Extreme Mint - Leica IIC Camera

[Takizawa1]

Hi all,
I won an 'Extreme Mint' Leica IIC camera on *bay described as 'Not even a scratch, just like new'. Here's the good new and the bad news.

Good news: Mechanically the camera appears to be in great condition.

The bad news: The baseplate has surface scratches.. not deep at all, but visible. Even my 8 year old son thought the base plate was less than mint!

The seller on Ebay posted a picture of the baseplate, but in the picture you can't see the scratches.

What do you think is fair? Should I return the camera? Try to renegotiate the price?

In all honesty, I do like the camera, but feel the camera description factored into the price I paid.

 

[Godfrey]

Unless you're "collecting" it, it sounds like it's in beautiful shape and will make great photos. A few scratches on a 40-50 year old camera bother me not the slightest.

G

 

[splitimageview]

Minor scratches wouldn't bother me unless I paid accordingly for the condition I expected and was described. If the price was fair for the condition, I wouldn't do anything.

Bear in mind, nearly everything on eBay is 'mint.' 🙂

 

[goamules]

I bought a few cameras that were described as "minty", but when I smelled them, I could not detect any mint.

Seriously, cameras are not graded as closely as, say, guns or diamonds. If you paid a normal price for a "clean" IIc, and it's "very clean", you did good. If you paid, say, DOUBLE the price of a "clean" one, perhaps you should talk to the seller. With antiques, nothing is Factory NIB (new in box), because over the decades it was pulled out of the box, handled, placed on a dirty table, etc.

 

[Vics]

There's no such thing as "extreme mint" or "a bit pregnant." It is mint or it isn't.

 

[ZeissFan]

Anyone who describes a product as "extreme mint" is an idiot.

It's like "almost a virgin."

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Mostly Virgin ? as in Mostly Mint ?

 

[LeicaTom]

Just a little pregnant that's funny.....well maybe not? LOL!

I've seen in my 25+ years of collecting and selling only a handful of truly "near mint" Leica IIC's they are a uncommon camera......

The word "mint" is extremely missused, I use it only in describing glass, if it's "minty glass" that's near perfect, but cameras most differently didn't ever stay that way.

My word to the OP here is it depends on how much you paid? If it was over $300 then I'd ask for my money back .

The IIC is a "sleeper" collectable, not too many people invest in them, which is sad. 🙁

I like the IIC and IIF series alot, I have a Excellent ++ 8.5 almost 9 condition 1951 IIFBD with matching Elmar 50 lens in the original case, but I bought mine years ago so the price wasn't even an issue....

Collectors grades are really hard to determine, if you collect it's always best to take the words "mint" with a grain of salt and ALWAYS ask for a TON of photos if the seller is offering a museum grade camera, if they don't comply then they are crooks, it's all about the photos of the item offered, the better the photos and good communication with the seller makes a good experience and hopefully a great camera to sit inside the china cabinet. 😀

Hope that helps,

Tom

P.S. write me off the board and tell me what you paid for what camera etc. then I'll give you my advice of what to do, a scratched base plate is a deal breaker I think, when the camera was advertised to be in museum grade shape.....

 

[LeicaTom]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-IIc-Rangefinder-Film-Camera-Body-in-MINT-Condition-/181137952352?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item2a2ca9ce60&nma=true&si=tFLmnBSqbPkWyafAS%252FvoX2F6X7Y%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

I think the word "extremely mint" is really stupid, I don't think the seller was trying to rip anyone off it's just that there is no such thing really........

Is that the camera in question? You got an ok deal. 🙂 the camera looks real clean and if there's no nicks or dents in the base plate then it's alright, if they are brush/case scratches just light, then that's acceptable but if they are hardcore scratches, then I'd ask for $50 back
$250 is about the max price for a IIC with no lens, but it should be clean top and bottom in near new condition.
(Sucks, I think the seller took the original lens off the camera and sold it in another auction.)

I HATE PEOPLE WHO DO THAT!!!!

Breaking up a vintage Leica rig for profit should be outlawed, those people should be given no mercy, no blindfold, no last supper, just shot at sunrise!!!!!!

I personally have NEVER sold a camera body sans it's original lens, IF the camera had the original lens when I first received it, that's just not right to separate a pair that's been together for over 50 years. 🙁

Tom

 

[LeicaTom]

.....yeah after seeing another auction that just ended recently I'd say you paid $50 too much if the base plate is messed up/nicked deep scratches?
I'd keep the camera but negotiate $50 less the auctions wording is misleading if the base plate has wear.

Tom

 

[Simon Bruxelles]

I agree with Tom regarding the people who separate a Leica and a lens that have been together since birth but I don't think you paid too much if the camera has been serviced by a reputable workshop. If you'd bought the camera in that condition without a CLA you'd have to budget for one. I am paying £200 to have my Leica II serviced by Malcolm Taylor which is as much as you paid for the camera including the CLA. However that said no camera is truly mint unless it is still sealed in its box so the sellers description was misleading and there's no harm in asking for a refund. Good luck

 

[raid]

Mostly Virgin ? as in Mostly Mint ?

Well, there is Extra Virgin olive oil. 😀

As for the bought camera, if you want a collector cameta, return it.

 

[johannielscom]

Ask for a partial refund if it's only the baseplate. It can be exchanged for a spotless one.

For a shooter camera, having a scratch already on there allows you to just use it instead of carry it around like a priceless gem! 🙂

 

[goamules]

I'm sorry, but I do NOT agree with asking for partial refunds.

Dickering on prices after the sale based on interpretation of words and condition of half century old items is wrong. There are no set prices for any Leica - it's all a "range." There are no definitions of "mint, mint extreme, ne plus ultra" really. It's all about two people, a buyer and a seller, with two totally different interests, separated by hundreds of miles and time, trying to come up with an identical interpretation.

You looked at the pictures before you bought, and pulled the trigger. Then you get it in your hands, and want to dicker about the cost of going out to dinner? Asking the opinion of the world's experts on Leica collecting? It would be different if you bought it as "mint" for $600 or something double the going price range (which is what you have to pay for true "mint" usually). So you wanted a 600 dollar camera for $250 and didn't get it. So what? An auction like Sotheby's won't allow you, after the sale, to try to re-negotiate based on your-vs-their interpretations of condition.

I've noticed a trend in online sales of old camera equipment only, (not other collectibles which people KNOW are old, used, worn). It is the trend of contacting sellers after a sale and trying to force the price even lower. It just feels like extortion. I sold a 1915 LF lens the other day on a forum. I said it was "Bargain grade, missing parts in the iris and shutter, which are now totally unrepairable....use the lens as is, wide open only...blah." I sold it for half the going rate. The woman wrote after receiving it complaining about a couple nuts that were missing off the outside of the shutter! She whined and moaned about how "I just thought it would be useable when I bought it (it totally is), ....It will be like searching for a needle in a haystack to find those bolts...(which it doesn't need to work and I said were missing)...blah...blah." All people want is a FREE chance to personally INSPECT their POTENTIAL purchases, before REALLY buying. It's a crock.

 

[marcr1230]

I disagree with the conclusion - you were right to describe your equipment accurately and the buyer was wrong, but in the OP's case "Extreme Mint" as a description is basically saying it is flawless. if you inspect the photos and the defect is not visible due to the medium and the lighting, and when you get the item, it's obviously not mint or "extremely mint", you have a valid complaint. we can dispute whether to ask for a discount or ask to return the the item, but the seller is consciously and deliberately up-rating the condition to get a better price. "Extreme Mint" may have different interpretations, but scratched on the baseplate shouldn't be one of them

I'm sorry, but I do NOT agree with asking for partial refunds.

Dickering on prices after the sale based on interpretation of words and condition of half century old items is wrong. There are no set prices for any Leica - it's all a "range." There are no definitions of "mint, mint extreme, ne plus ultra" really. It's all about two people, a buyer and a seller, with two totally different interests, separated by hundreds of miles and time, trying to come up with an identical interpretation.

You looked at the pictures before you bought, and pulled the trigger. Then you get it in your hands, and want to dicker about the cost of going out to dinner? Asking the opinion of the worlds experts on Leica collecting? It would be different if you bought it as "mint" for $600 or something double the going price range (which is what you have to pay for true "mint" usually). So you wanted a 600 dollar camera for $250 and didn't get it. So what? An auction like Sotheby's won't allow you, after the sale, to try to re-negotiate based on your-vs-their interpretations of condition.

I've noticed a trend in online sales of old camera equipment only, (not other collectibles which people KNOW are old, used, worn). It is the trend of contacting sellers after a sale and trying to force the price even lower. It just feels like extortion. I sold a 1915 LF lens the other day on a forum. I said it was "Bargain grade, missing parts in the iris and shutter, which are now totally unrepairable....use the lens as is, wide open only...blah." I sold it for half the going rate. The woman wrote after receiving it complaining about a couple nuts that were missing off the outside of the shutter! She whined and moaned about how "I just thought it would be useable when I bought it (it totally is), ....It will be like searching for a needle in a haystack to find those bolts...(which it doesn't need to work and I said were missing)...blah...blah." All people want is a FREE chance to personally INSPECT their POTENTIAL purchases, before REALLY buying. It's a crock.

 

[goamules]

Maybe you're right. I agree saying something is Mint or New In Box is extremely risky and stupid for a seller. His mistake. If the link is to the camera we're talking about, I see now his ad reads, "Leica IIC Body in Extreme Mint Condition. Not even a scratch, just like new." So it's misrepresented.

If he'd said "Excellent Condition" would the OP be complaining now? What if he'd said "99% condition, just a few handling marks?"

 

[BLKRCAT]

Wouldnt extreme mint be like new? NIB would be extreme mint? Thats how i interpreted it.

 

[kermaier]

Is "extreme mint" the same as "Altoids"?

 

[Eric T]

Buy a mint base plate and be done with it.

 

[rfaspen]

I see a lot of "rare" items in "mint" condition on *bay. There must have been a huge hoard of rare, unused cameras suddenly released on the market. But then, would they still be "rare"?

Seriously, I recently saw an *bay description for a Canon AE-1 --- "Rare vintage SLR camera - L@@K!" Hmmm. Canon AE-1 rare? I have a treasure in my closet! Anyone interested?