Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 11/12/2000 1:42:05 AM Central Standard Time, guybnt@idt.net writes: << >You got it Wilber, how else would you describe a car in showroom condition >with a dent? >I would describe it "in showroom condition save for a dent"... Which means >that aside of the dent, the rest of the car's appearance is showroom. >If a mint camera is dropped and has a dent, would you not call it a camera >with a dent that would otherwise be mint? Obviously it is no longer *mint* >but how else would you describe its condition? > >Joe Codispoti joe, how about this: "leica mX, in perfect mechanical condition; everything operates exactly as it should. shutter speeds are all right on, even the slow ones (well, we can dream can't we?), the viewfinder is clear and bright, the rangefinder functions beautifully and the coincident image is clearly visible, even in low light. cosmetically, the leather (or whatever that stuff is called) is clean and intact with no cracking. baseplate clean save for the inevitable light scratches around the tripod socket. the one flaw that keeps this from being a mint - camera: there two dents in the top plate. they do not effect the mechanical functioning of the camera in any way. try it for yourself and see. i offer a 5 day return period. if you are not satisfied with your pruchase i will refund your money, less ebay costs." while i see the dilemma you've pointed out (i.e. how else would you describe such an item), i do think that labelling a damaged camera 'mint -' is going more than a little too far. there are plenty of ways to assure potential bidders that the camera in perfect in every way *except* for the two dents, without obliquely lying about it. guy >> Is this the one that fell off the tripod? DR.