If you bought a lens on ebay

for $4200 and it said "New, never used" and you got it and found out it was a UN date code 1999? (I missed three sales waiting for questions to be answered so I jumped on this one....)

It's in pristine condition and there are no scratches on it anywhere but,,, IMO you really shouldn't try to pass it off as "new" when in reality it's 15 years old. I like the lens and I'm not sure it's a big deal I just feel like I paid a little more to get a new lens and ended up with an old one.
How should I handle this??

Is it new old stock?

Sounds like a perfect candidate for an "Item not as described" case to be opened. eBay does not like sellers representing 14 year old items as new. You would certainly be able to get a chunk of money back. What's the average sales price for a used lens?

Manufacture date is irrelevant to new, never used.

Did it actually looked new or did it looked used? That's really all that matters per the listing.

If you spent $4,200 on a lens that was built in 1999, I'm guessing it's a 300 f2.8 IS. Unlike some other lenses I'm pretty sure there wasn't any manufacturing updates on that lens so there's no difference between once built earlier on. Mine was also built in 99, it doesn't bother me one bit since it both looks and works great.

Yea it's a 300 2.8 IS and it is in new condition. I'm not really upset about it since it is in great condition. However, I was trying to get a newer lens because it does affect resale value. The add was very misleading. When I asked about the age (after the sale) he told me he thought it was a 2007. Anybody that owns a lens of that caliber likely knows about the date code. I don't feel screwed, just a little mislead. I paid more thinking it was a newer model lens.

Same thing happened to me.

My lens was at least 3 years older, they even uploaded a fake date code.

Dates are something that doesn't bother me a bit. I bought a used 135L from B&H Photo a little over a year ago. It was graded to be in 90% condition or something like that. What I received was a lens that had a UU date code but looked as though it had never left the box. Not one imperfection on either the glass or body. Even the hood, which btw often has scuff marks was in pristine condition. I felt like for $700 I got the deal of a lifetime on such a lens.

They should have labeled it as new old stock.

Is it new as in age ,or is it new as in not used before?

Trumper wrote in post #16523803
Is it new as in age ,or is it new as in not used before?

the OP clearly states it's in new condition, just 14 years old.

What is the reason someone would want a new never used lens? The reason is, a new never used lens would be in pristine condition and there are no scratches on it anywhere. And that's what you received. I would try the lens and if the photos are great, I would keep the lens and be happy that you received a great copy. If you return it, the next one you buy may have some real issues. Don't try and create an issue where there is none.

Nightcat I pretty much agree with you. However, when buying a lens I always consider everything that will affect resale. People want to know the date code for a reason. It has an effect on the value of the lens. New unused or otherwise. If I should decide to sell it next year, I'll post the date code and it will no longer be "new"... It'll be a 16 year old used lens.
Like I said it's not a huge deal. I do think a $200 price reduction would be a fair offer.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16523132
Sounds like a perfect candidate for an "Item not as described" case to be opened. eBay does not like sellers representing 14 year old items as new. You would certainly be able to get a chunk of money back. What's the average sales price for a used lens?

FlyFishingTN wrote in post #16523235
Yea it's a 300 2.8 and it is in new condition. I'm not really upset about it since it is in great condition. However, I was trying to get a newer lens because it does affect resale value. The add was very misleading. When I asked about the age (after the sale) he told me he thought it was a 2007. Anybody that owns a lens of that caliber likely knows about the date code. I don't feel screwed, just a little mislead. I paid more thinking it was a newer model lens.

Jerobean wrote in post #16523881
the OP clearly states it's in new condition, just 14 years old.

What I gather from what you said, he bought the lens news as a retailer buyer. He is now selling a USED lens. Unless he is a retailer that had this sitting around in inventory since 1999, it is a USED lens. You bought a USED lens, not a new lens.

If I buy a new car from a dealer, have a flat bed bring it to my house, stick it in my garage and don't drive it for 15 years, can I sell it as new? No.

The seller described it as new, but it is used. Either ask for a discount down to the average selling price of a used lens, or open an Item Not as Described case.

This is an example of why people have problems on ebay. The item is represented as new, and it is not, but the seller gets away with it, and the buyer gets shafted (yes, I'm saying he got shafted), but does nothing about it. The seller (and others) just repeat the pattern, and one day someone gets seriously burnt.

Misrepresentation is misrepresentation. New is New, and Used is Used. In New Condition is Used in like new condition.

nightcat wrote in post #16523933
What is the reason someone would want a new never used lens? The reason is, a new never used lens would be in pristine condition and there are no scratches on it anywhere. And that's what you received. I would try the lens and if the photos are great, I would keep the lens and be happy that you received a great copy. If you return it, the next one you buy may have some real issues. Don't try and create an issue where there is none.

The issue is the seller misrepresented the item as new.

The non-IS isn't even made for -what- 10 years?