Ok first I fully understand the part about Ducati dealers, especially in such a large country as yours where the network is sparse and you have so little choice with dealers. I think many Ducati owners, especially outside of Europe simply don't know that the dealer network is actually nothing more than a connected group of private businesses authorised to sell and maintain Ducati products but are not in fact part of the Ducati company. So yeah, I get that comment because not all dealers are created equal.
But in this case I think it's fair to point it that it appears to have been written off twice within the warranty period.
I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of any of this but if i were a potential owner I would want to and I think that if the vendor did not disclose this info freely there is something disingenuous about it. I'd not sell you a five grand bike without telling you if I knew it had been down the road let alone one I was asking ten times that for.
So yeah if this had not been through the Ducati dealer network and documented? I'd not be happy with it, and that Wilks, is as best a way I can answer your 'Why?' question. In these circumstances it all seems odd.
As I say, I'm awaiting the vehicle's history from Ducati for no other reason than it's all starting to get a bit rude over a post I think was a public service.
Is it fair to judge a bike without seeing it? Probably not, but is it fair to make assumptions about a bike when you know that there is pertinent information that the vendor is seemingly and deliberately not disclosing? I'd say so, enough to be suspicious at least. Caveat Emptor as they used to say in Rome.
And here's the kicker for me. If it's so cheap as to be well below market value then any potential buyer who didn't ask "what's wrong with it?" needs his head examined because if you were told 'nothing' and get a shock later at least you have a legal case for being mis-sold.
