Mint?

D

dont45

Member
Local time
3:17 AM
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
48
Just received a claimed to be MINT black M6 TTL from one of our RRF sponsors. If I was selling it I'd have a hard time calling it excelent++, but certainly not mint. My understand of mint is that it should be difficult or impossible to distinguish from a new item.
What I received has a 1/2" band of scratches through to the brass on the bottom along the front edge. The finish on the top almost appears to have been taped. It has splotches of something on the finish which does not wipe off with a soft dry rag. Under the winder lever there is gunk. I removed the lens cap and there is visible dust particles inside.
I purchased my MP one year ago and have used it extensively. It is 10 times cleaner than this Mint one, and I would not sell my MP as mint.
Also, I would expect a mint leica to still have the plastic coating on the bottom.
Am I off base on my understanding of mint, or should I return my newly aquired M6? :confused:
 
What you describe is NOT "mint", not in any field of secondhand gear/collectibles I've been involved with. Post pictures here, if you can. E-mail the seller privately. Include a link to this post and/or the pictures in your e-mail. Ask for redress; refund or price drop, whatever you may think appropriate.

Must ask- were you shown pictures before you agreed to buy? If so, were the pictures of the same camera? It could, after all, be a simple misunderstanding.

Above all, remain courteous. But be persistent.

Please let us know the outcome.
 
my definition of mint is the same as yours.. 'like new but used'.. a little gunk here or there wouldn't bother me as long as it was external and cleaned up easily.. but any scratch or ding automatically disqualifies it as mint

except when you buy it off ebait.. then 'minty' means it was retrieved from the bottom of a lake, but the seller did dry it off for you
 
dont45 said:
Just received a claimed to be MINT black M6 TTL from one of our RRF sponsors. If I was selling it I'd have a hard time calling it excelent++, but certainly not mint. My understand of mint is that it should be difficult or impossible to distinguish from a new item.
What I received has a 1/2" band of scratches through to the brass on the bottom along the front edge. The finish on the top almost appears to have been taped. It has splotches of something on the finish which does not wipe off with a soft dry rag. Under the winder lever there is gunk. I removed the lens cap and there is visible dust particles inside.
I purchased my MP one year ago and have used it extensively. It is 10 times cleaner than this Mint one, and I would not sell my MP as mint.
Also, I would expect a mint leica to still have the plastic coating on the bottom.
Am I off base on my understanding of mint, or should I return my newly aquired M6? :confused:
Click to expand...

Who did you buy it from? post a pic of the camera I'd love to know what sellers to stay away from in the future, be it they're a sponsor here or not.
 
I received a lens a little while back that wasn't as described. I am not going to buy used any more unless I can see it in person. You should just return it and avoid that seller again. Also, posting the name of the seller would be nice.
 
ywenz said:
Who did you buy it from? post a pic of the camera I'd love to know what sellers to stay away from in the future, be it they're a sponsor here or not.
Click to expand...

I fully agree withe this !!!!!!
This unacceptable. sponsor or not!!!!!
In the future I wanna buy an M6 so I have to be carefull I think with our sponsors!
 
Last edited:
Mint is "if you had the box it would seem to be new". If you like the camera, negotiate a rebate, otherwise just return it. All my experience with RFF sponsors is that they are very careful of their good name, so it might well be that a mistake has been made. It happens-both ways. My "used" M6TTL I bought from Foto Konijnenberg (not a sponsor, but a very reputable store) as "A-" turned out to be factory-sealed new. Their reaction: "woops, well- enjoy!".
 
I agree with the above descriptions - should look unused, although I don't think the plastic coating needs to be present.

Dan
 
I disagree with the definitions of "mint" thus far. "Mint" to me means, absolutely no detectable signs of use, in the original box with all the manuals, guarantee cards, etc. just like it came from the factory. In otherwords, brand-new except not covered by manufacturer's warranty. Anything less than that disqualifies it as being "mint". Mint minus to me means also no detectable signs of use, but it might not have all the original paraphenalia it came with. Even the minutist marks or signs of use make it Excellent Plus at best. That's one reason I've been happy buying from KEH, whose ratings follow my way of thinking unless someone drops the ball, which has only happened very occasionally. The description of the camera you bought would qualify as KEH "Bargain". I know, I bought 2 M6 classics from them last year in "Bargain" and they were both in equal or better shape than what you described. And, they were each under $900.
 
Ben Z said:
I disagree with the definitions of "mint" thus far. "Mint" to me means, absolutely no detectable signs of use, in the original box with all the manuals, guarantee cards, etc. just like it came from the factory. In otherwords, brand-new except not covered by manufacturer's warranty. Anything less than that disqualifies it as being "mint". Mint minus to me means also no detectable signs of use, but it might not have all the original paraphenalia it came with. Even the minutist marks or signs of use make it Excellent Plus at best. That's one reason I've been happy buying from KEH, whose ratings follow my way of thinking unless someone drops the ball, which has only happened very occasionally. The description of the camera you bought would qualify as KEH "Bargain". I know, I bought 2 M6 classics from them last year in "Bargain" and they were both in equal or better shape than what you described. And, they were each under $900.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

I believe that the term "mint" comes from the coin collecting world and refers to a coin that has never been in circulation but is not a "proof".

But whatever definition you use - it seems clear that what he got was not a "mint" camera.

I suggest that you ask the sponsor for a full refund. If they hesitate at all - use the "feedback" thread to let all of us know.
 
I have to aggree with Ben. To me mint is "as new" bust. Liks a coin that has just been minted. I have only ever received a camera that deserved this, my LX2000. It came in the box with the outer sleeve as it would have been sold from the shop. It was unused and even the original batteries were still in there sealed. Anything else should not be called mint.

I think the grading on most cameras is a trvesty and wouldn't work in any other trade. If you look at most "definitions" of a camera in "good" condition, it can have dents scratches and even a chip in the glass as long as it works. At least KEH are realistic and would call it ugly. In this case what state would a camera in average or poor condition be - run over by a truck? Any other industry would be had by the trading standards people.

Sorry but it makes my blood boil.

Kim
 
Thanks for all the feedback. I will take and post some pictures, although I'm not sure how much will show up. Hopefully the scratches going completely through to the brass will show. The discoloration stains and dust inside probably won't show up much.
I did not see pictures prior to the purchase but did talk to the seller. I have purchased many times from ebay sellers, and based upon feedback and pictures, have always recieved what I expected (and some luck too). I based this purchase on the reputation of the seller based partially on comments on RFF. In fairness to the seller, I have not spoken to them about this, but fully expect it to be resolved -- I just received it lastnight. Still, I'm disappointed that they would use the word Mint in their representation of this camera, and therefore my request for your feedback about how you see and expect this word to be used.
Thanks for helping me confirm my thoughts.
 
Ben Z said:
I disagree with the definitions of "mint" thus far. "Mint" to me means, absolutely no detectable signs of use, in the original box with all the manuals, guarantee cards, etc. just like it came from the factory.
Click to expand...

I disagree. 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
 
Mint means as new. No scratches, blemishes, no use marks. Maybe a few rolls run through and owner decides to sell.

Mint is used by NON-photog people often as a sales hype and caution should be used. Big camera operations rarely use the word mint, unless the item is as clean as when it came out of the box.
 
Wow -- I had never heard of the LX 2000. Sharp camera. I've had the LX in mind for some time; still pretty expensive.

Just to comment on the term "mint" as coming from coin collecting: Actually it's more apt than you might think. There are a number of grades of uncirculated coins, at least under American Numismatic Society standards. An MS-60 coin has never been placed in circulation, but it has numerous marks from being handled, bounced around in a bag, etc. An MS-65 coin is much nicer, and is about the highest grade one normally encounters, but it's still not "mint" in the sense we think of it. Only an MS-70 coin (very rare) can be regarded as one that's as pristine as the moment it came out of the die. So indeed, "mint" can mean less than cosmetically perfect in the numismatic sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom