Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]How is Mint defined, what does this term mean, and how is it used...? As defined by a certain Leica dealer in Queensland Australia it is: "Mint - Like new, no signs of use or wear" And I would have to admit that I would completely agree with this, mint is MINT! However perception and reality differ somewhat. I will factually detail below some dealings I've had with a Leica dealer, I will leave any conclusions to yourselves. A couple of weeks ago I purchased a 1st model Summicron collapsible from a dealer in Queensland Australia (I live in Sydney NSW Australia). On that point my thanks to those on the LUG who offered me advice on this particular lens. The lens was described on his web site as being in "Mint" condition. In phone conversations I had with him he said that there were some slight marks on the front element but that these were "only visibly with the use of a high powered magnifying loupe". He also said that the rear element was unmarked. Knowing that these lenses are often prone to fogging, I SPECIFALLY asked him whether the other elements were in any other way affected by this, and optically sound. He replied that there was "no problem with this and that they were clear". He also said that if I was anyway unhappy that I could return the lens as I simply wasn't good business for him to have unhappy customers, "good as gold" was his term. As I was assured that the front marks were minor, "barely visibly" were his words, and that the internal optics of the lens were clear and showed no signs of fogging, I proceeded with the deal. Now for reality : I received the lens 2 days after agreeing to the deal. Within 30 minutes I had completed a detailed inspection of the lens and found: - - The front element was in fact so badly scratched that the damage was clearly visible with the naked eye and without even having to look closely (never mind using a loupe). - - The rear element was also noticeably scratched. - - Shining a small flashlight through this lens I noted that at least one (or more) of the internal elements were fogged. I immediately called the dealer to advise him of my poor assessment of the actual quality of this lens, and in particular the fogging of the elements. He said that my description of the lens elements as fogged was "a bit strong". I advised him that I would be shipping the lens back to him and he agreed to refund the amount I paid. His instructions were to me to send it back exactly the way that I had received it, which was COD with the receiver paying postage. The next day I packaged it exactly as it had been sent to me and sent it back to him. The lens arrived back at the post office nearest to him 2 days later 11 days later I spoke to him to find out what was going on. He was very angry that I was trying to make him pay for the postage back to him of this lens (AUS $14). He said that the only way that he would accept this lens back is if I mailed him a postal money order for $25 to cover the postage. When I pointed out to him that the postage was only $14, he changed the extra amount that he wanted to $20. I tried to talking to him to explain that the only reason that he was getting the lens back was because his original description of the lens was inaccurate. He simply wasn't interested in listening to this. He said that "that was the way that it was going to be, and unless I mailed him the $20 the lens would be sent back to me". (it is interesting that I have just purchased the same model lens from a dealer in Melbourne Australia - the optics were exactly as described by the dealer - clear!!) He also said to me that "he wasnąt in the business to ship lenses just so that his customers could just take a f***ing look at them and send them back if they felt like it." So, the next day I mailed him a postal money order for $20 to attempt to get back the $600 I paid for this lens. 15 days after the lens arrived in his post office he has finally collected the lens and refunded my money, this occurred just 1 day before the post office were about to send the lens back to me as uncollected. I have my $600 back but am out of pocket some total $40 in postage. Given the time delay I am somewhat surprised (and relieved) that this finally occurred - I had actually started preparing all of the documentation for this to be referred to a debt collector. If he had given me an accurate and honest description in our initial conversations then all of this would have been avoided as I would never have taken possession of this lens. I have dealt with a great number of Leica and associated camera dealers who have stood by their products and services. They have been ethical and honest , have valued the customer relationship, have been courteous and polite. These are the people I'll happily do business with in the future. This guys details are : Thomas Scott Leica M Specialist 2/21 Bailey Crescent Southport, Queensland Australia. His web site is : http://leica-m-specialist.com On which you'll be able to see all of the "Mint" lenses and bodies that he has for sale, as well as the one I purchased - item L1086. As I said, make your own assessment! Regards, Peter Zak.