210mm Wollensak Pro Raptar

[Ivan J. Eberle]

There's one relisted today on eBay, as being in "good" condition-- which is absolute bullshit. This is the very same lens I got suckered into buying by a disingenuous seller (s.carolina.auctions) last month. He claimed the lens to been very good to excellent condition in the original listing. When asked pre-sale specifically if the lens had haze, scratches or fungus he said that it did not-- twice, in fact.

The lens has severe haze-- severely etched from fungus. Furthermore, the shutter is rusted and hangs. Worst of all, this Brian Charbineau who is s.carolina.auctions wanted to argue the point about what "7 Day Money Back" meant, and would not refund shipping both ways.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Someone in his auction has now asked him if this is the same lens. Note that I've included the serial number.

(God, I love this forum-- and that this post comes up as the 2nd Google Search result!)

[Ivan J. Eberle]

This thread has rocketed all the way to the #1 top Google Search return on the term "210mm Wollensak Pro Raptar"... with a bullet (has generated 3X more views than the auction itself)!

[swmcl]

Why not report the item as a fraud on EBay?

You're the one with the knowledge / experience.

Rgds,

[mikebarger]

If nothing else the seller should get some credit for posting the question linked to this thread.

He could have easily not and left everyone in the dark.

I'm not saying it excuses his actions on the first auction.

Mike

[Ivan J. Eberle]

eBay is 100% satisfied once the sale price is refunded, that's why. Doesn't matter that
the buyer has to eat return shipping under their policies (even overseas), doesn't matter that it often takes more than a month and an extra volley of emails to resolve-- to get the same exact result I got.

It's such an obscure but esteemed lens I was willing to take a flyer on it, but only due to the seller's 99.9% feedback rating (how he maintains this is a real puzzler) and the money-back return policy. If it'd been accurately described in the first auction, the lens might have been worth north of $500, more than twice what I paid for it.

Seller gained my ire by digging in his heels (nevermind going the extra mile to apologize) about the misrepresentation. The images he linked showed a lens seemingly in much better condition than that one I got, were scrubbed immediately after my initial complaint (though I'd saved 'em).

Too, it's not evident that he knows about the discussion thread here, as just the attached photo was linked.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

I was mistaken, seller seems aware of this thread. Now he's Google Bombed his auction with some aggregator thingy that bumps this thread down in search results. Anybody know how that works?