OK, the lens pictured in the listing of item 3853273857 appears to be QUITE
different in terms of condition than the one you received. That alone is
grounds for a very real complaint with that place. The listed lens seems to be
in at least good condition, if not vg. Hard to tell from one photo, of course.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/24/2004 at 7:36 PM Chris Savage wrote:
>Timpe, Jim wrote:
>
>>Good seems quite strong for the lens you've pictured. Good is as good
>does,
>>however. The pitfall of all the subjective terminology used in 'that
>>place'.
>>
>>
>Now if only he'd said 'minty' I'd have him banged to rights.
>
>>You've dialogued with the seller? If so, to what end?
>>
>>
>I received the lens on Saturday, emailed him within the hour to say I
>wasn't happy and would appreciate some 'gesture of goodwill' from him.
>No reply. emailed again yesterday requesting reply. None by COB today so
>lodged the complaint.
>
>I should warn any UKbayers that he's recently been a regular OM seller
>with 100% +ve feedback on 65 deals. I'll refrain from naming him in
>public but the number 3853273857 might be significant.
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|