[Leica] LHSA M6 Question/Complaint (!!!) (Sorry, but LONG)

["Barker, J. Madison" <Matt.Barker@KutakRock.com>]

Luggers:

Yeah, it's long but, from me at least, the last on this subject.  

Background:

In response to my post about the terms and conditions of the offer being
changed in the middle of the stream, Jim Brick wrote, in part:

And I am finding it difficult to figure out what all of the fuss is about???

There are M6's available.

....

Pick one, buy it, and then use it!

End of story.

Jim

**********

Then Tom Schofield wrote, in part:

>It seems to me that this thread is going pretty far into the realm of
>speculation, and I must add, WHO CARES? ....
>
>I, for one, am glad they opened up to dealers because I did not have the
>cash to lay out $2750 in June (after 2 weddings in May), but could happily
>put down a deposit with my dealer for a 0.85 expected in November (now
>looking like December)!  I figure the $50 savings and time value of money
>come pretty close to breaking even with the 8.25% sales tax I'll pay.
>
>Tom Schofield

************

My posts probably come across like I think it's a big deal and want to make
a big fuss.  That's not completely true:  I'm not out any significant amount
of money (I got my .72 quickly and I don't care a fig about the $45 to
LHSA); I don't think the aspects of the deal I object to (or even Leicas
themselves ;)) are terribly important in the grand scheme of life; I
absolutely love the camera; and I appreciate LHSA's efforts in getting it
made.

But, with all due respect, when Tom asks "WHO CARES?," I feel compelled to
reply that I care, just as TOM HIMSELF cares.  He says his very ability to
get a copy of the camera depended on the offering being made in a way that
not only was more favorable to the purchaser but also simply was not
disclosed in a timely manner to those of us who ordered early.

When I was thinking about buying, I suspected that LHSA would not be able to
sell many more than the 300-camera minimum, if that many, on its published
terms and conditions and considering other facts:  members "in good
standing" only (good one!); payment in full in advance; wait an
indeterminate, perhaps long, time for delivery; and little public notice of
the camera's existence.  As a result, I was very attracted to the idea of
getting a camera much, much rarer than the Millennium, even though, I say
again, I'm using the camera almost daily, not "collecting."  Bottom line:
the MANNER of the offering was IMPORTANT to me because I predicted,
correctly as it turns out, that it would have resulted in scarcity.

Now, I don't begrudge Tom or any other particular individual his camera.  I
say congratulations; it worked out well for him.  But I hope Tom will
forgive me if I decline to be advised on what to care about by one who got a
direct benefit from that to which I object.

Jim says, "You wanted an M6, there were M6s available, you got an M6 on the
terms you bargained for", and he's right.  But the fact remains:  it's no
fun buying into a deal that changes significantly, to my perceived detriment
(yes, I'm looking out for me), after I was already committed to the old
deal.

Well, it worked out how it worked out, and so be it.  Barring further
factual revelations, I'll shut up about it and post, if at all, about other
matters.  But just because I can get over it doesn't mean I don't have
something of a bitter taste in my mouth.  And I find it a little hard to
believe that those who say it's nothing wouldn't feel about the same, were
they in my shoes.  A little thought and disclosure up front would have gone
a long way.

Matt Barker