Sheldon Faworski, how to deal with him ?
lude...@my-deja.com
Knowing Sheldon since many years personaly face by face I bought from
his 1 pc 3-1/2" and 1 pc 7" Questar optic-set in February 1999. I have
send him the money and he shipped me the sets. I received them as
offered in brand new condition. Checking the offered quality from
Sheldon of 1/15 wavefront p.t.v with the serial nr., cumberland
confirmed this quality.
Deal Nr.2,
Sheldon tried in February in Astromart to sell an Questar 7" Telescope
with plain back for $ 5,000 without success and therefore he offered it
to me with follow mail:
Hi Markus,
Just picked up a very rar Questar 7" telescope with a plain back.
Questar made a hand full of these units, they tried to capture a
diffrent market, using a 2" stardiagonal. The plain back does not have
the control box on the rear end. It comes with a 2" Lumicon
stardiagonal, and a dovetail plate to mount it. If you are interested
for $ 5,000, let me know.
I answered Sheldon with follow quaestions:
- Is the mirrorfocusing without imageshift ?
- are the optics like new ?
- are the optics of real high quality ?
- are the mirrors made from pyrex or zerodur ?
- is the meniscuslens MgF2 coated or multicoated ?
- what happens if I see that the optics are bad ? Can we give this
scope to Mike Palermiti for testing before I buy it ?
Sheldon answered me again as follow:
- The mirrorshift is very small, better than the other 7"er's I've had.
- The optics are new and of very high quality. Questar rates their
optics, which are made by Cumberland Optics to be at least 1/8
wavefront. When we tested it against another Q 7, this one was clearly
better.
- I don't know what the mirror is made from.
- The coatings of the meniscuslens are not MgF2, my guess would be some
type of braod badn coating.
Since the deal Nr.1 worked perfect and I received for which I paid ,I
agreed with deal Nr.2, too. I transfered $ 2,000 to Sheldon and in
trade I shipped him telescopes for the amount of $ 3,000.
Some weeks later , in middle of march I received the shipment with the
unique Q 7 and an Invoice from Apogee Inc., P.O. Box 136, Union Il
60180-0136 with the notice : 7" Maksutov Telescope and the Invoice Nr.
2210.
I opened the well packed box and found the follow stuff:
- 2" Lumicon stardiagonal with fully damaged coating
- an OTA with an simple blue MgF2 coated meniscuslens and not with some
type of braod band coating as Sheldon misrepresented.
I waited several hours before doing my first startest. The startest was
made with an new high quality 2" INTES Stardiagonal and the damaged
Lumicon 2" stardiagonal. I found an non excaptable amount of
astigmatism ( maybe from an misalignment) and some spherical aberration
of about 1/3~1/4 wave, but nothing from the 1/8 wavefront which Sheldon
told me.
After this first bad impression I checked the scope more carefully and
found that that the inside primary mirror baffle was just about 26 mm
of clear aperature. I thought, this cannot be, it must produce an big
vigneting. Now I made an excact scaled drawing with the datas of the
tubemechanics and the opticsets and bafflelength. The result showed me,
that this scope was using an much to small baffle and it produce an
vigneting of the clear aperature down to 140 mm using the backfocus
with an 2" stardiagonal.Using the eyepiece straight just behind the
tube the back of the tube it use the clear aperature of 178 mm just
so,so.
Checking now again in startest I saw an 1 wave or even worser spherical
aberration with big turned edge. Since this is not the correct
backfocus, the image looked as terrible as I never saw before in any
other scope.
Using the 2" stardiagonal the spherical aberration was about 1/3~1/4
wave and still with an big turned edge, so even with correct backfocus
working the optics must be very bad quality ,espacially with fully
aperature.
No normal amateur could oversea this bad image.
Now I become very angry and contacted Sheldon again and informed him
about all the bad points and his wrong informations, still in a
friendly way. He respond to me, that he have no time now, since he must
go quickly on an businesstrip to Russia for 1 week. He said he will
answere me when he is back in USA.
In the mean time I contacted Stew Squiress and asked him for help. With
the pictures of the scope and the describtion , Stew asked Questar
about more informations of this scope.
Stew answered me a couple days later, that Questar told him, yes it is
Questar made, but not as telescope, it was made as an kind of
industrie product and nobody remembers at Questar with which quality
and for which use it was ordered.
After Sheldon returned from Russia, I informed him about what I know
now and asked him friendly to take back this piece with the bad optics
because nothing was as he offered it to me. I asked him to pay the
backshipping cost, to pay my cost to receive this scope and to pay my
lost importduties, to return my money and send back for his expenses my
scopes.
I told him as an manufactor of the 4" Widestar and other scopes and as
an ex-manager of meade telescopes he must have enough knowledge of
optical quality and telescopedesigning to see , that this was an real
bad piece.
Sheldon answered me with his next mail:
First of all I am not a dealer and no manufactor of telescopes, nor do
I work for Apogee.
If you want to return the Q7 you will:
- pay for the shipping charge I paid to get your products here and for
the US Taxes I paid
- pay for shipping charge to get your products back
- pay for return of the Q 7 to USA
When I read his answeres, I couldn't believe his answere. I asked my
partner ITE for help with some legal ways, but ITE told me, USA is not
germany and it would cost me more money than I will loss in this deal
and it would take a long time to fix the problem.
ITE talked to Sheldon but Sheldon did not change his mind. So I have
had to agree with Sheldons conditions or I would need to keep this bad
unit for which i paid $ 5,000.
After the bad deal have endet I calculated and saw my total lost was
about $ 1,200.
My conclusion: Never any more deal with the person named Sheldon
Faworksi
Markus Ludes, this time on position of an customer
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bob May
test optics and verify what is what. Either the lens is for something
special and you've tested at the wrong focus point or the lens is indeed
bad. You do get big abberations if the distance from the primary to the
secondary is way off and I think that you should know this.
you win some and you loose some and I think that you lost this one.
Have Fun and Keep Looking Up.
Bob May
mark dambrosio
have the impression that he has good knowledge of optics Something
definitely sounds fishy though when he has stated that this scope had
much better optics than another Q-7 he has tested. It
is a shame that you hadn't contacted Stewart beforehand to gather more
information about this unique Q-7. Probably due to an
initial pleasurable experience with Sheldon, it didn't cross your mind
to inquire further. I do hope that you, and
Sheldon come to a more amiable agreement on this transaction.
Would it be possible the scope was damage in shipment? This wouldn't
excuse the faulty Diagonal though. Mark
Frez
lude...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7jmi3o$trj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Deal Nr.1,
>Knowing Sheldon since many years personaly face by face I bought from
>his 1 pc 3-1/2" and 1 pc 7" Questar optic-set in February 1999. I have
>send him the money and he shipped me the sets. I received them as
>offered in brand new condition. Checking the offered quality from
>Sheldon of 1/15 wavefront p.t.v with the serial nr., cumberland
>confirmed this quality.
>After the bad deal have endet I calculated and saw my total lost was
>about $ 1,200.
>
>My conclusion: Never any more deal with the person named Sheldon
>Faworksi
>
>Markus Ludes, this time on position of an customer
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hi Markus Your turn of bad luck on this deal is unfortunate.
It would appear you have no choice but to take the loss. I assume
you were trying to resell the scope for a profit. Sometimes you win
and sometimes you lose. If at the end of this year you have still
turned a handsome profit, just remember this as a deal that was a
loss and learn from it. Since Sheldon most likely will not post in
his defense here, it is hard for us to say with 100% certainty
that you have been, as we say here, "ripped off". You are a good
member of this group though and have my respect and sympathies.
If you are suspect of Sheldon's integrity, it may be wise to have a
friend pick up your scopes and mail them back to you or at least
oversee the shipment. I wish you the best of luck in this matter.
ComaBereni
Having had a few opportunities to read your posts and visit your website, I am
convinced you are an integritous person. I am saddened by your recent
experience. I am angered when I lose $60.00 on a used Nagler that needs repair
instead of being in the claimed excellent optical condition.
I agree with other posts in that you probably will not be able to get Sheldon
to work with you. Would you still suffer tremendous loss if you had the mirror
refigured? Perhaps you could break-even on the deal this way. Questars are
desirable for their optics, but they are also desirable for their mechanical
and nostalgic qualities. It might not matter where the mirror received its
final figure.
Hope everything works out for you.
Paul Stock
comab...@aol.com
WHALEN44
Sorry to hear of your problem. If Sheldon is indeed a dealer (I always thought
he was) or an importer, I would demand the $1,200 you lost on the deal.
There are several groups you could report him to such as the "Better Business
Bureau" etc. It won't get your money back, but night keep him from doing the
same to someone else.
Also if he advertises in any major magazine you could let them know. They might
refuse to place his ad's in the future if he is indeed involved in unethical
business practices.
I guess you could list all the products he sells and get people to boycott him.
In this case however, I'm afraid it's" live and learn" to a certain extent. Do
you know what state he is currently doing business in?
You could always contact that states office of Attorney General, fraud
division. Also if it was sent by US mail you could lodge a complaint with the
US Postmaster.
In other words, you could make life tough for him. What you need to decide is
if the effort is worth your time over a $1,200 matter.
Myself, it is usually the principal involved that sets me off, not the money
(unless it's alot).
What ever you decide, the best of luck!
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
AndersonRM
> You do get big abberations if the distance from the primary to the
>secondary is way off and I think that you should know this.
>you win some and you loose some and I think that you lost this one.
>Have Fun and Keep Looking Up.
>Bob May
Faworski should refund ALL his money, it was misrepresentation,
pure and simple. I know how Markus feels (exactly) and I only
lost $60 due to misrepresentation by a seller.
-Rich
"Mr. Bigglesworth is angry, and when Mr. Bigglesworth
gets angry, people DIE!"
lude...@my-deja.com
> is a shame that you hadn't contacted Stewart beforehand to gather more
> information about this unique Q-7.
Deal Nr. 1 was handled perfectly and I know Sheldon since 1994 , never
bought something before from him, so never was troubled before.I just
believed him to much.
> Would it be possible the scope was damage in shipment?
Can the meniscuslens coating change during shipment from Multicoating
to MgF2 ? Don't think so.
Packing was perfectly made. During shipping maximum misalignment and
astigmatism can happens, but not so much decrseasing of the wavefront.
During shipping the mirrorbaffle cannot become smaller, so small that
it vignets down to 140 mm, or i am mistaken ?
Coating of an well packed diagonal cannot damage itself during shipping.
No, I paid for something and received something else., thats all.
best wishes
Markus
This wouldn't
> excuse the faulty Diagonal though. Mark
>
>
lude...@my-deja.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I assume
> you were trying to resell the scope for a profit.
If i would even only try to do this, i would be not a better person
than the guy who sold it to me.
Sometimes you win
> and sometimes you lose. If at the end of this year you have still
> turned a handsome profit, just remember this as a deal that was a
> loss and learn from it.
Is it so easy in USA to finish such an deal ?
Since Sheldon most likely will not post in
> his defense here, it is hard for us to say with 100% certainty
> that you have been, as we say here, "ripped off".
Therefore i keeped all documents and e-mails
You are a good
> member of this group though and have my respect and sympathies.
> If you are suspect of Sheldon's integrity, it may be wise to have a
> friend pick up your scopes and mail them back to you or at least
> oversee the shipment. I wish you the best of luck in this matter.
Anything what could be done, was done. I want just to inform future
potentitial customers not to do the same mistake, since the scope is
back in Sheldons hands and I am shure he will try now to sell it to
somebody else for the same money.
best wishes
Markus
>
> Frez
> fr...@greennet.net
lude...@my-deja.com
still suffer tremendous loss if you had the mirror
> refigured?
I think it would cost an big amount of money, but than still the
mechanics have to be made new to allow the use of full aperature. In
this case an new scope would cost almost the same as to bring this to
its specifications as claimed.
Questars are
> desirable for their optics, but they are also desirable for their
mechanical
> and nostalgic qualities. It might not matter where the mirror
received its
> final figure.
I agree with you, but Questar not made this scope as an telescope, they
made it as an industrie product with total diffrent specifications.
If an industrie company would order from me an 7" Mak with 1 wave and
this company would sell it to an astronomer and this astronomer would
contact me and would inform me, this scope have not the spec. of my
astronomical telescopes, please redesigned it free, I am sorry, but I
would need to tell this used buyer, it wass made for another work and
if you need to have it redesigned for telescope use you have to pay for
it.
It was not Questars mistake.
best wishes
Markus
>
> Hope everything works out for you.
>
> Paul Stock
> comab...@aol.com
>
lude...@my-deja.com
Richard,
my english is bad, I am living in Oversea and even ITE told me, he see
no chance to fix the problem. So all i can do, is speake about this
storry and hoping, that no other guy will come into the same trouble.
In Germany it would be no problem to fix this problem, but in USA ?
I will not die, it was another learning procedure in my life.
thanks for the advise
best wishes
Markus
>
> Myself, it is usually the principal involved that sets me off, not
the money
> (unless it's alot).
>
> What ever you decide, the best of luck!
>
> Richard Whalen
> whal...@aol.com
>
> Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
>
BillFerris
off" Markus Ludes. There are two sides to this dispute and we've heard just
one. It seems only appropriate to refrain from publicly damning Faworski until
he's presented his side of the story.
Business deals of this nature go bad all the time. Deception has nothing to do
with it in most cases. The inherent risk of buying a used product sight unseen
is that the seller's qualitative description will not match the buyer's
expectation. That's the case, here. Markus wants to return a used scope that
does not live up to his expectations. This is an entirely reasonable request.
The devil's in the details.
My suggestion to Markus is that he contact Faworski with the following offer:
Markus will return the purchased items at his expense. Faworski will refund
the $2,000 and return the telescopes-in-trade at his expense.
This arrangment has both parties equally sharing the cost of reversing the deal
and should be acceptible to both.
Bill Ferris
Flagstaff, AZ
AndersonRM
(BillFerris) writes:
>It's unfortunate that several people have concluded Sheldon Faworski "ripped
>off" Markus Ludes. There are two sides to this dispute and we've heard just
>one. It seems only appropriate to refrain from publicly damning Faworski
>until he's presented his side of the story.
So either your saying Markus can't distinguish between a scope
with good optics and one with terrible optical problems
or that he's posted is completely false. I'd say based
on only what Markus said, Faworski misrepresented the whole thing
and should immediately return Markus's scopes and all the money
Markus wasted engaging in this fiasco. There is NO way Faworski
could mistake a scope made for a non-infinity purpose to one made
for astronomical work. How do I know this? Because I gambled
$1000 once on an SCT (8") optical set made by Celestron for
testing glacial ice depths. It was used in conjunction with an infrared
laser. The scope optics set was a complete dud when it came to
astronomical observations and there is NO way anyone would have
mistaken it for an astronomical scope, period. Thankfully, in my
case it was a shot in the dark and no one misrepresented the optics
to me as anything other than for what it was made.
BillFerris
>>It's unfortunate that several people have concluded Sheldon Faworski "ripped
off" Markus Ludes. There are two sides to this dispute and we've heard just
one. It seems only appropriate to refrain from publicly damning Faworski
until he's presented his side of the story.<<
Rich Anderson wrote:
>>So either your saying Markus can't distinguish between a scope with good
optics and one with terrible optical problems or that he's posted is completely
false.<<
Rich, you shouldn't have stopped attending that English as a second language
course. What I'm saying is that there are two sides to every dispute and we've
only heard one. Therefore, we shouldn't rush to judgement.
RA continued:
>>I'd say based on only what Markus said...<<
Rich, we know you don't need to hear, see or read the whole story before making
up your mind. I'm just hoping not everyone is as premature as you.
RA again:
>>There is NO way Faworski could mistake a scope made for a non-infinity
purpose to one made for astronomical work. How do I know this? Because I
gambled $1000 once on an SCT (8") optical set made by Celestron for testing
glacial ice depths.<<
What does your purchase of a Celestron scope have to do with this? Nothing.
You don't know Sheldon Faworski. You've never done business with him. You're
not involved in any way in this deal. You have no basis on which to form an
opinion about the deal. Yet, you have. Then again, that's the Rich Anderson
we've come to know and...heck, there might be kids reading this.
Bill Ferris
Flagstaff, AZ
AndersonRM
(BillFerris) writes:
>Rich, you shouldn't have stopped attending that English as a second language
>course. What I'm saying is that there are two sides to every dispute and
>we've only heard one. Therefore, we shouldn't rush to judgement.
Your logic isn't logical. Tell me, if you heard Sheldon's side, how
would that PROVE to you either story had merit? It couldn't, unless
you trust one of the two parties is giving you a concise report of
the facts. I for one trust Markus is telling the truth, and I also feel
Faworski knows enough about telescopes to differentiate between a
good quality (1/8th wave) astronomical telescope and something
that isn't good.
>RA continued:
>>>I'd say based on only what Markus said...<<
>
>Rich, we know you don't need to hear, see or read the whole story before
>making up your mind. I'm just hoping not everyone is as premature as you.
Just give me one example of a story Faworski could provide which would
prove Markus false, and Faworski on the level, in your mind?
>RA again:
>>>There is NO way Faworski could mistake a scope made for a non-infinity
>purpose to one made for astronomical work. How do I know this? Because I
>gambled $1000 once on an SCT (8") optical set made by Celestron for testing
>glacial ice depths.<<
>
>What does your purchase of a Celestron scope have to do with this? Nothing.
It was an EXAMPLE of the fact there are optical systems out there that
aren't produced for infinity use as a telescope. It's one way of realizing
Markus has gotten such a scope.
>You don't know Sheldon Faworski. You've never done business with him.
>You're not involved in any way in this deal. You have no basis on which to
form >an opinion about the deal. Yet, you have.
No, I don't know Faworski. I believe he worked for one of the two
big SCT mfg's at one time.
My basis for forming an opinion now is that:
1. I trust Markus's opinion about scope quality. It's clear from his
postings that he places value in a decent set of optics.
2. He participates in this group and deals with people on it.
3. He has NOTHING to gain and EVERYTHING to loose by posting something
like that if it isn't true.
> Then again, that's the Rich Anderson
>we've come to know and...heck, there might be kids reading this.
Blah, blah. But just for fun, lets say Markus is completely wrong
about the scope as you seem to imply with your seemingly
magnanimous "lets hear all sides." Try this one on for size:
I DARE you to buy the from Markus for the $5000 it's supposedly
worth. I'm SURE Markus would sell it to recover the money he's lost.
Even if you offered Markus a small recompence for the $1200
he's lost, that's better than losing all $1200.
If what Markus says is true, and you end up with a $5000 dog,
keep it quite as you wouldn't want that truth coming to LIGHT,
would you? Then you'd look like a FOOL and it's likely Sheldon
wouldn't pay back all your investment either.
You haven't got the guts to back up your diatribe, do you?
In fact, if that scope suddenly shows up on Astromart, or the
Astronomy Mall or one of the Californian sales sites, I'll REMIND
you to grab it!
Do you have the GUTS to back up your lack of faith in what Markus
has said? I really doubt it.
Horst Udo Thiel
Hi all,
I'd like to give my 2 cents to this thread, just to hopefully
bring it to an end...
I don't know either Mr. Ludes, nor Mr. Faworski personally. I'm not
affiliated to any firm. I'm just a hobby astronomer reading usenet
news. Someone mentioned, that it's highly unlikely that Mr. Faworski
will ever react to this thread. I'm sure he has a different opinion
on that. There was a lengthy discussion in de.sci.astronomie a while
ago, where Mr. Ludes was "on the other side", having trouble with
one of his customers. That thread finally stopped after (dunno exactly)
way over 60 postings, with lots of people involved, and absolutely
NO valuable information for the community.
IMHO, the only relevant information from this whole thread is, that
there's a device which looks like a telescope, but obviously isn't
one, and it's in the hands of a person named Sheldon Faworski, who
_MAY_ want to try and sell it to someone else.
Everything else doesn't belong here, IMHO. I don't doubt anything
Markus has written, I just don't want another endless and pointless
discussion. Thanks.
-Udo from Germany.
Jon Isaacs
>making
>up your mind. I'm just hoping not everyone is as premature as you.
>
>
I think it would be nice if Sheldon would respond. I think that your
suggestion to resolve the issue would be nice.
However I am not hearing anything from Sheldon and do not expect to. I hope
Sheldon surprises me.
It is true there are two sides to every story. For me, and possibly others,
the situation is this. I have been following this group for a few years. I
have always read Marcus's posts with interest because he seems to have a large
amount of experience and knowledge of high end telescopes and optics. He deals
in quality stuff and knows quality. He seems to play no favorites but rather
just shares his experiences and knowledge of different scopes when it is
applicable to a given topic. He also at times asks for opinions on a scope
which he is considering for market. I consider him a straight shooter, someone
I trust and respect.
When someone who has my respect and trust and has been reasonable in the past
and as far as I know has had satisfactory dealings with everyone here, brings a
situation such as this to light, I believe him.
Just as I would believe a trusted friend who had been "screwed" by someone, I
believe Marcus and the story as he presented it.
With a trusted friend, there is also another side. With some friends, I might
say something like this to myself, "Yeah well I can see how you got screwed,
what goes around comes around and I wonder what actually happened from the
other guys standpoint."
With a trusted friend however I would say to myself, " That other guy must be
someone I never want to deal with." I say this because my experience with this
friend has told me that he is honest, straight shooting and knows what he is
talking about. This friend I believe without hearing the other side. I
consider Marcus to be such a person.
The question here is this:
What is the honorable thing for Sheldon to do?
It is clear that Marcus is dissatisfied with the scope. It is also clear that
there is something which is not right about the scope. I am not in business.
However, I believe if I sold someone something for $5000 and they suggested I
had misrepresented it, I would take it back no questions asked and pay the
costs. I consider this the honorable thing for Sheldon to do.
At this point I would say again I would like to hear Sheldon's side of this
story. If I do hear it, great.
I will say this. If Marcus had a scope I wanted and I decided to buy it, I
have complete confidence that he would represent it as it is (which is better
than I could do) and if there were some unforeseen difficulty, he would "make
it right." I cannot say this about everyone.
Jon Isaacs
Jon Isaacs
lude...@my-deja.com
billf...@aol.com (BillFerris) wrote:
> It's unfortunate that several people have concluded Sheldon Faworski
"ripped
> off" Markus Ludes. There are two sides to this dispute and we've
heard just
> one. It seems only appropriate to refrain from publicly damning
Faworski until
> he's presented his side of the story.
For which i have papers signed by Sheldon itself and lot of e-mails.
> >
> My suggestion to Markus is that he contact Faworski with the
following offer:
> Markus will return the purchased items at his expense. Faworski will
refund
> the $2,000 and return the telescopes-in-trade at his expense.
>
> This arrangment has both parties equally sharing the cost of
reversing the deal
> and should be acceptible to both.
He totaly refused from anything , excapt i pay for all (his and my
shippings, his and my taxlost).
The deal is already over since a few weeks. I asked several people to
talk with Sheldon, but nobody have had success.
Markus
>
> Bill Ferris
> Flagstaff, AZ
lude...@my-deja.com
Nothing.
> You don't know Sheldon Faworski. You've never done business with
him. You're
> not involved in any way in this deal. You have no basis on which to
form an
Anderson
> we've come to know and...heck, there might be kids reading this.
>
> Flagstaff, AZ
>
Bill,
Rich refered to what I said only. It is simple for everybody here to
check the correctness what I said. Just go back to Astromart in
February and you will see that Sheldon offered this piece as an 7"
Questar telescope. Take the picture, send it to Questar and ask them,
was that piece made as an telescope or as an industrie product and you
will get the right answere from Questar. Stew Squiress have made this
for me.
clear skies
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
> on that. There was a lengthy discussion in de.sci.astronomie a while
> ago, where Mr. Ludes was "on the other side", having trouble with
> one of his customers. That thread finally stopped after (dunno
exactly)
> way over 60 postings, with lots of people involved, and absolutely
> NO valuable information for the community.
This deal have endet friendly and he is now an happy APM customers ( if
you not believe , contact him and ask him self )and if you have read
this thread completly and carefully , than you should have noticed,
that i have had all prooved documents in my hands to show it to
everybody interested. The opposite was never able to confirm something
excapt his words.
>
> I don't doubt anything
> Markus has written,
nobody ask you to doupt me.
clear skies
Markus
>
> -Udo from Germany.
lude...@my-deja.com
say this. If Marcus had a scope I wanted and I decided to buy it, I
> have complete confidence that he would represent it as it is (which
is better
> than I could do) and if there were some unforeseen difficulty, he
would "make
> it right." I cannot say this about everyone.
>
> Jon Isaacs
Thanks Jon,
my reason to post this deal was not to ask someone for help. The deal
is over and I learned again from it. My reason was mainly to warn other
potential customers to buy maybe this $ 5000 chunk piece, since I am
shure he cannot hold it forever. Since I know Sheldon face by face
since about 8 years and therefore I fully believed him and have had
nearly friendly feeling to him and he made the deal Nr.1 just a few
weeks before perfectly, it is an shame to let end the deal Nr.2 in that
way.
clear skies
Markus