[Leica] When Mint is not Mint

[phuang@pmsoft.com.sg]

Paul Huang@LMS
02/27/2001 05:51 PM

Hi Peter,

I have had about the same experience with this seller about a year back.
His descriptions are lousy and charged me a more than $100 aussie dollars
for transferring the refund back to Singapore.  Sorry it happened to you
also.  Wish I knew about it and warned you earlier. He still owes me $100
dollars for shortchanging me but he said he will make it good in my next
purchase from him. As if I would.  So buyers beware.

Cheers,

Paul

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:55:31 +1100
From: Peter Zak <pzak@desidero.com.au>
Subject: [Leica] When Mint is not really Mint !!
Message-ID: <B6C15442.85A%pzak@desidero.com.au>
References:

How is Mint defined, what does this term mean, and how is it used...?

As defined by a certain Leica dealer in Queensland Australia it is:

"Mint  - Like new, no signs of use or wear"

And I would have to admit that I would completely agree with this, mint is
MINT!  However perception and reality differ somewhat.

I will factually detail below some dealings I've had with a Leica dealer, I
will leave any conclusions to yourselves.

A couple of weeks ago I purchased a 1st model Summicron collapsible from a
dealer in Queensland Australia (I live in Sydney NSW Australia).   On that
point my thanks to those on the LUG who offered me advice on this
particular
lens.

The lens was described on his web site as being in "Mint" condition.

In phone conversations I had with him he said that there were some slight
marks on the front element but that these were "only visibly with the use
of
a high powered magnifying loupe".  He also said that the rear element was
unmarked.

Knowing that these lenses are often prone to fogging, I SPECIFALLY asked
him
whether the other elements were in any other way affected by this, and
optically sound.  He replied that there was "no problem with this and that
they were clear".

He also said that if I was anyway unhappy that I could return the lens as I
simply wasn't good business for him to have unhappy customers, "good as
gold" was his term.

As I was assured that the front marks were minor,  "barely visibly" were
his
words, and that the internal optics of the lens were clear and showed no
signs of fogging, I proceeded with the deal.


Now for reality :

I received the lens 2 days after agreeing to the deal.  Within 30 minutes I
had completed a detailed inspection of the lens and found:

- - - The front element was in fact so badly scratched that  the damage was
clearly visible with the naked eye and without even having to look closely
(never mind using a loupe).

- - - The rear element was also noticeably scratched.

- - - Shining a small flashlight through this lens I noted that at least one
(or more) of the internal elements were fogged.

 I immediately called the dealer to advise him of my poor assessment of the
actual quality of this lens, and in particular the fogging of the elements.

He said that my description of the lens elements as fogged was "a bit
strong".   I advised him that I would be shipping the lens back to him and
he agreed to refund the amount I paid.  His instructions were to me to send
it back exactly the way that I had received it, which was COD with the
receiver paying postage.

The next day I packaged it exactly as it had been sent to me and sent it
back to him.  The lens arrived back at the post office nearest to him 2
days
later

11 days later I spoke to him to find out what was going on.  He was very
angry that I was trying to make him pay for the postage back to him of this
lens (AUS $14).  He said that the only way that he would accept this lens
back is if I mailed him a postal money order for $25 to cover the postage.
When I pointed out to him that the postage was only $14, he changed the
extra amount that he wanted to $20.

I tried to talking  to him to explain that the only reason that he was
getting the lens back was because his original description of the lens was
inaccurate.  He simply wasn't interested in listening to this.   He said
that  "that was the way that it was going to be, and unless I mailed him
the
$20 the lens would be sent back to me".

(it is interesting that I have just purchased the same model lens from a
dealer in Melbourne Australia - the optics were exactly as described by the
dealer - clear!!)

He also said to me that  "he wasn?t in the business to ship lenses just so
that his customers could just take a f***ing look at them and send them
back
if they felt like it."

So, the next day I mailed him a postal money order for $20 to attempt to
get
back the $600 I paid for this lens.

15 days after the lens arrived in his post office he has  finally collected
the lens and refunded my money, this occurred just 1 day before the post
office were about to send the lens back to me as uncollected.

I have my $600 back but am out of pocket some total $40 in postage.  Given
the time delay I am somewhat surprised (and relieved) that this finally
occurred -  I had actually started preparing all of the documentation for
this to be referred to a debt collector.

If he had given me an accurate and honest description in our initial
conversations then all of this would have been avoided as I would never
have
taken possession of this lens.

I have dealt with a great number of Leica and associated camera dealers who
have stood by their products and services.

They have been ethical and honest , have valued the customer relationship,
have been courteous and polite.  These are the people I'll happily do
business with in the future.

This guys details are :

Thomas Scott
Leica M Specialist
2/21 Bailey Crescent
Southport, Queensland Australia.

His web site is :

http://leica-m-specialist.com

On which you'll be able to see all of the "Mint" lenses and bodies that he
has for sale, as well as the one I purchased - item L1086.

As I said, make your own assessment!

Regards,

Peter Zak.