How far would you go in order to make a sale?

[MattKing]

Disclose everything you know about the condition of your product. Consider disclosing as well what you don't know about the condition of your product (e.g. I bought the camera used, and have never had to have it serviced).

Potential customers will come to their own decisions about what factors are relevant to their buying decisions.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If I were buying that lens, I would want to know before buying it that it had been serviced non-professionally. Even if you are right, and nothing will happen to it, I would be sufficiently concerned that something would go wrong with it as a result of the unprofessional repair that I would not buy it. And if I found out after purchasing that it had been worked on in that way, and that amateur repair ended up costing me more money because it either caused a new problem or magnified the scope of another problem, I would be beyond irate at the seller. If I were to repair a cosmetically damaged camera by swapping out the top (or bottom) plate and thus removing the original serial number, not only would I disclose the fact that this had been done, but I would include the original plate with the camera as proof of the work and as documentation of the original serial number. As a buyer, I would much rather buy something with an unrepaired problem that had been disclosed and then pay to get it serviced myself instead of buying a mystery item that may be fine or may not be. All respect, David, but as you are not a professional repair shop, if you do a hack job on repairing a lens and it fails even two days after I buy it from you, I have no recourse because you're an individual seller with no business license. You can swear on a stack of bibles, your mother's name, or anything else you hold sacred that you did a good job and that there is no problem. But that's not a warranty, and "to the best of my knowledge..." doesn't count in a court of law.

 

[David Lyga]

See, Flying Camera, this is the situation I was trying to parse: I am NOT talking about a lens possibly breaking after a few days or even after a few years with heavy use. The work I did did NOT weaken the structure. I am talking about a lens that, IF MY VERY LIFE DEPENDED UPON IT, would work as well as one new, and as long. It is so difficult to ask people to speculate upon THAT VERY HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBLILTY because the mere mention of 'working on it without being a professional' conjures de facto ugly possibilties. (Just like the time I was at a flea market in a children's school on a weekend and I casually asked to use the restroom (at 63, nature calls often!): the horrified looks I got were genuinely priceless and it actually took me about five full minutes to understand why!) Again, I would bet my very LIFE upon that lens' integrity.

However, Flying, your point is well made in that THAT argument I posed really does not matter in, at least, a theoretical sense: Irrespective of the functionality paradigm, buyers, indeed, can also be expected to have a RIGHT to know about its innards (if only to avert shock from a future repairman).

But...can you respond to this: if you had a lens that you had bought from someone else long ago, say anonymously at a flea market, and did not know that it had been serviced previously by a nonprofessional, would you be obligated, morally, to 'disclose' such. This would mean that, at least potentially, every person who sells something has an obligation to open each item and inspect it for this very occurance in order to 'cover' for the potential of the previous owner's possible malfeasance. I do not think that too many do this. In my opinion there is a marked difference between nondisclosure involving 'selling fuctional integrity' and 'selling dubious functionality that appears to be functional', even though it can be argued that both lack disclosure and both can be adjudged 'wrong'. However, there is a weighting required here in order to assess a proper moral value.

My argument begins and ends with the utter assurance that the article in question can withstand the rigors that a virtually new article can. It does not take into even reasonable possibility that it will fail. (To NOT disclose such would be abhorent to me.) But, FlyingCamera, assuredly, I do also see your valid and important point. However, I wanted to assert my assurances (those averting the potential for failure) within my hypothetical argument. That dichotomy easily (and conveniently, for some) gets waylaid. - David Lyga

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Thus, Jon Goodman is a person of consummate integrity (and a good man). I guess I am not. - David Lyga

He's certainly earned it.

 

[BrianShaw]

But...can you respond to this: if you had a lens that you had bought from someone else long ago, say anonymously at a flea market, and did not know that it had been serviced previously by a nonprofessional, would you be obligated, morally, to 'disclose' such. This would mean that, at least potentially, every person who sells something has an obligation to open each item and inspect it for this very occurance in order to 'cover' for the potential of the previous owner's possible malfeasance. I do not think that too many do this.

Nobody in their right mind does, or woud do, that. One cannot disclose an unknown defect or condition. Your scenario is not an unknown defect or condition, but a known condition that does not affect functionality. Nonetheless, it is a known defect caused by heavy-handed repair efforts. The success of such efforts is not the issue here... it is the knowledge of the product's internal damage/defect.

 

[BrianShaw]

p.s. "utter assurance" is most valuable and respected when it comes from a bonifide expert who can certify (through testing, analysis, demonstration, or sufficient amounts of credible experience) that their attestation is correct and accurate. That is where a lot of folks are leary of your justification, David. No offense to you, of course... most of us do not have those credentials either.

 

[BrianShaw]

p.s. Please forgive my interruption, Flying Camera... the questions were actually posed for your response.

 

[Truzi]

It would matter to me if the seller had purchased it from a flea market or bought it new.

OK, to play Devil's advocate (and get myself flamed), why not look at it similar to purchasing an used car.
You know, the type that had only one owner, a little old lady, who only drove it to church on Sundays. Almost always sold "as-is."

Despite the large amount of work my family and friends have seen me do on my own vehicles, they never even consider that a used car may have been "serviced" by it's previous owner. They understand what they are getting into with a used car, but think any service was performed by a qualified mechanic. They will think the last owner abused it before thinking the owner did repairs. A reputable used-car dealer often does not know the fine details of a vehicle's history either.

As much as we want to know the history of anything we purchase used, are we consistent? I always assume the owner of a used car may have done their own work, but haven't assumed that on used cameras - but will now

Caveat emptor.

Still, if someone had serviced themselves (or paid a professional) a camera that I was considering purchasing, I would want them to tell me - I'd tell them.
I consider that the honorable thing to do.

 

[tkamiya]

Thus, Jon Goodman is a person of consummate integrity (and a good man). I guess I am not. - David Lyga

Jon Goodman has earned his reputation as such. You have not. Look, I don't know you at all, except online here on APUG. You may be a stand-up individual with high integrity. I have no ways to know that on individual basis. But honestly, things you've discussed, positions you took, and this very thread, does not give me the kind of confidence where I would be willing to send you money in exchange for your goods.

In online community and classified system as such rely on reputation of the poster. Quite honestly, you've done everything you can to destroy your own reputation.

That's my honest opinion. I'm sorry this is so harsh. But you seem like a kind of guy who wants things said straight.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

See, Flying Camera, this is the situation I was trying to parse: I am NOT talking about a lens possibly breaking after a few days or even after a few years with heavy use. The work I did did NOT weaken the structure. I am talking about a lens that, IF MY VERY LIFE DEPENDED UPON IT, would work as well as one new, and as long. It is so difficult to ask people to speculate upon THAT VERY HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBLILTY because the mere mention of 'working on it without being a professional' conjures de facto ugly possibilties. (Just like the time I was at a flea market in a children's school on a weekend and I casually asked to use the restroom (at 63, nature calls often!): the horrified looks I got were genuinely priceless and it actually took me about five full minutes to understand why!) Again, I would bet my very LIFE upon that lens' integrity.

David- what I am saying is that although I would have no reason to suspect you of lying or being deceitful in your assertion that you believe wholeheartedly that you are confident the cosmetic damage to the internal mechanisms will not effect mechanical failure in the future, as a consumer who is not so inclined to repeat your efforts to open the lens and inspect it because I know I lack the experience to do it without possibility of making any damage you caused worse, or causing greater damage of my own, I would be sufficiently suspicious that I would not want to buy the lens, period. To use the automotive analogy alluded to by another poster, if I were to shop for a used car and the private seller informed me that he/she did all the maintenance work on it him/herself, unless I KNEW the person's mechanical qualification, I would either not buy the car, or offer them a VERY low price because I would assume there would be significant maintenance in my immediate future.

But...can you respond to this: if you had a lens that you had bought from someone else long ago, say anonymously at a flea market, and did not know that it had been serviced previously by a nonprofessional, would you be obligated, morally, to 'disclose' such. This would mean that, at least potentially, every person who sells something has an obligation to open each item and inspect it for this very occurance in order to 'cover' for the potential of the previous owner's possible malfeasance. I do not think that too many do this. In my opinion there is a marked difference between nondisclosure involving 'selling fuctional integrity' and 'selling dubious functionality that appears to be functional', even though it can be argued that both lack disclosure and both can be adjudged 'wrong'. However, there is a weighting required here in order to assess a proper moral value.

Actually, what I would feel in that circumstance would be required as a disclosure is, "I do not know the maintenance history of this camera/lens/etc, and I have not had it serviced". Knowing that, as a buyer, I can adjudge the value of the item and factor in the cost of servicing when I make an offer.

My argument begins and ends with the utter assurance that the article in question can withstand the rigors that a virtually new article can. It does not take into even reasonable possibility that it will fail. (To NOT disclose such would be abhorent to me.) But, FlyingCamera, assuredly, I do also see your valid and important point. However, I wanted to assert my assurances (those averting the potential for failure) within my hypothetical argument. That dichotomy easily (and conveniently, for some) gets waylaid. - David Lyga

What I'm saying is that you can assure and assert with all the passion, conviction and soul in the world that your maintenance efforts have had no detrimental effect on the object. Because you are not David Lyga, graduate of National Camera Repair School, Class of 1973, Rollei Factory Trained technician, etc etc, but instead David Lyga, camera user and occasional reseller, your assurances would leave me with no comfort whatever as a buyer, because if you really knew what you were doing, the damage would not have happened in the first place. To revert back to the auto maintenance analogy for a moment, I can remove a dented fender on my car and replace it, and replace the damaged front suspension components. I can also assure you that there will be no issue with said components. But as a buyer, you would be a fool to accept that assurance and still pay market value for the car.

 

[zsas]

David - If you owned a nice lens and then in the course of its life sent it for repair to an authorized/reputable repair person (Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Leica, KEH, Precision, Jane Doe, etc...), then if you sold the lens, would you provide the buyer with that information (eg what was repaired, when, by whom, even a receipt of such maintence, etc.)?

A simple Yes or No answer please....

 

[Truzi]

David - If you owned a nice lens and then in the course of its life sent it for repair to an authorized/reputable repair person (Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Leica, KEH, Precision, Jane Doe, etc...), then if you sold the lens, would you provide the buyer with that information (eg what was repaired, when, by whom, even a receipt of such maintence, etc.)?

Good question, and I was about to suggest that this should have been part of the original post/question, as I believe it relates to what I perceive as the intent of the OP. I do not wish to presume David's intents, but if I am correct, this would soften the distinction being attempted.

Things seemed to have gotten a bit out of hand, as they tend to do online. One must read carefully due to the absence of inflection and other non-verbal ques.
I'd reread the first number of posts a bit ago and it did remind me of conversations I'd had years ago, while drinking tea late at nite in my college dorm room. I miss those conversations, but they don't seem to work so well online.

Of course, I could be totally wrong.

 

[David Lyga]

see below (sorry). See post # 67. -DL

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I did not have those fears because I know what I buy, always. I should have been more introspective. - David Lyga

Unless the person selling to you decided that you knowing the item was stolen was not necessary to tell you. After all the physical integrity for the item to do its job is not affected...

 

[BrianShaw]

... Honestly, I have been going to camera shows for decades and really and I truly do not care what the dealer says about his item being considered for my purchase, other than it is not stolen. I know 'what I buy' so intimately that my personal inspection suffices for my needs. I am rarely wrong, but I stay away from stuff that I do not know, as my ignorance does terrify me. (In numismatics my ignorance terrifies me more because of the money involved.)

I guess I tended to project this thinking onto the population at large. ...

Buying at a camera show (or shop) and buying "mailorder" (sight unseen) is apples and oranges. One cannot project the buyers approach or sense of confidence between the two. To do so is a grave error of logic.

 

[David Lyga]

Your responses all make sense, to a greater or lesser extent, and I have learned something here.

Amazingly, people on this forum do NOT know 'of me' or 'who I am' and, therefore MUST adhere to a generic doubtfulness with regards to the human race, as a whole. This cautionary, even exessively cautionary, mindset is not detrimental to our very survival (and perhaps even enhances it). Who am I to think that I am so noble and to be treated without scrutiny? Again, I did learn something here.

Why did I think otherwise? Honestly, I have been going to camera shows for decades and, really and truly, I do not care what the dealer says about his item being considered for my purchase, other than it is not stolen. I know 'what I buy' so intimately that my personal inspection suffices for my needs. I am rarely wrong, but I stay away from stuff that I do not know, as my ignorance does terrify me. (In numismatics my ignorance terrifies me more because of the money involved.)

I guess I tended to project this thinking onto the population at large. At first, I thought that this might simply be a grand attack upon me for personal reasons but, reading carefully all of your angst, I now get the impression that many of you are genuinely afraid of what you will buy next because you have suffered being taken advantage of in the past and know well how easy it is to fall victim once again. I did not have those fears because I know what I buy, always. I should have been more introspective.

As far as 'ruining my reputation' goes, I could have posed these questions anonymously. I chose not to because I am rather secure with what people think about me who know my face. Posing this original question can also be taken in a theorectical sense and does not have to segue into an 'actual transaction intended to deceive', assumption.

zsas: I honestly do not know if I would really bother giving information concerning previous professional servicing. Why? What transpired after that servicing just might delegitimatize the good work done. In fact, 'the good work done' might have been done on an 'off day'. Time might reveal this fact. Telling of the 'good servicing' thus might be counterproductive towards the good will intended. So, I guess the simple 'yes' or 'no' you ask for might be, essentially, 'no, not necessarily'. Who really knows the FULL story of a camera or lens? - David Lyga

 

[removed account4]

SNIP SNIP SNIP

You have a used SLR with a dented top. It looks ugly but functions flawlessly. You have another top from a junked, identical body. Would you make the switch, without disclosure to the buyer, in order to sell it more easily, even if the serial number was now changed? Without hesitation, I would. Why not? There is nothing missing and the camera has not been downgraded. David Lyga

getting back to the original questions david

yes i would swap out the top of the camera
and yes, i would tell the potential buyer.

better yet, i would sell the camera as is + dented
and tell the buyer that i would be happy to swap out
the top for him / her for a few dollars more.

i would also assure the buyer that this would not affect the performance
in any way, and offer them a money back guarantee so if there was a problem
in 30 days because of something that happened when the tops were swapped out
they could return it or get a partial refund to have it professional repaired.

what is the point in being secretive ... if you are confident your work will
cause no problems, say so to the potential buyer and then stand behind the work you did
with a grace period.

 

[ambaker]

Thus, Jon Goodman is a person of consummate integrity (and a good man). I guess I am not. - David Lyga

David, I in no way meant to impugn your reputation. I only meant to state that Jon weaves some great selling tales. If you felt this was directed towards you, I most humbly apologize to you, and to anyone else who thought I might have meant you.

To reply other points, I do not think any owner has an obligation of disassemble any equipment before selling. If there is an unknown defect, then I would not hold the previous owner responsible.

Purposely hiding defects is another story, but that has not been suggested here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[BrianShaw]

I only meant to state that Jon weaves some great selling tales.

That ad style and reputation are not directly related. Jon has a good reputation because he sells good product and provides good service... and has proven himself both reputable and honest. Interestingly (perhaps), that "Dagor77 style" ad doesn't work for everyone. Folks who, like me apparently, are somewhat humor-impaired and "just the facts"-oriented hate that. It gives the appearance of inane babbling to me and I don't look at any of those kind of ads anymore. Some find it cute and funny... and then there are folks like me. Maybe I need a "happy pill"!

 

[Truzi]

...
Posing this original question can also be taken in a theorectical sense and does not have to segue into an 'actual transaction intended to deceive', assumption.

Perhaps I've read too much Plato, but this is how I interpreted your original post, and it seemed obvious to me (especially at post #4). An hypothetical situation to discuss and learn (other people's views) from.

 

[Bill Burk]

And, David Lyga, you're the only one playing Devil's advocate

 

[Bill Burk]

Over time, I have bought a few used cameras and gear. I have paid high prices for some used gear when the item was in good shape. But usually I would buy "user" grade gear at camera shows in order to "get a feel" for whether a particular "type" of camera would be a good fit for me. Doesn't make sense to me to spend full price for a top-quality camera, if I am just experimenting to see if it will work for me.

That's how I ended up with Linda Zackelfoose's Rollei 35 with stripped internal rail for $60 at a camera show. The seller didn't tell me the rails were stripped, and I kind of lost out on that deal because with stripped rails, a Rollei 35 might have been worth $40.

I have learned from lessons like this to be wary at camera shows. Most of the gear I have encountered at low prices, tended to have internal flaws that drove the original owner crazy so he/she wanted to get rid of it.

Another thing that came of this is I learned a bit about camera repair. If the price is low enough, the risk to digging in and trying to fix it, just isn't that great. Finding the internal workings have "already been visited by an amateur" doesn't concern me much if the transaction was quick and I didn't ask many questions (if the price was low).

But I also have bought used cameras at other venues, thrift stores, garage sales. Here, I have often been delighted by my findings. Often the camera comes with a bit of dingy dust, but "rag and towel" is all I do. Often the internals have never been touched! These are most enjoyable to discover because if I am careful, I can restore the item to almost good as new.

 

[zsas]

David - If you are going to propose a theoretical question don't make it personal. What you have done is personally tied your theoretical question to you in the same breath. What you have then done by doing this is made anyone who disagrees with you "impeached" for saying you are X.

I refuse to judge you based on your feelings to the orig matter.

Again, as with the 35mm Film Is So Wasteful thread, you chose to propose paradoxical or statements that entrap the responder, I once said that you suggest statements of Rhetorical Tautology:

A rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially, the truth of the proposition or explanation cannot be disputed. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable.

Per
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

I am not sure if that is what is going on here but refuse to get ensnared and chose to ascert my 5th Ammendment Right

 

[David Lyga]

Absolutey no ill will intended, ambaker. I just wanted to orient my self-appraisal and parse the issue privately! I was thinking aloud.

(This is the only place where you can get free shrink service.) - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

zsas: you found a bit of the Socrates in me with my most devious methods of enquiry! You are both correct and incorrect. But I still will not drink the Hemlock. Psst! the rhetorical tautology is my safety factor, my persecution complex manifest from being beaten up so many times by the schoolyard bullies! I FORCE people to come to certain conclusions (and find out later that nothing significant was said!) My sin to mankind.

Bill Burke: I am so wary at camera shows that I am unaware of such wariness. This feeling is, at this point, inherent. I ASSUME that there are always problems and, like a fish that is a 'bottom feeder' I scrounge for the 'junk' that can be fixed. I am usually highly delighted and NEVER pay more than I think that I could get with not much trouble. The trouble is that I cannot bear to get rid of much. It is, in a way, a genuine sickness but at least I am never tempted to buy unless very, very cheap. There ARE dealers who want to get rid of stuff and I routinely tell them that I am willing to steal from you as long as such 'theft' is not illegal. But Bill, please don't say, simply, "rag and towel". Instead say DAMP rag and towel: that slight wetness does a hell of a lot to remove that grimy dust, permanently.

Truzi really reads me the best, though. This individual has actually succeeded in getting inside of my head (not that anyone would WANT to!) - - David Lyga