Pinkham & Smith S A Doublet Special Lens

[oldcamera1]

Hello, does anyone know what the "special" means? I can't seem to find anything on the net about this particular lens. Thank you

[Mark Sawyer]

The lens has been discussed in the last dozen or so posts in this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=65614

Are you by chance the buyer or seller?

[Geoffrey_5995]

I have been following all the chatter about the Pinkham that just sold on eBay for $350 with a buy it now. I was the unfortunate buyer because the seller will not send the lens to me and has been trying to cancel the transaction so he can sell it to someone else for more. After the lens was sold he was tipped off by someone that the lens was worth much more than the $350 he placed on the lens. Since the lens was sold, he has solicited information on this forum. He has now been offered more money than I paid for it from parties, that I can only assume are forum members. I find this business practice to be reprehensible and I would never engage in such practices. I urge any forum members who may have made these offers to rescind them and not to deal with this person who is breaking the law by not selling the lens to me. If the lens is sold to someone else, I will do what I can to secure the lens from them as I have a legally binding contract from the seller. I am sure that no forum member would like to be treated in this manner and will do what ever they can to insure that the right party ends up with the lens. The seller is also trying to extort more money from me to the tune of $3000 so that he will send me the lens, a lens that is not even complete, is missing the rear element and is chipped and that I have already bought for $350. I also tried to be nice by offering to pay him much more for the lens than his initial price but he refused my offer and will not send the lens. I am certain that the other forum members, if it were forum members, who offered him more money are not aware that lens is incomplete. It is unfortunate that there are sellers who engage in these unlawful practices but this is the situation I find myself in. I will not relinquish my ownership of this lens and I am in the process of finding out what my legal options are. I would have preferred not to have made this post on the forum but since the seller has posted the lens on this forum in a different post, I feel that I had no choice. Any help from forum members will be greatly appreciated and I'm sure that no one would want to be treated in this manner. Geoffrey Berliner

[cdholden]

Personally, I find it "reprehensible" that you can post on a forum, making a blanket threat to all members, that you will do what you can to get your hands on this lens. While I can empathize with your situation in that single transaction, some of YOUR business practices have been in question in the recent past.
If you know who it is trying to outbid you, then direct it to that individual. Making blanket threats to a wide audience is a weak attempt at intimidation, for which there is no need or desire for.
Chris

[oldcamera1]

Geoff, Lets clear this up.. I don't want to sell it to you and it is not for sale. You scammed me into placing a buy it now price on it by having me believe it was only worth $350. I refuse to take your money for it, YOU offered me more, I said NO. You know what you did was wrong. I would rather donate it to charity than get tricked by you. You knew darn well that you were raping me on the price. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Steven Tribe]

Without drawing any conclusions, I can list the seller's changes made during the short listing.

The seller has revised the following item information:

Date Time Revised Information

22-Apr-11 23:05:50 BST Category



23-Apr-11 00:23:49 BST Description



23-Apr-11 00:23:52 BST Description



23-Apr-11 13:33:57 BST Minimum Bid Price
Description
Buy It Now Price

The BST is UK summer time.
In my experience (as a seller), a later addition of a buy it now price - followed by a very quick buy shows that contact has been made and a price been agreed.

[MIke Sherck]

Ebay has a dispute resolution mechanism. Why don't you guys use that and leave the rest of us out of it?

Mike

[cdholden]

Geoff, Lets clear this up.. I don't want to sell it to you and it is not for sale. You scammed me into placing a buy it now price on it by having me believe it was only worth $350. I refuse to take your money for it, YOU offered me more, I said NO. You know what you did was wrong. I would rather donate it to charity than get tricked by you. You knew darn well that you were raping me on the price. You should be ashamed of yourself.

It's only worth what you can sell it for. In this case, it's worth $350. Both of you look a bit shady from my perspective. Please handle this privately.
Thank you.
Chris

[Geoffrey_5995]

Geoff, Lets clear this up.. I don't want to sell it to you and it is not for sale. You scammed me into placing a buy it now price on it by having me believe it was only worth $350. I refuse to take your money for it, YOU offered me more, I said NO. You know what you did was wrong. I would rather donate it to charity than get tricked by you. You knew darn well that you were raping me on the price. You should be ashamed of yourself.


First of all Nick. You have your facts wrong. You placed the $350 buy it now on the lens. No body held a gun to your head. And I bought it. Deal done. In all transparency and honesty, I did offer to buy this lens from you the night before for $200 as a parts lens, which it is, as it is missing an element and has a huge chip. As a Doublet it must have two lenses front and back. This lens has only one in the rear. The next morning I saw your reply "how much are you willing to pay?" I didn't reply but went to the item to take a look to see if I even wanted such a damaged lens at any price, and saw the $350 Buy it Now which I opted to do thinking it's worth that in parts. So you got greedy from the get go asking more for it to anyone who got to it first. You are legally bound to sell it to me. I was nice enough to offer pay your eBay fees to have you send the lens but you are greedy and dishonest. You have been trying for three days to get me to cancel the auction so you are released from any obligation to me, telling me you will re-list it buy it now again at the same price so I can buy it again from you because the description was wrong or you didn't want to pay taxes on a double sale. (I couldn't make this stuff up) Who's scamming who? Then you tell me that you have two offers for $3000 and $3500 and then you tell me you'll sell it to me for $2900. Sounds like extortion to me. Clearly you have no honor and are not an honest person. We all make mistakes and I have tried my best to lessen your error, which I am under no obligation to do, especially since the lens is not complete, missing an element, and has a huge chip. Man up Nick and live up to your obligations. As far as I am concerned, you have broken a contract that you have entered into that is binding by law. I would not want this this to happen to anyone and would back up anyone, forum member or not, who is in this situation.

[Geoffrey_5995]

Personally, I find it "reprehensible" that you can post on a forum, making a blanket threat to all members, that you will do what you can to get your hands on this lens. While I can empathize with your situation in that single transaction, some of YOUR business practices have been in question in the recent past.
If you know who it is trying to outbid you, then direct it to that individual. Making blanket threats to a wide audience is a weak attempt at intimidation, for which there is no need or desire for.
Chris


Look more carefully Chris as I did not accuse any forum members but only that I am assuming that the offers may have come from forum members since the lens was posted here looking for information after the ebay sale, and the seller indicated that he had at least two offers. I also can't be certain that possible forum members who may have made the offers were aware that the lens was already sold on ebay, they do know now. so Chris, I am not accusing any forum members of wrong doing but attempting to alert any forum members that this is an ongoing situation. Again, No I can't be certain that the offers came from the forum and I am not accusing any forum member directly but want forum members to be aware that this is an on going situation in the hope that they will not purchase the lens until this is settled. As you know I would prefer not to make posts on the forum and rarely do, especially when it comes to commerce, but since this lens was posted publicly in a post after a sale on eBay, by a seller who is breaking the rules, I felt it necessary to make this post and subsequent posts. Believe me that I have tried everything with this seller to settle this transaction and continue to do so but at this point, the seller is refusing to honor the contract and will not send the lens.

[cdholden]

Look more carefully Chris as I did not accuse any forum members but only that I am assuming that the offers may have come from forum members since the lens was posted here looking for information after the ebay sale, and the seller indicated that he had at least two offers. I also can't be certain that possible forum members who may have made the offers were aware that the lens was already sold on ebay, they do know now. so Chris, I am not accusing any forum members of wrong doing but attempting to alert any forum members that this is an ongoing situation. Again, No I can't be certain that the offers came from the forum and I am not accusing any forum member directly but want forum members to be aware that this is an on going situation in the hope that they will not purchase the lens until this is settled. As you know I would prefer not to make posts on the forum and rarely do, especially when it comes to commerce, but since this lens was posted publicly in a post after a sale on eBay, by a seller who is breaking the rules, I felt it necessary to make this post and subsequent posts. Believe me that I have tried everything with this seller to settle this transaction and continue to do so but at this point, the seller is refusing to honor the contract and will not send the lens.


I don't need to look more carefully. I read it and replied to it as I saw it. I agree that you did not accuse any forum members. On the other hand, you did address all forum members reading it. I went back to it and it still comes across as threatening legal action. Until you have all the facts, you should keep this nonsense to yourself. I'm sure your attorney will agree.
For what it's worth, I am not a potential buyer.

Chris

[Mark Sawyer]

As a Doublet it must have two lenses front and back. This lens has only one in the rear.

Forgive the intrusion, but isn't the P&S Semi Achromatic a single doublet lens, where the only element is two lenses cemented together? This would appear as a single lens except for a slight seam along the edge where the two elements are cemented together.

[Geoffrey_5995]

Forgive the intrusion, but isn't the P&S Semi Achromatic a single doublet lens, where the only element is two lenses cemented together? This would appear as a single lens except for a slight seam along the edge where the two elements are cemented together.


Hi Mark, If you look at the P&S catalogs on Cameraeccentric.com you will see the Semi-Achromats described as Series I, Series II, Series III. Series I f6, is the Single combination of one lens group in the back, a cemented pair. Series II is a doublet of two groups around the aperture but f6. Series III is a doublet of two groups around the aperture f4.5. There is a great deal of confusion about terminology, especially on this forum, about what the definition is of singlet, doublet, etc. The confusion is warranted as the terminology has changed over the years and lens companies use these terms as they will. My understanding is a singlet is one group: either one single lens like a Struss or Kalosat both Synthetic Quartz, a cemented pair, Achromat, or more, say three or four (Dagor, Protar VII). A group can also have air spaced pairs not glued, like a the rear group of a Petzval, or some glued or teh combination of glued and air spaced . I've heard of a cemented group described as triplet or doublet or etc but this is inaccurate. To me a doublet is a Protar, Dagor, Double Gauss, etc. with two groups. A Tessar is a Triplet with three groups as is the Cooke Triplet so called because of three groups not number of glasses. A singlet is a Kalosat, Struss Pictorial, Spencer Port-Land, Gundlach Portrait Meniscus, Pinkham & Smith Synthetic and Pinkham Semi-Achromat Series I and only Series I. Series II & Series III are indeed Doublets. Hope this. Best, Geoff

[Jay DeFehr]

If I was considering buying a lens (I'm not) from a forum member, or anyone else, I would appreciate being told the lens was the object of a legal dispute, and that someone who is not the seller has a claim of ownership to it. I don't consider that a threat, but a courtesy. We've all made mistakes in our dealings, making agreements that we later regret. But, as in chess, once we take our hand from the piece, the move stands. A deal is a deal, and it should be honored. Before the Buy It Now button was pushed, the seller was not obligated to sell for any price. Now the buyer is the rightful owner, and is not obligated to renegotiate the selling price. If the seller was operating from a position of ignorance, the buyer can't be held responsible. A seller can enjoy the benefits of an information asymmetry by misrepresenting an item, but a buyer can only enjoy such a benefit if the seller doesn't know what he's selling. Sellers who depend on potential buyers to alert them to their errors operate at their peril, but should honor the deals they make, if for no other reason than to preserve their reputations. If the seller honored his agreement, even though it was not to his short term advantage, would go a long way towards establishing a reputation as an honest seller, which might be worth more than the value of any one transaction. This seller is either overestimating the value of this transaction, or underestimating the damage he's doing to his reputation, or both. I, for one, would never knowingly buy anything from this seller. I wonder how many times he's renegotiated in the buyer's favor after a sale? When I make a mistake, I don't expect anyone else to pay for it.

I think the seller is looking at this in the wrong way. Clearly he didn't have a lot invested in the lens, or he wouldn't have agreed to sell it for the price he did. I'd be willing to bet that even at the Buy It Now price, the seller made a profit on the lens. Instead of making a big stink about it, and refusing to honor his agreement, he should think of it as an education, and not begrudge a fellow photographer a good deal on a lens he didn't himself want. Not that my opinion matters much, but no one is obligated to read it, either, so there you have it.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I hope you guys work this out and leave the rest of us forum members out of it. I'm not an expert on lenses but love to use nice glass when I can get it. To much greed as I see it. I hope you two resolve this off of the forum. After all it is only a lens.

[Jon Wilson]

Karma is in play with this transaction. Geoffrey apparently pulled the trigger first. The seller, assuming he/she fails to honor the contract, is lower than low. Karma is in play. Integrity is just a word to some people...some people, who probably can't even spell it. It is more than a word....it is a way to live one's life. If your word is not your bond (regardless of the transaction...seller's remorse, second thoughts on committing to purchase the item), then you have no honor. Life is too short and the true priorities of life are too important to lose perspective.

[Sven Schroder]

Hi all
I asked about condition and if he would put a buy it now price, got a positive answer
and was working out my offer, when I saw it end I thought Geoff had got it, all this
with in minutes of receiving my message. So I left it but thats my mild mannered nature
others seem less honest. This was all about 23-Apr-11 13:33:57 BST I had sent my message earlier in the day.
Regards
Sven