Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OT) Troublesome Deals (follow-up)

Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) Troublesome Deals (follow-up)
From: "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 00:37:09
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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz