Feedback - FROWNS

[Ramstrong]

Ask for the full resolution versions of the shots of the lens that were put up in the WTS thread and post them along with the shots of the lens that you posted for feedback.

Mods, maybe a recommendation to post high resolution photographs of items for sale in the rules would help.

+1

Resolution should be at least 2000 * 1000  :)

+1

[SAHARSH]

Ask for the full resolution versions of the shots of the lens that were put up in the WTS thread and post them along with the shots of the lens that you posted for feedback.

Mods, maybe a recommendation to post high resolution photographs of items for sale in the rules would help.

+1

Resolution should be at least 2000 * 1000  :)

[Bharat Varma]

Ask for the full resolution versions of the shots of the lens that were put up in the WTS thread and post them along with the shots of the lens that you posted for feedback.

Mods, maybe a recommendation to post high resolution photographs of items for sale in the rules would help.

[manoj]

Hi

I recently purchased a Minolta 50 1.2 from user anshusen (forum user name).

Here is the link to the ad.
In short, the ad stated the condition of the lens as "Item Condition: glass is clean, fungus free, dust free. no hazyness. body has minor signs of use. no dent. aperture ring and focus is smooth". Once I received the lens, I placed it with my other lenses in my cabinet which is dehumidified and couldn't check immediately as I had to travel to bangalore for office work. On the weekend after I returned, I got a chance to check it thoroughly and found that the lens had a lot of minor marks and fungus on the glass.

I posted the photos of the lens here just to have a few opinion from the forum members about the fungus. I was in conversation with anshusen but he kept saying that Pune is wet and humid and the fungus grew after it reached me. I sent a lot of fungus related gyaan and also posted as mentioned above. I sent the link to him as well and now he has stopped responding. The general opinion is that so much fungus cannot grow in the 10 days that the lens was with me (esp in the dehumidified cabinet). When I asked him about the condition of the glass (before buying), I had asked if the aperture ring is smooth and whether there is oil on the blades. He had no idea about it and asked me the significance of it (I have the PMs). It could be an indication that he didn't have much experience on checking lenses.

I tried holding the lens at the same angles as in the ad and sure enough, you cant make out any issue. Even in the shot through the lens, due to the bright scene, it is not possible to make out any fungus.

I've bought, sold and owned a lot of old glass and I've utilized a lot of modern buying avenues. I've had some great transactions on this forum and a lot in other forums as well. Even my transactions on ebay were pleasant. This is the first time I found myself in this position. Nevertheless, I think I can make something out of it since he is not responding. But I intend to take a couple of shots of the same lens in two weeks and post again. That should blow his theory right out of the water.

[Hankosaurus]

Fellow Members,

A relatively long discussion about possible improvements to the Forum followed Doc's post above. I have split that discussion off to the following new thread:
http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.php/topic,28502.msg278239.html#new

This way the discussion can be explored to its fullest without diluting the purpose of FROWNS, which is for the expressed purpose of helping Members learn from deals gone bad, and how to avoid the same.

:)

[meandrake]

The Moderators' recent effort to engage seller Saurabh Pandit in pursuit of an amicable solution to the lens problem has been ignored. It is the view of the Moderators that the seller has engaged in willful misrepresentation of a product offered, and has clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in setting things right. In order to bring this matter into compliance with Rule 29a, the seller's account has been permanently locked.

However I must mention here that the fault here was not entirely unilateral. The buyer has also for some reason, probably hurry to buy a good item at a good price, not taken all possible precautions to safeguard his own interests. Much of this has been discussed above and I do not wish to ponder on the same points again.

[zack2137]

In my defense, I had asked the seller if the lens was bought "new" and he said yes. I trusted the seller on this. I am aware of the quality of a "NEW" Canon L lens, whether grey (I consider grey as a new item but without bill/warranty) or original, so went ahead with it. Is it still my prerogative to have questioned the seller on whereabouts of the bill and identity of the person he bought it from? Does lack of awareness on seller's behalf of age/quality of sold item free him of the responsibility of suitably correcting the deal if he is made aware of it later? If that makes a case for the seller, I am afraid this is not a buyer's market at all. If so, I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy through this medium.

I'm afraid I would have to say yes, the seller's ignorance of the age (and not quality) of the sold item is plausible. For example, I've 4 lenses right now (2 pro) but I never bothered to check when were they manufactured or the batch they belong to. I've the bill and for me, that's the date my warranty began from.
If on the other hand I don't have the bill, I won't have any basis to establish the age of the lens. In that case, I'd tell my buyers that I don't have the bill but I bought it from some XYZ dealer on ABC date (which obviously tells the duration of ownership).

I had asked seller if I could give money to his niece in cash when she delivers the lens to me. The seller said that that is not possible.

This is a new fact and doesn't goes with my assumption! Not the best of the conditions this!

...Further he has put up  pictures of the lens elements (at certain specific angles) to show that the inside is clean. Could he have missed the fungus when inspecting the lens and taking those images? Again, hard to believe.

Were the pictures recent? can you deduce if the fungus should have been visible in the pictures posted by the seller?

..In that case shouldn't lens condition be mentioned as "With slight fungus but does not affect image quality" instead of "Clean without fungus"??

What I can deduce from this is he was aware that this lens was fungus prone and either did not bother to check it properly before selling it OR tried to get rid of a fungus infected lens and fully/partially recover whatever he spent on it in the first place. In either case why should I be paying the cost of his mistake/(feigned?)ignorance?

See.. my point here is .. this was not a fraud deal.. Yes, it was grossly misrepresented. 'Clean without fungus' can be constructed as a lens which was infected but then serviced and cleaned (just a point of view). Since the seller hid the fact that the lens was serviced recently and the fact that fungus is known to grow even after cleaning, the buyer obviously misled with his ad.

In a potential deal with a similar background, general prudence would dictate that the buyer inspect and satisfy himself of the quality of lens before buying it, which was exercised in your case.
Since the fungus was cleaned (as per the seller) and as highlighted above, the seller might have missed it (just like your cousin), the seller acknowledged his mistake and offered you a service, which is fair. The age of the lens factor is something even I've not checked ever (have bought a prime and a 16-85 from a fellow forum) and wasn't even committed.

Giving him the benefit of doubt, I would like to make same point again; shouldn't a morally (I know, heavy word in today's day and age :) ) responsible seller take appropriate (keyword here being appropriate) action to make up for a faulty deal, if at all due to lack of knowledge on his part? Does a "2 year old lens without any fungus" equate to "a 7 year old lens recently cleaned for fungus", I don't think so.

As mentioned above, he did offer an appropriate action.

It's not like he would have made a loss or something with the refund, so why is he still willing to face legal consequences which I am going ahead with. My deduction from this is that he is happy to get rid of a fungus prone lens and recover his money.

I've both bought and sold a couple of lenses through forums in the past. As a potential seller of 3 lenses and some accessories (as on today), I can understand the position of the buyer when he says that he has invested the money and doesn't possesses it anymore.

Having said all of the above, if I was in your shoes, I would do exactly the same, that is, the legal route. I cannot understand the pain of losing hard earned money as much as you can do at the moment. I would also like to appreciate your positive and receptive attitude through these discussions. Much respect! :)

[meandrake]

Seems that post was missed by the mods... :(

Not a question of missed. The thread was seen. Nowhere in the thread you have posted a buy request and the item blocked for you. This would be like going byword of mouth. A little more would be needed please.
Why don't users make it clear in the forum that they have offered to buy and item is booked for them? Would make moderation a little easier.

[abhivg]

No, but its general prudence to know where the bill and warranty papers are. Not that the buyer is correct in withholding the information, but lack of general prudence puts you in the same shoes. And upon inquiry if you realize that the item never had a bill, it should ring a bell. If at all it didn't, it makes a case for the seller that he bought the lens from a person of his choice and that he never promised/ was aware that the lens is from a more recent batch.

Pardon my ignorance but I am a first time buyer so not really accustomed to thinking like you do :). My posts in this thread are proof enough of my stupidity in handling this deal :).
In my defense, I had asked the seller if the lens was bought "new" and he said yes. I trusted the seller on this. I am aware of the quality of a "NEW" Canon L lens, whether grey (I consider grey as a new item but without bill/warranty) or original, so went ahead with it. Is it still my prerogative to have questioned the seller on whereabouts of the bill and identity of the person he bought it from? Does lack of awareness on seller's behalf of age/quality of sold item free him of the responsibility of suitably correcting the deal if he is made aware of it later? If that makes a case for the seller, I am afraid this is not a buyer's market at all. If so, I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy through this medium.

Yes, you had a case there. And frankly so, if it was agreed beforehand that a refund is to be granted if the lens fails a physical inspection. But most ads that I've seen on JJMF put a condition that all inspections have to be made beforehand.
Now nominating your cousin for inspection is as good as you inspecting the glass in person. If he is not proficient with lenses and their functioning, you could have asked the seller to send the lens with his niece, inspect it in person and then pay her niece to be 100% sure of what you are buying.

I am not sure what "having a case" would mean then, but based on past events I am quiet sure seller would not have refunded my money in that case either. I had asked seller if I could give money to his niece in cash when she delivers the lens to me. The seller said that that is not possible.

A case could also be made that the seller himself wasn't aware of the fungal growth, since it never showed on the pictures. What really happened here, is for the mods to decide.

The seller himself said that the lens was cleaned for fungus 3 months back, albeit only when I bought it up. He also mentions that he is a "professional photographer" and he stays in Mumbai. Now I find it hard to believe that a pro photographer working in Mumbai was unaware of whether there is fungal growth in a lens which he himself got cleaned for fungus 3 months back. His responsibility of properly checking for fungal growth becomes even more important given the fact that he puts up the item for sale. Further he has put up  pictures of the lens elements (at certain specific angles) to show that the inside is clean. Could he have missed the fungus when inspecting the lens and taking those images? Again, hard to believe.

Also seller states: "being a photographer in business, keeping in mind certain ethics, i would never even offer any equipment on sale if it is damaged or cannot be used. I'd rather get it repaired or discard it, if beyond repairs". Does this mean that he was aware of the fungus, but deduced that it does not affect image quality and can be put up for sale? In that case shouldn't lens condition be mentioned as "With slight fungus but does not affect image quality" instead of "Clean without fungus"??

What I can deduce from this is he was aware that this lens was fungus prone and either did not bother to check it properly before selling it OR tried to get rid of a fungus infected lens and fully/partially recover whatever he spent on it in the first place. In either case why should I be paying the cost of his mistake/(feigned?)ignorance?

Giving him the benefit of doubt, I would like to make same point again; shouldn't a morally (I know, heavy word in today's day and age :) ) responsible seller take appropriate (keyword here being appropriate) action to make up for a faulty deal, if at all due to lack of knowledge on his part? Does a "2 year old lens without any fungus" equate to "a 7 year old lens recently cleaned for fungus", I don't think so.

It's not like he would have made a loss or something with the refund, so why is he still willing to face legal consequences which I am going ahead with. My deduction from this is that he is happy to get rid of a fungus prone lens and recover his money.

[zack2137]

Not so lucky here in Gurgaon. They ask for both Bill and Warranty Card.