What do you define as "mint"?

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/12/2021 at 5:52 PM, 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?

My definition of 'Mint' would be an item that presents as new, but the buyer acknowledges that it has been used.  This was my understanding and the more lenses I have looked at / purchased I notice that well-organised sellers classify Mint this way also.  The step above it would be 'opened never used' , and the step below Mint being 'Near mint' - i.e. used but only with the faintest signs of use (I would grade an item like this lens as N Mint, as you pointed out ).

So certainly 'Mint +++' you wouldn't expect signs of wear, in my opinion.  But agree with others that people do use this term with artistic license unfortunately 

Edited August 13, 2021 by grahamc

[grahamc]

20 hours ago, evikne said:

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!

Good for you.  It's always disspointing having to spend the time/effort send to something back and still be without the lens you were searching for.  But I think this one is for the best.  I was really disappointed to return one recently in "not as described" condition, but a couple of weeks later I found a true mint copy and now I am so glad I went to the 'trouble' of not keeping the first one. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by grahamc

[wda]

Buyer beware.

There is no safe, accurate, universal description of 'mint'. Or any other condition for that matter. Nothing beats physical examination.  That is impossible with distance buying. It becomes a gamble. Trusted Leica dealers are the ones I would turn to. But there is strong evidence that many people relish a gamble. Just be aware that there are winners and losers.

[grahamc]

Just now, wda said:

Buyer beware.

There is no safe, accurate, universal description of 'mint'. Or any other condition for that matter. Nothing beats physical examination.  That is impossible with distance buying. It becomes a gamble. Trusted Leica dealers are the ones I would turn to. But there is strong evidence that many people relish a gamble. Just be aware that there are winners and losers.

You're not wrong .   I have bought 3 lenses remotely this year with mixed results.

 

[grahamc]

While it's far from a fail-safe approach, I think it's a good idea to 'size up' the seller also by asking a few questions. Even if the lens looks perfect and there is a lot of detailed photos, if you drop them a message what you are really doing is seeing how seriously they take their business and customer service.  (do they respond quickly , courteously and address directly the questions being asked).  

And how has their feedback been - for some of these Japanese sellers to sell literally thousands (or tens of thousands in some cases) of items and maintain a feedback rating of 99.9x % is pretty impressive when you think of all the things that could go wrong.  I try to take time to read the feedback from purchasers also - sometimes you can spot a pattern " item exactly as described' or "item even better than described".

If they also list a grading-description table along with their listing then that's a tri-fecta as far as I am concerned and I "buy with confidence" .

Ultimately it is a bit of a lottery but if these boxes are ticked I think it would be unlikely to experience an issue.   The catch of course is they may not be the ones with the lenses we want at the price we want them 

Of course it sounds like you did all of this, so that's not my point - Just really outlining my thought process as I know this is something we all take our best chance on from time to time 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by grahamc

[evikne]

I have experienced almost exactly the same once before. A (very wealthy) seller claimed the lens was exactly like new. But he lived relatively close to me, so I drove to him to get the lens personally. And I am glad I did, because the lens was full of scratches and marks, very far from what he had described.

So I drove back home without any lens … 🙄

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It never ceases to amaze how dishonest people can be when it's clearly going to bite them sooner or later .

On the other hand, the only time I've bought from a seller satisfying completely the process I outlined above was a Minolta CLE purchase.  The 40 + year old camera came in better condition than another camera I'd bought brand-new locally the previous month and used a few times in my clumsy way

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by grahamc

[lct]

On 8/12/2021 at 10:58 AM, evikne said:

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.

For such a price i would return the lens and look for something like that.

[Rodrigo castillo]

On 8/12/2021 at 4:20 AM, evikne said:

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.

I think that depends, if the lense is a 1957 one, your description sound like mint for me, but if a 2020 lense, no. And the other issue is price. If the price is 50% or less than the actual new one sounds mint, if the price was just a 10% less than new, no.

[Herr Barnack]

On 8/12/2021 at 9:46 AM, jaapv said:

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.

@evikne  As someone else observed, the term "mint" is a numismatic rating term that has been appropriated for application to items on the used camera/lens market.  Since we are applying a numismatic term to used cameras and lenses nowadays, it is incumbent upon sellers to understand and adhere to the same criteria as the term "mint" in the numismatic world.  As @Steve Caddy said -

Quote

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.

A lot of used camera/lens sellers are, uh, morally flexible there days, so to speak, and the term "mint" has come to be used as marketing shinola, thus no longer having any real meaning. 

Exactly what in east hell does "mint+++" mean??  Hey, why stop there?  Why not list your lens with a dinged lens hood and a scratch on the front element as "mint x10 to the 25th power" ?? 🙄

A sad fact of our world is that when it comes to money, some people simply have no honor.  You were obviously lied to and it obviously bothers you; given that, I say return the lens, get your money back and buy a lens from an ethical person who values integrity over a few extra sweaty Krones in their pocket.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[david.kize]

I agree with grahamc's comments above.  My own view of "mint" may be different from the seller's view, even assuming complete honesty.  I view "mint" as being the same as the lens was when new, and probably with the original packaging.  Any scratches or other defects, and it's not mint.  "Mint+++" is just advertising puffery and should be a warning.

Personally, I have had bad luck with eBay and won't use it again; others seem to have had better results.  I derive comfort in buying from recognized Leica dealers such as Leica Miami (to name but one).  I have bought several that way, and each was received in mint condition even though not advertised as such.

[lct]

1 hour ago, david.kize said:

"Mint+++" is just advertising puffery and should be a warning.

+1

[Kwesi]

Regardless of how the seller describes the lens Mint, Minty, Mintiest 😇. The glass elements are arguably the most important part of the lens.. If there is a scratch on the glass anywhere in the lens, it should be stated in the ad. Otherwise the seller is being dishonest and the buyer should feel free to return the lens.

[jdlaing]

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!

[Pyrogallol]

I just looked at a lens described as “minty” but then also said to have haze inside.

[Kwesi]

minty is like "chocolatey"  - takes kind of like the real thing but has no actual chocolate

[Herr Barnack]

Here is a prime example of "mint" - an M4 with a 50 'cron in what would likely be described by a seller as "Mint minus" condition:

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 Herr Barnack

[jdlaing]

I can fix that.

[dkmoore]

3 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Here is a prime example of "mint" - an M4 with a 50 'cron in what would likely be described by a seller as "Mint minus" condition:

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!

Chicken shit 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Herr Barnack]

27 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

Chicken shit 

 The Official Leica Chicken has but one request:  Do not release chicken feces where you eat.

There is not enough mint in the world to get that taste out of your mouth. 🤮

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Herr Barnack