OP also talks about perception and reality.
I come to realize, his perception and reality is much different from my perception and reality. Do any two people live in exactly the same perception and reality??
When purchasing something, I depend on my perception and reality. I'll make the value judgement. I want as much detail as possible fully disclosed.
Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?
I think every piece of information should be disclosed, regardless of the effect it may have on functionality. In the case of your lens, how do you know the buyer isn't interested in the aluminum fittings, for some reason? Being told that the lens functions perfectly is overlooking a potentially important aspect to the buyer. I would consider not mentioning it a lie of omission.
It's about being empathetic and compassionate. Even if you are not like everybody else, it's a good exercise to imagine how other people like to receive information.
Originally Posted by eddie
If I received an item that is fully functional, but I wasn't told that it's in questionable cosmetic condition when it in fact is, I'd be upset, and I would be asking for a refund. I'd be doing so in a negative tone of voice, because I have to go from a high level of anticipation and excitement, to disappointment and the hassle of sending it back and start looking again.
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
If you know something about the equipment, it's best to disclose it. I try to be up front about disclosing all information and always accept returns. If you repaired something, you should be proud to disclose the job you did. If you're not proud of your repair, I'd like to know about your hack job--it may or may not matter to me. A hidden hack job infuriates me--I've found some and consider the sellers unreliable at best and possibly fraudulent.
I would disclose it, and make a generous provision for return. I want everybody to be happy.
Kent in SD
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Interesting retorts: maybe I will learn something here. But...I have to say this: I would RATHER have the undisclosed, ratty interior that functions perfectly than have an ostensibly perfect lens, shown in a warm environment, that suddenly has a sticky aperture when placed in a cold environment. The seller in the second case has done NOTHING to impair the lens but KNOWS that there is enough, just enough, oil on the aperture blades (not visible) that will cause malfunction when in the cold. He/she also knows that in a cold environment the focus will be mighty stiff but, conveniently, does not 'disclose' that (who does? NO ONE!) Yes, there is MUCH that is routinely not 'disclosed'. That does not necessarily add up to deception. Does the restaurant owner 'disclose' that his staff does not wash up after handling filthy paper currency? NOPE! Why? Because we are accustomed to thinking about fithy lucre as a 'desirable', thus not 'dirty' (even though it is). Facts do not bear this assumption out.
There are many ways of parsing this issue. We all deceive, some more, some less. Some zooms are a bit wobbly: that is indicative of a problem looming but rarely 'disclosed'. I would rather have my 'ratty interior' lens than such wobbly zoom. I still say that the bottom line is 'will the person get full fuctionality with the lens?'
And, yes, I was offering an extreme case here: I probably would, out of naked conscience, disclose all, even that which I deemed unimportant. Amazingly to some, I am not a monster. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 06-11-2013 at 04:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Does it really matter what YOU would "rather"? You're the seller, not the buyer.
Originally Posted by David Lyga
Eight hundred leaf-tables and no chairs? You can't sell leaf-tables and no chairs. Chairs, you got a dinette set. No chairs, you got dick!
- Nathan Arizona Sr.
Originally Posted by blansky
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Old gear inherently comes with risks based on age and normal wear. Repairs are often made to improve the condition of items before sale, moreso in autos than in cameras or electronics perhaps. The acceptability of that is based primarily on appearance and functionality as much as it does on 'disclosure". A honest return/refund policy can mitigate that (except when the buyer is a lying, scum-sucking, cheat who knowingly breaks a camera and then claims it "broke in the mail"... like one experience I had here.) But when a repair was attempted in an amateurish way and is known to have not been of "resonable quality", and known damage exists (whether it affects functionality or not, and whether it is visible or not) and are knowingly not mentioned, then there are issues that can easily be interpreted as concealment and dishonesty.
Originally Posted by David Lyga
OK Brian, I at least partially agree with you. After all, it IS 'damage'. But you seem to make absolutely no distinction as to whether fuctionality is affected or not. I think (and MOST think) that THAT factor is the MOST important. The other factor is certainly not deemed to be trivial, I agree, but functionality is the main point here.
But 'factors NOT affecting functionality' are not on a par with the ones that DO affect functionality (although you DO make sense and I do not completely disagree with you) and those other factors must be admitted to be subordinate in importance but, admittedly, are not without any importance, per se. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 06-11-2013 at 05:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.