And why he's put such an obscene price tag on it?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ANTIQUE-400...309?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337ea09945
No, but I'd pass just because of the ad's typography.
It is as typographic error. Bear in mind that in the anglo-american world dot and comma have an opposite meaning concerning figures than in other ports of the world.
I once erroneously typed in a bid on a US-site german-wise and also got something of that kind. But was warned by the system....
The prices smell like a typo.
The lens, well, it smells like a 400/6.3 Telemar-17. There are several on offer on eBay at much lower prices. See the 1963 GOI catalog, which can be downloaded from: http://www.lallement.com/pictures/files.htm If you look in the catalog, you'll find two other 400/6.3s. I'm pretty sure it isn't an Arktik-A or an Ob-87. None of these lenses has anything like the claimed coverage.
The seller reeks of ignorance.
Even if the dot/comma error occurred, he still had to manually enter all the numerals to space it out
....As to the price, it could be part of a money-laundering operation.
I like this explanation....
As to the price, it could be part of a money-laundering operation. Crappy old lens (unusual or obfuscated enough that it's hard to argue its real market value) goes one way, big sack of cash goes the other and the eBay transaction legitimises
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?