Never trust a Doctor - Rex-5 Woes, please read =(

[+AnonymousGuest+]

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for the bad language, cursing and lengthy post.

Okay, was wondering if anyone could lend me any advice, criticism or tell me what I've done wrong here if anything.

A few months ago I contacted a man from the Photographic Trader here in Australia who sold Bolex camera's. His name is Ian Rivlin.

He told me he had a Rex-5 with the 13x viewfinder. To quote the descriptions from the e-mail correspondence...

"I made an error - re the SBM - It's actually a REX 5 (ie has a three turret
"C" lens mount). It accepts the 400ft magazine and the kit available is as
follows:-

Bolex Rex 5 - 13x viewfinder
Bolex 16-100mm POE lens (Vario Switar)
Bolex MST Crystal controlled motor - 25fps 50CPS
Bolex BX 55.12 power pack
Bolex Handgrip
This is the entire kit. (Price as previously mentioned for the "ESM") -
installment payments are fine
as long as a reasonable initial payment is made.

The Rex 5 is in really lovely condition. Not mint but very close."

The camera I recieved has alot of surface rust (making me wonder how it was stored), a scratch in the middle of the lens about a centimeter long and it's only the 10x model, not the advertised 13x which we all know is much more desireable and probably the main reason I bought it seeing as I was originally after an SBM.

Anyway, he's acknowledged he's sold me the wrong camera stating things like..."I'm sorry if this turns out to be the smaller viewfinder but a good 10x beats the sh*t out of a bad 13x any day of the week."

Hardly the point though really is it?!

"This camera could be as much as 35 years old. You mention surface
imperfections but what would any car look like (that hadn't been renovated) after this length of time? - Not as good as this Bolex, that's for sure. For it's age it's in unbelievably good condition"

Sure, and how many people drive their Bolex down the street on concrete roads in the rain and then park them outside exposed to the weather?

"The meter in the POE lens is working! This is almost unheard of. Nearly
all of them have blown and the lens has to be set on manual (not a bad idea anyway) but to have a POE with a working accurate meter is - again -
amazing. The meter coils have long been unavailable and if you had this lens opened up and the meter removed, you'd be able to get $500 for it."

Wow, the meter works! That's real handy when the lens is SCRATCHED. I use a handheld light meter anyway. So what if I'd get $500 for cannibalising the lens and selling the meter. If it's such a good deal why won't he take it back huh?

When i offered a trade to him for all my super-8 cameras and k3 I even offered to pay postage to send all the camera's to him to check over and described tiny details like small dents in the film door etc and he doesn't think a scratched lens and rust is worth mentioning on a camera that is supposed to be near mint?

The "compromise" he gave me was this...

"Nonetheless, I don't want you to be left with a sour taste in your mouth.
I'll make you this offer,I'll give you the matte box at a $100 reduction - ie $150, and I'll give you a set of extension tubes (they are mainly for smaller lenses but they will work with the POE."

Gee whiz, that so makes up for it don't you agree? He lies to me, misleads me and sends me the wrong camera than wants me to buy more stuff from him...has he a screw loose?

Please tell me I'm making too much out of this. Am I being as unreasonable and "beefing about miniscule irritations" as he has told me?
How the hell is sending me the wrong camera a miniscule irritation?

He also mentioned the following...

"After I accepted your offer, someone wantd that setup and offered
me $2000 for it. Out of a sense of decency, I rejected his offer as I'd done
the deal with you. Now you're beefing about miniscule irritations. By simply
accepting his offer and telling you the deal was off, I would have been $500 the richer. This has taught me a very good lesson."

and...

"Since my Bolex is one entity and would sell fairly rapidly, I have to have a big incentive to take your equipment. I assure you that I'm not trying to "con" you. I genuinely mean everything I say..."

Well then, if it's such a valuable camera and would shift so rapidly and he gave me SUCH a good deal on it, why the big fuss in taking it back?

The only person going to be out of pocket here is me. Not only will I have paid for postage either way but I sold all my other equipment to be able to afford it.

The guys a doctor from Noosa Heads, I'm currently a student who occasionally does commission work. I live off $400 a fortnight. The $1600 I paid for this camera is an absolute shitload of money for me.

"Sorry Aengus - I can't refund as I've already spent the money. I don't feel
that it's appropriate anyway." Sure, whatever... ~sigh~

I know there are atleast a few people on this forum who have dealt with my personally and know I am an honest and easy going guy. I don't just cause fusses over nothing and am not that hard to please. It would take a lot for me to get this annoyed over something. Even with my miniscule pay packet I hope to think I'm not a cheap bastard and have been nothing but honest with people.

Now I guess I have to got hrough all the crap of getting a lawyer and filing forms and shit...AARRRGGGHHHH. I don't have time for this.

Seriously.....not.....happy.....

P.S. If anyone is interested, I'm quite happy to post the entire correspondence between myself and Ian since I originally contacted him concerning a camera. This may shed more light on the situation.

[etimh]

Hunt the fucker down and threaten to cut of his nuts if he doesn't cough up the cash.

That's how we do it in the movies. :twisted:

Tim

[+AnonymousGuest+]

Trust me, it's crossed my mind more than once these last few hours :evil:

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

He didn´t deliver the camera you paid for, that alone gives you the right for a refund. If the lens is scratched and the camera full of rust is really not that important, these things can be subjective (like in how good shape the camera was supposed to be).

But the camera having the wrong viewfinder is nothing that needs to be accepted, just claim a full refund, you are not at all interested in this camera if it doesen´t have the 13x viewfinder he stated that it had.

So you are entiteled for a full refund.

[+AnonymousGuest+]

Subjective perhaps but I can't imagine anyone would consider rust on a camera body, a scratched lens and peeling leatherette as "near mint". The footage counter is extremely dirty and foggy aswell which looks as though condensation has formed inside the camera at one point.

Yeah, I feel I am entitled to a full refund though Ian sees things alot differently.

To quote him....

"Sorry Aengus - I can't refund as I've already spent the money. I don't feel
that it's appropriate anyway. For a long time, I accepted your part
payments. After I accepted your offer, someone wantd that setup and offered me $2000 for it. Out of a sense of decency, I rejected his offer as I'd done the deal with you. Now you're beefing about miniscule irritations. By simply accepting his offer and telling you the deal was off, I would have been $500 the richer. This has taught me a very good lesson.If you return it, I won't be able to accept the parcel. You'll have to come up with something fairer than that."

On legal advice I was told to explain that if he didn't either supply the described camera or a full refund within 14 days I'll by filing for proceedings in the small claims court. I recieved this reply...

"Do your worst Aengus. - Take legal action if you wish, that's fine by me.

This is my final offer - take it or leave it:-
You can have the matte biox and the extension tubes for free. Just reply
with a yes please or no thank you.

If you refuse, we'll let the lawyers take us both to the cleaners.

If any correspondence other than "yes please" (ie my offer accepted) arrives - it will be trashed and not acted on."

Like the way he demands for me to say "please" and "thank you" like a little lap dog after talking to me like that?

What a condescending prick.

Oh, and just the fact he is making me these offers shows he realises I didn't get what I paid for.

I hate to hate, but some do make you lose faith, some make it difficult.

P.S. Apologies again for my swearing, I'm a little "emotional" right now as you can imagine.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Subjective perhaps but I can't imagine anyone would consider rust on a camera body,.....

Yeah, I sure wouldn´t expect it from a "near mint" camera. But he will of course say that HE really thinks this camera was in good shape if you consider how old it is... That is of course bullshit, but nonetheless something that he will say in court.

However, the viewfinder being the wrong one is nothing he can get away with. I´m pretty sure you will be the one who wins this in court. He should realise that too, perhaps he is just trying to scare you or something?

[+AnonymousGuest+]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Kent, i really appreciate it.

I just really didn't want to take it this far. If he had any decency at all he would realise he's in the wrong and give me a refund without all this hassle.

I'm not exactly worried about "taking us both through the cleaners" as i have more than enough proof sitting right here in my inbox to show he has been dishonest.

I don't even think the old "...camera was in good shape if you consider how old it is" even stands up when you say "near mint". Near mint would describe a camera in exceptional condition...rust and scratched optics is not exceptional no matter how you look at it, regardless of age. I sold a Canon 814AZ recently which is an older camera than this and the optics on it were completely untouched. Not even a cleaning mark. This is a camera I ran dozens of rolls through and now to be in excellent working condition also. So of course it's possible to get camera's of that "vintage" without rust and scratches.

How could he honestly believe that wasn't worth mentioning? That to me is very dishonest and inexcusable and i can't imagine any court in the land seeing it other wise.

But yes, the viewfinder thing. I mean he claims to be an expert on these camera's and that he personally tested the camera out. That being so then to tell me it had a 13x viewfinder either says he knew it wasn't and said it was (ie lied) or lied about checking the camera out personally. Either that or he doesn't know what he's talking about. None of which are excuses.

I hope Ian see's these posts and explains for us all exactly why I'm not entitled to a refund.

Come on Ian, here's your chance.

[Patrick]

You have every right to be angry. He sold you the wrong camera and then said that returning it is not 'appropriate' - that is complete rubbish. By coincidence, someone I knew bought two Bolex H16s from someone in another state via the same publication, The Photographic Trader. The seller said that both cameras were perfectlty fine in their condition. Though in reality, the lens settings were all stuck because the lubricant had gone all hard, plus there were a few other small problems. He also bought a lens from Queesland and it turned out to have to have fungus in it.

Although you have a right to a refund as this guy obviously misrepresented the items, out of curiosity, how well does the camera run? Do all functions (including lens settings) work as they should?

[+AnonymousGuest+]

The mechanics appear fine, it winds up and starts as it should. The lens settings etc seem to be okay though that's not of much consolation to me as I refuse to shoot through a scratched lens. I mean, even if the camera body was fine I'd be still out a lens which cost me $650 as that's how he had it priced. $850 for the body and $650 for the lens.

And what if I wanted to resell the camera? Seeing as I'm very accurate with my descriptions I'd say it was a 10x Rex-5 with surface rust, a foggy and dirty footage counter, a scratched lens that moves in the turret and the leatherette peeling off...but apart from that this camera is NEAR MINT!!!

Yeah, i'd get so many takers.

I think the function of the camera's mechanics are irrelevent when it's not the advertised camera wouldn't you agree?

[Patrick]

I completely agree. The fact that the seller lied is the real point here and you have strong evidence of that. A rusty Bolex is certainly something I have never seen before. It's almost as if he has been keeping this thing out in the rain.

As this guy is a doctor, I bet he may hire some fancy lawyer but regardless, I don't think he would stand much of a chance against your evidence. He certainly sounds very confident in his last few replies.

[Alex_W]

Damn, i hope will never have to deal with such an asshole myself. I wish you all the best. If he loses in court, will he have to pay for all the costs?

[markfroble]

I'm sorry to hear of your dealings with "The Doc".

I too have dealt with him. Fortunately, I'm one of the lucky ones who got out in time.

Last year, I saw his advertisement in the Photographic Trader, and contacted him regarding a camera I wanted to purchase. Nothing made me think this guy wasn't a genuine great guy.

But when buying things off private sellers, I generally don't trust them much at all - I do a lot of research and investigation before purchasing.

So I spoke to him to get a bit of a history on the camera, and find out it's condition etc.

Anyway, "The Doc" told me that the camera was in fantastic condition, but it's being serviced, so I couldn't buy it for a few days. I asked if I could speak to the servicer to get his opinion on the condition of the camera - of course he wouldn't tell me who was servicing it.

So after a few phone calls, I had tracked down the guy servicing the camera. I assured the servicer that none of our conversations would ever be repeated to "The Doc".

The servicer basically told me that the camera was not in very good shape at all - he thought it may have had a serious drop or something which caused several problems with the camera. He said "The Doc" has never used the camera. He pretty much said that I was getting ripped off if I payed "The Doc's" asking price.

Now having this ammunition that the doctor was unaware of, I sent him an email asking these simple questions (quote):

"1. How long have you had the camera?

2. Roughly, how much use have you given it?

3. What problems has the camera had?

4. When was the last time you used it?

5. Exactly what work was done to the camera?

6. Did you use the camera regularly?

7. What sort of warranty will you provide?

8. Can you give me some references from other people you've sold gear to?"

I assumed he would atleast answer the questions dishonestly - Instead, I got this reply:

"I think I should make a few points Mark.- Some of these will sound a little strange, so please bear with me.
I am a fairly wealthy man - actually very wealthy - I'm not bragging or trying to impress, it just happens to be a fact. I'm not a dealer. I'm a fairly successful G.P. of 16 years standing in Noosa and 22 years total. I collect cameras and now and again, simply because my financial position permits me to do so, I buy cameras. I enjoy them for a while, then - sad to say - I get tired with them. At this point I sell them - on a whim. I certainly don't need the money. I don't need 10 or 100 times the cost of this camera- It wouldn't change my lifestyle whatsoever. I decided to sell this camera and because I don't need any enemies in this world, I decided that it would be safe, polite and probably simpler to get the camera fully serviced, so that I am not getting irate phone calls or complaints at 10pm.

This is the deal. The camera is a Braun 6080, serviced and working well. It has provided super quality movies BEFORE the service, I guess it will be slightly improved after.

If you'd like to view the camera, inspect it and approve it, you may buy it for the price we discussed. That is it - no warranties (How on earth could you ask this of me Mark?) or anything else.
Over to you. "

That is it - that's all he said.

I'll let you guys make your own opinion of his reply, but I surely wasn't satisfied that he answered ANY of my questions.

And after reading his reply, I decided not to contact him anymore - I think I made the right decision.....what do you think???

[Angus]

Well Mark, I certainly think you made several right choices there.

Interesting that the 'Doc' tells one person he is wealthy, and another that he's too poor to offer a refund.

Bascially as for the Bolex, he sold a camera that was not the article he said it was (10x not 13x finder), his description of the condition is - at best - debatable. I'd be demanding a refund if I were you.

[gianni1]

Sue the Fu@%X!. Small claims court (in these parts) don't involve lawyers. Complain to the magazine editors. I bet his qualifications are in myth and deceptive fabrication.

Gianni

[timdrage]

Sounds terrible, sorry to hear about it!

Seems to me you have a very strong case and he's been clearly unreasonable (and sounds like a bit of a nutcase) so hope you win any court action!

I wonder if he's really a doctor?! :?