There was a time before the internet existed, that photographers relied heavily on the ‘for sale’ columns of camera magazines or the shelves of their local camera shop for good condition used camera gear. I have spent many hours browsing stock and occasionally unearthed a real treasure that usually resulted in me taking it home. But with the rise of the internet things began to change as more and more dealers used this as a mechanism for advertising. As the public’s acceptance of the web gained in popularity, so did the services offered and it was not too long before the first of the internet auction sites appeared.

Over the years I have spent many hours cyberthumbing my way through on-line auction pages searching for photographic gems that had slumbered forgotten for decades in a dark corner, only for their owner to rediscover and put them up for auction.

The early years of such sites were considered fair game for scammers, hackers and other undesirables, giving those genuine buyers and sellers a real headache when all they were looking for was a fair and safe transaction. My own early days perambulating around the listings were full of caution and fear and limited to small purchases usually located within drivable distance. I recall buyer protection being fairly poor, usually resulting in having to sort problems out with the seller and little mediation from the site.

So it was a few years before I built up the courage to take the plunge and bid on more expensive items. After establishing my own code of conduct both as a buyer and seller, I became more comfortable with my actions and used internet auctions as my primary source of hard to find photo items. On the whole my transactions have been mostly positive, but there have been several that didn’t work out - all of which have been down to seller not providing accurate descriptions or showing some ‘economy with the truth’ when replying to my enquiries.

I think the single largest problem is the use of the word ‘mint’ when a seller attempts to grade an item. It has become very clear to me that a majority of sellers have no real understanding as to what this precisely means. Originally the term was used when describing postage stamp or coin conditions, the latter being the condition of a coin when it leaves the mint. So we are looking at items that show absolutely no signs of use for its condition to be categorised as genuinely ‘mint’. How the term degenerated into what it means today is anyone’s guess, but when associated with on-line auctions, it has little to do with the descriptive condition of an item and appears to translate into ‘I want more for this item than it is actually worth’ – basically greed.

To back my claim up I can cite three recent transactions that have failed thanks to the seller having no concept of what they were writing, or selling for that matter.

1. Searching for a new focus screen for my aging OM1n I came across one described as ‘Mint – New in Box’. The description went on to say that is was brand new old stock and the accompanying image showed the item boxed but not the actual screen. This prompted me to contact the seller who explained that it was indeed Mint and had never been out of the box. Imagine my surprise when the screen arrived and a quick check revealed that it was badly scratched and covered in dust. Needless to say it was returned to the seller for a refund. It should have been listed as ‘damaged’.
2. Continuing my search for a screen I found another one described as ‘Mint in Box’. Again I contacted the seller for an accurate description who reiterated what the listing stated. And once again the item was returned for credit due to it not only being the wrong screen, but also due to it having custom engravings on it, along with a couple of minor marks. It should have been listed as ‘used and customised’.
3. Another OM system camera took my fancy, particularly an OM2SP. After some searching I found one that was described as ‘Mint in box, absolutely no signs of wear’. The accompanying image did show it to be in very nice condition so I contacted the seller for a complete description and was told that it was genuinely mint cosmetically and all functions worked as they should. My excitement soon turned to disappointment upon opening the box as there were marks on the prism housing, strap eyelet areas, baseplate and rear. Strange, as looking at the image again, I could not see these marks. Upon contacting the seller I was told ‘well, it is mint for its age’!! – What does that even mean?? Surely an item is either mint or not! Another refund ensued and this item should have been listed with ‘obvious signs of use’.

To be fair, encounters like this are not limited to on line auctions; I recall purchasing a lens mail order many years ago and was told over the phone that it was ‘really lovely…mint’. Unboxing it proved otherwise, there were more marks on the barrel than could be easily counted. I would grade it as ‘well used but functional’.

So what is it with the term ‘Mint’ that sellers do not understand? I now tend to shy away from items containing the word anywhere in the listing due to the amount of time wasting involved in having to send items back. Ironically, I completed two auctions recently for telephoto and macro lenses and neither used the ‘M’ word. When I contacted the seller for an accurate description they stated that even though the lens showed no sign of use cosmetically and functioned like a new one, he would not term it mint as he knew it had seen light use. I was not disappointed when the lens arrived and I had a real hard time distinguishing it from new. My experience with the macro lens was very similar.

What really gets me when browsing listings, is the amount of sellers describing items as ‘Mint’ when accompanying pictures clearly show dings, marks, missing packaging etc. And then there are those who describe items as ‘Minty’ or ‘Almost Mint’ – I do not even understand these terms…how can something be almost mint?... it is like saying an organism is almost alive. And then there are the ‘Mint apart from…’ brigade; I once came across a camera listing that stated something along the lines of ‘Mint, apart from the viewfinder does not light even when new batteries are inserted into the camera’ – sheesh, that is really confusing.

When all is said and done, on line auctions share similarities to junk shops. Used items are there to be disposed of by means of advertising to the widest possible audience. The difference between a decade ago and the present is that there are now more traders selling new items while genuine used bargains have declined. A positive evolutionary step is that the buyer is far more protected than they were in the past so even a bad experience has a high probability of working out. But this has tipped the balance away from honest sellers inasmuch as postage is limited, negative feedback cannot be left and stock descriptions can be inaccurate.

Today, I tend to use on line auctions to source hard to find items or spares only. For everything else there are many reputable dealers that often supply goods at lower prices than their auction counterparts. Perhaps the term ‘Mint’ should be replaced with ‘Buyer Beware’…