I don’t particularly like the use of the term “mint” in advertisements for camera gear, particularly vintage cameras (well and lenses as well). I mean what does “mint” really mean? Look it up in the dictionary and it means “pristine, perfect, immaculate, unblemished”. If I bought a new camera today it certainly could be described in this manner, but a vintage camera? Hardly.

The term mint originates from numismatics (coin collecting), where it was used to describe a coin that had never been in circulation and retained its original, flawless appearance. It is easy to describe things like coins, stamps, and comic books in this manner, as the term is only really associated with the cosmetic appearance. It’s a bit harder to use with things that have mechanical innards. The outside of a camera can be mint, but the inside could be decrepit. Mint in the context of cameras typically means the item shows “minimal to no signs of use”. But the problem is the a camera that isn’t used isn’t guaranteed to function. Consider a 1960s SLR that has never been unboxed. Being roughly 55-65 years old, it could have dry or gummed up lubricants, or shutters that lag. Most likely it will suffer from degraded materials: deteriorated light seals and mirror dampers, peeling leatherette, light meter decay, prism corrosion, etc.

Japanese resellers have a tendency to grade everything photographic based on condition, which is certainly laudable, considering many people selling cameras do not (some barely offer a decent description). The problem is that everyone has their own scale, which is often very subjective in nature. One I recently saw one that associated “Very Good” with 65% “works good, mostly with dings or dents”. No where in my book is 65% very good. On the same scale “mint” was described as “almost no signs of use”, below “like new” and “brand new”. So one person’s “mint” is another persons “not quite 100%”. So why do so many Japanese resellers sell so many “mint” lenses? Well, Japan has a lot of specialized retailers, and a lot of supply. That being said, Japaneses resellers are notorious for overusing “mint” in their descriptions, sometimes when the camera has minor flaws.

Let’s face it, a “mint” vintage camera may not exist, or if it does it would be in original packaging, never really opened (the new old stock). But even then, cameras in the 1950s and 60s likely didn’t come in shrink-wrapped boxes, with the camera itself wrapped in some sort of covering. As such, unless stored in a perfect environ, it would be subject to the same temperature and humidity changes as anything else. Cardboard stops nothing (although if it the camera was contained in a leather case it might be better). A good reseller will have a reasonable series of condition grades. Furthermore they would never use the term mint, because it really is too specific. If something is unused, it is better to designate it “new”, and instead use the term “near mint” to describe a camera with very light signs of wear. There is of course more credence given to a camera being sold with the original box and paperwork, because then it almost feels like some care was taken with the use and storage of the camera.

Also something that is in original condition is not necessarily mint. A mint camera implies that it works, like 100% − it has accurate shutter speeds (including slow speeds), smooth mirror actuation, clear viewfinder, a light meter that functions properly, no degraded parts… the whole shebang. Sometimes you have to be careful, as an ad may use the term mint in the title, yet only define the cosmetic condition as mint in the item description. Even the use of the term near mint can be very subjective, ranging from average to excellent. I mean how near is near? And don’t even get me started on “rare” cameras.

A mint camera or lens should be one which truly is pristine, and therefore a term that is used extremely sparingly. It is the sort of gear found at photographic purveyors such as Coeln (Vienna).