Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Advice needed: list transaction going poorly

Subject: [OM] Re: Advice needed: list transaction going poorly
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:54:25 -0500
Very surprising to me.  Whoever is handling 100 Zuikos in a year or two 
must be a dealer.  I wasn't aware there were any here.

It's mostly water over the dam at this point but I'd have requested that 
the lens be returned for full refund when it was apparent that the 
buyer's description of the condition didn't jibe with your own.  This is 
  especially important since he said there was no obvious sign of impact 
damage which should be the only way to account for such a dramatic 
difference in condition.  Such impact damage should also have been 
visible on the packaging unless you're clueless about how to provide 
adequate cushioning inside the package.

The rapid jump to the repair shop without waiting for known insurance 
procedures to be followed is not excusable.  The action on his part has 
cost you any hope of being reimbursed for the repair and he should now 
reimburse you.  After all, you have no way of knowing that the lens 
really needed repair, is actually being repaired, or that, if a lens is 
being repaired, that it is the same serial number.

But, at $225 I'd have expected real Oly caps in good condition unless 
stated otherwise.  But that's your only culpability as I see it and a 
rather minor thing at that.

I hope whomever it is gives you some satisfaction in return.

Chuck Norcutt

ScottGee1 wrote:
> I need some advice about a transaction for one of the items I posted
> FS on the list last week.  It was the first time I've offered anything
> for sale here.  To this point, I've only bought.
> 
> My hope is to offer a neutral overview of what occurred.  Here's the
> original description of the item:
> 
>> Olympus OM 50/1.2, s/n 105xxx - $225 (Seems fair though I rarely see
>> these so comparisons are rare too.)
>> This is the 1.2 that uses 49mm filters.  Clean glass.  Focus smooth.
>> Diaphram clean and snappy.  Some wear on front edge of aperture ring
>> which, of course, doesn't affect performance.  Front and rear caps
>> included.
> 
> Buyer inquired if: " . . . glass is clean on the inside of the lens.
> Have you looked from back to front of the lens, with a light in front,
> and looked for excessive particles or haze?"
> 
> I wanted to make sure and double-checked the lens at home that
> evening.  It met the stated criteria so the buyer agreed to follow
> through and transferred $$ via PayPal.
> 
> I normally send such items via FedEx, but used Priority Mail at his request.
> 
> Buyer received the lens on January 8 and emailed me on the 9th, to wit:
> 
> "Once opening the lens I noticed the lettering is very dull/dirty and some f
> stops have been colored (2, 2.8, 8). The wear on the front ring isn't
> normal, with one area appearing to be shaved down. Moving the lens in my
> hand to mount it on the camera I noticed it rattles. A closer look revealed
> that the focus ring is very loose with some play side to side, but worse,
> more front to back. If I hold the ring in my fingers it takes almost no
> pressure to move it in a diagonal direction. The aperture dial also moves in
> this manner. If I hold the aperture ring with two finders and the focus ring
> with my other hand its very surprising how loose everything is with this
> lens.  In all 100+ Zuiko lenses I have seen over the last year or two I have
> never seen one with the mechanics in such poor condition without signs of
> being dropped or abused. Maybe this lens had heavy (possibly regular
> specific use in an industrial/commerical application) use, which wore down
> the front ring so heavily and oddly, and pushed the mechanical limitations
> of the lens? Lastly, and I almost hate to bring it up at this point, but the
> caps were even a let down. The rear cap is a sigma cap for a Pentax K mount.
> Most people I've dealt with on the OM list (including myself) will list a
> lens as coming with generic caps if it doesn't have some good ol' OM caps.
> But, a Pentax cap?"
> 
> He asked for either a full refund or $75 toward repair of the lens.
> 
> I was very surprised as I have not had extensive experience with OM
> lenses but the more I thought about it, the mechanical problems he
> described simply didn't square with my use of the lens so I concluded
> it must have been damaged in shipping.  I've used it quite happily
> without any problems and offered to check with my local, long-term
> service person about repair.
> 
> To reassure him, I said he could choose either a complete refund or
> I'd credit the $75 he requested.  I also asked for a bit of time to
> find out what USPS would do since it was likely damaged in shipping
> and I had paid for insurance.
> 
> I called USPS and learned that they require an *estimate* if a claim
> is for repair and that the item and all packing material be presented
> to them with all appropriate shipping paperwork (which I have).  I was
> about to relate this to the buyer but his next email arrived less than
> a day later and he said he decided to take the $75 and asked for the
> refund "soon" because he had already sent it out for repair.
> 
> So I can no longer make an insurance claim because the lens is,
> apparently, already gone and cannot be presented to the USPS.  It's
> very likely that the lens was indeed damaged during shipping and I
> have, or rather *had* a valid claim to help defray my cost.
> 
> BTW, he said, "If I can do anything to help with the USPS complaint
> let me know. I had to deal with them on a lost package that was
> insured, and it was a real pain. Even though the item was signature
> delivery, and never got delivered, I had to jump through all sort of
> hoops including writing a letter to the Postmaster General. Over five
> moths later I got my money back."
> 
> In short, he had experience with and knows about USPS claim procedure.
> 
> BTW, I bought the lens in the cosmetic and operating condition it was
> in last year from another list member.  I'd never seen one before so I
> wasn't even sure the wear on the aperture ring was abnormal, but the
> lens seemed fine otherwise so I enjoyed using it.  I certainly didn't
> abuse it.
> 
> The original front cap was in bad shape and my local dealer didn't
> have any Oly ones so I replaced it (along with a few others) with a
> new generic.  The Pentax rear cap was a simple oversight and a bit
> embarrassing -- but it apparently fit because I've been using it on
> the lens and it worked fine.
> 
> I told the buyer that since he decided to jump the gun, my inclination
> was to tell him he's on his own.  However, I'm recounting the steps of
> the transaction here to get input from you-all and will abide by the
> consensus.
> 
> Please advise any input/questions.
> 
> Thanks for reading!/ScottGee1
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz