I've had all I can take of this sellers title spamming.

kodachrome64 · Sep 16, 2008

Frank Szabo said:
While that's very true, FleaBay wants the business regardless of how many sellers operate - as long as they're paid for their site they could care less.

Damn capitalists!

razzledog · Sep 23, 2008

Ham tells Porkies

I have purchased a couple of Fuji lenses from this guy...as he is just up the road. The first Fuji 150mm lens was described as 'mint' but had serious cleaning marks all over the front element. I kicked up a fuss and must say that he immediately replaced the lens with one that lived up to the original description. Unfortunately it happened again, but this time but I got a full refund as there was no replacement. Seems to me he's quite honest but rather RS at giving accurate descriptions. I really wish he is correct in stating that the old 90mm Angulon f6.8 covers 5x7

Uhner · Sep 23, 2008

razzledog said:
I really wish he is correct in stating that the old 90mm Angulon f6.8 covers 5x7

He must be referring to large scale photo macrographs

Ian Grant · Sep 23, 2008

The old 90mm f6.8 Angulon may well cover 5x7 if you use it as a Triple convertible, but only when using one set of elements. Schneider do claim in old adverts that it can be used this was but I doubt anybody ever did for serious work.

Ian

razzledog · Sep 23, 2008

I have a couple of Angulons that I have recently re-cemented. I'll try one on the 6x17 format and see what happens....what focal length is one set of elements?

Steve Goldstein · Sep 23, 2008

I have a very late-production 90mm f/6.8 Angulon (11,3xx,xxx) that I tested a while ago on 5x7. At f/22, there was image almost all the way to the corner, with just a tiny amount of vignetting, but it was definitely soft. This said, it was better than the 90mm f/12.5 Wollensak I compared it with - that one had mechanical vignetting, even at f/22.

The astonishing thing was that a 75mm f/6.8 Grandagon-N _did_ get to the corners!

Ralph Javins · Sep 23, 2008

Good morning;

On the topic of e-Bay, I have found it to be remarkably similar to gambling, although the odds do seem to be a little higher on e-Bay, even though that is not saying very much for e-Bay.

So far, my success rate at getting something from e-Bay that will be usable with just a CLA has been about 50 per cent. A lot of what has come through I consider to be suitable for parts. One seller neglected to mention in the description that the camera had been dropped and the owner attempted to straighten the front ring dent with a pair of pliers. It did help the front ring a little, but it did not help the filter threads, nor did it do anything for the damage inside of the lens. This one actually calculated out to be better to become just parts than to repackage, reship, and go through the annoying process of trying to get a refund.

Yes, e-Bay is a gamble, but its odds are better than Las Vegas or Reno, and it is much better than the State run Lottery.

Ole · Sep 23, 2008

razzledog said:
... I really wish he is correct in stating that the old 90mm Angulon f6.8 covers 5x7

It depends on the definition of "covers", as well as the age of the lens: Dead Link Removed

The older Angulons have a smoother transition from sharp to unsharp so that even if the sharp image circle is smaller, the corners (of 5x7") are sharper.

razzledog · Sep 28, 2008

Angulon 90mm on 6x17

Well I tried it....I fitted the 90mm Angulon f6.8 to an old Linhof 617. No focus helical, I just made up an adapter and set the lens at its hyperfocal distance. Everything is razor sharp at f22 and f32 until we reach around inch from the edge, then it loses resolution considerably. No vignetting at all and it shows even exposure across the film plane. Mr Ham is correct, it will cover 5x7, but sharpness is strictly limited to 4x5

rmolson · Sep 28, 2008

I got burned like that ONCE! Now I check location, location, location and run the shipping charges estimates first.

razzledog · Oct 23, 2008

Just for the record I did a test on the old Linhof 617 Technorama fitted out with a hyperfocally focused Angulon 90mm f6.8 and then a Super Angulon f8 (actually a Caltar W11). The Angulon runs out of puff well in from the edge, whereas the Caltar remains sharp right to the edge. Aperture was f22 on both. I feel the little f6.8 would be ideal for 6x12. Sorry it was a few days between shots, whilst I fitted the SA.

Ian Grant · Oct 23, 2008

Just for the record pak_harry also known as cameo_need_ham has re-surfaced as "chalen_in_eggbay".

Among his current offerings is a Mint Hugo Meyer Brass Dagor

Ian

Huw C · Nov 9, 2008

Well...he's back as cameo_need_ham. Perhaps he was suspended for a few weeks? I doubt it though, as ebay has never taken action on any of my reports, even those that a photographic ignoramus could understand.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jim and others - this seller is a liar and a charlatan. Tessars with 80+ deg coverage, 65mm Angulons that cover 4x5 with "no fall off, sharp edge to edge", anything marked doppel or anastigmat becomes a dagor, Componons sold as Symmars...this seller's imagination knows no bounds.

I don't think it's just a matter of learn to look after yourself and be educated enough to spot the bull either. The fact is there ARE less informed buyers out there, and he does break many listing rules. People get the idea that these lenses can do things they can't/are what they're not and that they're worth a certain amount, and this drives up prices. But then, ebay wouldn't mind that, because then they get more money, right?

Also, has anyone ever noticed how many of his items are 'sold', then mysteriously reappear a few weeks later? In particular, check out that the Linhof Technika that he's been peddling for a while (a year or more?). Even though it's been 'bid on' and 'won', and feedback left, it reappears, same description, time after time. Either that, or he's got a shipping container full of identical Techs 'bought in 1972 and last used in the field in 1981'.

Avoid like the plague.

phfitz · Nov 14, 2008

"Avoid like the plague."

Yes, please do. The last I received was a 100+ year old, brand New Old Stock, never used Goerz Extra-Rapid Lynkeioskop. He does pull magic out of the wind now and then, so please "Avoid like the plague."

c.d.ewen · Nov 16, 2008

Now appearing as schoolgal8carla:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320318509009

Ian Grant · Nov 16, 2008

Well spotted, he can't hide his tell-tale trade marks

Maybe Jim Galli should go and finalise his sex-change and metamorphosis

Ian

cdholden · Nov 23, 2008

One must wonder about the cause for frequent name changes.

c.d.ewen · Nov 23, 2008

cdholden said:
One must wonder about the cause for frequent name changes.

And the planning of it, too. The current name was registered more than a year ago.

cdholden · Jan 28, 2009

Another name change? Check out username "cia_love_animal".

jimgalli · Jan 28, 2009

Ian Grant said:
Well spotted, he can't hide his tell-tale trade marks

Maybe Jim Galli should go and finalise his sex-change and metamorphosis

Ian

No, my sales are notable for well scripted bull sh*t but at least they're accurate. And,,,,,,,I love my wife, but I don't want two.

cooltouch · Jan 28, 2009

Ian Grant said:
Telling Porkies

Over-stating the equipments, gross exaggeration, adding words that have no relevance in the titles.

Adding misleading terms to a title, in the effort to be picked up on an unrelated search, is a direct violation of eBay policy. I'm surprised they haven't yanked this guy's auctions for doing this. It used to be a pretty big deal a few years back. Maybe they've gone soft on this?

Best,

Michael

Huw C · Jan 29, 2009

cooltouch said:
Adding misleading terms to a title, in the effort to be picked up on an unrelated search, is a direct violation of eBay policy. I'm surprised they haven't yanked this guy's auctions for doing this. It used to be a pretty big deal a few years back. Maybe they've gone soft on this?

Best,

Michael

Well, I lost count of the number of times I reported this guy's dodgy listings, and I've stopped bothering. Not once was anything done. So I can only conclude that they've gone decidedly...er...limp.

Currently for sale (swindle?) are a 'symmar' (a componon), Voigtlander and Rodenstock 'Cooke Triplets', 150mm xenars/tessars with 230mm image circle, and a 150 Apo Ronar to cover 190mm, among other 'hallucinations'.

Ole · Jan 29, 2009

Well - the Voigtländer Cooke triplet is real, produced by Voigtländer under license from TTH. So that one is approximately correct.

But the rest are "hallucinations", I agree with you there.

Anastigmatic · Jan 30, 2009

Dam!!! Wish i had of seen this thread before,

I purchased a lens (schoolgal8carla, he has a different name again now i see) he said had a faint 2mm scratch, it wasnt expensive, so i thought, ah why not (even though i could tell from his writing that he exagerates his items ect). when i recieved it did have a faint 2mm scratch...as well as several other significant scratches several mm long (fingernail fits in them!) dead centre of lens. How they didnt show in the pictures i have no idea because they shone like Christmas lights as soon as i opened the package.

I wrote him back saying how absurd it was for him not to mention them (detailed each one), as well as his discription saying the aperature was perfect, it wasnt! Upon closing down to the smallest, one or two of the blades buckle!

I said he did me a favour because i was going to bid on a few other of the more expensive lenses he had listed, that were about to end at auction, but upon seeing this lens i didn't place a bid.

He appologised and said that his eyes arn't too good nowadays so he sometimes has his grandson check the lens for imperfections...(beauty mate!). But he said, probably he is not experianced enough! No kidding!

He then offered me another lens at half price as compensation and sent me the link for it (half price of what he had the lens starting price listed--a completed listing by the way that was apparently sold). Anyway stupid me thought again, ah why not, its pretty cheap, he assured me it was perfect. I said yes, OK , just so long as it comes with the brass flange as pictured (in half the pictures). So i received it, the lens looks ok, but no flange (i must of had a six sence that he would not send it-but thats why I asked/confirmed!!). He sent a horrible retaining ring that is not suited to the lens and only screws on the first few threads. i also need/prefer the type of fixing from the front the brass flange offers to attatch to my old camera.

crook eh!

Huw C · Feb 13, 2009

Well, the symmars that were actually componons, are now componons again (item 250370115290). But still described as convertible taking lenses.

Anastigmat, did you leave negative feedback? I ask because I cannot fathom how he always has a 100% positive rating, especially now after the feedback system has been changed to prevent bullying. As for this seller claiming to be not experienced enough to see faults, if all you sold was large format lenses, week in, week out, for years on end, do you think you'd be experienced? Slow learner, maybe.

I've had all I can take of this sellers title spamming.

kodachrome64

razzledog

Uhner

Ian Grant

razzledog

Steve Goldstein

Ralph Javins

Ole

Moderator

razzledog

Attachments

rmolson

razzledog

Attachments

Ian Grant

Huw C

phfitz

c.d.ewen

Ian Grant

cdholden

c.d.ewen

cdholden

jimgalli

cooltouch

Huw C

Ole

Moderator

Anastigmatic

Huw C

I've had all I can take of this sellers title spamming.

Moderator

Attachments

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency