Chip,
On what basis do you make this assertion? After all, they could have told me
that the price was X (i.e. more than $150) and proceeded from there. Brian, who
discovered it first, has repeatedly asserted that it could be had for far less
than $150. Moreover, how could this be true since they indicated that I could
have it for less than $150. How do you account for this? Furthermore, if you are
of the opinion that it was underpriced, why don't you buy it?
Chip Stratton wrote:
> > I called Columbus Camera Saturday and was told flat out to stay
> > away, that it
> > was probably beyond repair, among other things, it had been
> > mistreated and was
> > ugly and was being sold strictly "as is". In short, the person I
> > spoke with
> > tried to dissuade me from buying it, which is unusual for a salesperson.
> > Moreover, Brian states that it failed the 4T battery test, which
> > to me means
> > that it does not have the 4T circuitry in it or it's inoperable.
> > Which seems to
> > imply that it is not a true 4T. The person with whom I spoke was aware of
> > Brian's post and asked me what it said. In short, I called
> > intending to buy it,
> > but was told in great detail that it would be a mistake. The fact
> > that a store
> > in business to sell cameras warned me away from this OM4T speaks
> > volumes, to me.
>
> I suspect they have realized they underpriced it and have no interest now in
> selling it to anyone for only $150.00!
>
> Chip Stratton
> cstrat@xxxxxxxxx
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|