p.5 #3 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Terrible lens to get shafted on; out of print, unique, costly, all make it even worse.
Presumably y'all are in different states, which makes legal action onerous at best, impracticable at worst.
Hate it for you, hope it gets straightened out.
p.5 #4 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
I doubt the lens received was the lens in the original mint pictures. Note the black dot just to the lower left of what I assume is the IS on/off switch (above the 1). It also appears at the right edge of the 5th mint picture, as well. Yet, it is not in the 2nd or 7th non-mint pictures and there is no brassing in that area.
Someone suggested the paint came off in shipping ... OP answered it was packed well. Even so, if it occurred in shipping two screws coming loose and falling out - not so much.
I think the seller has two and gave the OP his well used model.
p.5 #6 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Dennis, In your initial post you stated he was questioning the chips. Over the last 13 or so years I have made hundreds of purchases, and sales on ebay. I have seen the most idiotic packaging imaginable - in that time. I have had durable items destroyed because they were packed poorly or with other items that banged on them while in transit. I was trying to determine how the damage occurred, because much of It is clearly due to impact. If he isn't denying the lens was shipped in that condition - then obviously he doesn't know what "mint" means, or he misrepresented the lens condition. I am curious about your motives by posting this here. The issue isn't settled yet - and this may make it more difficult to resolve. You should immediately file a claim with paypal or your credit card company. You should receive a full refund - that is without question.
dennisgibson wrote:
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.5 #7 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Read the first post please:
Ralph, of course I did read the original post and the question was not, in my mind, answered. My point is not to be disagreeable with you, Ralph, but to point on the value of explicit and specific language regarding images and what those images do, and do not, represent.
p.5 #9 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
I think you may be right - these are two different lenses.
mak65 wrote:
I doubt the lens received was the lens in the original mint pictures. Note the black dot just to the lower left of what I assume is the IS on/off switch (above the 1). It also appears at the right edge of the 5th mint picture, as well. Yet, it is not in the 2nd or 7th non-mint pictures and there is no brassing in that area.
Someone suggested the paint came off in shipping ... OP answered it was packed well. Even so, if it occurred in shipping two screws coming loose and falling out - not so much.
I think the seller has two and gave the OP his well used model. ...Show more →
p.5 #10 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
IMO Mint Condition is undistinguished from a new product right out of the box directly after purchase, or using FM numbering system a ten (10). This includes both appearance and function. FM's numbering system when posting a product on buy and sale defines each number. This is nowhere near a 10 or "Mint" condition related to appearance. A buyer has expectations when reviewing a product picture and I (maybe incorrectly) assume the picture displayed is what the item presently looks like. What gets me the most is the missing screws...and sending the lens in this condition without properly describing the condition. It may well function great or maybe it does not, I do know this, it was not in any way displayed, listed and or sold as described. Period. I will not deal with this person (NikkorAIS) he is not to be trusted. I do hope you receive a full refund and if he was any type of decent person he would come around and correct this fraud soonest. Goodluck.
p.5 #11 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
mak65 wrote:
I doubt the lens received was the lens in the original mint pictures. Note the black dot just to the lower left of what I assume is the IS on/off switch (above the 1). It also appears at the right edge of the 5th mint picture, as well. Yet, it is not in the 2nd or 7th non-mint pictures and there is no brassing in that area.
Someone suggested the paint came off in shipping ... OP answered it was packed well. Even so, if it occurred in shipping two screws coming loose and falling out - not so much.
I think the seller has two and gave the OP his well used model. ...Show more →
mak65 Very astute observation, the "black dot" from the "mint" lens is not on the lens that was shipped!
p.5 #16 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Maybe the black dot fell off. Maybe they're different lenses. It doesn't matter. Dennis paid for a lens in [M-] to [LN] condition, and he got one in [UG] to [BGN] condition. IOW, he got ripped off!
Calling the credit card company is a great idea, and so is reporting this to Fred.
p.5 #18 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
this sucks! I always rate my stuff worse than it is, just because the only surprises are good ones. Does this dude know this thread exists (and/or other threads?)
p.5 #19 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
Really sad to see this post and the 500is post a few days ago... people beating the crap out of gear and selling it for top dollar / misrepresenting to get top dollar.
p.5 #20 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater.
This is a bad situation. And Dennis least of all deserves this. I hope it works out in his favor.
Slightly OT if you'll indulge me. As good as the rating system is here, and it's better than most, it doesn't always tell the full story.
Recently a member here was selling the new iMac 27". He said the list was around 2900 if I remember correctly. Someone called him on 16gb of memory in thread title and 8gb in body of ad. He apologized and said it as a typo. Being in the market for this computer I watched the ad. He steadily dropped the price until it sold for about 2500. It was the i5 chip, not the i7 and the real list was closer to 2500. When I pmd him in this regard his excuse: typo. He claimed it was his wife's computer that was the i7 and just another innocent mistake. And this seller had many many excellent feedback.
Archive 2013 · Bought a "mint" 200 1.8, he delivered a beater. 
......a fraudulent seller. He really needs to be booted off FM too.