On Mon, 3 Aug 1998 10:53:01 +0800, "Richard Sintchak" wrote:

>Help me here, somebody! I see all these ads here that say: "FS, ########,
>MINT condition! Only used a few times, "as a backup" or "hardly used" or
>"an extra body", etc, etc"
>
>I thought the MINT means, barely touched, let alone used!? If something is
>in great, great condition, looks new, but has been used can this qualify as
>MINT? Maybe Mint- or something, or "looks new", or practically MINT, but
>maybe not MINT?.
>
>How does everyone else feel about this? Am I wrong to think MINT means
>"unused, still in package"? At least this is pretty much what MINT meant
>when I was a stamp and coin collector. Maybe for photo equipment it's
>different, or are these people trying to make their stuff sound as great as
>possible so they throw around the phrase MINT as they please?
>
>Just wondering.

And well you might! ;-)
Condition ratings are close to absurd (see my article on this on my
web page, under "I babble"...;-), with specific notes of specific
characteristics of the gear being more useful, I think. But in
camera ratings, a piece showing absolutely no signs of use (but
can have been used, and need not have the box/packing/papers) can
be rated mint (but must be new-condition clean, or marks/marring
could escape notice...). "Like New" implies being as packed by
manufacturer, though it could also have been used... "New", on the
other hand...;-) Unfortunately, often when I receive an item that
was described as "mint", I am moved to ask the seller if, when
arriving at the description, his eyes were open, his glasses (if
needed) were on, the lights were on (if night-time) or the curtains
were drawn open (if day-time), etc. (And sometimes I think the
meaning of "excellent" is that the lens was dropped onto the
roadway and it rolled down the hill, but the passing truck did not
actually run directly over it...;-) "Mint" condition is such an
easy concept to understand - it means "without marks of any kind".