What is it going on with Japanese eBay sellers when it comes to both describing and checking the gear that they are selling?
I've been scouring the listings and increasingly I am finding ratings completely inflated compared to what I would describe as mint or near mint. For example, one camera I looked at was described as mint only to read in the fine print it has a 'few fungus in the view finder' and 'a few small fungus in the lens'.
I have also bought a couple of cameras described as near mint, only to find they are not functioning. For example, a Yashica Electro that was supposedly near mint came with crumbling light seals, haze in the viewfinder, despite being described as having no haze, and a meter indicator warning that shows 'overexposed' in any lighting conditions even in a dark room.
Another had the rangefinder patch not working at all, i.e. no movement in the split image.
They always pack the stuff well, and use expensive FedEx or DHL shipping, but they don't seem to perform basic checks of the gear they are selling, which just ends up wasting everyone's time.
The eBay feedback system is also completely broken because there is such an incentive to post positive feedback and give five-star ratings that it is impossible to distinguish between the good and bad sellers.
It's been like that for years. As long as you read all of the description, you can avoid most issues. If the item is not as described, back it goes for a 100% refund (assuming PayPal was used - eBay buyer protection is poor). If the buyer won't pay for the return shipping, you get to keep the item, and the refund.
I agree that the eBay feedback system is unreliable, just like the rest of the platform.
I've had pretty much the opposite experience with Japanese sellers. I've bought five film cameras and close to 30 lenses on eBay, 95% of them from Japanese sellers, and had only one bad experience where a lens that was advertised as having "no fungus" was actually quite infested with it; I got a refund for that one. Everything else was as described if not better.
You do have to read the fine print carefully; I've certainly seen those "Mint" or "near Mint" listings that then mention dealbreaker issues like fungus or mechanical problems, etc., but I just keep looking. I spent a year looking for a Canon 100/3.5 LTM with no haze and finally found one; it was (and still is) in flawless condition.
the problem with getting a refund is that you have to pay l$100+ to ship it back to the seller. I got burned on that and am DONE buying from Japan no matter how good the deal appears.
brick33308 wrote:
the problem with getting a refund is that you have to pay l$100+ to ship it back to the seller. I got burned on that and am DONE buying from Japan no matter how good the deal appears.
I only returned once but the seller paid for the label.
You may check if they offer free return while you try to purchase and worry about the quality.
Geoff D F wrote:
What is it going on with Japanese eBay sellers when it comes to both describing and checking the gear that they are selling?
I've been scouring the listings and increasingly I am finding ratings completely inflated compared to what I would describe as mint or near mint. For example, one camera I looked at was described as mint only to read in the fine print it has a 'few fungus in the view finder' and 'a few small fungus in the lens'.
I have also bought a couple of cameras described as near mint, only to find they are not functioning. For example, a Yashica Electro that was supposedly near mint came with crumbling light seals, haze in the viewfinder, despite being described as having no haze, and a meter indicator warning that shows 'overexposed' in any lighting conditions even in a dark room.
Another had the rangefinder patch not working at all, i.e. no movement in the split image.
They always pack the stuff well, and use expensive FedEx or DHL shipping, but they don't seem to perform basic checks of the gear they are selling, which just ends up wasting everyone's time.
The eBay feedback system is also completely broken because there is such an incentive to post positive feedback and give five-star ratings that it is impossible to distinguish between the good and bad sellers....Show more →
So far I just returned once.
A Mamiya lens from Japanese seller that stated no problem at all but it came with focus issue.
The seller paid for the return label.
For those expensive cameras or lens I always check KEH, MPB or others first. But even KEH has the same issue, bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F from them that listed bargain condition but the camera's shutter and aperture dials both didn't work.
Ebay is the last option, I still choose over 500 feedback seller and offer free return.
eBay seller here. If a buyer makes an item not as described (INAD) claim, the seller MUST take the return and MUST provide a return label free of charge, regardless of whether they say no returns or buyer pays for return. eBay always sides with the buyer and will refund you out of their pocket if the seller does not comply in a timely fashion (and then dock the seller) and you keep the item. It is on the buyer to return the item with the provided label in a timely manner or the case will be closed in the seller’s favor. Unscrupulous buyers who abuse this policy suck but it’s the cost of doing business on the platform.
Yes, Japanese listings often use 'optimistic' terms to describe condition. However, in my experience, any issues are usually accurately described somewhere in the listing, or are visible in the photos. I've never received anything from Japan that I would call 'not as described'. I always go with sellers that have 100% positive feedback when buying from overseas, unless the item is inexpensive.
I'm batting .500 with Japanese ebay sellers. No matter how the stuff is described, it has been either perfect or a train wreck!
I do find their rating claims to be humerous though. I have found that Mint-- = set on fire, hit with a shovel then bury deep in the woods.
bjhurley wrote:
I've had pretty much the opposite experience with Japanese sellers. I've bought five film cameras and close to 30 lenses on eBay, 95% of them from Japanese sellers, and had only one bad experience where a lens that was advertised as having "no fungus" was actually quite infested with it; I got a refund for that one. Everything else was as described if not better.
You do have to read the fine print carefully; I've certainly seen those "Mint" or "near Mint" listings that then mention dealbreaker issues like fungus or mechanical problems, etc., but I just keep looking. I spent a year looking for a Canon 100/3.5 LTM with no haze and finally found one; it was (and still is) in flawless condition....Show more →
I've had great luck with them. Some Japanese sellers are now posting videos demonstrating the use/functions of what they are selling, which I think is helpful.
OregonSun wrote:
Yes, Japanese listings often use 'optimistic' terms to describe condition. However, in my experience, any issues are usually accurately described somewhere in the listing, or are visible in the photos. I've never received anything from Japan that I would call 'not as described'. I always go with sellers that have 100% positive feedback when buying from overseas, unless the item is inexpensive.
I think this is the key point: If a listing describes the lens as "mint" but turns out to have undisclosed fungus, then eBay WILL side with the buyer, and force a return/refund. If (somewhere) in the description the fungus is disclosed, then the seller is covered. In my experience the Japanese sellers are the source of the highest quality "shelf queen" lenses and bodies at very reasonable (-ish) prices (due to the Yen's decline in recent years), and if you are careful to exclude all the explicit mentions of fungus and fog, etc., you can reliably find good value, near mint copies of nearly anything.
In fact, my only lens purchase problems have been with US sellers with, shall we say, skimpy descriptions that turned out to gloss over significant problems (e.g. a Nikkor 18mm/2.8D that had a rear-element scratch and stiff focus ring). And I hate "please inspect the photos carefully" descriptions, as for example the rear-element scratch I experienced did NOT show up in the auction photos.
I'm extremely judicious in inspecting the provided media and so far have not had a bad experience. Do it enough though and I'm sure you're bound to find some stinkers.
I too have noticed that somehow all gear is magically MINT +++ now!
RoamingScott wrote:
I'm extremely judicious in inspecting the provided media and so far have not had a bad experience. Do it enough though and I'm sure you're bound to find some stinkers.
I too have noticed that somehow all gear is magically MINT +++ now!
Indeed, grade-inflation isn't just for Academia! Do note that Japanese sellers are generally VERY aware of the going rate for valuable/rare items, and if the price is lower, there's probably a reason, almost always fog/fungus disclosed somewhere in the text, just bellow the MINT+++ statement..
The biggest issue for me is the waste of time. Yes you can send stuff back on eBay, but sellers sometimes ask for photos or videos to prove something isn't working, then you are waiting two weeks for return shipping to arrive to get a refund.
I'm not sure how to demonstrate easily via video that the light meter warning light only visible in the VF shows overexposure even in a dark room at f16. And this was from a seller with 100 per cent positive feedback from 150 sales. A simple check would have found the issue, as I did within 30 seconds of its arrival.
The camera which had the non-functioning rangefinder also went straight back onto the sales listings when returned without any change to the description or price. So it is just going to happen to someone again.
Overall, I'd say I am batting at about 70 per cent and that is based on choosing nothing below near mint, reading the description fully, checking the photos, often asking questions and buying from sellers with only 100 per cent feedback.
Alberttf wrote:
eBay seller here. If a buyer makes an item not as described (INAD) claim, the seller MUST take the return and MUST provide a return label free of charge, regardless of whether they say no returns or buyer pays for return. eBay always sides with the buyer and will refund you out of their pocket if the seller does not comply in a timely fashion (and then dock the seller) and you keep the item. It is on the buyer to return the item with the provided label in a timely manner or the case will be closed in the seller’s favor. Unscrupulous buyers who abuse this policy suck but it’s the cost of doing business on the platform....Show more →
that's not the point. If a buyer wants to return an item, not because it's defective or doesn't match the listing, but instead simply doesn't like an item and wants to take the seller up on its listing which says returns are allowed, my seller told me it didn't have to provide a label because his listing didn't say he would pay for return.
Just battled with a US seller who said no returns. If you go through the eBay returns process and the seller accepts the you do not pay for the return label. Bought a Yashica mat 124g that would not advance after the first exposure. Seller ended up accepting my return, received the return and then opened a case with eBay to try and say the camera was fine? I had to call eBay because no action was taken after a week from the case opening. They sided with me and I got my full refund the next day.
Conversely, I have bought 3 film related things from Japan in the last month with no problems. A Bronica Zenza S2A with 75mm was described as near mint and it certainly was. And then a 50mm lens and 150mm lens were both like new. So I am certainly happy to buy from across the ocean but I am certainly diligent when reviewing listings and looking at photos.
brick33308 wrote:
that's not the point. If a buyer wants to return an item, not because it's defective or doesn't match the listing, but instead simply doesn't like an item and wants to take the seller up on its listing which says returns are allowed, my seller told me it didn't have to provide a label because his listing didn't say he would pay for return.
eBay does require more due diligence and detailed understanding of the fine print than the normal online buying experience. If it doesn't say 'free returns' anywhere, then yeah, you'll have to pay shipping to return it.
I'm happy to put in the effort to have access to a global marketplace for reasonably priced used gear.
Harold Carlson wrote:
Just battled with a US seller who said no returns. If you go through the eBay returns process and the seller accepts the you do not pay for the return label. Bought a Yashica mat 124g that would not advance after the first exposure. Seller ended up accepting my return, received the return and then opened a case with eBay to try and say the camera was fine? I had to call eBay because no action was taken after a week from the case opening. They sided with me and I got my full refund the next day.
Conversely, I have bought 3 film related things from Japan in the last month with no problems. A Bronica Zenza S2A with 75mm was described as near mint and it certainly was. And then a 50mm lens and 150mm lens were both like new. So I am certainly happy to buy from across the ocean but I am certainly diligent when reviewing listings and looking at photos....Show more →
Yup, it doesn’t matter if the seller says no returns if the item he sold you does not match his description i.e he claimed it was working properly but it actually was defective.
Returned plenty of broken stuff that way, ebay always sided w me if that was needed but majority of the time the seller accepted it w no issues and also paid for the return.
Which leads me to believe the seller either knew it was defective but wanted to see if a buyer would still be ok w it, or they sell is such large volumes it was not worth it to them to check each item. So if it was defective, just take it back.
I've usually had ok experiences with Japanese sellers, the lenses came out fine and decent experience with the LTM bodies I've bought
Though one sour taste was the Leotax F I bought, worked for 4 rolls of film over 6 months and Im guessing the shutter curtain tension was too tight and curtains jammed up and I was out of luck.
As seller, I do try to be honest as best I can including any issues, but I did come back and give a partial refund on a Canon F1 I sold as-is, while the meter worked and shutter was not jammed, I specifically mentioned it needed a CLA due to buggy slow speeds and the mirror staying up at the time. The F1 did not have the obvious capping like an old Minolta X700 of mine did so I did not see it before I sold it.
Buyer went ahead and shot with it and had issues with the high speeds capping and initiated a refund due to this. We settled on a partial refund. I didn't realize someone would have shot film as-is with that F1...
