Mint?

[Kim Coxon]

A bit OT but it was a special edition for the year 2000 with dare I say it 2000 made. It came with a special version of the A series 50/1.2.

Kim

Wow -- I had never heard of the LX 2000. Sharp camera. I've had the LX in mind for some time; still pretty expensive.

 

[Ben Z]

A 50 year old camera can be "mint" (same as new) but not include the box and accessories that were with it the day it was sold new. To expect all of those things to accompany the camera in order to deserve the term "mint" is unreasonable. When someone describes a camera - or whatever - as "mint", they are NOT describing anything other than that single item.

If a buyer expects more than the "mint" camera, they need to make that very clear to the seller up front. Getting into a p!$$!ng contest after the sale because everything the buyer expected wasn't delivered - or promised in the first place - wouldn't be fun.

Walker

I've had the opportunity to meet and speak with some really serious Leica collectors and in their world, mint means with the box, papers and any accessories that would've come with it, eg strap, case, caps, lens hood etc. no matter how old it is. That's the whole point of why a "mint" 50 yr old camera sells for so much more than a "mint minus", the rarity of finding it in un-used condition and complete with the packaging and accessories just as it would've been purchased from a store way back when.

The problem is, and this topic illustrates it to a tee, there is no agreement or standard outside the world of those very serious collectors. That's what makes for so many misunderstandings and allows sellers such a loose interpretation of "mint".

 

[Kim Coxon]

I don't think there will ever be a standard. The biggest problem is that I have come across many places that "define" the grading system they use and then don't apply it. Recently I got an item that was described as mint-. By their own definition this meant "almost imperceptable signs of use" When it arrived it had a big dent in it. The first time dents were mentioned were in the Exc and good areas. The dent was on the other side of the photos shown! When I raised this with them their reply was that they knew about it but as it didn't affect the operertion and as the rest was so nice, they thought it should be mint-. However, they accepted that they were at fault and if I returned it, they would refund me the price of the item. Unfortunately this seems to be all too common these days.

I have had a few pleasant surprises as well. Ffordes in the UK are always very conservative in there grading and if there is any doubt, they will list in the lower category. KEH seem to be like this as well but these people are in the minority.

Kim

The problem is, and this topic illustrates it to a tee, there is no agreement or standard outside the world of those very serious collectors. That's what makes for so many misunderstandings and allows sellers such a loose interpretation of "mint".

 

[doubs43]

I've had the opportunity to meet and speak with some really serious Leica collectors and in their world, mint means with the box, papers and any accessories that would've come with it, eg strap, case, caps, lens hood etc. no matter how old it is. That's the whole point of why a "mint" 50 yr old camera sells for so much more than a "mint minus", the rarity of finding it in un-used condition and complete with the packaging and accessories just as it would've been purchased from a store way back when.

The problem is, and this topic illustrates it to a tee, there is no agreement or standard outside the world of those very serious collectors. That's what makes for so many misunderstandings and allows sellers such a loose interpretation of "mint".

You're describing a personal standard. If I own an item - any item - and it's "as new" in every way, then it's "mint" and that's not debateable. If a "serious collector" sets a higher personal standard then that's fine with me. He's gilding the lilly and if he wants my "mint" item, he's not going to get it for one penny less than the price I've set, especially if he argues that it's not mint because it doesn't include what he has set as HIS standard for "mint". I'll go with the dictionary which fails to mention accessories in the definition of "mint".

Don't misunderstand; there's nothing wrong with setting a high standard. What's wrong is trying to make others accept it as their standard when it clearly exceeds the norm.

The standard that's important is that an item is only worth what others are willing to pay for it.

Anyway, it's unlikely that I'll ever be in the "serious collector" category and I'll just have to continue using my Leicas to do what they were made to do; take pictures. I'll leave the collecting to those with deep pockets.

Walker

 

[ch1]

MINT

adj : as if new; "in mint condition" [syn: mint(a)] n 1: (often followed by `of') a large number or amount or extent; "a batch of letters"; "a deal of trouble"; "a lot of money"; "he made a mint on the stock market"; "it must have cost plenty" [syn: batch, deal, flock, good deal, great deal, hatful, heap, lot, mass, mess, mickle, muckle, peck, pile, plenty, pot, quite a little, raft, sight, slew, spate, stack, tidy sum, wad, whole lot, whole slew] 2: any north temperate plant of the genus Mentha with aromatic leaves and small mauve flowers 3: the leaves of a mint plant used fresh or candied 4: a candy that is flavored with a mint oil [syn: mint candy] 5: a plant where money is coined by authority of the government v : form by stamping, punching, or printing; "strike coins"; "strike a medal" [syn: coin, strike]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

 

[Ben Z]

You're describing a personal standard. If I own an item - any item - and it's "as new" in every way, then it's "mint" and that's not debateable. If a "serious collector" sets a higher personal standard then that's fine with me. He's gilding the lilly and if he wants my "mint" item, he's not going to get it for one penny less than the price I've set, especially if he argues that it's not mint because it doesn't include what he has set as HIS standard for "mint". I'll go with the dictionary which fails to mention accessories in the definition of "mint".

No need to shoot the messenger, it's not my a personal standard and I have no agenda to make you accept it as yours. It's an agreed-upon definition among camera collectors (which I am not one of) that's adhered to by Christies, Sothebys, Tamarkin, Westlicht and other photographica auction houses as well as accepted between collectors themselves. It might not agree with your personal definition of mint, or the one in the dictionary, but it's the closest to a standard there is in the world of buying and selling used cameras.

The standard that's important is that an item is only worth what others are willing to pay for it.

That's not a standard, it's just a principle of economics. A standard is a set of criteria, however arbitrary, that everyone agrees to accept in the interest of avoiding misunderstandings and disappointments. In that sense, the point isn't whose definition gets adopted, it's that some set of definitions get adopted otherwise we'll always have the situation we have now, with "mint" being used to advertise everything from sealed-in-the-box-untouched-by-human-hands to run-over-by-a-slow-train. Since there's already a large group (the collectors) who have agreed upon an interpretation of "mint", I just thought it'd be as good a place to start as any.

Anyway, it's unlikely that I'll ever be in the "serious collector" category and I'll just have to continue using my Leicas to do what they were made to do; take pictures. I'll leave the collecting to those with deep pockets.

Yep, me too. At least as long as I can find film and processing and can afford it. After that I'll be a forced collector, of bargain-grade stuff. The only way "mint" could apply to any of my stuff is to describe the original flavor of the chewing gum holding it together

 

[dont45]

No Response

No Response

Twenty Eight Hours and counting ... no responce to three emails about my MINT M6.
Here's a couple of pictures. My digital doesn't do too good a job but I think you can see the not-so-mint part.
One photo shows the stain aroung the counter window/rewind lever/speed dial. The other shows the scratches completely through to the brass on the bottom plate. These are just two spots where there is damage, but I think enough not to be Mint.
I know some businesses don't do too well reading their email, but one would think those in the e-retailing would be on top of this. I'm still waiting.

 

[Paulbe]

Wow! That is clearly NOT mint! Or even close.
Re the stain--it could be just dirt---try a Q-Tip moistened very slightly in Kodak lens cleaner. Works like a charm if it's just dirt--
good luck with your transaction---I think I'd call 'em!
Paul

 

[jaap]

It's deceiving. They should come with a solution What was the price you had to pay for the M6 ?

 

[dont45]

Resolved to my Satisfaction

Resolved to my Satisfaction

I'm happy to report they responded with 'we'll do whatever you'd like' basically. We worked it out, thanks to their great customer service plus they gave me two more years warranty to boot. They had no problem with a return of the M6, but since I am a user, not a collector, I can live with the condition. It's still not mint, but is excellent, and with their extra considerations, I'm happy.
It proves that we all have different expectations as to what condition descriptions mean, and as an up-scale retailer, I'd expect them to understand mint a little better, but I can't fault them too much when they are willing to take the item back or adjust the sale based on the descrency in condition.