grey market?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by CNT, Oct 14, 2003.

  1. CNT

    CNT Guest

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?viewitem&item=2957192106&ssPageName=ADME:X:ON:US:2

    I placed my first bid. Then I thought about it and felt I did the wrong
    thing (especially the seller has zero ratings). Someone outbid me (whew!)
    with still under $300 (and only $10 shipping). Can someone look at the link
    and tell me if they notice anything wrong? It does say it has "warranty: 1
    year", but it would have to mean the seller would provide a valid receipt
    with store name on it and so on, right?

    On top of that, the seller was using the pictures from a website. I then
    called the online number (web address is in the picture), they said that
    this seller has nothing related to this online store and he will bring it up
    to the proper authorities. Question... if the store decide to take action,
    would that mean the seller will be fined for each picture used (and he had
    like 6 of those all lined up in the ebay within seconds each other).

    Chuck
     
    CNT, Oct 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. CNT

    George Kerby Guest

    On 10/14/03 2:18 PM, in article 3f8c4c6c$, "CNT"
    <> wrote:

    > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?viewitem&item=2957192106&ssPageName=ADME:
    > X:ON:US:2
    >
    > I placed my first bid. Then I thought about it and felt I did the wrong
    > thing (especially the seller has zero ratings). Someone outbid me (whew!)
    > with still under $300 (and only $10 shipping). Can someone look at the link
    > and tell me if they notice anything wrong? It does say it has "warranty: 1
    > year", but it would have to mean the seller would provide a valid receipt
    > with store name on it and so on, right?
    >
    > On top of that, the seller was using the pictures from a website. I then
    > called the online number (web address is in the picture), they said that
    > this seller has nothing related to this online store and he will bring it up
    > to the proper authorities. Question... if the store decide to take action,
    > would that mean the seller will be fined for each picture used (and he had
    > like 6 of those all lined up in the ebay within seconds each other).
    >
    > Chuck
    >
    >

    Most likely those shots were supplied by Canon and the store used them swith
    permission on their site. The seller just ripped them from the website, not
    bothering to remove the tag at bottom right. The copy is probably stolen
    from somewhere else, as well,
    Personally, I would NEVER buy anything from a seller without any rating.
    Common sense should suggest that.


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Oct 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. CNT

    CNT Guest

    Quote "Common sense should suggest that." ????

    If Canon supplied those pictures, it wouldn't have some other retailer name
    on it. Yeah? And like I said, I called the number of that website address,
    they said they didn't give them permission nor this seller wasn't afflicted
    with them. I was aware of the zero rating, but they have to start somewhere.
    On top of that, it closed with only $290, that is a steal (only if it was
    legit)! I didn't mean to talk back at you, but since you mention "common
    sense", so I just "corrected" back to you. Peace.

    Chuck

    > Most likely those shots were supplied by Canon and the store used them

    swith
    > permission on their site. The seller just ripped them from the website,

    not
    > bothering to remove the tag at bottom right. The copy is probably stolen
    > from somewhere else, as well,
    > Personally, I would NEVER buy anything from a seller without any rating.
    > Common sense should suggest that.
     
    CNT, Oct 14, 2003
    #3
  4. CNT

    PiZzazA Guest

    Check out this web site
    http://www.crutchfield.com/S-q4CJEOaQlmf/cgi-bin/prodview.asp?i=280PSS45
    and you will find the content is the same, word by word.

    Although copying from other web sites is not unusual for legitimate sales,
    but frauds almost always copy. This is just one piece of the puzzle to
    determine a suspicious sale. There is no fool proof way to catch every
    fraud, but you can always ask for a phone for direct dialogue before sending
    the money. Most ebay fraudsters do not like to have verbal communications.

    "CNT" <> wrote in message news:3f8c4c6c$...
    >

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?viewitem&item=2957192106&ssPageName=ADME:X:ON:US:2
    >
    > I placed my first bid. Then I thought about it and felt I did the wrong
    > thing (especially the seller has zero ratings). Someone outbid me (whew!)
    > with still under $300 (and only $10 shipping). Can someone look at the

    link
    > and tell me if they notice anything wrong? It does say it has "warranty: 1
    > year", but it would have to mean the seller would provide a valid receipt
    > with store name on it and so on, right?
    >
    > On top of that, the seller was using the pictures from a website. I then
    > called the online number (web address is in the picture), they said that
    > this seller has nothing related to this online store and he will bring it

    up
    > to the proper authorities. Question... if the store decide to take action,
    > would that mean the seller will be fined for each picture used (and he had
    > like 6 of those all lined up in the ebay within seconds each other).
    >
    > Chuck
    >
    >
     
    PiZzazA, Oct 14, 2003
    #4
  5. CNT

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "CNT" <> wrote in message news:3f8c5948$...
    > Quote "Common sense should suggest that." ????
    >
    > If Canon supplied those pictures, it wouldn't have some other retailer

    name
    > on it. Yeah? And like I said, I called the number of that website address,
    > they said they didn't give them permission nor this seller wasn't

    afflicted
    > with them. I was aware of the zero rating, but they have to start

    somewhere.
    > On top of that, it closed with only $290, that is a steal (only if it was
    > legit)! I didn't mean to talk back at you, but since you mention "common
    > sense", so I just "corrected" back to you. Peace.
    >
    > Chuck
    >
    > > Most likely those shots were supplied by Canon and the store used them

    > swith
    > > permission on their site. The seller just ripped them from the website,

    > not
    > > bothering to remove the tag at bottom right. The copy is probably stolen
    > > from somewhere else, as well,
    > > Personally, I would NEVER buy anything from a seller without any rating.
    > > Common sense should suggest that.


    The auction was by a new user, with no other auctions, who would only accept
    COD payment, and the price was well below market. That's four red flags,
    right there.

    The concern wouldn't have been that you'd have gotten a grey-market camera,
    but that you would have received a box containing a brick.


    >
    >
     
    PTRAVEL, Oct 14, 2003
    #5
  6. CNT

    Jim Waggener Guest

    Never buy from someone with Zero feedback.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Jim Waggener, Oct 14, 2003
    #6
  7. CNT

    George Kerby Guest

    On 10/14/03 3:13 PM, in article 3f8c5948$, "CNT"
    <> wrote:

    > Quote "Common sense should suggest that." ????
    >
    > If Canon supplied those pictures, it wouldn't have some other retailer name
    > on it.

    You really don't have any concept of advertising, do you? Since this is a
    photo group, I won't bore other readers about the details you're missing.
    > Yeah? And like I said, I called the number of that website address,
    > they said they didn't give them permission nor this seller wasn't afflicted
    > with them.

    The permission you mention was for the altered stock photo that Canon
    supplied with the dealer's name superimposed over the image. NOT the co-op
    image supplied by the manufacturer, Canon.
    > I was aware of the zero rating, but they have to start somewhere.

    True. But *I* would let someone else be the guinea pig and would look
    elsewhere.
    > On top of that, it closed with only $290, that is a steal (only if it was
    > legit)!

    Agreed. But why take the risk. The old saying about appearing to good to be
    true applies here.
    > I didn't mean to talk back at you, but since you mention "common
    > sense", so I just "corrected" back to you. Peace.

    I wasn't specifically referring to you. I meant in general. See above.
    <BFG>
    > Chuck


    PS: As another poster recognized, red flags should have gone up when a guy
    comes along selling a very expensive 'NEW' camera and has no generally
    acceptable minimum starting bid, AND demands COD payment only. Let me
    suggest that you bookmark this auction and see what kind of feedback, if any
    this seller gets in the next few weeeks. I'd wager it ain't gonna be good!
    Peace Out!
    -Kerby
    >> Most likely those shots were supplied by Canon and the store used them

    > swith
    >> permission on their site. The seller just ripped them from the website,

    > not
    >> bothering to remove the tag at bottom right. The copy is probably stolen
    >> from somewhere else, as well,
    >> Personally, I would NEVER buy anything from a seller without any rating.
    >> Common sense should suggest that.

    >
    >



    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Oct 14, 2003
    #7
  8. CNT

    CNT Guest

    Re: HOW to idenfity warranty is included?

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2956845915&category=30014

    This above I see A LOT on ebay, over 16,600 feedbacks LOL But one thing is
    the 64MB CF is $99 their selling price?

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2956485344&category=30014

    That one I have been watching closely. I did bid on a lot of his ebays, but
    people always go over $400 easily with his auctions (I guess because of the
    brand name stuff including).

    My point is we all had zero ratings at one time LOL. So we start with buying
    stuff, to gain counts, then start a business that way?

    Finally, I called Canon and they told me that ALL ebay sales are not covered
    by Canon warranty. Well, at ebay, they say they are covered but Canon says
    no? I have seen Ritz or other companies at ebay, those would have warranty
    for sure, right? While we are at it, HOW to make sure the ebay people are
    selling warranty covered cameras?

    Thank you.

    Chuck

    > Never buy from someone with Zero feedback.
     
    CNT, Oct 14, 2003
    #8
  9. CNT

    gr Guest

    So, you're finally trying to buy that S45 which you decided on getting over
    the S50 for entirely the wrong reasons. Okay... first mistake. Then, you bid
    on a S45 from a bidder with no feedback and demands COD only???

    Dude... you're a victim waiting to happen. Go to a real store and buy your
    damn camera! At least that way, when you're unsatisfied, you can take it
    back or exchange it. (And you WILL be unsatisfied.)
     
    gr, Oct 15, 2003
    #9
  10. CNT

    CNT Guest

    Nice of you. You are forgiven.

    How can you judge that it's my mistake to buy the S45 in favor over the S50?
    How about you review what I found in "Re: add-on lens for S45" dated Oct 12
    @ 11:29pm. If you like, we can talk more about THIS issue over there.

    Now BACK to the issue in here, all I was trying to do is get the best price
    since over $400 is a little a lot (not that I won't pay for it). Let me say
    it in other words... buying the S45 for $450 PLUS will need the Viking
    256MB, which is another $70ish (final price is $55 w/rebate at amazon.com).
    That's $520. Ok, if buying an S45 with 256MB off ebay for $400... do I need
    to continue? If it all stays at ~$450~ for both, then I will better off buy
    it from a store or Amazon or bhphotovideo (rather than whatchamacallit.com
    on top of that, like the Beach thing dot com).

    Chuck
     
    CNT, Oct 15, 2003
    #10
  11. CNT

    gr Guest

    "CNT" <> wrote
    > Nice of you. You are forgiven.
    >
    > How can you judge that it's my mistake to buy the S45 in favor over the

    S50?
    > How about you review what I found in "Re: add-on lens for S45" dated Oct

    12
    > @ 11:29pm. If you like, we can talk more about THIS issue over there.


    Yes, yes, yes... you've made your paranoia about noise quite clear. Of
    course, you complete ignored the fact that noise is always measured based on
    fixed pixel area, and not a percentage of the total area. That is, if you
    shrink a 5MP image down to 4MP, some of the noise goes away. Anyway, much of
    that is moot, since noise isn't an issue with 99% of pictures.

    You've clearly sacrified resolution because you're afraid of the noise
    boogeyman. For some people, noise may be a real concern. In that case,
    they've made the correct decision in buying a digital SLR. But you're buying
    a basic point&shoot, so your standards aren't so high to begin with, and
    noise should be the least of your worries. I don't mean that to sound
    elitist; I'm just pointing out that you'll never get rid of "noise" in any
    point&shoot. If noise in a 5MP camera is a worry, then noise in a 4MP camera
    should be just as much of a worry. The small sensor is the problem, not the
    pixel count. The only way around the problem is to buy a camera with a
    bigger sensor, like a dSLR.

    The reason I suggest you buy from a local store, is so you can actually try
    taking some pictures yourself. You seem to be jumping from one poor decision
    to another worse decision. At least with a generous return policy, you can
    try it out without worries.

    > Now BACK to the issue in here, all I was trying to do is get the best

    price
    > since over $400 is a little a lot (not that I won't pay for it).


    But you've obviously decided you WON'T PAY for it. Otherwise, you wouldn't
    be bidding on suspicious E-bay items.
     
    gr, Oct 15, 2003
    #11
  12. CNT

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:18:32 GMT, CNT <> wrote:

    >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?viewitem&item=2957192106
    >
    >I placed my first bid. Then I thought about it and felt I did the wrong
    >thing (especially the seller has zero ratings).


    For someone that just registered on eBay (isn't everybody already
    registered by now?) it is one the slickest eBay pages I've seen. I have no
    doubt that this is an experienced seller that switched to a new name to
    hide negative reviews.

    Don <donwiss at panix.com>.
     
    Don Wiss, Oct 15, 2003
    #12
  13. "CNT" <> wrote in message news:3f8c4c6c$...
    >

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?viewitem&item=2957192106&ssPageName=ADME:X:ON:US:2
    >
    > I placed my first bid. Then I thought about it and felt I did the wrong
    > thing (especially the seller has zero ratings). Someone outbid me (whew!)
    > with still under $300 (and only $10 shipping). Can someone look at the

    link
    > and tell me if they notice anything wrong? It does say it has "warranty: 1
    > year", but it would have to mean the seller would provide a valid receipt
    > with store name on it and so on, right?
    >
    > On top of that, the seller was using the pictures from a website. I then
    > called the online number (web address is in the picture), they said that
    > this seller has nothing related to this online store and he will bring it

    up
    > to the proper authorities. Question... if the store decide to take action,
    > would that mean the seller will be fined for each picture used (and he had
    > like 6 of those all lined up in the ebay within seconds each other).
    >
    > Chuck


    Courts don't assess fines for copyright violations. If the copyright owner
    sues, the court may decide that the infringer should pay a judgment, which
    is not the same as a fine. Both are money, but a fine is paid to the
    government, and a judgment is paid to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has
    to show that the use of the copyright material caused him some damage.

    Like a patent, a copyright is sometimes called a license to sue. In matters
    like this, it it more usual to send a letter to the infringer, politely
    asking him not to do it again.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Oct 15, 2003
    #13
  14. CNT

    George Kerby Guest

    On 10/14/03 6:55 PM, in article 3f8c8d6e$, "CNT"
    <> wrote:

    > Nice of you. You are forgiven.
    >
    > How can you judge that it's my mistake to buy the S45 in favor over the S50?
    > How about you review what I found in "Re: add-on lens for S45" dated Oct 12
    > @ 11:29pm. If you like, we can talk more about THIS issue over there.
    >
    > Now BACK to the issue in here, all I was trying to do is get the best price
    > since over $400 is a little a lot (not that I won't pay for it). Let me say
    > it in other words... buying the S45 for $450 PLUS will need the Viking
    > 256MB, which is another $70ish (final price is $55 w/rebate at amazon.com).
    > That's $520. Ok, if buying an S45 with 256MB off ebay for $400... do I need
    > to continue? If it all stays at ~$450~ for both, then I will better off buy
    > it from a store or Amazon or bhphotovideo (rather than whatchamacallit.com
    > on top of that, like the Beach thing dot com).
    >
    > Chuck
    >
    >

    Chuck, who are you talking to. At first I thought it was me concerning the
    "cvommon sense" E bay thing, but I never said anything about which camera to
    buy. Perhaps you have confused two or more posters. It would be helpful to
    quote who you are responding to above your response. Make it easier to
    follow...


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Oct 15, 2003
    #14
  15. CNT

    CNT Guest

    As I follow my thread as careful as I can, this was for to gr.

    Chuck

    > > Nice of you. You are forgiven.


    > Chuck, who are you talking to.
     
    CNT, Oct 15, 2003
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Bennett

    Re: Open question about grey market camera imports

    Bill Bennett, Jun 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,677
    Bill Bennett
    Jun 23, 2003
  2. Alan F Cross

    If I shoot a grey card, should this end up as 127 grey?

    Alan F Cross, Feb 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,104
    Robert E. Williams
    Feb 26, 2004
  3. Alan F Cross
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,820
    zbzbzb
    Mar 2, 2004
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Grey market stores in NY for Canon 300D

    Siddhartha Jain, Oct 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    376
    Rudi Cheow
    Oct 14, 2004
  5. Wolf

    grey market Canon 40d

    Wolf, Oct 11, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    3,417
Loading...

Share This Page