Reading mode: Light Dark

New D810 obviously returned - would you worry?

Go to last post
f bass said:
My guess is B&H employees, 'playing with the camera, ', happens all the time in camera stores, music stores etc. All boxes come from Nikon with a sealed clear sticker sealing the lid to the front face of the box. Trying to remove it will take the gold paint off, so people will slice the sticker along the seam of the lid so it will open without too much evidence of being tampered with, and yes I worked in a camera store for seven years!
Click to expand...
Cameras and lenses haven't come with a seal for many years, no doubt at the insistence of certain retailers. Every other consumer electronics item does have a seal.
 
JimAustin said:
DMKAlex said:
It is just like insurance fraud. When someone cheats, the honest customers pay for it.
Click to expand...
Retailers have the same obligation: To keep the promises they make: To take back for a refund, or store credit, or whatever, the product they say they'll take back, and (eg) NOT to sell used gear as new.
Click to expand...
The retailer's obligation is to make a profit so they can provide the service. Maybe fraud is a heavy word for it. But the underlining fact is that when someone bought something with the idea just trying it out and return it, other buyers pay more for his/her deed.
 
Patco said:
I've seen the word "mistake" used more than once in this thread, but I'm not sure that's the appropriate word when Henry Posner of B&H has said more than once that it's the practice of B&H to sell "as-new condition" returned merchandise as new stock. Here is one rather old such post:

" Does B&H ever repack, or do they just toss it back into inventory?

"We are very strict about returned merchandise. Each piece is individually inspected. That means that when the customer's parcel gets to us, it's unpacked by our staff, each piece inspected and then the whole thing repacked. If it's in as-new condition, according to our strict standards, it's returned to inventory. If not, depending on circumstances, it's marked "open box" and sold that way at a discount, or returned to the customer.

We have a 14-day (photo) or 7-day (digital & video) no-questions-asked return policy with no restock fee. If we refused to accept returned items which are in as-new condition, either the return policy would quickly get much less liberal, or a restock fee would be applied to each item. We don't consider this customer-friendly at all."

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/1944032

I can't imagine many retailers willing to take a big hit by selling non-defective returns as used or open box, without charging a restock fee. It's all part of the generous return policy.
Click to expand...
 
DMKAlex said:
Some buyers may rationalize that he/she is not taking anything, AND, the sellers pay for it. He/she is not harming anybody.

But the simple fact is that there is a certain value taken away when a buyer opens that seal, and plays with the camera, and then, decided he/she doesn't like it and return it for a full refund. That returned item is not new anymore and a certain value was taken away from it. We all know that the seller just have to raise the price a little bit to cover for this lost value. Everyone else ends up paying more for the value that was taken away.

It is just like insurance fraud. When someone cheats, the honest customers pay for it.

If someone want to be sure he/she likes it before buying it, you can always rent one and try it out. Yes, I know. It costs money. Or, when an item is returned, other than product defect (seller would usually replace it), there is a charge for such voluntary return, instead relying on "the system" to pay for it. Yes, I know. It costs money too.

And here is a philosophical question. Does life always offer a guarantee? You bought a house, a car, marrying a spouse, buy a certain stock investment, getting a job, move to a new city. Do all of this give you a trial an return option. Most of them don't. We have to live up to the decision we make. And when we make a bad decision, we are the one who have to pay for it instead of "someone else".

And don't forget, when without a free return option, you may learn to like something you don't really like initially. And that is live.
Click to expand...
I thought that the same item cannot be sold twice as new and especially RETURNED item. It should be send back to manufacturer for review and repackage and then sold as refurbished.
 
JimAustin said:
I've taken maybe 20 shots and there's no sign of trouble, but it's a half-hour subway ride (roughly) to B&H. Would you exchange it for now, or not worry?
Click to expand...
I found your order and checked the serial number of the camera we sold to you. It has never been sold and returned before being sold to you. As far as we can determine it was brand new when you got it.

That said, if you'd prefer to swap it for another we're happy to oblige.
 
Iain G Foulds said:
... Jim: Why would you regret being honest? You were sold a used item as new. That was dishonest, no matter what the rectification.
Click to expand...
If he'd been sold a used item as new, that would have been dishonest, no matter what the rectification. But he was not sold a used item as new.
 
TOF guy said:
Wrong. Completely wrong. I've had only "honest and above board business conduct" in all my dealings with B&H.
Click to expand...
Thank you. This is very gratifying.
 
Iain G Foulds said:
... Jim: Why would you regret being honest? You were sold a used item as new. That was dishonest, no matter what the rectification.
Click to expand...
Twice now, B&H people have said that according to their records the camera I bought was new, once in a personal email and once here. That's a simple, forthright statement, both times over a signature--real human beings, not a faceless company--and I believe them. I can't account for the 500+ exposures or why the menus were set up--or for that matter why the box was slightly ripped where the tab is inserted. Obviously this camera was handled by someone. Apparently they can't account for it either, but that doesn't mean they're fundamentally dishonest. I don't pretend to fully understand either the technology or how products get from the factory to the store. Stuff happens and they've offered reasonable accommodation.

My original post was intended only to ask people how much they think it matters that it apparently has some exposures, not to take B&H to task. But in the process I made it public and exposed them and me to all sorts of opinions and analysis from lots of different people, a few with obvious agendas. I regret that. I guess mainly I've just gotten tired, after all these years, of the slightly ugly character of these public discussion forums.

Jim
 
Last edited:
hikerdoc said:
hikerdoc said:
DMKAlex wrote:
I wish Henry Posner (the H of B&H) would come in an make a statement.
Click to expand...
I believe B&H refers to the married couple Blimie and Herman Schreiber who founded B&H in 1973.
Click to expand...
I am not the "H" in B&H. If I was, I'd hire some guy to handle stuff like this for the company. What? Wait! I seems Mr Schreiber did hire some guy to handle stuff like this for the company. :-)
 
Iain G Foulds said:
... JIm: I didn't see any "ugly character" to your thread. It was an honest open discussion. And, well worthwhile and justified.
Click to expand...
Notice that I wrote "slightly" before "ugly." I've certainly seen much worse. Still, B&H has been attacked as a result (and also defended); I think they've come out looking pretty good, and I hope so because I'm still happy with them, but I regret opening that can of worms. Some have apparently decided, as a result of this discussion (or maybe it was that other one) that I've ruined the camera market for everyone because I won't condemn those who take advantage of liberal return policies such as those B&H offers. My skin isn't especially thin, but that doesn't keep me from wishing I had made different choices.

 
Iain G Foulds said:
... Excuse me Henry. 500 clicks is a used camera in anyone's book. Well used.
Click to expand...
I will point out, since it may be awkward for HenryP to do so without appearing to attack a customer (me), that the camera is not in his possession, and even if it was, he'd have no way of determining who is responsible for those 500+ exposures (the total is now a little bit higher) now that I've had it for several days. It's possible he knows, but I've no reason to think so. I suspect that this will remain a mystery.
 
JimAustin said:
Iain G Foulds said:
... Jim: Why would you regret being honest? You were sold a used item as new. That was dishonest, no matter what the rectification.
Click to expand...
Twice now, B&H people have said that according to their records the camera I bought was new, once in a personal email and once here. That's a simple, forthright statement, both times over a signature--real human beings, not a faceless company--and I believe them. I can't account for the 500+ exposures or why the menus were set up--or for that matter why the box was slightly ripped where the tab is inserted. Obviously this camera was handled by someone. Apparently they can't account for it either, but that doesn't mean they're fundamentally dishonest. I don't pretend to fully understand either the technology or how products get from the factory to the store. Stuff happens and they've offered reasonable accommodation.

My original post was intended only to ask people how much they think it matters that it apparently has some exposures, not to take B&H to task. But in the process I made it public and exposed them and me to all sorts of opinions and analysis from lots of different people, a few with obvious agendas. I regret that. I guess mainly I've just gotten tired, after all these years, of the slightly ugly character of these public discussion forums.

Jim
Click to expand...
500 shutter activations in the life of the camera isn't a drop in the bucket but I would also wonder why and would have exchanged it. I always check the shutter count when I get a new camera for the same reason most of us do. We want to be the first to use the camera if it is new. I don't doubt that the records show that it is a new camera. My question is why 500 shutter count? Someone was having fun with the camera before hand? Was it an employee of B & H or was this camera randomly pulled from the line for extra testing? If at Nikon then why wasn't the counter reset. We know that new cameras are checked ahead before sale but the counter is reset before shipping. Someone had their finger on the shutter button. Doesn't take long to rattle off 500 shots. Just put it in high and hold down the finger for between one and 2 minutes.

The torn box seems to put it after Nikon shipped and before it was sold to Jim. Unless Nikon is shipping torn boxes.
 
StillLearning said:
...

The torn box seems to put it after Nikon shipped and before it was sold to Jim. Unless Nikon is shipping torn boxes.
Click to expand...
Just an fyi, here it is. Photo taken with my humble iPhone. I didn't do the damage. I open boxes carefully.

As I've said elsewhere, I suspect this will remain a mystery.



6155d9c7288c4825be8d039ae3c916c5.jpg
 
JimAustin said:
Iain G Foulds said:
... Excuse me Henry. 500 clicks is a used camera in anyone's book. Well used.
Click to expand...
I will point out, since it may be awkward for HenryP to do so without appearing to attack a customer (me), that the camera is not in his possession, and even if it was, he'd have no way of determining who is responsible for those 500+ exposures (the total is now a little bit higher) now that I've had it for several days. It's possible he knows, but I've no reason to think so. I suspect that this will remain a mystery.
Click to expand...
Good points. I tip my hat to Henry for all the PR work he does on this sight. It maybe whatever happens at B & H stays at B & H. It probably will remain a mystery to us. Hopefully some due diligence is being done behind the scenes so as to reduce the number of times this may happen in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top