Re: KEH Camera Brokers/Ugly Items

[Michael Bell <MBell@mail.utexas.edu>]

Welch <Bill.Welch@pressroom.com> wrote:

>Michael, there's a big difference between ugly and bad glass, at least in
>my book. Like you, I see little use for bad glass items, unless you want
>them for parts or a paperweight. But items that are cosmetically ugly
>with good to great glass can be an exceptional bargain for anyone who
>intends to use them, not just look at them. I have bought user-grade and
>ugly items that serve me well, and saved me a bundle. Plus I don't have
>to worry if they get a ding. I don't know about KEH, but some dealers,
>such as Don Chatterton, rate very conservatively. The ugly or user items
>I've bought from him really aren't too bad looking. (OTOH, Ben had a
>quite different experience elsewhere.)

By KEH gradings what they list as bargain (bgn) would be a user.  They
define it as being well used, but not abused, glass has superficial marks
that should not affect image quality.  The Hektor 135 that I bought in this
catagory seems consistent with their grading.  It had definitly been
around, but the pictures look great.  I feel very safe with this catagory
for my purposes.

They list ugly items as showing more than normal use and marks on the glass
that probably will affect image quality.  I guess the question is to what
degree is imagine quality affected.  The items they list as bad glass
usually also have EX or better ratings which I imagine refers to the barrel
of the lens.

Michael Bell
MBell@mail.utexas.edu