Scratches on brand-new lens?

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This sounds really weird to me. If they sold it to you as new (which should be on the invoice), the warranty should cover any defects. If they refuse to do so, I would talk directly to Leica in Wetzlar (immediately, not in a few weeks when you are there) and tell them your story. I imagine they will work harder to help you than this store seems to...or at least they may act as mediator. It certainly does not do their brand very good to go around leaving customers feeling cheated like this.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[Yihong]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

his sounds really weird to me. If they sold it to you as new (which should be on the invoice), the warranty should cover any defects. If they refuse to do so, I would talk directly to Leica in Wetzlar (immediately, not in a few weeks when you are there) and tell them your story

I don't get the point either, maybe they just thought I made the scratches. They say I bought it in-store and checked it, nothing stopped me from finding the scratches, so there's no option for me to make a return. I will try to contact Wezlar, if there's no way out I will just repair it later. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

16 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

the warranty should cover any defects

Not really. - a warranty covers any defects stemming from the production of the lens and faults developed during the warranty period. It emphatically does not cover defects incurred by outside influences other than normal use. Those are insurance territory. Wear and tear are not covered by either. 

I fear that in this case the burden of proof is on the buyer, as it is not unreasonable to assume that these scratches were incurred after the lens was delivered.

[pippy]

18 hours ago, Yihong said:

...I went to Oslo for my weekend break and bought a Leica 28mm f2.8 Summarit in Leica Store Oslo......The item I bought was a returned item and they were claiming that it was the only 28mm f2.8 in stock and brand new......

......I checked the lens with room light and looks fine in-store.......after came back to the UK I found there were quite a few scratches on the brand-new lens surface......Do I need to take responsibility for not being able to find the scratches in their store?.....

Not what you will want to hear, I'm sure, but I can see no grounds on which the shop should accept the lens back from you apart from as 'Used'.

First-off if the item was a 'returned item' it is not, by definition, Brand New and should not have been - nor should you have bought it - as such.

Secondly; if you checked the item in-store and accepted the condition as it was then, yes, you need to take responsibility for having bought the lens.

Lastly; there was clearly some time-delay between purchase and your informing the store that you had noticed flaws. As such the store can assume that the damage occurred during your time of ownership.

Good luck, though.

Philip.

[Yihong]

31 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

If sold as new, then I presume it comes with a full Leica warranty. Such a warranty would assume you are receiving a lens that has never been opened,

It's only because they changed the definition of 'new item', they told me that even though it's opened it's still a brand new item, which is more like they checked it thoroughly to guarantee there are no scratches etc. If I find it later, it must be myself who made it. 

[jaapv]

There are a few categories of items. New and sealed, like new in box, demos, returned and/or refurbished items, and used items. The store must unequivocally state in  which category an item is. 

[RexGig0]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quote

 

I may be stating the obvious, but in addition to the usual thorough inspection, at the time and place of sale, when I buy a new item, that has a serial number, I make certain that the serial number on the item matches the serial number on the box or packaging. A dishonest customer, and/or a dishonest or merely careless employee might have scrambled things. As a customer, I have found non-matching serial numbers, in the case of non-photographic items, and, the case of photographic accessories, an entirely incorrect, lower-priced item inside the unsealed packaging. That last one may well have been return fraud, but could have been internal employee theft.

I worked a part-time security gig, at a jewelry store, for a number of years, that specialized in high-end pre-owned watches, but also sold some new jewelry, and some other expensive items. It was necessary for the employee, who was showing a piece of jewelry, to be VERY careful that the prospective customer did not surreptitiously switch the item, while pretending to merely examine it, or check the fit/look. If we translate this scenario, to a Leica store, a person may acquire a pre-owned scratched lens, for an attractive price, then go to a Leica store, and ask to see a new lens, of the same model. Especially if an accomplice is able to distract the employee, even for a moment, the items can be switched. I am not saying that this scenario is likely to happen in a Leica store, but, it certainly could happen, and a Leica store employee might be more easily distracted than an experienced seller of watches, who expects such things to be attempted.

 

 

And lenses should have their serial numbers recorded and checked by the store.

[Yihong]

1 minute ago, pippy said:

As such the store can assume that the damage occurred during your time of ownership.

Many thanks for the points, that's true, even though I can show that there's no picture taken with 28mm on my SD card doesn't mean I didn't damage the lens surface.

There are quite a few possibilities here:

1. Factory defective 
2. The previous online customer made it
3. Leica Oslo staff made  it
4. I made it

My points are:

If the customers didn't find the flaw of the lens in the store, should they take responsibility for scenario 1.2.3? If it's true then: it becomes if you didn't find it, your fault.

If it's scenario 4, yes, my fault anyway.

How to identify? Based on probability and trust? I'm just curious. 

 

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, Yihong said:

How to identify? Based on probability and trust? I'm just curious. 

That is why one should buy at a store where you are known as a regular customer.

[Yihong]

10 minutes ago, jaapv said:

There are a few categories of items. New and sealed, like new in box, demos, returned and/or refurbished items, and used items. The store must unequivocally state in  which category an item is.

Yes, they do. The item I bought was labelled as returned clearly on the outside box, but he told me that it was brand new in oral.🙂

 

[LocalHero1953]

To be clear:

Is the warranty a full Leica warranty for a new item, starting on the day you bought it?

What does the receipt say: 'new' or 'used' or other terminology?

[Yihong]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

That is why one should buy at a store where you are known as a regular customer.

I couldn't agree more, I should stick to my usual path. I travelled around and went to many different Leica stores, the people were very nice and the buying process was very smooth based on my past experience.

[Yihong]

12 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

Especially if an accomplice is able to distract the employee, even for a moment, the items can be switched.

That's highly possible, people in my home country do this all the time, I will double-check next time for sure! Thanks for the reminder.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Yihong

[Jeff S]

Very strange, indeed. Can’t imagine having a similar experience. To start, I always buy from known, trustworthy dealers. Second, I would never have purchased a returned item at full new cost. Nor could I imagine missing those scratches.  And even if I had kept a new lens in an unopened box until home, I would have reported it to the store immediately thereafter and demanded a refund/replacement.  No middle ground. If refused, my insurance would have covered the cost of full replacement. No way I would have gone the repair route on a new lens.
 

Sorry, but the burden here falls on the OP. Hopefully various lessons learned.

Jeff

[Yihong]

15 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

And even if I had kept a new lens in an unopened box until home, I would have reported it to the store immediately thereafter and demanded a refund/replacement

Yes, this was what I did and they refused. Hopefully, the insurance can cover the replacement.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Yihong

[Jeff S]

13 minutes ago, Yihong said:

Yes, this is what I did and they refused.

No, you inspected it first. And you bought a returned item, not sealed new in box. From an unfamiliar dealer. And you either missed the scratches or they happened during your ownership. Other than that , how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?

Do you carry replacement insurance?

Jeff

[pippy]

55 minutes ago, Yihong said:

...If the customers didn't find the flaw of the lens in the store, should they take responsibility for scenario 1.2.3? If it's true then: it becomes if you didn't find it, your fault...

Yes.

Once you had examined the lens; bought it as-seen and left the shop you take all responsibility for your purchase unless some manufacturing fault can be proven. Scratches on a front element - once the lens is in your possession - cannot be covered by such circumstances.

Philip.

[Yihong]

18 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Do you carry replacement insurance?

No, I will need to repair it on my own expenses 🤔

[Yihong]

9 minutes ago, pippy said:

Yes.

If this is how it works, I will just take it then. Thanks for the clarification. 🙌

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

To be clear:

Is the warranty a full Leica warranty for a new item, starting on the day you bought it?

What does the receipt say: 'new' or 'used' or other terminology?

@Yihong You may have missed these questions. They may well affect advice on what you could do.