Well I'm not making it up. But unfortunately, I won't be able to prove anything, so I don't see the point of spending a lot of time trying to chase them.

When I phoned them, I failed to get the name of the person I spoke to, or indeed anything in writing, and nor did I give my name. I described the issue with the lens (AF adjustment required - it was back focusing by quite a lot more than the K-5 adjustment would allow), and they said it would £100 plus VAT if no parts were required.

Which was what they charged me with my PU number. No mention of parts on the invoice - just the AF adjustment.

So for all I know, the person who quoted me got it wrong, and it should really have been more.

Mostly I'm just annoyed with my own stupidity for assuming it would all be ok, and for not getting some kind of evidence for the quote, but if someone else can benefit from my failure than at least something is retrieved.

The procedure should be that the quote is provided without any requirement for the PU number to be sent in at the same time.

Then there would be no grounds for suspicion.

Yes I know, but it's the sort of thing I would very much like to have been forewarned about. I wouldn't have been so stupid as to send the lens in with my PU number if I'd heard that this was even a possibility.
No, that's true. But it doesn't change the fact that their procedure is intrinsically open to abuse.

Oh, really?

So why does Johnsons specify that you send in your PU number with your camera, so that when they quote you, you have no idea what the quote would have been without membership?

Given that my only experience of this is a phone quote (without mention of PU membership) for a lens service that was the same as their 'including discount' quote, once they had my lens and membership number, the thread title seems pretty appropriate to me.

As soon as I read the decription, you came to mind

Yes, the Super A was my first camera - I remember that. I found that if I was careful, I could get an extra shot (sometimes two!) out of the film by shutting the back after the very first wind. They were usually useless, though, at 1/1000s.

I was much more successful ekeing out the film with the ME Super I acquired later.

I have never loaded any film camera other than Pentax - so I've never known anything but the Magic Needle system!

... or being constantly whacked by bright flashes

People keep saying 'it's the shake reduction'.

In case it's not obvious, it's actually the whole sensor assembly.

Simple to see - take the lens off, lock the mirror up, and look in through the front while you move the camera about. I haven't done this since I did it with the K10D, but I don't imagine it's much different.

If anyone, it'll be you, John.

And no need for any AF adjustment on a single one of 'em

Out-of-camera sharpening techniques aside, this is a fairly poor subject image with which to compare the sharpness levels.

It basically has one and only one in-focus contrast transition that sharpening would do anything much with.

Hopeless, really. You really need something with a lot more detail, where any differences are a lot more obvious.

It is interesting.

The comments on poor Pentax QC did give me a bit of a 'Groundhog Day' feeling

Despite the inevitable cries of 'but all brands have QC problems' from some, the fact is that Pentax is much smaller than the rest, and can't afford to brush off such criticisms lightly.

Credit to the reviewer, though - he clearly didn't let what must have been very frustrating QC issues cast a negative slant on the review itself.