Was I really off base with my interpretation of this E-Bay Item?

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I purchased an 8x10 Kodak 2D on E-Bay. Here is the listing.

KODAK 8X10 VIEW FIELD CAMERA ~~ANTIQUE


You are bidding on a real beauty, This camera was made between 1921 - 1950. The below specs will help you understand what is in it.

I have never used this camera, but it looks to be in pretty good condition. The camera is BEAUTIFUL and makes for a beautiful decoration.

Construction: back and front focus via rack and pinion (two gear tracks on top of base rails); double swing; reversing by removable back; three-piece lensboard
Materials: mahogany body; cherry base; black leatherette bellows; brass hardware
Sizes Offered: 8x10
Notes: full-sized front track hinges up; full-sized back track detaches via a key-like fastener; long production run and only replaced eventually by the metal-bodied Kodak Master View. The d stands for dark finish, which ends up rather purple over time.


I interpreted "full-sized back track detaches via a key-like fastener" to mean the extension rail. It wasn't included. I contacted the seller and she said she doesn't have such an item.

Was I really off base to interpret this listing as meaning that the extension rail was included? Best regards.

Mike

[Kerik Kouklis]

"full-sized back track detaches via a key-like fastener"

This seems pretty specific to me. Seems like she owes you a rail or a refund.

[Ole Tjugen]

I would agree with your interpretation, but I would also be very sceptical of any camera listing containing the phrase "... camera is BEAUTIFUL and makes for a beautiful decoration."

[Jim Galli]

I would also agree that the other bidders and yourself were bidding for an item worth quite a bit more than one that is missing the extension bed. Although the price you paid is about what one with no extension usually goes for. What was the included lens? It might add somewhat to the actual value received. I'd point out the mis-representation and ask for at least a partial refund if you think you might be happy with the limitations you received. Have a look at my web pages for a LOT of work done with one of these cameras.

[Nick_3536]

Was it in the pictures?

Assuming anything on Ebay is dangerous. When the seller starts talking about decoration for a camera it's even more dangerous.

The description sounds like it was copied off some thing. WWW site. Some ones auction.

Plugging "Notes: full-sized front track hinges up; full-sized back track detaches via a key-like fastener; long production run and only replaced eventually by the metal-bodied Kodak Master View. The d stands for dark finish, which ends up rather purple over time" into google leads me to

http://www.fiberq.com/cam/ekc/2d.htm

You can see the whole text that was ripped off.

[Brian Ellis]

I would have asked the seller for a clarification before bidding, especially if there was no picture of the extension rail as there presumably was not. The phrase "full size back track detaches via a key-like feature" is to me a vague statement. It could be taken to mean this camera has such a back track (as you understandably took it) but it could also be taken as just a generic description of how the camera works. I agree that it's misleading without making it clear that this camera doesn't have the extension. But given the importance of the extension (if you plan to use longer lenses) and the relatively few 2Ds that still have them, I would have made sure before bidding. You might check with Richard Ritter and see what he would charge to build one for you. I had one of the nicest 2Ds in existence, with the extension and with the sliding tripod block, that Richard modified by adding front tilt. I'm still kicking myself for selling the camera.

[tim atherton]

yes,

she lifted the whole text, as mentioned:

http://www.fiberq.com/cam/ekc/2d.htm

so she mis-described the camera and owes you a refund...

[Michael Heald]

Hello! Thank you for providing the link. I'll mention it to the seller when she answers my E-Mail so she will know I think she deliverately mis-represented the item.
I didn't have time enough but to give the camera a quick once over. The wood and hardware are in nice shape. There is not harware block. The bellows is shot and needs to be replaced. The lens is one of the double piston type and I need to check it out. However, the front element has a large crack in it. Unfortunately, the shutter split in two, and I doubt it was shipped that way, so I may be able to file an insurance claim for that part if she also gives a partial refund.
If the extension rail had been included as I thought, I figured my bid was a low ball bid and didn't expect to win. With a camera that needs a new bellows and without the tripod block, my bid was too high. Best regards.

Mike

[wfwhitaker]

With Ebay descriptions, unless you are familiar with the seller, you have to look for clues. Ole makes a good point. "The camera is BEAUTIFUL and makes for a beautiful decoration" is not something that someone familiar with cameras is likely to say. Although the seller suggests that some of the text is quoted, she does not say so specifically, nor does she acknowledge the source. So not only is she being misleading, she's also guilty of copyright infringement. I suffered a similar experience as you several years ago. I should have noticed that part of the description was lifted from another source if for no other reason than the grammar and sentence construction was much better in the lifted material. It's a learning experience, for sure. In your case, while you may not be able to easily obtain a refund, at least 2D cameras are not that uncommon and an extension rail may turn up if you're patient.

Curiously I've recently exchanged email with a seller about the inclusion of an extension rail with an antique view camera currently at auction as I write this. That seller's description was misleading and in the end I found out that the extension rail is not included, even though the description would lead most normal-speaking individuals to assume that it is. What makes it interesting is that this is a seller experienced with old cameras and, as far as I know, one with a good reputation. Unfortunately the problem isn't necessarily limited to sellers unfamiliar with what they're selling.

[Vaughn]

The description sounds like a general description rather than an actual description of the item for sale (big clue to me was the "Sizes Offered: 8x10).

I would say both seller and buyer are at fault here. The seller for ripping off a general description about the camera and not paying attention to the differences between it and what she was selling...and the buyer for not asking enough good questions before bidding.

And in her defence, she did mention that what she wrote was from the specs -- which to me signals that it was not an actual description of the camera.

Hopefully both of you will be happy, or at least mutually satisfied with the resolution of the sale.

Vaughn