goyablog

Posted via email from goyaboy’s digital dump

Seller: “There were no cracks in that camera when I packaged it and sent it out. I’ve had that camera for over 10 years and it was in great condition.”

Me: “There is about a 2″ long crack that’s about an eighth-inch wide along the bottom seam where the two parts of the camera’s body close together. It would be more accurate to say that it’s a piece of the plastic that has chipped off from the seam of the bottom of the front half of the camera. There is also a small chip at the front left corner of the back half of the camera body at the seam, and under that, where the two halves meet, the inner lip of the upper part of the front half of the camera body is chipped off about an inch. All of these chips/cracks are along the outer and inner seam where the two halves come together, which means there is a very good chance for light leaks. I’m shooting a roll now as is to test for light leaks. I have photos of the first two chips/cracks if you want me to email them to you (I can’t photograph the third one until I finish shooting this roll). It’s a real pity that there’re these chips because the rest of the camera is in GREAT condition for its age”

Seller: “I never had a problem with the camera and it always worked well when we used it. And like I said before there was no crack in the camera when shipped it. I would not have advertised it without noting the problems and for you to say I falsely advertised it pretty unfair.”

Me: “Well, all I can surmise is that you never noticed the flaws, even though they are obvious if you inspect the vital spots, like the camera body seams. I’ll believe that you advertized in good faith and simply never saw the chips. If there are not any light leaks, I’ll amend my feedback–I wasn’t out to be unfair; simply to report honestly the condition of the item versus how it was advertized. It’s your responsibility to inspect carefully and report accurately. There’s no way this could be damage in transit; there were no chips in the box with the camera. In any case, let’s hope it performs well. I really do want to use it as is because the shutter, lens, and viewfinder are in excellent condition.”

Now at this point I figure things have settled down: I haven’t demanded a refund; I say that I’ll believe that it was a good-faith description and just an honest oversight; and that I’ll change my feedback if the camera turns out okay. I actually expect a “Yeah, I must have just never noticed it. Sorry about that and I hope the camera still works for you. I would really appreciate if you would change your feedback.” Did I get anything like that in response? You decide:

Seller: “Odd that you didnt mention one thing about any cracks in the camera when you posted them all over Facebook.”

Huh!? Those photos are of my DAD’S BHF (the one I took apart and cleaned the other day) and were posted well before the eBay camera arrived.

My Response to Seller: “That’s a completely different camera — my deceased father’s old brownie hawkeye. If you note the post dates of those photos you will see that the one I bought from you hadn’t arrived yet. I went on ebay for another specifically to buy one to modify by flipping the lens. I was going to flip the lens on my father’s, but my wife wouldn’t let me — she thought it would be sacriligious or something. But, since you found my facebook page I WILL post photos of both together and then close ups of the chips in the one you sold me since you remain unconvinced that you failed to carefully examine and accurately advertize your camera. I might repost this whole conversation on my other blog as well if you persist in not taking responsibilty. A simple “I’m sorry, I goofed” would have been more appropriate. It’s not like I’m asking for my money back, after all. Check my facebook page later, if you care to do so.”

And thus this post, with photos. The second to last photo shows the eBay BHF on the left (with a red circle around the small upper chip) and my dad’s on the right (with the electrical tape along the seams because I loaded it with 35mm film as an experiment and if you don’t tape it with 35mm in, you get light leaks). The final photo is another close up of the long chip on the bottom — very visible, and potentially another light leak problem.

So, am I being a jerk here by pointing out a problem with a camera advertised as having “no visible problems”? I think not. But the Seller, who just now sent me this, clearly is:

Seller: “I’m disputing the fact sir the camera has a 2 inch long crack 1/8 inch wide when it left my hands. And no I will not apologize and have filed a complaint with e-bay. And if you wish post away. But the fact remains the camera was in working order when it left my hands.”

What bullshit. I might just be the one filing a complaint now….

Posted via email from goyaboy’s digital dump

Spectacular use of both tilt-shift and time-lapse photography on a spectacular city:

Posted via email from goyaboy’s digital dump

Posted via email from goyaboy’s digital dump

Posted via email from goyaboy’s digital dump

The molded plastic lens in this Hawkeye was in pretty good shape. No moldy crud, not too dusty or fogged up.

Posted via email from goyaboy’s digital dump

After cleaning the viewfinder and faceplate parts, it’s time to lube the shutter mechanism.

Posted via email from goyaboy’s digital dump

With the four external screws out, the whole faceplate, viewfinder, outer lens assembly easily follow:

Posted via email from goyaboy’s digital dump