Feedback - FROWNS

[SwanOfUtrecht]

Funny, you assume a lot that we didn't recognize this and ask the necessary questions, and even got clarification that this was just a wrap.

Not sure you understood what I was referring too. I am NOT talking about the designer 'wrapping' here. Just check the attached image (taken from seller's listing) with areas on the grip showing extensive wearing of the rubber/silicon (nevermind if it is original or applied) circled in red. The extent of this chafing CANNOT be caused by 600 SC. The entire "texture" has been rubbed away with use. And this "tell-tale" will be even more stark when the camera is inspected personally.

Please read more than once to understand my feedback is to warn others on trusting the information provided by this seller.

Nowhere have I said that this was not a case of seller misrepresentation. It probably was. All I am saying is that there isnt sufficient evidence to corroborate the claim. And in absence of such evidence coupled with the 'presence' of evidence in respect of your own 'negligence', makes a case for part/full refund rather farfetched, especially after a couple of months. As long as your feedback is just feedback and does not seek recourse, I suppose we are on the same page.

I appreciate you taking the time to definitely counter the feedback.

Again, I have NOT tried to counter your feeback. It is very useful for what it is. I have only suggested that :- (1) it may be lacking in the evidence department and (2) the images clearly show that the 'condition' was NOT as described which alongwith the 3-point in-person check (at least of the camera exterior) suggests that you went ahead with the purchase in full knowledge of the disconnect between condition 'claimed' and that shown as per images.

The biggest asset of this forum is that people generally declare the condition and it usually turns up that way.

"Trust and reputation" sounds all very well in theory but practically speaking would you expect someone to buy a $750 camera expecting the condition to be exactly as mentioned in the 'description', even when the images scream otherwise ? If you are a long time member of fredmiranda, I'm sure you might also have noticed the bizarre 'descriptions' that some of the largest 'used camera gear' sellers in the world (read Adorama, mpb, etc) are resorting to nowadays. These guys are now listing cameras with 250K shutter count as Mint/excellent or lenses (with failed AF) as 'Mint' or 'Excellent' with the anomalies tucked away separately as 'notes'. And needless to say with everyone's definition of what should be labeled as 'mint/excellent' being so drastically different, it becomes even more important to use other data points including images (isnt thats why they are there for in the first place ?), reputation, feedback and other available info.

Point being - No amount of "Trust and reputation" or "Rules and regulation" will ever substitute for lack of basic 'due diligence' !

[justaday]

There are always 2 sides, and I will never deny that. And its only fair for other members to take cognizance of all these information to make their next purchase or sale with either the buyer or seller in question. Fair.
 

Evidence of the camera having seen some use (beyond 600 SC) is easily visible in the uploaded images wherein the rubber grip is worn at several places. Clear as day ! Funny that initially it should have passed three people without any eyebrows being raised.

Funny, you assume a lot that we didn't recognize this and ask the necessary questions, and even got clarification that this was just a wrap. The wrap was put on by someone in Dubai when it was bought there. The reason for raising this flag is that he did not purchase this in Dubai; it was bought locally. The entire contention is about what was explained as the camera or declared in the post vs what it actually is. Also i am not in buyer's remorse, but I feel that for so many years the integrity of this forum and members has been to declare the facts and realistic details. And my feedback is also about not trusting the details of the items the seller is posting in terms of condition, etc.

I would not call him a fraud but more of ingenuine when it comes to the condition of the camera or the history of the item he is selling.

I have clearly mentioned I would not call him a fraud. Please read more than once to understand my feedback is to warn others on trusting the information provided by this seller.

As for "reputation" - unfortunate as it may seem, dont count for much. "Pricing" on the other hand does. Anyone who has spent time here knows this. This is why sellers with negative feeback continue to sell successfully using slightly lucrative pricing as long as buyers continue to jump at a visibly run down item over a near mint version of it just because it is 1-2% cheaper !

This is not lucrative pricing if you know M1x price point and i did not haggle much. I paid what i felt was right for the declared condition and details provided and the inspection was to check if its working as i am sure most of us take that risk of buying without know whether what was declared is even remotely true. The biggest asset of this forum is that people generally declare the condition and it usually turns up that way.

So could it be possible that after having bought the item 'AS IS' he never checked the shutter count ?

Yet mentioned as 600 as some random number is it?

Your online behaviour / footprints are perhaps the best surrogate for determining your credibility both as seller "and" as buyer.

Perfectly fine. I have bought and sold many items here and there are enough members in the forum who i have interacted with and never had such an experience. So if this means as a buyer i should be avoided, be it. No major loss to be honest. I have been with Fredmiranda for 20 years and I know what feedback means from seller and buyer.

I appreciate you taking the time to definitely counter the feedback. Thats what makes forums healthy to have a balanced view and defend either side. I am not reverting that feedback, editing, or removing it.

I will definitely do my bit to inform potential buyers to use further caution and probe before jumping on the items from this seller to avoid false claims, and that is my choice.

What I would not trust from this user - Description and details of the camera.

This is all i have summarized in my feedback. If this changes the behavior and details are published as is, the forum wins.

[gsferrari]

I agree with JessePinkmanYo's points as well. I have very little skin in the game here because it was a deal between someone I know and someone I don't know. At the end of the day, trust and reputation is all we have to go with.

I disagree with misplaced "buyer activism" for one simple reason. The community transacts based on trust. If a seller sets out to with the intention to screw someone else then the entire premise falls flat. If the seller is caught misrepresenting the facts, it doesn't matter if it was discovered upon delivery or after 2 months. Tenure is irrelevant when the intent to cover-up is clear.

Kher should come forward and clarify if the facts of the camera were represented accurately to the best of his knowledge.

I made a detailed post about the need to preserve reputation and relationships in a community as small as ours. In Kher's shoes I would own up to covering up the issues with the camera and offer Justaday a partial or full refund and live to fight another day.

Justaday also needs to review his trust-o-meter w.r.t transactions on this platform.

[SwanOfUtrecht]

There are indeed multiple levels where this transaction is remarkable :-

"KHER" has been guilty of a lot of things including "lowballing" on my post and giving at least some 16 'visible' BUMPs to one of his posts (I lost interest in counting thereafter). And he may well have been guilty of "misrepresenting" the condition of this item too. But do we have irrefutable evidence to suggest that ? From what I can check, the original listing says "Are you the original owner* of the item being sold? NA". So could it be possible that after having bought the item 'AS IS' he never checked the shutter count ? Just as the buyer didnt bother checking it until after hearing a few things from Chennai community ?! Evidence of the camera having seen some use (beyond 600 SC) is easily visible in the uploaded images wherein the rubber grip is worn at several places. Clear as day ! Funny that initially it should have passed three people without any eyebrows being raised.

If the buyer had a proxy inspect the camera and give the thumbs up, it is unfair to dismiss the inspection at a later date claiming the proxy wasnt a subject matter expert and therefore wasnt qualified to do the job. It's like a duellist insisting for another shot at his opponent after his nominated proxy has been taken down ! Unheard of... and inadmissible.

Liabilities cannot be unlimited and without time bar, more so for unregulated 'USED' market transactions such as these and especially in cases where due diligence from buyer is lacking. It is unfair to turn up after a couple of months and browbeat someone for full/part refund citing 'tarnished reputation'. One can of course highlight the issue to warn others but only with proper evidence. Misplaced 'buyer activism' can only take you so far.

As for "reputation" - unfortunate as it may seem, dont count for much. "Pricing" on the other hand does. Anyone who has spent time here knows this. This is why sellers with negative feeback continue to sell successfully using slightly lucrative pricing as long as buyers continue to jump at a visibly run down item over a near mint version of it just because it is 1-2% cheaper !

Incidentally, the risk of 'tarnished reputation' can work both ways. Just as it may not be advisable doing business with a guy who 'misrepresents' or blatantly gives 16 bumps to his listing, it might be also be unadvisable transacting with someone who is seen as playing the "victim card" to cover "buyer remorse". Your online behaviour / footprints are perhaps the best surrogate for determining your credibility both as seller "and" as buyer.

10K shutter count on its own for a "pro" level body such as this does will hardly qualify it as "abused/well-used piece", as long as it hasnt been used extensively for video or is malfunctioning in some way. Olympus bodies are notorious for rubber peeling/swollening BTW. In our eagerness to score the perfect item at perfect price, we tend to forget that nothing is perfect - neither items, nor people.

Probably just a case that lends credence to the ageold adage - "Sight unseen" from a credible seller is often a better bet than "origin unknown" !

[gsferrari]

Caution with User KHER.

Item Bought- https://forum.jjmehta.com/index.php/topic,72645.msg514510.html#msg514510

Issue - The description and details shared about the camera are false. If the right information had been provided, Would I have paid the same amount???; I wouldn't have.

Details of the discrepancy.

Shutter count declared - 600 - Actual 10600
In whatsapp he confirmed that the was Camera purchased as is from Dubai via his sister and has not been used - Actual -
Camera was actually purchased from Chennai from another OM member
A camera wrap was put for protection - Apparently, the body has some peeling issue and hence the wrap was installed (Gathered from the Chennai community)

Camera description - The camera is like new, very rarely used,  Very rarely used, It is in immaculate like new

Realistic details - Well used for over 10K shutter count and probably covered up with wrap for various issues.

I have tried reaching out via whatsapp etc but have not got any response regarding ownership of information or a resolution. Ideal resolution would be to take back the camera and return the money, but I do not think this will end as I want it to end.


What I would not trust from this user - Description and details of the camera.

I will ensure that any post he makes I will share this information to protect other potential buyers. I would not call him a fraud but more of ingenuine when it comes to the condition of the camera or history of the item he is selling.

I will be happy to revert this post if i see a solution.

There are multiple levels where this transaction went south.

1. It certainly looks like the seller "Kher" intentionally misrepresented the condition and mileage of the camera to effect the sale.
2. The buyer had a proxy inspect the camera and give the thumbs up. This does not mitigate the actions of the seller in point #1 because it is unreasonable to expect a proxy to dig deep. At a high level a proxy can ensure the seller hands over the material upon receipt of the funds but is not necessarily a subject matter expect on dealing with second hand imaging hardware.
3. The buyer received the camera and didn't notice the underlying issues until a couple of months later. Blame this on the "honeymoon" period or a certain comfort from the thumbs up given by the proxy.

I had a role to play in this transaction so I am naturally biased towards the buyer because I arranged the proxy to inspect the camera.

I receive the camera shipped by the proxy to my address, opened it, played with it and didn't notice anything untoward at the outset. I certainly didn't check the shutter count OR look under the camera wrap. In a conversation with the Olympus group some comments were made that this camera was an abused/well-used piece with a bit of make-up. I actually took offense to these comments.

Turns out they were right and justaday and I were the bakra for Kher's machinations.

Bottom-line is the camera condition/age/mileage were misrepresented in your ad - period. Our shortcomings in realizing your scheme is on us but the fact is - YOU LIED.

End of story.

Two ways this can go:

1. You keep to your stance that you did nothing wrong, which you did, and we call it a bum deal and move on in life. BUT we will make sure everyone coming here know what you did and caution them against dealing with you.

2. Fix the mess and settle with justaday either by refunding a portion of the sale amount to reflect the ACTUAL CONDITION of the camera OR take it back for a full refund and sort it out on your own.

I sincerely hope you see the gravity of the situation. No amount of money is worth a tarnished reputation.

[justaday]

Caution with User KHER.

Item Bought- https://forum.jjmehta.com/index.php/topic,72645.msg514510.html#msg514510

Issue - The description and details shared about the camera are false. If the right information had been provided, Would I have paid the same amount???; I wouldn't have.

Details of the discrepancy.

Shutter count declared - 600 - Actual 10600
In whatsapp he confirmed that the was Camera purchased as is from Dubai via his sister and has not been used - Actual -
Camera was actually purchased from Chennai from another OM member
A camera wrap was put for protection - Apparently, the body has some peeling issue and hence the wrap was installed (Gathered from the Chennai community)

Camera description - The camera is like new, very rarely used,  Very rarely used, It is in immaculate like new

Realistic details - Well used for over 10K shutter count and probably covered up with wrap for various issues.

I have tried reaching out via whatsapp etc but have not got any response regarding ownership of information or a resolution. Ideal resolution would be to take back the camera and return the money, but I do not think this will end as I want it to end.


What I would not trust from this user - Description and details of the camera.

I will ensure that any post he makes I will share this information to protect other potential buyers. I would not call him a fraud but more of ingenuine when it comes to the condition of the camera or history of the item he is selling.

I will be happy to revert this post if i see a solution.

[vinay1509]

I have had a similar experience with Santosh Kumar (JJM Id kumar007)

I had purchased a sigma 100mm Macro Lens from him which got delivered and was as mentioned by him.

Further to this, since i had a positive experience with him, i went ahead and paid him for a tripod and monopod but after several months of followups and calls, I finally gave up!

Same story as one of the previous users, he said he was sick, then said he is in Singapore, and even sent me a fake dtdc receipt.

Upon tracking the DTDC courier centre in Varanasi, they said he had not paid for the courier and that they would not dispatch until they receive payment for the courier. I had even offered the courier company to dispatch and i would pay them the shipping cost for which they refused.

He has since stopped responding and the one last time i called him, he yelled and cut the call!

As mentioned by one of the previous members, i have the complete chat histories from whatsapp and the dtdc receipt sent by him.

[Dewam]

Title: Warning about Transaction with Santosh Kumar (JJM Username: kumar007)

Profile & Listing Details:

Name: Santosh Kumar
JJ Mehta Username: kumar007
Original Listing: https://forum.jjmehta.com/index.php/topic,70531.0.html

PLEASE SUGGEST WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THIS CASE

Could you get his address from the packaging? You do have his phone number and UPI ID. At least send a legal notice.

The DTDC receipt and the package label both have the same tracking ID, but the sender's name "Santosh Kumar" is missing. Instead, the sender name on the parcel is listed as "Shakuntalam Fabrics."
I searched for Shakuntalam Fabrics online and contacted them. They provided me with the phone number of the DTDC outlet, but my calls have gone unanswered. The representative from Shakuntalam Fabrics mentioned that they send parcels frequently and suggested this could be a name mix-up.

I also have the seller's UPI ID, contact number, and the details of his bank's location and branch.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I tried pushing him a bit by sending multiple payment requests, which seemed to anger him, and now he's speaking to me like this. I have every valid piece of proof against him from transaction screenshots to passbook entries and everything in between.

[Dewam]

Title: Warning about Transaction with Santosh Kumar (JJM Username: kumar007)

Profile & Listing Details:

Name: Santosh Kumar
JJ Mehta Username: kumar007
Original Listing: https://forum.jjmehta.com/index.php/topic,70531.0.html

PLEASE SUGGEST WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THIS CASE

Could you get his address from the packaging? You do have his phone number and UPI ID. At least send a legal notice.

The DTDC receipt and the package label both have the same tracking ID, but the sender's name "Santosh Kumar" is missing. Instead, the sender name on the parcel is listed as "Shakuntalam Fabrics."
I searched for Shakuntalam Fabrics online and contacted them. They provided me with the phone number of the DTDC outlet, but my calls have gone unanswered. The representative from Shakuntalam Fabrics mentioned that they send parcels frequently and suggested this could be a name mix-up.

I also have the seller's UPI ID, contact number, and the details of his bank's location and branch.

[Nishit Dave]

Title: Warning about Transaction with Santosh Kumar (JJM Username: kumar007)

Profile & Listing Details:

Name: Santosh Kumar
JJ Mehta Username: kumar007
Original Listing: https://forum.jjmehta.com/index.php/topic,70531.0.html

PLEASE SUGGEST WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THIS CASE

Could you get his address from the packaging? You do have his phone number and UPI ID. At least send a legal notice.