I've kept quiet until now Richard, but your constant, (not so) thinly veiled digs at me on here about how you've been ripped off and lied to are, quite frankly, wearing a bit thin.
I'm not going to lower myself to a 'tit for tat' exchange about how mine is worth X and yours is only worth Y because of a bit of non structural surface corrosion underneath. It's a 17 year old Mercedes for christ's sake. However, I do take exception at being accused of getting 'bent' MOTs and passing on rot boxes at three months old to cover my arse and that of my local MOT man.
God only knows why you didn't see fit to pick up the phone and call me if you weren't happy about the deal afterwards rather than resort to bitching on a public forum.
As you consider the S500 to be worth £5k with a bit of restoration, then please, bring the car back up and take this one back with my blessing. I'm not in the business of ripping anyone off and I'll be more than happy to take the 320SLK back as I'm quite aware of its condition and value throughout.
I'm just heading out now for the evening but feel free to give me a call tomorrow to sort out when you're coming up. You have my number.
All the best,
Hadn't made a point of naming you, going after an argument, or particularly going into any such comments - the observation on MoT date/time of sale was just that, and in a private message at that unless I mentioned in in passing elsewhere.
I didn't say anything because a: if I treat something as a trade deal, that's where it ends, and b: felt that describing this car as clean, and worth a direct exchange for the SEC (320 SLKs for £1500-2K being plentiful on eBay, retail, at the time), was not honest. Since a: applies, and b: just makes me not want anything to do with people, I wasn't going to add more stress/drama to the already substantial amounts ongoing in my life at that time.
All I've mentioned is a picture of the tension rods rotted through and areas like the badly filled rear window, and my own stupidity in trusting a description of a car as being clean but for lacquer damage on the bonnet & boot.
Just to be clear: "as I'm quite aware of its condition and value throughout." - when the above description of the car's condition is fact, not opinion - simply justifies my feeling that telling me the car was "clean" and worth £2K retail was simply not accurate. If the condition was known, I'd expect to be told it - like I'm telling potential buyers in the way I've described it.
One of the great things about AS is that we know old cars wear out and are shit; you're not going to lose a sale by calling a spade a spade, if the spade is actually worth the deal.
I'd assumed the roof repairs were done before you got it and the only interaction you'd had with it was trying to improve the paintwork, which I'd already accepted as being an aspect of the car's condition and included the Becker radio kit for the respray work.
I don't want the SEC back, obviously, because my reasons for getting rid of it haven't altered - I don't suddenly have the resources or time to do it justice. I'm not asking anything of you regarding this.
I just regret trusting a car being described as fundamentally clean, when my own instinct is to point out the faults. Of which the fuel leak developed later, but ensured I saw underneath it properly.
TBH, I wanted this thing gone, then to forget my own poor judgement on the whole deal, and had no intention of mentioning anything other than a vague "fucking hell I need to be less trusting and more diligent"; your own conscience, if clear, can just laugh at my apparent ineptitude at buying cars even after 25 years of it, and it'd be forgotten.
Sorry, would've been forgotten. This exchange kinda alters that.