Problem With eBay Purchase

[Maurice Leakey]

I have been collecting films for 74 years but never have I bought a film like I received recently. A 16mm one hour TV programme described by the seller as in very good condition turned out to have 29 taped joins in it. But worst of all, the adhesive had "bled" out on to several proceeding and succeeding turns of the film with spots of "goo". But, even worse, all were stuck quite tightly together. It took many hours of work cleaning it all off with isopropyl alcohol.

Of course, one does expect a TV programme to have a few joins where the commercials have been, but, 29? Some of these were only a foot apart.

I sent an email to the seller advising him of my findings and suggested a small refund (I paid £100) for the work I had done. Here is his reply:-

"The film was advertised as an original transmission print. Taking this and itself into account, I consider my description to be accurate. I haven't seen this for a little while but it went through my projector with no problem and I found the picture quality very good with crystal clear soundtrack. If you are not happy with it, please return it for a full refund."

I think that it could not have been shown for many years for it to have got to a state where it was obviously impossible to project as received.

I left a negative feedback.

The seller is Patrick Duffy and his eBay name is jedikiagirls.


Maurice

[Mark Todd]

I`m not a going to paypal fan Maurice but I think you maybe should here.

As much in an effort to protect other buyers.

There is no way at all anyone could say that was very good condition by any stretch.

You deserved a 50% refund at the very least and an apology.

Sorry about the bad luck.

I can imagine the sinking feeling when you got it out of its pack !!!

Best Mark.

[Maurice Leakey]

Thank you, Mark

I think it was quite rare, "Department S" with Peter Wyngarde, originally run April 1969, episode called "Black Out". It came complete with original typewritten script made into an A5 book.

If the seller had run the film it must have been many years ago.

I suspect that the joins were made with sellotape, not the correct splicing tape. Such mess is often encountered when a sticky patch has been put on the leader to keep it intact for storage and transit, this always leaves a further sticky mark a small distance away, but this film was unbelievable. I can't believe a TV transmission print would have had that many joins. There was no date code as the stock was b&w Gevaert so there's no way of actually dating the print.

I gave details of the seller for obvious reasons.


Maurice

[Douglas Meltzer]

When selling a print, the presence of 29 splices absolutely needs to be mentioned in the description. That said, the seller did offer a full refund which is the right thing to do.

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

I do not know about eBay UK, but here in the U.S.of.A eBay’s buyer protection will refund your money, no questions asked, if you report it as “not as represented”. Of course you will be required to return the print, but many of us feel that getting the money back is more important than keeping a bad print, no matter how rare it may be.

[Martin Davey]

I'm sorry to hear that the sale did not go well Maurice, very disappointing. He really should have checked the film before listing it for sale, and its bad that his own (presumed) splices caused so many problems. At least their is no quibble about the full refund, if that is what you decide.

[Maurice Leakey]

Thank you, Gentlemen,
As I have spent many hours re-splicing and removing all the "gunk" the print is now as it should be. There is no need for me to return the film.
It was a labour of love.
Here is the film on the Internet Movie Data Base.

"Department S" Black Out (TV Episode 1969) - IMDb


Maurice

[Ozzie Williams]

Hi Maurice,

I have seen this seller's description of the item, and I think he made a mistake describing the item as "very good" given what you have said about its condition. I also feel he should have said whether it had been run through or not in the description, so you could know for sure how far his description was backed by a check.

However, once you had begun to repair/work on the film, you could not return the item without incurring a loss of your time and effort (i.e., you had improved the film). Under the circumstances the seller can only satisfy you by giving a partial refund, something they may not be happy about because they do not agree with your assessment of its condition.

Now, I know you to be a very fair and a good buyer I don't doubt what you say about the condition of the film. However, I do wonder if it might have been an idea to exchange emails about the film before commencing work. At least then you could have accepted the seller's offer of a total refund without prejudice.
(which no doubt could include all postage given the item was not as described).

I sell some film on ebay, and I am terrified that my descriptions may be wrong in some way...just by dint of being a human being with all the subjectivity that can sometimes involve. My only hope is that if I do make a mistake a buyer will accept a full refund with postage...

BTW, I am not suggesting the buyer's description is fair, and as I say I know you to be a excellent ebayer...I just wonder if the sellers offer of a full refund could really be taken up.

[Mark Mander]

The seller did offer a full refund so if you wasnt happy Maurice then the offer was there , it seems you were happy to keep it by investing your time and effort to improve the film yet it still remains a splicey film that your now happy with?? Mark

[Maurice Leakey]

I bought the film because I wanted it for my collection. It had an excellent review on the IMDB. It's a 52 minute film and quite a rarity. I am quite satisfied.

Maurice

[Mark Mander]

Yes it is an obsessive hobby Maurice so we do tend to keep inferior films and watch them for some reason, Mark.

[Maurice Leakey]

I don't consider it inferior just because it has joins in it.
What about the days of cinemas with platters, they contained many joins for a complete programme. I know. I once worked single manning in an Odeon five screen multiplex.

Maurice

[Mark Mander]

I can think of 29 reasons why its inferior Maurice, Mark

[David Skillern]

I'm glad you got this problem resolved to your satisfaction Maurice - but as stated earlier on this thread - the seller should have been very clear on the actual condition of the print - it makes me thinks of another seller on here who is shall we say not overly accurate in his descriptions !!!

[Maurice Leakey]

Thank you, David.

In his reply to my complaint the seller said "I haven't run this for a little while". It does seem "a little while" is slightly inaccurate. From the condition as received it does seem that it must have been "on the shelf" for a very long time, and that's disregarding the number of joins on which was allegedly a TV print.

The original screening was in April 1969, but that may not have been this particular print.

However, not withstanding a comment received, I am pleased to say the print is now in a fit state and, as for joins, as 16mm prints are now getting older and older there must an expectation that a print will have joins in it. Some projectionists were not really competent in handling 16mm films and their projectors.


Maurice