What do you define as "mint"?

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've just purchased a used lens. The seller called it "Mint+++" and "As new". At first glance it looked very nice, but on closer inspection there was several small notches on the sun shade and a very small notch on the front element. One has to look very closely, and it's only visible in certain lighting conditions, but once I've seen it, I can't forget it. The focus ring was also a bit sticky, but this is of course not caused by the user and I can't blame him for that. The front and rear cap looked well used, but they are of course easily replaced.

I've contacted the seller, and he says I can return it if it doesn't meet my expectations, but I am very in doubt. All in all the lens looks very nice and it makes beautiful pictures (and that's of course the most important part), but to me, "mint condition" means perfect, with almost no signs of use at all. 

What's your definition of "mint"? Is some small scratches and marks allowed?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Vlad Soare]

11 minutes ago, evikne said:

What's your definition of "mint"? Is some small scratches and marks allowed?

My definition of "mint" would be either perfect, or as close to perfect as it can reasonably seem to the naked eye, as long as you aren't intentionally looking for faults with a 10x loupe or in special lighting conditions.
On the other hand, I expect "mint+++" to mean absolutely perfect in any light, even under a loupe.

So, I guess your lens would match my definition of mint, but not mint+++.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Vlad Soare

[Phil_P]

Mint seems to be used with artistic license by many sellers but, if it was also described as "As new", then it would have been reasonable to expect it shouldn't really have any marks at all?

 

 

[evikne]

22 minutes ago, Phil_P said:

Mint seems to be used with artistic license by many sellers but, if it was also described as "As new", then it would have been reasonable to expect it shouldn't really have any marks at all?

That's what I told the seller too. Although it looked pretty nice, it doesn't give me the same feeling as a brand new lens. Of course, when it isn't new, it can never feel exactly like new, but I guess most people understand what I mean.

Edited August 12, 2021 by evikne

[wda]

The seller seems to have inflated his description. If he priced it accordingly,  either negotiate a more realistic price, or return it. It will continue to niggle if you merely grumble and keep it.

[pgk]

I suppose that it is worth examining a new lens to see what small imperfections are visible. In today's LED torch optics viewing times, with loupes to hand for 'bodywork' even new lenses will show up some imperfections. But 'mint' should mean 'as new' and have no discernible signs of use other than the few imperfections which may be found on a new lens. I usually buy gear in less than 'mint' condition because even the one lens I did buy new (the fabulous 21SEM and finder) could certainly no longer be described as 'mint' by any stretch of the imagination. I look on patina as a sign that equipment has been used and has fulfilled its purpose. I don't often buy abused lenses (although they can still perform well enough when I have).

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

For me, the epitome of mint is this.

Pepper or Spear?

[Marac]

Can you live with the lens as it is?

Did you pay a premium for it?

As long as I got the lens I wanted in a condition I am willing to accept I couldn't care less if it is classified as mint or mint++

I would not be happy with a mark to the front element if it was visable without intense examination.

As new should mean exactly that, as new, not scratched.

[rramesh]

If you are going to use it, don't bother with the term 'mint'. instead see if the purchase would be 'value for money'.

If you are a collector, then 'mint' should refer to an item that is 'unused' and in 'pristine condition'.

[LocalHero1953]

21 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

For me, the epitome of mint is this. Everything else is just speculation.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

No, no, no - that is "minty"

[evikne]

3 minutes ago, Marac said:

Can you live with the lens as it is?

Did you pay a premium for it?

I can live with it, but the certainty of the small flaw may bother me in the long run. And it may be harder to resell it in the future. Here in Norway we are lucky, because used Leica gear is generally quite cheap compared to prices around the world. But this time I'm afraid I paid a little more than I should. The lens is a 50mm Summilux ASPH, and I paid about $ 3,730 for it.

[EddieJ]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

I've just purchased a used lens. The seller called it "Mint+++" and "As new". At first glance it looked very nice, but on closer inspection there was several small notches on the sun shade and a very small notch on the front element. One has to look very closely, and it's only visible in certain lighting conditions, but once I've seen it, I can't forget it. The focus ring was also a bit sticky, but this is of course not caused by the user and I can't blame him for that. The front and rear cap looked well used, but they are of course easily replaced.

I've contacted the seller, and he says I can return it if it doesn't meet my expectations, but I am very in doubt. All in all the lens looks very nice and it makes beautiful pictures (and that's of course the most important part), but to me, "mint condition" means perfect, with almost no signs of use at all. 

What's your definition of "mint"? Is some small scratches and marks allowed?

Did you pay too much for the lens?

What is the difference in value between brand new or 2nd hand / used?

Did you purchase on eBay or online?

Were there images supplied substantiating provenance of the condition?

"Mint+++" and "As new" are two different propositions.

 

Everyone has a different idea of what is "As new", "Used", and/or "Mint+++"

 

For me "Mint+++" is brand new, unused or used once or twice, opened and not liked AND I always engage with the buyer and request additional images.

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by EddieJ
Spelling

[pedaes]

6 minutes ago, evikne said:

may bother me in the long run

Why take the risk? A bit of inconvenience to send back, but I would have no sympathy for someone who tries to fool you with a bad description. For what you paid you will easily find another in truly mint condition.

[Mute-on]

I assume a ‘notch’ on the front element means a small scratch or chip.  Glass is either mint, and therefore undamaged, or not, at least as far as visible scratches are concerned.  If your front element is scratched it is, by definition, not mint. 
 

It sounds more like what I would call used, in excellent condition, with the exception of a small scratch on the front element that does not affect performance. For that alone, it should be sold at a significant discount to a lens in the same cosmetic condition but with perfect glass. 
 

Otherwise, ‘as new’ means indistinguishable from brand new. ‘Mint’ means used, but cosmetically almost indistinguishable from new. Very minor and immaterial wear may be acceptable as still mint if you are feeling generous. Mint for age is a total contradiction, however. Age is irrelevant. 
 

Good luck!

Edited August 12, 2021 by Mute-on

[pgk]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

..... and a very small notch on the front element.

This will potentially affect resale value if you ever sell and purchasers are fussy - and you would need to tell them about it as you have noticed it yourself, and so will they. For a premium price this is not acceptable IMO. I'd certainly buy such a lens myself because performance will be fine, but not at a high price.

[Steve Caddy]

My Dad was a banker and taught me that in terms of collecting limited edition currency, "mint" meant "as issued by the mint" — un-removed from packaging, untouched since produced, not a finger laid upon it. The definition is the same to publishing collectors as far as I'm aware.

Take it out of the original packaging and it becomes "as new" or "in new condition" and that, for me extends to very light wear.

But this is not the common parlance among second-hand sellers of lenses and cameras; and in second hand buying the golden rule is always caveat emptor.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Steve Caddy
Added caveat emptor thought-bubble.

[6bit]

Mint to me is still in the box. If used, it can’t be mint. 

[poli]

It seems you are not 100% happy with it, otherwise I do not think you would post about it on the forum. This might nag you every time you use the lens. My advice would be to send it back and look for a cheaper alternative. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

I suppose that it is worth examining a new lens to see what small imperfections are visible. In today's LED torch optics viewing times, with loupes to hand for 'bodywork' even new lenses will show up some imperfections. 

Yes, even a brand new SL APO prime that I owned seemed to have a very small patch of "something" under one of the front elements ....with ceiling downlights I could see it. I really don't know what it was, maybe a very small patch of dust or something that reflected back at me on one side of the element, but the minor issue stood out (for me at least!) in an otherwise completely pristine lens and was quite hard to forget once I knew it was there, especially because I'd hoped for something flawless.  Clearly made no difference to the image quality, and at least it wasn't an exceptionally small spider that appeared once under one of the elements of my 50mm Summicron v4 :-)

[wizard]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Jon Warwick:

... and at least it wasn't an exceptionally small spider that appeared once under one of the elements of my 50mm Summicron v4 :-)

Yes, Summicrons make great homes for small spiders, as they will be magnified by the lens elements when looked upon from outside the lens, and will thus appear much more dangerous 😉.

To the OP: I would send the lens back. It was too expensive for what it really is (not mint), and this is not a rare lens, so there should be other occasions.

Andy