Read the email again, Paul.
I offered the options and in the same emailed closed by asking for
some time to check with USPS about an insurance claim. Why else would
you describe, in detail, your previous experience with a claim and
offer to assist with mine?
BTW, "ugly" as defined by KEH is: "Very rough looking. Multiple
impressions in metal, excessive finish loss and brassing are likely.
Glass will have marks, fungus or haze that will probably affect
picture quality."
The glass on this lens is fine. The major cosmetic issue is the wear
on the top ridge of the aperture ring which I noticed when I received
it last year. The lens worked well enough that it didn't bother me
and I don't recall if I even questioned the seller about it. In fact,
it's so smooth that I thought it might be normal for that lens. The
mechanical problems are a result of a shipping problem which USPS
needs to address, not Paul.
FWIW, the purchase price of the lens was $225. I mentioned the wear,
but since I wasn't sufficiently aware that it was *that* unusual and
because it was working well for me, the price was in the 'BGN' range.
Very clean ones like the example that just sold on ebay for $390
garner a lot of interest (56 bids) and obviously a lot more money.
In a private email sent to Paul a short while ago, I detailed the USPS
claim process which requires a written estimate to be submitted along
with all the original packing and the item needing repair. The
original paperwork is also required. I, of course, have that and have
can send it immediately but the recipient has to turn everything over
to the USPS. I'm hoping Paul will do so without prejudice. When
that's done, of course I'll refund his complete purchase price
including shipping.
I'm sure neither of us wanted this to go this way. I had a lens that
worked well for me but was surplus to my needs. I sold it in good
faith and have been willing to make good on the problem all along.
Was I surprised by it? Yep. Once I realized it was shipping damage,
I realized it was a "Sh!t happens" situation and resolved to make the
best of it.
At this point, all that's needed is a fair estimate from a competent
repair organization, paperwork sent in the meantime and for Paul to
take all of it to his local p.o. I'm willing to do my part.
Thanks for listening.
ScottGee1
On 1/11/07, Paul Martinez <pdmphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm on the receiving end here. As I told him, the box arrived undamaged, so
> I am certain his claim will be denied. Also, Scott shipped the lens in a box
> 3x4x6 inches that allowed for only a sheet or two bubble wrap on each side
> of the focus ring before it contacted the edge of the box. I'm sure USPS
> will also say this was insufficient packaging.
>
> From the beginning I asked for a refund on return of the lens, or $75. Scott
> said I could have either, so I opted for the $75 and figured I would have it
> derviced. He never said he would wait until this was all sorted out by USPS
> before refunding me the $75. That only happened after I was asking him when
> he would be refunding my the $75 to my Paypal account.
>
> The lens is at a local shop so I can get it before they start work (they
> have a 1-2 week lead time), so nothing is lost there.
>
> I'd be happy to take pictures of the box, and lens to let all see if anyone
> is interested. In my 100+ Zuiko lenses I have looked at in local stores, and
> 20+, I've actually bought (most on ebay) this lens is in the worst cosmetic
> and mechanical condition. The "wear" on the aperture ring appears to be
> areas (especially one) where material has been shaved off. If I was selling
> this l;ens I would have graded it as "ugly".
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of ScottGee1
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:09 PM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Advice needed: list transaction going poorly
>
>
>
> 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
> ==============================================
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|