The disagreements and varying interpretations regarding what is meant by
"Mint", "Ex++++" and other meaningless ratings only prove my point that
certain terms should be excluded from camera descriptions. (As well as
those "A+++++++++++++++++++++++" ratings some eBayers use to fill up the
80-character limit in the feedback box.)
But Rextex's use of the term "infamous" in describing the Zuiko 65-200/4
(Item #1202645162) is simply delightful. His enthusiastically CAPITALIZED
words and excited punctuation!!! along with his favorable feedback rating
seems to indicate he's harmlessly clueless regarding how to accurately
describe items. Perhaps a few good natured nudges from bidders might reign
him in a bit.
If he regularly inaccurately describes his items it is surprising to see no
complaints or neutral comments in his feedback rating. I do note that he is
well regarded as a buyer, including by at least one OM listfolk.
Personally I firmly believe descriptions should be limited to New, Like New
In Box, Like New, Excellent, Very Good, Average, Below Average and Parts
Only.
Mint can never be used to describe a camera or lens. Coins are minted at
mints. Lifesavers and York peppermint patties are mints. Toilets and
urinals are deodorized with mints. Only a coin that has no evidence of ever
been touched by bare human hands and is apparently undamaged from contact
with other coins can qualify as "mint" among numismatists. Even among coins
in that category most are classified as being in varying degrees of
Uncirculated condition. A very few Leicas and Rolleis specifically made for
the collectors' market may qualify as "mint" because they are never touched
by ungloved hands. It is extremely doubtful any other camera is handled
this way once it has left the factory.
From New to Like New: its is assumed that everything functions as
factory-new and these items are intended for buyers who are primarily
concerned about cosmetic appearance (collectors), secondarily about actually
using this equipment.
Equipment that is Like New (or similar) cosmetically but which has
significant functioning problems (dead circuits, metering, etc.) may be
described as Excellent or Very Good with an explanation of the malfunctions.
Excellent and Very Good: This is what most of us want. It is assumed that
everything functions properly and that any flaws or dust in a lens will have
no effect on photographs. Rub marks from camera straps, scratches on the
bottom plate from tripod use; paint missing from film ID holder from rubbing
against buttons and belt buckles; overall minor handling marks ranging from
slight smoothing or flattening of checkering on focus, zoom and aperture
rings, and impressions in leatherette where fingers and thumbs routinely
make contact, to slight marks or minor scratches on eyepiece plastic from
contact with eyeglasses or other gear in camera bags.
In other words, my idea of an Above Average camera is what most dealers
refer to as Excellent; and my Excellent is what most dealers call anything
from EX+ to Mint-. But for the vast majority of us these are simply cameras
we'd be happy to own and use routinely.
Average equipment is expected to have significant cosmetic wear such as
brassing or missing paint and may have missing parts that do not hinder
proper functioning (leatherette peeling up at edges or corners; missing
decorative badges, decals, etc.); shutter or metering accuracy may not be
within specs; light seals and mirror bumper pads should be replaced. These
are good combat zone or glove compartment cameras.
Below Average equipment is expected to have significant cosmetic wear,
missing parts that may hinder proper functioning (missing rewind lever;
missing battery compartment cover; missing self-timer lever; missing rubber
on focus ring; missing screws from lens mount; fungus damage which will
impair photographs in most circumstances; etc.), but which can be restored
to full functioning condition with appropriate small parts. Equipment is
expected to function well enough to use although shutter and meter may not
be within specs and diaphragm may be sluggish.
Parts Only equipment is dead. Circuits are dead; shutter curtains damaged;
lens optics heavily damaged by fungus or impact. Not worth repairing on its
own but useful for improving the functionality of, for example, Below
Average gear. No matter how pretty and perfect it appears cosmetically such
equipment can never be described as LN or EX.
This business of tacking on multiple plus or minus signs to ratings is
simply disingenuous. It's comparable to the practice of grade inflation in
schools. Or, my pet peeve, the boast that someone is "giving 110%" effort.
===========
Lex Jenkins
======================================================================Have
yourself a Minty little Christmas! Or, if you prefer, Above Average.
======================================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|