Missing screws highlighted in red circles...


Previous report reference number highlighted in red circle...

My previous ranting about nikon sc trying to con me was made in anger and pressure...I apologize for that...

---

Added on July 20, 2012, 12:57 pmMaybe at that time, only the screw holes were loose...the lens was still usable...like when it reached my hands...still working fine...

This post has been edited by Izwan898: Jul 20 2012, 12:58 PM

So your problem now is?

Its very obvious if the screw is missing isnt it? Why you complain only after 1 month?

So u bought a 2nd hand aka used lense, and it break after 1 month..
Which seller would bear responsibility?? Unless the negotiated term is 1 month.

Invoice dated 6th July 2012? There's something really off here. Just some time ago you were still ranting about Nikon not letting you have back your lens.

U cannot read? It says quotation not invoice. The lens still in their hands.

---

Added on July 20, 2012, 3:43 pmWhat if the screws already missing before he sent it to me?

This post has been edited by Izwan898: Jul 20 2012, 03:43 PM

Oh so sorry, I must have picked that habit up somewhere. But still doesn't make sense to your senseless ranting about Nikon holding your lens.

They are not holding it but they're waiting for my greenlight. No repairs or repair for RM1202 or repair for RM700 (less parts changed). I said just wait for them to release the previous quotation given to previous owner. Tq

I think that TS do have a case with Silverfire. Demo unit or not is not any concern or worth to bring up bcuz TS accepted the rm100.

HOWEVER in the original sales thread stated there is still Nikon warranty left for the item. The question here is when TS bought this, are the said item still eligible for any Nikon warranty??

The history with Nikon for this item prior to TS buying which the original owner tried but cant claim warranty is the best proof. So we just need to wait for this info to be released.

I am wondering what do TS wants now?

1. Is TS just want the 2 screws?

2. or the TS wants the seller to bear the cost of repair / refund?


As per the history, the lens is all in good condition till after some time, in this case a month+ then the lens collapsed.

And by the time the lens collapsed, it is under the TS's hand, saying that the damage is caused by the 2 missing screws.


As TS was experienced photographer I believe that there is no issue in installing the lens to the camera, and by the time TS found that it is a little bit loose, TS should find out the caused or inform seller immediately to check.

But this did not happen, leave it aside, TS assumes that the loose might be normal thus did not take any action till the day problem occurs.

And now after sending the lens to Nikon Center, Nikon Center replied that all these caused by the missing screws thus warranty void?

In my 2 cents,

TS should check with Nikon Center what does those 2 screws functions? and how does the 2 missing screws can bring the destruction to the lens?

And TS don't really can blame the seller for anything, even seller gave TS the lens with 2 missing screws, TS should able to determine that once installing it and using it, it is that TS assume that the 'loose' is normal and TS did not bother to check. The lens transferred in good condition and it collapse under TS's care and how can TS claim that is the seller's responsibility?

It is my own opinion and TS, I did not mean to side to anybody, I am just to state out what I think is right.

Even if the screws were already gone before it reached me? I want to make it that it's not me who lost the 2 screws in the first place. And Nikon technician told me the lens was already missing 2 screws when the previous owner sent it to them...when quoted price for repairs, the previous owner refused to repair the lens since it's too costly and took it back with him...now I suspect silverfire already knew the screws were missing hence he didn't upload the back photo of the lens....now it's up to nikon if they can release the info...

---

Added on July 20, 2012, 5:36 pmThis is the best explanation for my situation when I received the lens...thanks bro shahru98

This post has been edited by Izwan898: Jul 20 2012, 05:39 PM

The truth is not known yet, but let me give u an example below:

-I have a new laptop under warranty, however i open up until bare motherboard to do mods, reapplied thermal paste etc.
-Got bored and sold the laptop to you, still under warranty.
-One day the laptop cannot start, you bring go claim warranty. However SC said cant claim warranty cuz void liao bcuz of what i did. Quote u rm1.2k for repair. How??

Easy. It's your fault...when u opened the back cover, u will rip the warranty sticker...from there u already void the warranty...and it's your fault since u didn't inform him that it's warranty already void when u sold it to him...

Hmm, but there has no evidence here shown that Silverfire have / or not did anything (open screw) to the Lens. Thats why, i personal suggest TS list down the Nikon Service Center direct line (telephone) here, and also the person in-charge (Mr.Wong, right ?) . So that Silverfire can call & verify what is the issue and if can, record all conversations and publish here to shown us the truth.

In plain argue here, i don't see any point & result. TQ.

Contact Nikon Service Centre PKNS...talk to Mr. Chong their assistant manager or Rex...the technician who handles the lens...

Althought TS and silverfire already agreed from the first place that TS would receive rm 100 as compensation, as the unit was a demo unit. Both compromised here. But Silverfire he himself already being dishonest, he never mentioned it was a DEMO unit but just a used unit. It was TS himself who found out it's a demo unit. Would u buy a car which was a demo unit(Tested by so many people)? Or a car which was owned by one/two owner(U definitely will choose the latter right?) Huge difference there. Silverfire already being dishonest from the very first.

There's a catch here. What you say may be true but its not detectable, unlike the lens where said missing screws are clearly visible. And there's no sticker to rip there either.

totally agreed...dishonest issue here.. for a safe trader , silverware must mention it was a demo unit at first..although the issue was settled maybe TS will not buy this lens from silverware at first if he knew this lens is demo unit...for me i'll will avoid seller like this..thanks..

This post has been edited by kazibul: Jul 20 2012, 07:35 PM

What if he is just a middleman who doesn't even know about it being a demo unit, and yet using the lens happily without any performance reduction due to the lens is still in pristine condition?

So what if it's demo unit.

For example my friend go to Apple story, he want a Macbook Pro but there's no stock available. There's only the display model for sale. Knowing that Apple Computer has this first time initialization booting up and he will miss it, and furthermore it's a display model that's switched on always just to show to customer, he still went on and buy it anyway.

Yet there's no problem up to now.

So if there's a problem, he should sue Apple?

Same goes upon this lens. snap snap snap the most only AF died after 3 years. Not 2 screws missing or break apart right?

But now the screws were missing...nikon technician told me that the previous owner sent the lens already screws missing...same case with me...so how?

If so he could've asked for a full refund, not compensation. Learn the difference. By the way, who's silverware?

Not sure if I'm blind or they can't learn the difference between refund and compensation.

Is my english that bad??

I said, the screw are very obvious if u ask me... If its missing im very sure i would 1000% see it when i take the lense on my hand..
So how did u not noticed the missing screw ??