What do you define as "mint"?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I was buying a lens that was described as mint, personally I would not expect to see a notch, however very small it may be, on the front element. A miniature amount of wear and tear (and I mean barely perceptible) on the aperture ring or lens hood, ok maybe I'd let that go, but I think I would draw the line with glass that wasn't completely immaculate.

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Lelmer]

2 hours 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?

A notch on the front element is definitely not "Mint+++". I'd return it, and find another one (50 Lux asph is quite easy to find)

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Steve Caddy said:

..... "mint" meant "as issued by the mint" — un-removed from packaging, untouched since produced, not a finger laid upon it.

Tricky to ascertain if it is actually 'mint' then (as in; has it any minor flaws other than those from new) if it cannot be removed from the packaging. But you are quite right and a London dealer was recently selling two M lenses from the 1980s/90s which were still sealed in their original boxes. The prices were premium and it is impossible to know whether they are immaculate and as new without removing the lenses and invalidating their status as 'mint'. Does such a 'mint' item need to operate correctly I wonder - unused items tend to slowly seize up as lubricants shift and age ....

My feeling is that the best descriptor which can be applied to any but a new lens should be 'mint-' which should indicate that there are no visible signs of use. Defining what are signs of use could take us a while .....

Edited August 12, 2021 by pgk
typos (again!) etc.

[evikne]

I’ve sold several lenses in better condition than this one, but I didn’t call them “mint”, only “near mint”.

[Danner]

Not sure about "mint", but "Ex" means scuffed, scratched, dented, dinged, fogged, IME.

lulz

[Capuccino-Muffin]

27 minutes ago, evikne said:

I’ve sold several lenses in better condition than this one, but I didn’t call them “mint”, only “near mint”.

This is the best explanation so far.

 

[OR120]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The condition of your recent purchase seems to bother you as you are still discussing it here. Why not return it -Get another - they are not hard to find. 

[junix]

5 hours 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?

While some very small notches on the hood can be forgiven.. a notch on the front element should have been mentioned by the seller and IMHO is a reason to return the lens.
All copies of 50mm Summilux ASPH I tried had a “sticky” focusing ring, mine included.. but you get used to it.

Btw, amazing lens, I truly love it.. just a tad long for a 50mm but whenever I see the results I forgive her.

[jaapv]

As soon as something is described as  mint+++ an alarm bell should go off. The only things that might be better than mint are LNIB (llke new in box) and New-unused. Which implies that "mint" can show some very minor flaws.

[spydrxx]

Out of curiosity, did the seller actually describe the lens as "mint+++" or in the heading (if on Ebay) did the words appear there. I ask because often words are used in the heading to attract attention, but not used in the actual description. As a former stamp and coin collector (many years ago), "Mint" meant new and not used or touched by ungloved hands....so your lens wouldn't qualify. That aside, the underlying question here is whether you are satisfied with the condition and the price you paid, regardless of the description. If so, fine. If not, either accept that you were mislead or return it. Personally, if you deem it usable, desirable under a lesser condition description, and you want to keep it, I'd ask the seller for a partial refund. But that's just me.

[Wayben]

To me mint is no signs of use, same as "as new" or "like new".  Mint+++ makes no sense.  Does that mean it's better than new?  The fact that it bothers you now, and you paid a premium for it, means you should return it.  It will only continue to bother you, especially if you decide to sell or trade it and have to downgrade it from what you originally thought you were buying.

[Jeff S]

This is why I buy used gear from trusted dealers that have a track record of product ratings, particularly if those are conservative, with written standards, clear product pics and descriptions, and of course with store warranty and an easy return policy.  
 

Jeff

[evikne]

5 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

Out of curiosity, did the seller actually describe the lens as "mint+++" or in the heading (if on Ebay) did the words appear there. I ask because often words are used in the heading to attract attention, but not used in the actual description. As a former stamp and coin collector (many years ago), "Mint" meant new and not used or touched by ungloved hands....so your lens wouldn't qualify. That aside, the underlying question here is whether you are satisfied with the condition and the price you paid, regardless of the description. If so, fine. If not, either accept that you were mislead or return it. Personally, if you deem it usable, desirable under a lesser condition description, and you want to keep it, I'd ask the seller for a partial refund. But that's just me.

The seller used the term "Mint+++" both in the heading and in the description. And he told me in a personal message the lens was like new. I think the price would have been OK if the lens really was in mint condition, but if I knew it had a scratch on the front element, I probably wouldn't buy it regardless of price. So I have decided now to return it. Thank you all for your views and inputs!

[Ouroboros]

7 hours ago, evikne said:

What's your definition of "mint"?

Box never opened and the contents completely untouched since the item was packaged by the manufacturer.

Anything less is a lie.

[Casey Jefferson]

It's either unused, like new (means no blemishes but used), or a rating + descriptions of blemishes.

I never understood the word Mint describing condition, except to be loosely described (as mentioned on page one) no apparent blemishes van be seen without close inspection.

Or they did smelled like mint...Fresh in the morning.

[earleygallery]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

Box never opened and the contents completely untouched since the item was packaged by the manufacturer.

Anything less is a lie.

Mint (and saying Mint ++++ or anythink else is meaningless) should mean an item that although pre owned is in 'as new' condition, not obvious marks or signs of use etc.

Mint is the highest used grade. You just go down from there. This is why I hate terms like Mint++++ or Minty  (arrrgghhh) because straight away I know that the vendor doesn't know what Mint should mean and you should lower your expectations accordingly.

Damage to a lens element should be mentioned regardless - I'm guessing the seller will claim that they didn't notice it (yeah, right).

 

[ianman]

Here is my near mint 35mm f/2,8 Summaron. It's in quite good condition too.

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!

Edited August 12, 2021 by ianman

[349A]

The Japanese ebay sellers have shifted the scale. Now Mint is more like excellent. “Top mint” is mint. Mint +++ or whatever variation always has some flaws. It’s bizarre and I wish Ebay would do something about it. Mint is like new, perfect. Always has been. The term “Minty” is a description that tells me the seller is untrustworthy. Never buy anything described as minty. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Erato]

15 hours ago, evikne said:

I’ve sold several lenses in better condition than this one, but I didn’t call them “mint”, only “near mint”.

Agreed with you. According to my experience, MINT is "Second hand, but almost brand new".
I hope you'll find ideal lens meets your expectation soon.

I always avoiding those claimed targeted items as MINT+, MINT++, MINT+++ or even MINT+++++!!!
And I recalled that the seller wears on gloves while he presented this lens to me...
The term he used to describe the lens is "New old stock, TOP-MINT lens".
I am fully convinced even I use the loupe against strong light to observe front, rear and inner elements of the purchased item below:

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!

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Erato
adding more reference

[wizard]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb ianman:

Here is my near mint 35mm f/2,8 Summaron.

So it must be minty then ... 😎.