Like other list members, I can only recommend this seller.
He is honest, friendly, and his equipment is always meeting his
accurate descriptions.
Same applies in this case, I guess: He says that the item 'has never
been used' but that 'the foot-scale lettering has been erased'.
Therefore he calls it " almost new in box " and in the caption
" NIB- ", which I read as 'new in box - minus'.
He actually does not give it a figure mark, if I would have to it
would probably be 9/10.
BTW, I might offer one of these lenses for sale as well in a few days.
EXC+, rather than LN (8/10) - but with the 'dirty feet' distance scale
present in bright orange...
Price will be in the $350-375 range. As soon as I know more, so will
the list, to which I will offer it first.
Frank van Lindert
Utrecht NL.
On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 21:53:49 -0600, "Chris O'Neill"
<coneill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 7 Oct 2000, at 20:47, Tom Scales wrote:
>
>> I know this seller and trust and respect him, so I'm at a loss. I'm pretty
>> sure he bought all these lenses as new stock from a shop that was closing,
>> so I'm not sure why the meter scale isn't orange (mine is). I emailed him
>> and asked him, but won't get an answer until morning (he's in Paris). He's
>> a great guy and been more than fair to me.
>
>And, 0n 7 Oct 1000, a 20:11, Gary Reese wrote:
>
>> > Nope, there are at least two. I still say that it is defaced, so it is
>> > in user condition (8) maximum. For the seller to claim "New in Box" is
>> > unconscionable.
>
>Not to impune the honesty of the seller, as I neither know him nor have I
>dealt with him, I tend to agree with Gary. To me, "New in Box" means
>"pristine." SInce someone (a not-too-bright person?) has "blacked-out"
>the numbers on the focusing scale, I'd hardly call the lens pristine, so
>"new in box" seems generous to say the least. But, in defense of the
>seller, he at *does* state in the description that the numbers have been
>blacked-out, so I tend to doubt he's trying to be sneaky or dishonest.
>
>One thing I've noted with e-Bay is that the descriptions of condition are
>not very standard. I've seen alot of "minty" and "exc+" items that have
>some pretty serious faults noted in the descriptions (i.e. "minty"
>camera bodies with a ding on the prism, which to me would indicate the
>thing has been abused). For that reason, I tend to ignore the "ratings"
>and concentrate on the desriptions.
>
>Just my humble opinion.
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>Chris O'Neill (coneill@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>Web: http://www.nucleus.com/~coneill
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|