he commented that he thought he was selling to a shooter not a collector.
p.4 #14 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
John Caldwell wrote:
Was the original set of images you show here described by the seller as images of the actual lens being sold, or just images of what he felt was representative of the lens he was offering?
Those were of the actual lens. When I confronted him he said he took those pics when he first got the lens from jojomon11.
p.4 #15 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
This guy sounds like the type of used car salesman from the fifties who would run his cars in reverse all night long to sell 'em for more money the next day. The more you reveal about this guy, the bigger ass he seems to be.
p.4 #17 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Bones74 wrote:
Absolutely, and I remember the thread where the seller was showing off his "new to him" purchase (for use on 5Dmk2). I'm pretty sure, but happy to stand corrected, he didn't buy the lens new himself so it's unlikely to have even been mint when he got it, let alone now.
p.4 #19 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
gocolts wrote:
I'd follow him around every forum he posts to, and make sure everyone in every thread he posts in knows what a fraud he is. And do it non-stop until it's resolved.
Ditto. I'd also check to see if I could post to LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, DPR or wherever else he's on the web and provide all these pictures and info (at the very least, send these organizations a note telling them he's someone they need to monitor in case he tries selling something on their site.) And Airdrie, Canada only has around 45,000 people. I'd consider placing an ad in the local paper (can't cost much if it's such a small place) with the pertinent info to further "clear the air."
Man, that would piss me off if someone pulled that stuff on me, particularly if they claim to be a well-known, reputable photog........
p.4 #20 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Mike - that is essentially correct. A more complete definition would be this concise one - which is what I had always understood "brassing" to mean.
"Brassing is the gradual wearing-away of equipment's original finish to reveal glimpses of the metal underlying painted or chromed surfaces. Usually seen in high-wear areas like corners and control surfaces. Brassing is distinct from paint wear in that brassing is not caused by hard abrasion or scrapes."
Most of the wear on this lens is due to hard abrasions, scrapes and bangs causing chips of paint to pop off. Not a gradual wearing down. If makes a difference in a lens value if it has been banged about, or had paint gradually wear off due to someones fingers, or a leather strap rubbing the barrel.
galenapass wrote:
Brassing - Exposed metal where paint or plating has worn off.
Archive 2013 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater. 
Wow!!!!!!! What a clueless response! 
That's BRASSING you're seeing, excessive wear. 
