[magkelly]

I don't know how this particular store does it but when I used to do retail sales and we had to ship a product we always took a quick look to make sure the product wasn't damaged before we shipped. SOP. It could be that the person who shipped your order simply looked inside and checked the lens to make sure it was fully operational before shipping.

If you're just talking about a smudge from someone's hands that's easily wiped off. A fingerprint, ditto. If so, then I don't see what the problem is really. Does the "smudge" et all simply wipe off or are you talking about something more permanent?

If it's not permanent damage, I can see why they might decline a return. No offense, but there is such a thing as being a bit too picky and if the only thing they did was to check the lens then forget to wipe their fingerprints off that's asking a lot for them to just take it back don't you think?

[paugie]

Asian here.
I am a bit picky about what I buy. I look at the item for telltale signs that it has been used before. But I also check it out for functionality.
Many times I have purchased items that have previously come out of the box for other customers to look at and handle.
But functionality always wins out over "seems like it was used before". As the item continues to function well, I tend to forget what it was that made it seem like I wasn't the first one to hold it in my hands.

[Class A]

The original question is still unanswered:

Does B&H Photo re-sell products as a brand new items that have been returned by other customers who are dissatisfied with their purchase within 15 days?

I'd appreciate an official answer from B&H. I wouldn't want to have an item shipped to NZ only to discover that it has been used before.

I'd never buy a demo item without a discount and wouldn't want to bear the cost of resending the item.

[causey]

The original question is still unanswered:

Does B&H Photo re-sell products as a brand new items that have been returned by other customers who are dissatisfied with their purchase within 15 days?

I'd appreciate an official answer from B&H. I wouldn't want to have an item shipped to NZ only to discover that it has been used before.

I'd never buy a demo item without a discount and wouldn't want to bear the cost of resending the item.

See post #14 on page 1 of this thread. I think in saying "thank you" Henry acknowledged, without being explicit, that B&H sells returned items as new. Virtually all American stores do it.

[Class A]

See post #14 on page 1 of this thread. I think in saying "thank you" Henry acknowledged, without being explicit, that B&H sells returned items as new.

Thanks, I appreciate that and have the same interpretation but I'd like to hear from B&H with an explicit "yes" or "no".

I think a store either has to refrain from accepting non-defective items back or give customers discounts for items that have been tested by others. Otherwise, reasonable customers (who don't return items) are used to provide a service to customers who don't want to commit before they buy.

[twitch]

Sometimes no response or silence is an answer.

[Class A]

Sometimes no response or silence is an answer.

Perhaps they need a bit more time to reply?

After all, why would they not answer either way? Do they not stand behind their policy, whatever it is?

[causey]

After my misadventure with prodigital2000--I had to return two copies of a DA 16-45mm, one with a (tiny) scratch in the glass, the other with lack of AF btw. 16 and 20mm--I emailed BH Photo to ask whether they sell returned items as new. The answer was, as you can imagine, no. (Prodigital also refused to acknowledge they were selling returned items as new.)

You won't get any explicit answer--I guess they aren't allowed to give you one. Henry's is the first implicit acknowledgment, and I really appreciate it.

Now, I for one would pay extra to know I get a brand new, unopened item. I think returned items sold by retailers as new are often returned for 'invisible' defects such as decentering and BF or FF, and I'm inclined to believe that getting a brand new item minimizes the chances of an eventual hassle...

[Class A]

I emailed BH Photo to ask whether they sell returned items as new. The answer was, as you can imagine, no. ...
You won't get any explicit answer--I guess they aren't allowed to give you one.

You seemed to have received the explicit answer "no" once, that was an explicit answer, right?

If that's the case, I expect B&H to repeat that answer here.

The answer "no" begs the question what they do with any returned items. Can one buy them for a discount? Some customers may want to do that.

I think returned items sold by retailers as new are often returned for 'invisible' defects such as decentering and BF or FF, and I'm inclined to believe that getting a brand new item minimizes the chances of an eventual hassle...

You certainly have a point there.

[causey]

You seemed to have received the explicit answer "no" once, that was an explicit answer, right?

If that's the case, I expect B&H to repeat that answer here.

The answer "no" begs the question what they do with any returned items. Can one buy them for a discount? Some customers may want to do that.


You certainly have a point there.

I meant an explicit true answer.

[magkelly]

No offense, but how exactly do you guys get this response as a tacit acknowledgment of anything to the effect of them saying yes? If anything I get that Henry was saying "No, this was a new item etc." and then when he said "Thanks" later on I got that he was simply happy to see his reply earlier quoted so he didn't have to say so again. From what I can see, unless he emailed the original poster something else he's actually answered that question with a firm and very explicit "No."

Thank you for your purchase. We appreciate your concern. I believe we've corresponded about this via email and I reported we have a record of the serial number of the lens sold to you. It was brand new when shipped to you. It was not a demo or refurb or another customer's return. We shipped it to you exactly as we received it from Pentax USA.

[HUYSTA]

From my observation and experience with B&H Photo for the last few days, I'm going to answer my own question - even if B&H photo is hesitant to answer it (explicitly anyway).

It is naive to think B&H Photo would be shipping 100% brand new product straight from the manufacturer 100% of the time and maybe this applies to other store like B&H as well.

Would such a store like B&H Photo explicitly admit to my original question which is the title of this thread? Look back to all the posting made by Henry so far and you'll see ‘no’ and he's not denying it either. After all why would you wanna risk jeopardising customers or potential customer’s confidence, but at the same time you wouldn't wanna lie to something that is quite obvious would you?

I can't blame Henry for the way he has responded here, he doesn't get appoint to be "Director of Corporate Communications" at B&H Photo for no reason. But the practice of sending used/demo/refurb/returned lens as a brand new lens without disclosing or compensating it to your customer is still not acceptable in my book, no matter what other may say here.

On top of this, if he admits to what I originally ask - that is to answer ‘yes’, then he's going to be at least in some way should be liable for the cost of my lens exchange/return process in all fairness sake. This will also make his excuse about the record serial number on the sales database indicating "it was brand new and not previously sold/returned when shipped" sound even more questionable. Why would you even have a history record of the lens in your database in the first place if what you are selling is truly brand new? I personally think this is a nice excuse for making my claim look invalid at the same time offers me some confidence in my purchase.

So why did I ask? Because I wanted to see how honest they are. And I wanted to know what they would do about it to deal with this situation again should it arises with the next customer and hopefully with my current case. Sometime it's not the problem that is important, but how B&H handle it. Does B&H going to offer compensation for the freight cost of sending it back if the customer chooses to refund/exchange if they found the lens/item to be clearly have been used? (This is an easier question for you here Henry)

In my case, between B&H we've hit a stalemate. So who’s right? Being a returning customer of them on a few occasions, I thought it would have been a bit wiser if they wouldn't be so hard-headed. After all if your customer has a point and even you the seller also has a point, who would you rather listen to?

I have since opted for a refund and I have to pay for freight back to their store in NY. I see no point for me to deal with B&H Photo again in this case because they’ve also ask me to pay for freight of the exchange – cost of one way for sending it back to you is enough thank you B&H Photo.

I have since inquired the lens with another super store with same the price and maybe a little more cheaper freight for the same USPS service. Cause I rather take my business elsewhere. At least then I still have hope another store would be more willing to accept their responsibility should they sent me a used lens.

[Class A]

It is unfortunate that we still haven't heard from B&H.

Meanwhile, Adorama has answered. Their answer:

Our policy is that we either sell returned items as open box, or return them to the manufacturer for a partial credit.
...
If a customer receives an item that they believe has been used, we always take it back it our expense.

So business with Adorama is safe. What's up with B&H?

[Class A]

No offense, but how exactly do you guys get this response as a tacit acknowledgment of anything to the effect of them saying yes?

1. He never answered the original question. If the answer were "no", why doesn't he provide it?
2. He only made a comment about one specific item which was shipped as it was received from Pentax. He said "no" regarding this item, but didn't answer the original question (see 1.).
3. When he replied "Thank you", he didn't take issue with the comment in the text he quoted that specifically said that the poster received "open box" items from B&H. If the answer were "no", Henry should have taken issue with that statement.

As it stands, we currently have an implicit "yes" (B&H does sell returned items as "new" as opposed to declaring them as "open box").

I'm hoping that we'll still get an explicit answer. But if we don't then assuming "yes" is the much safer bet than "no".

I sincerely hope B&H will clarify by stating the same policy that Adorama applies, but even if they don't an explicit answer would be appreciated.

[HUYSTA]

It is unfortunate that we still haven't heard from B&H.

Meanwhile, Adorama has answered. Their answer:

Our policy is that we either sell returned items as open box, or return them to the manufacturer for a partial credit.
...
If a customer receives an item that they believe has been used, we always take it back it our expense.

So business with Adorama is safe. What's up with B&H?

This is dam good for me to know, thanks for pointing this post! I regret for not seing this earlier. Made my decision a lot easier now.

B&H, is still not too late for you to look into this as I still have my postage receipt here.