8mm Forum: Your experiences with MARK TODD

This is topic Your experiences with MARK TODD in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000627

Posted by Heinz-Juergen Schachner (Member # 32) on July 17, 2004, 01:26 PM:

Hello,

I have just made the mistake to sell a MINT BAUER T 510 STEREO movie projector to MARK TODD. After telling me that the machine is in wonderful condition and that he is really happy with it, he now tells that the 1.1 lens I have sold him is in fact a 1.3 lens with the wrong cover. After asking him to send the lens back, he says that he rather wants a rebate of EUR 75.00. He has paid EUR 285.00 including postage and packing for this machine and now he wants EUR 75.00 back? What should I think of this?

I think he must grant me the right to check the lens first, before I send any credit or a new lens. How can I really tell if he has not changed the lens himself?

Who has sold Mark Todd something in the past and has had the same bad experiences as I have now?

Best Wishes

Heinz-Juergen Schachner

Posted by Barry Attwood (Member # 100) on July 17, 2004, 01:46 PM:

Dear Sir,

I have dealt with Mark for many years now and have found him to be very trustworthy and honest, so if he has said to you that the lens in the machine is not the one stated, I would personally take his word, but of course it rteally is up to you in the end, but as a film dealer myself, I do get to know the dodgier names in the business, and Mark is not one of them.

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on July 17, 2004, 02:26 PM:

I have also known Mark for years and have bought and sold many films and projectors to and from him. I have found him to be a totally honest and trustworthy person.

All items were as described,monies were paid as arranged and all transactions between us were happy and successful.

As stated, I have known him many years and through our many dealings and conversations I believe I could accurately assess
his personality and character. I would find it inconceivable that he would be deceitful or dishonest.

If Mark has one fault it has been that he has been too trusting in his dealings with others when buying films and equipment and 100% of the time he bears the cost.

In summary, if he said the projector he bought from you was delivered with a 1.3 lens when it should have been 1.1 lens he is telling the truth.

Posted by Heinz-Juergen Schachner (Member # 32) on July 17, 2004, 02:32 PM:

Hi,

I did never say that he can not be trusted. All I want from him is to send the wrong lens back and let me have a look at it. I think it is not asked too much for. I did already tell him that I shall take the lens back and send him a 1.1 lens instead. But he resists on a rebate of EUR 75.00 which I really can not give.

Best Wishes

Heinz-Juergen Schachner

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 17, 2004, 03:04 PM:

I think the least Mark could do is send the lens back for Heinz to check and if incorrect then Heinz can rectify the problem with a replacement or financial settlement.
I know how Heinz feels. I am having agro with another buyer in the UK who has just emailed me out of the blue to tell me the film he bought from me in Feb has reel 1 out of sync and that some scenes have a bleached out look. This I am absolutely sure was not the case. He refuses to send the film back but wants a partial refund. He let it slip in his last eamil that he had tried re-recording the sound on reel 1!!!!
I like Heinz would prefer to see evidence first and then sort out afterwards. Yes I too have had the same problem with Mark and I too demanded the ST600 to be returned. The machine worked perfectly when it left me but needed to be adjusted when I got it back!!! [Frown]

Tinkerer!!!

Kev.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 17, 2004, 05:33 PM:

Hi kev, I think we put that ST one down to my poly prints didn`t we Kev, whats your new email by the way not sure i`m getting through to you.
Anyway now I`m here I`ll address things from my side of things.
I have always had fair dealings with heinz first off and i`m surprised he feels the need to air this here but fine.
I did yes buy a mint and very nice bauer 510 off heinz, the main thing I bought it for which we discussed was the 1,1 11-30mm xenovaron lens, ( I`ve been after a nice one for an elmo for a while). The machine is great, runs beautifully and since I got it have just run a few 400 foots through on a drawer top against the wall, its great, I did think the light seemed a bit low for a 150 watt machine with a 1,1 xeno. I assumed as so little used its probaly the origional bulb so no worries.
It was only later, and today that I put it up on my projection shelf and through my wall hole and on to my large screen I realised the picture is an amount smaller than a xeno 11mm usually is on that, also the bulb is fine, also the image just doesn`t have that as light and nice xeno 1,1 look, still OK but not quite as good.
I took the lens carefully out to have a close look and when doing so realised the front area of the lens that has the 1,1 11mm-30mm bit on was loose on its thread which is unusual as if it had been off.
After taking it out I checked the rear element which "in my opinion" is the smaller diameter of the 1,3 xenovaron 12-30mm I have had and do know, the picture area was the same too on the screen. The rear element is definately smaller than the 1,1 are normally. So a 1,3 with a 1,1 lens front attached now.
Anyway enough on that, so I emailed Heinz and asked him to exchange it for a 1,1 xeno.
Heinz got back said he didn`t have a 1,1 he could exchange it for right now and to send it to him when he gets back from holiday in late august so he can check it. Fine.
I did say i`d prefer to do something sooner before he went away. All the time I was polite and OK etc and explained.
Next thing I get an email from heinz saying he can not take the lens back as he does not know if I, mark have changed it myself,
I of course was not happy with that suggestion but kept cool and very polite and assured hienz that I am honest and wouldn`t do that and was surprised he would suggest it !!!!! and that I certainly wouldn`t suggest anything like that about him.
Then from Heinz another reply that how could he tell that I had not done that !!!!!!!! again.
In my next mail I said that if he did not want to send me a 1,1 I would accept a 75 Euro refund ( not least as he had said he had no 1.1 lens he could send) and assured him again it was the 1,3, a much lesser lens, i`d have been happy at that.
Heinz`s next reply after my suggestion of a refund was that he did now have a 1,1 ( must have just found it) and if I sent the lens back after he had inspected it would send me one.
I have to be honest that by now I was getting a bit wary, no 1,1 for an exchange then there was one and an ongoing suggestion I had changed the lens myself. I`ll admit I was concerned that what if I sent it back to hienz in about a months time when he`s back, what if he then still insists I have changed it and won`t do anything about it even if he aggrees it is a 1,3.
However I still was calm and relaxed even wishing him a nice holiday etc.
Anyway so I suggested I would really prefer a refund if possible. Still no.
I did say I wished he trusted me as much as I trusted him.
I did now say i had had enough of his suggestions about me and just wanted a refund of the 75`es.
I also said I was not happy that he suggested I was dishonest and never a hint of an apology for that.
Also I would take it up with paypal as that was easier.
Heinz reply was that he could do nothing before seeing the lens and that I was trying to get a rebate for free and that was dishonest.
I then said I just wanted the refund now or I would make a claim and explain the machine came with the lens bodged up and made to look like something it was not etc.
Heinz then offered to take the lens or machine back, however the machine post is about 4-5 times what it costs to come here to the Uk, as from here is extortionate to say the least and a poor service I hear.

I want to make it clear I at no point even barely said the lens thing was anything to do with heinz and it was probably at some point in the machine life someone put the front on the 1,3, but had to constantly bear the suggestions I was not to be trusted many times, although I stayed cool and polite.
Also yes I am prepared to admit there was a point after all of that when a 1,1 was suddenly available that I would rather of had a refund, to avoid any more hassle or cost posts etc, would it travel Ok or even get there so it would have to go registered.Would one get here OK?
Also I`ll be frank that when it arrived in germany what if hienz then still insisted that although he could see it was a 1,3 that I had done it, how could I know, he seemed so convinced it was me and I was capable of that.
Also I just wanted the sorry affair put to bed rather than wait a month for heinz`s verdict !!!!! and whatever he decided he would do.
It would be totally out of my hands.

If I sent the machine silly cost( about that of a 1,1 anyway)if it travelled Ok I`d loose that and the origional post also heinz`s paypal fees I had paid, then no doubt I`d have had fees to go if heinz did refund etc whatever he chose to.
So you can see what with heinz being so set on me being responsible for the lens being changed and all of the other send back costs etc and the big if`s and but`s I feel a 75Euro refund was a fair sensible suggestion and would have sorted it all out once and for all and not least I then wouldn`t have to read about how dishonest I probaly was anymore.
Anyway I had paid what I was asked but did not get what I was told was coming and even politely asking for that was acccused of dishonesty even though I was down in the balance of things.

I do wish heinz would believe me, and put the matter to bed now before he goes away on his hols, its a simple thing to do and had the situation been reversed you can rest assured I would have apologised when I heard about the wrong lens for one thing, I would certainly never suggest the buyer had done a switch to rip me of, and I`d make bloody sure they didn`t loose a penny and if I had a 1,1 would wang it straight in the post or some cash, but thats me.

By the way kev don`t forget to mention that print of Dune I sold to you and I didn`t realise there was a small section in the middle not up to scratch .
When you told me absolutely no quibbles, an aplogy from me and an explanation for some of the film I had gone by the origional sellers description.
And then an immediate refund of the price, your post and the post to return it as well and I think I covered paypal too,
I do try to be fair, if I ever get it wrong I`m sorry.
I wish heinz was able to say sorry for suggesting I was dishonest, i`d appreciate that.

best wishes, and to you to heinz, lifes too short.
Mark.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 17, 2004, 06:31 PM:

Hi Mark,
One of the things that I find strange is that you can recognise instantly the size of the rear element of the 1.3 instead of the 1.1? I for one wouldnt be able to tell them appart except for what they say on the front. I dont mean to say that you dont know what you are talking about but I have to say that my Xenovaron 1.1 does have quite a small rear element. What is the measurement accross the rear element? The design of the Schneider's did change over the years and dont forget that the rear and front elements arent the only things in the optical equation the elements inside also go along way to help the f no of a lens. It mabe the lens you have really is a 1.1 and not a 1.3 especially as the lenses for the Bauer were made to Bauers spec. My Elmo 1.1 & 1.3 lenses both have the same rear element of 8mm accross and the Xenovaron is 9mm accross. So be careful on this one Mark.
As to the ST600 Yes I agree that the problem of you lower loop not being big enough could be down to the poly films but as I said to you before having to set the machine up again beacuse the screws had been played with and the fact that you reckon the machine had been tampered with and had the wrong parts fitted was a bit much. On inspection the screw heads were all burred and the locking compound put on by Elmo had been broken. This is something I check on all machines I buy and it wasnt the case before being sold to you. Yes I am still a bit peeved over all that.
I could go on about other purcahses you have told me about but lets spare the embarressment here on the forum.
I think that Heinz has every right to want to see the lens before giving a refund and lets face it if the lens says 1.1 on the front Heinz probably believed it to be the case as well.
I hope you both sort the problem out but please check that you have a valid argument first.

Kev.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 17, 2004, 07:35 PM:

Hi Kev, you don`t think heinz suggesting I had switched it myself is a problem or rather hurtfull?
I`d have been happy for him to see it and do accordingly but at second mail he suddenly decided he would not take it back as he thought I had done it.
Goodness knows where he came up with that.
The image size is also not 11mm for sure its also odd the lens front ring with the size on was loose.
Also the image is just not up to 1,1 standards.
By the way I never went near the tensioner on the ST, you asked me not to adjust anything on it so I didn`t but I did have to adjust the loop after threadings.
Also the barrel on the threader arm didn`t have the usual adjustement shape so there was nothing I could actually adjust if I`d wanted to. I did not do anything to it, sorry you were peeved at your end but you must have not noticed before. The only two things I could have adjusted I know of were the little brass thing on the threader that was not adjustable ( some are) and the tensioner and I have never ever touched one of those.
I have had an St600 with that being eliptically shaped so you could adjust it also the screw I did notice was moved was nothing to do with me. I did say I felt I could sort it if it stayed. But I did nothing but run a few derann poly L+H`s through.
But anyway at least it was Ok when the tensioner was done( though still a little troublesome with poly),I`m sure I could have done that had it stayed here, but as we disscused that particlar version of threader on the 600`s is troublesome with poly, the next but one updated one is far more reliaale with any stock as there is less this and thataway play on the threader thing.
I think the Dune purchase from me is pretty relevant too as a pricey item, though not as high as the 510.
I think its always difficult in things where money is concerned and its easy for things to get out of shape but theres never a need to directly suggest someone is dishonest when you haven`t even seen the thing at issue you sent the buyer.
I`m very sure the lens is the 1,3, but whatever I`m 100% sure I didn`t switch it to make a dishonest gain as I`ve had to endure being suggested and thats the main issue whatever with the lens.
best Mark.
PS I`m pretty sure the rear elemnt is not 9mm by the way, I`ll measure it.

Posted by Heinz-Juergen Schachner (Member # 32) on July 18, 2004, 12:42 AM:

Hello,

I never said that Mark is dishonest. I only said that I can not tell if the lens has not been changed by himself. It is hardly believeable, because I did look at the lens very closely before I shipped the machine. In fact, the BAUER was originally equipped with the 1.2 lens and I installed a 1.1 lens from my spare parts. Strange that exactly this lens is a faulty one. This is why I want to see the lens, first. Mark has paid a very reasonable price for the machine (EUR 285 including postage via Express). How can I give a rebate of EUR 75, then? If you look on the internet page of Paul Foster he takes 300 £ for a BAUER T 502 with a 1.2 lens. The T 510 is the better machine with stereo recording and playback. So there is no rebate possible.

I really do not have a spare 1.1 lens at the moment, because I have sold my last two spare lenses last week. I can take a 1.1 lens out of another BAUER movie projector and send it as exchange, but first I want to see the "faulty" lens.

I am on vacation from July 21st to August 12th and if the lens will be sent to me after my vacation I can examine it and exchange it.

Best Wishes

Heinz-Juergen Schachner

Posted by Trevor Adams (Member # 42) on July 18, 2004, 05:48 AM:

The question is,"..your experiences with Mark Todd".My sales/trades with Mark have been very good. Hey Mark,I preferred the 1.2 xenovaron in my T610.Not as much mucking around with the fine focus!Trev

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on July 18, 2004, 02:24 PM:

Guys,

I don't really think the forum is the place for this kind of discussion.

Fair enough to warn others of a dodgy seller or a person who owes a lot of people a lot of money so long as it is in the spirit of a warning and enough notice is given to the 3rd party that they intend to publish on the forum. Otherwise we descend into dangerous territory.

Ebay is the perfect solution for trades. It is as close to a true market as you can expect to get and more importantly you are abel to review and leave feedback.

Tony [Smile]

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on July 19, 2004, 03:00 AM:

I'm with Tony on this one.

Posted by Steve Wainright (Member # 207) on July 19, 2004, 03:37 AM:

Hi everybody

I work for trading standards so I get these cases quiet often, I would like to ask Mark a question -

From receiving the projector to realising that it did not have the corrct lens as you expected how long was it, was it a matter of hours or days or weeks.

Thanks

Steve

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 19, 2004, 08:07 AM:

Hi from having a few films through and being happy with the machine and then realising about the lens when I had it properly stationed and run and telling heinz was only a matter of a few days last week.
I only generally run a couple of 400`s through a week nowadays anyway.
Trading standards usually mainly approach things from the buyers perspective I think but heinz has chosen to make this an issue mainly from his early refusal to take the lens back as, as he said, he could " not " be sure I did not change it.
As I have said after metioning the lens to him he first told me he didn`t have a lens to exchange for it , and then next soon after refused to take it back for the reasons he gave about me.
I then replied that it was a 1,3 lens in my opinion and I felt it was unfair etc to suggest that about me.
Then once again he questioned my trustworthyness saying how could he know I hadn`t done that!!
As I have said it was shortly after that I then asked for a simple small refund. Heinz did now say he would have a look at it.

The implication of my character from heinz was very clear as far as I`m concerned. And was consistantly put and that certainly didn`t help matters.
With him of that mind I certainly had to wonder what he would do or say on even seeing a 1,3 in his hand after more expense for me.Would he still insist I had done that!!!

I`d like to say that I held heinz in very high regard, I trusted him completely and have never suggested anything otherwise.
Had I been mistaken about the lens I would have been very contrite and sorry, covered any costs heinz might have incurred, apologised thoroughly and probaly sent him a couple of nice L+H`s or something.
I had even considered getting another bauer from him if this was nice but have actually been offered an elmo in the meantime, but I of course will be leaving projector buying now for a very good while unless in person.
I would like to put a line under this and have as it happens sold the machine on and will take a small loss of just over £40 all in, and well worth it to have it out of my hair and for the suggestions about me to stop. And I of course under no circumstances wish to deal with heinz ever again.
The buyer is going to pay to have it picked up and see the machine and lens first and see how it goes before paying me at a later date, I trust them so completely.
If I had, had any idea my good character was going to be so called in too question and then have it dragged in to the public realm as well I`d obviously rather have just put it down to experiance.
Money is not everything to me and I do not buy and sell on for profit heinz and if I did I would not, at first call on a small issue suggest doubts about peoples honesty. Its something I think you need to adjust in your dealings in future.I think the very least you could have done was to see the lens for yourself first and even then I don`t think those suggestions are on anyway.
So fine heinz the issue is closed and finished you get to keep your few Euro`s even if as I believe I am right about the lens or whatever.
I`d rather you hadn`t tried to muddy my name in public and I can assure you I am a decent honest chap and would never dream of deliberately changing a purchased item to get another better one or money out of someone.

Maybe you need to ask yourself why you so quickly susspected me of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have to say I agree totally with Tony and John that this was not the place for this at all and thank the chaps who voiced kind and possitive remarks about me, Thank you.

For me the issue is and I hope for all of us, now closed.

Best Mark.

Posted by Heinz-Juergen Schachner (Member # 32) on July 20, 2004, 02:28 AM:

Hello,

I did offer to take the complete machine back for full refund. If Mark wants to sell the machine for about 40 £ less, I think it would be cheaper to send the machine back. I do not think that postage for sending the projector back is 40 £, or is it really that high?

I shall try to assemble the front of a 1.1 Schneider lens to a 1.3 lens and post the results later. There must be a significant difference in the length of the lenses as far as I can imagine.

For me the matter is closed now and my offer to take the machine back is still valid.

Best Wishes

Heinz-Juergen Schachner
Germany

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 20, 2004, 03:06 AM:

I`ll just mention that offer to take the machine back was only made well on and once I said I`d go to pay pal( strange you forgot to mention that) and after me suffering the accusations for a good while, the postage cost is more than £40 even for the risky service as it happens anyway.
Heinz has still missed out his early things he said about me etc and his refusal to take the lens back because of that and tried to make himself look more reasonable or a safe person to deal with.
You must draw your own conclussions how that would pan out were there to be a problem and or a mistake if you bought from heinz and what might be said about you and suggested very early on.
Its interesting what people tell a person by email about somone who has tried to besmirch them. I`ve had a few telling emails heinz, but unlike you I will be keeping things to myself in consideration for you.
As far as I`m concerned the matter is now closed not least as I don`t wish to deal with someone so quick to trash my name in private and public and anyway who while doing that seems to have become a little confused about the sequence of events so it reads differently. Oh well such is life.

You have questioned my honestly by anyones standards heinz, and I`m sure people will think themselves how they would feel had those things been levelled at them. Still not a hint of any regret at that or even a small apology, Oh well think of that what you will.
I`d rather throw the flammin thing away than deal with you in any small way due to how I`ve been maligned etc and can well live without the possibility of any more suggestions about me so its final and finished as far as i`m concerned.
best, Mark.

Posted by Heinz-Juergen Schachner (Member # 32) on July 20, 2004, 05:54 AM:

Hi,

from the many, many deals I have done directly or on eBay, I had never so much trouble as in dealing with you. Please remember that this is not the first time I had sold you an item but strangely you have had problems with nearly all my machines. Sorry to tell you that but this has nothing to do with honesty. It has something to do with knowledge of the machines one is buying. I did own BAUER machines for over 20 years now and I really do know the machines by heart. Mark simply seems to have a lack of knowledge of these machines. I never sold or will sell a defective machine. If someone plays with the machines and tries to "fix" something that is not broken, the results of that are rather obvious. I would never touch an ELMO GS movie projector, because I do not know that much of the machine. Thus I would send it to Kevin or someone elso, who has as much knowledge of the machine than he has (if this is possible [Smile]

).

I really do not know why I should apologize for anything I said, because I just said the truth.

Best Wishes

Heinz-Juergen Schachner
Germany

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 20, 2004, 11:18 AM:

Hienz the last the projector I bought from you was lovely and ran superbly, top nick and just as you said, etc, i was awell chuffed completely.
This bauer is superb wheter a 1,3 or 1,1 lens.
The first bauer I bought from you was also lovely it did however scratch slightly on one side of the picture just in as it put a little too much through on threading and touched slightly where it shouldn`t though you would have never known had you not looked in as they are so quiet.
I do not have that any more but was pretty sure it was sorted before I let it go, otherwise the machine was superb.
I had mentioned the things to you briefly but asked for no refund etc though you did kindly offer to take it back, there was no need.
Another machine was also lovely but did need work on the rear sprocket and very slight adjustment on the rewinding and the front arm was shaking all over loose. I didn`t try to sort that bit so sold it to a dealer who has a good chap and didn`t loose much.
That was the only time that yes you did give me a small refund but that was fair.
So in all 4 very nice machines, one small refund on one that was neccessary, and a little work I did on the first bauer too.Nothing much though.
Cine projectors are fallable things at any time and its always easy to miss odd things or even sending them through the post can upskittle odd things.
That needs to be taken into consideration if you deal in them.

Also of course now on this latest very nice bauer, superb in all ways and runs beautifully, it is probably the best condition machine I`ve ever had( if ony it were an elmo though as mad on them). So its great but I do genuinely believe the lens might not be the 1,1 . I think it would have been better to sort that between us.
As I say the picture is smaller than any 1,1 I have ever had.!!!!!
IF I had been wrong I would have been sorry however there was never the slightest intent of or me actually changing the lens to con anyone. That should not have been suggested. And it should ahve been kept between us.
The aplogy I would ask you to give now especially as this is on here is nothing at all to do with the lens, this has gone way beyond that, the apology I ask for is for saying you would not take the lens back as I may have changed it and so on which really is not OK and its far worse than whether I am right or wrong on the lens and had you not gone with those suggestions I`d have probaly ended up saying don`t worry about it anyway as the machine itself is top.

best Mark.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 24, 2004, 04:51 AM:

Mark, For heavens sake, just get a good one and keep it. It will save all this agro in the long run.

Kev.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on July 24, 2004, 05:39 AM:

Sound advice Kev.
Heinz has said sorry, thanks heinz much appreciated, so sorted more or less.
It is easy to question things, I think heinz had a very bad experiance lately, but that doesn`t mean everyone is like that.
Anyway on good terms again, heinz is a good chap.
Just waiting for Brad to pull the posts.

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on July 26, 2004, 12:19 PM:

Given the lengths of some of these posts I am glad to be on Broadband [Big Grin]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2