Image of the day

Captured by
John Roach

Jupiter IO Transit 12-10-26

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Inspect thoroughly before rating!

Started by lintonius, 07/28/2006 05:49AM
Posted 07/28/2006 05:49AM | Edited 07/28/2006 05:56AM Opening Post
A cautionary tale for my Astromart friends...
In an effort to be punctual with my feedback for others, I often take a quick glance at an eyepiece and post feedback. I recently acquired a 20mm T2 Nagler, at a good price, with "pristine" optics, and "a little wear on the barrel, but nothing major". Fair enough, I thought.
When the eyepiece arrived I made a quick, but careful (I thought) inspection. The glass looked to be in good shape, but in addition to the aforementioned wear, I spotted one spot where it looked like the upper edge of the barrel had hit concrete pavement. I know what that looks like, unfortunately, having dropped a 41 Panoptic once. (I later sold that EP, at a discount, with full discloser, and extensive detailed photos.) I immediately double-checked the optics, fearing subtle, hard-to-see cracks or who knows what.
My mistake was jumping right into the feedback department, where I deducted one star for understated damage. The seller had shipped promptly, packaged well, and otherwise performed as expected.
Not until taking the EP out on the week end though, did I discover the full extent of the damage. I was unable to thread a 2" Lumicon filter onto the Nagler, and upon closer inspection later, I saw that the threads had been badly mangled. On the outside edge, the unmistakable imprint in pliers marred the chrome finish. The barrel was still tweaked inward slightly. And sure enough, the mashed threads inside aligned perfectly with the plier tracks. Argh! Looking back up to the top, black section of the barrel, the damaged spot there was aligned. Of course. So, clearly, the bottom edge took the first full impact on the pavement, and as it bounced upward, the upper barrel made contact. shocked
When I diplomatically brought this up to the seller, he said that his filters fit fine. I must have an off brand. Right. I gave him another chance to clarify the situation, to no avail. Now, if he bought the Nagler in this condition, and never tried to use a filter, I could understand. But if he dropped it, attempted repair, and then failed to disclose, I have a real problem with that. :C
But...I digress. I was at fault for rushing to feedback. And THAT is the moral of my story. We are a pretty trusting group, for good reason. But there's plenty of time to do feedback, later. Make sure you really go over your purchase, first.
...and to all, a good night. grin
Linton
Posted 07/28/2006 06:07AM #1
Very similar to my story, only the seller "suddenly" revealed the ding before the deal was confirmed. I backed out.
The seller has the (same?) eyepiece two days later on sale (cheaper than before) in "excellent condition - no marks or scratches anywhere". I reiterated my interest "if it is in the condition described" but was told that he has a buyer. It took 2 more days for "Sale pending" to appear on his ad...Make your conclusions..
In the recent AM tradition, I am not entitled to rate.
Posted 07/28/2006 06:30AM #2
Good point Linton. We all should post ratings after a full test of equipment and the transaction is finished with approval on both sides.

[SIZE="Large"][/SIZE][COLOR="Blue"][/COLOR] Floyd Blue grin
Amateur Imager
Posted 07/28/2006 01:03PM #3
Linton:

This is certainly a disappointing story. I have dropped an eyepiece or two over the years and have experienced similar damage, the aluminum barrel has deformed. I am sure the vast majority of Astromarters would consider this major damage and be reluctant to sell and certainly sell at a reduced price and with full disclosure.

To claim good condition with knowledge of the damage, to me that is unthinkable.

Fortunately, my experiences with other AMer's is that they are more than fair in representing the condition, most often they arrive in what I consider perfect condition even though no such claim was made....

There are some changes the AM ratings system that I would like to see, though they may have reprecussions that are unintended. I would like to see the ability to make a rating based on a partially completed transaction like the one you describe and I would like the ability to change the rating...

On the other hand, I must say that the Astromart ratings system works far better than the one on that auction site where commercial vendors can sell optical junk and still have near perfect ratings.

So, I think Herb has got the AM rating system darn near perfect and maybe the changes I suggest would be unwise. Allowing ratings to be changed would mean that one could try to use the rating system as leverage and I think that is a bad thing.

So, I think the bottom line is that we need to wait a bit and give the equipment a good test run before giving a rating. We also be vigilant and in the event that we buy something that has been misrepresented we need to give an appropriate rating.


jon
Posted 07/30/2006 01:06AM #4
Linton,

Sorry you experienced this problem.

At the very least, you can always go out and delete the rating you gave this person. :S

Steve