How to proceed?

divamum

I sold a lens (via another site where I am a known poster who has sold things before). The lens had external cosmetic damage which I openly disclosed but to the best of my knowledge there was nothing wrong with the glass. 3 days after delivery was attempted (according to usps), the buyer has contacted me to say the lens arrived and has two scratches on it (one 1cm long!) is "useless" and what do I plan to do about it?.

I sold the lens in good faith, and have no idea how to proceed. Stupidly, I edited the text and images out of my listing as soon as it was sold and sent. (NEVER AGAIN!!!! Aaarrghhhhhhh..................)

Fwiw, I have a picture of the lens I took for my sale listing: there's a small hair I can see on the glass, but nothing resembling a scratch to my eyes (EDIT: if anybody can look at the picture for me I'd be grateful - I had it here, but took it down for various reasons, not least of which searchability - I have nothing to hide and am happy to share it with anybody privately). The lens sat in the bag after that was taken - I just didn't use it at all.

Should I ask him to photograph the scratches he's noting and send it to me? Send him my photo as evidence? What the heck do I do now??!!

ETA: While I edited both images and text out of the listing on the site where I sold it, on the other two sites where I had it for sale (including here at dgrin), the original text remains. (Also, do most forum boards have cached versions of edited posts? If so, I may be able to ask them if I can retrieve the original text as proof of my open disclosure)

Art Scott

I would ask the forum owner/mod if there is a cached copy of your listing....if so retrieve both text and photo........

divamum

Art Scott wrote:

I would ask the forum owner/mod if there is a cached copy of your listing....if so retrieve both text and photo........

Thanks Art. I've done so - we'll see.

In the meantime, I'm just getting more and more upset about this because I have NEVER had anybody question the items I sell (not just photo gear but other stuff) and I take great care in describing things accurately to ensure that people find their purchase is BETTER than they expected. This is really upsetting to me.

mmmatt

I would have him send it back to you and after inspection, if it is in the same condition as when you sold it, refund the money and be done with it.

Matt

Sam

I agree with Mat, just have him send it back and as long as it's in the same condition as you sent it, give him his money back.

I would ask him if he received your package in good condition. If the package was damaged then you / him have to document that for the shipping company.

Don't stress until you have all the facts. Condition can be subjective. If it's in the same condition as you sent it then it's just a mater of different standards. Give him back his money and your whole again.

I wouldn't return the money until I had a chance to inspect the lens though.

Sam

divamum

Thanks Matt and Sam. To clarify, the scratches/rubmarks of which I was aware and described in detail in the listing were on the external barrel - the buyer is saying there are scratches on the *glass*. I certainly never saw any when I checked it when it arrived with me from KEH when I first bought it, and again as I cleaned it and prepped it for sale. Or, for that matter, anything in images when I've used it. Maybe I'm just not looking for the right thing and, as Sam says, it's subjective? Ugh - hate this. However, I really don't want to get into a fight about it with a buyer - as you've both said, it's just not worth it and I'd like to keep my 100% positive-feedback-reputation on the net.

IF I were to tell him to send it back to me and it does have damage it didn't have when I sent it out to him.... what then? Do I just send the lens back again and say "nope, no dice"? Seems the only people getting rich out of this are the post office! And on that note, presumably I wouldn't refund shipping charges?

One last thing which may be nothing at all and pure coincidence but is perhaps worth mentioning: this buyer's pp payment was automatically "flagged" when it was sent. PP investigated and approved it, but fwiw...

In any case, thanks again for input. I make every effort to be 100000% honest and accurate in all my sales so it never occurred to me that the first (and so far only) time I would have a problem with a transaction would be when I'm selling! I always reckoned I'd get burned by being too trusting when buying.... Sigh.

Miguel Delinquento

I've bought and sold several dozen lenses online. The best way to ensure a positive online selling reputation is to make the customer happy and that may mean your losing some money.

Sooner or later a sale (buying or selling) is not going to work out, for whatever reason. The occurrence of this upon one of your few sales is just bad luck.

I would just follow Sam's advice. If the lens comes back in significantly worse condition, you very well may just have to write it off--the psychic cost of trying to square the situation may not be worthwhile. It's not easy balancing dual roles of photographer and equipment dealer.

M

pyry

divamum wrote:

IF I were to tell him to send it back to me and it does have damage it didn't have when I sent it out to him.... what then? Do I just send the lens back again and say "nope, no dice"? Seems the only people getting rich out of this are the post office! And on that note, presumably I wouldn't refund shipping charges?

This is just a thought, but do you have the serial number for the lens?

Just in case the buyer is trying a swap on you.

divamum

Thanks Miguel and Pyry. Just to set the record straight, there's no question at all of my being a "lens dealer" - all I'm doing is building my gear collection according to my needs, buying and selling along the way as I figure out what the heck I need! Because I buy most of my lenses used, I do usually ~break even, but it's definitely not a money-making venture, which is why it would be hard to lose the full sale amount if the buyer did damage the item. I'm just not in a position to eat several hundred dollars as collateral damage.

Pyry, I don't have the serial number, but note to self for future! I'm also always going to take a shot of lens condition AS I PACK IT so that in future I have an exif-stamped record and can put an end to this kind of thing for speculation. Sheesh. So far I have had a 100% record with buyers AND sellers - people have been wonderful, very friendly, and the transactions have been entirely pleasant. This is the first one to really leave me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I appreciate the wise counsel - thanks to all who chimed in.

divamum

Just to put a button on this:

I have taken the lens back and, as you all said, it is a matter of different standards. There are indeed two very faint marks on the front element which take some finding even with the lens in hand, and don't show up in any of my pictures of the lens unless you know they're there to look for and magnify the shot to 400%. I never knew they were there before now either from examining the lens, or through noticing any problems in the images it took.

In any case, refund now issued, so it's all done. Time to relist it, I guess - now that I actually know about those marks, I can disclose them, and hopefully somebody will be interested in getting a great-performing lens at a bargain price!

angevin1

divamum wrote:

Just to put a button on this:

I have taken the lens back and, as you all said, it is a matter of different standards. There are indeed two very faint marks on the front element which take some finding even with the lens in hand, and don't show up in any of my pictures of the lens unless you know they're there to look for and magnify the shot to 400%. I never knew they were there before now either from examining the lens, or through noticing any problems in the images it took.

In any case, refund now issued, so it's all done. Time to relist it, I guess - now that I actually know about those marks, I can disclose them, and hopefully somebody will be interested in getting a great-performing lens at a bargain price!

1cm long is quite long..was it really there (?), that long? Either way sounds like it isn't quite as useless as your buyer thought~ Too bad for them~

This whole thing was an eye opener for me and selling. I have had prob's buying but not selling~ Thanks for informing of the outcome~

divamum

angevin1 wrote:

1cm long is quite long..was it really there (?), that long? Either way sounds like it isn't quite as useless as your buyer thought~ Too bad for them~

This whole thing was an eye opener for me and selling. I have had prob's buying but not selling~ Thanks for informing of the outcome~

Thanks, Tom. It's been an eye-opener for me, too! :

I haven't measured, but it's not 1cm (more like .5) - all I can say is that while yes, the marks are there, I never noticed them before all of this, and they've never showed up as a problem in pictures. In fact, when this thing arrived back with me yesterday I stopped down to f22 and shot straight into the sun to see if it would do anything weird I should know about. Couldn't come up with anything - just normal flare in the expected direction relative to the light source.

This whole experience did prompt me to do a ton of research on scratches and other lens issues, and general concensus seems to be that small marks on a front element are negligible, and even larger, deeper scratches can be made "inert" by filling in with black sharpie or other ink so that light doesn't refract in those anomalies and cause odd flare or hazing. Rear elements are a different matter (marks are more significant there, I gather).

Btw, I suspect it's been posted here at some point over the years, but fwiw I came across this in my resesarches too :jawdrop