Mint condition or 'user' condition - your choice?

[Ian Rance]

OK, here is a bit of a difficult one - opinions welcome.

 

When buying a classic camera on the second hand market, the condition

of the camera is put forwards by the seller as the most important

factor. If I were buying a camera to put in a museum exhibition that

would be kept in ideal conditions and not touched, I would naturally

purchase a mint example. What I am wondering is the importance of

condition for a camera that is for a personal collection and will be

used occasionally. I often wonder whether more fun can be had with a

rougher example that is working correctly or whether it is nicer to

have a camera (or lens) in mint condition. However a camera that is

used will not be mint for long?.

 

It is natural to want items in good condition, but perhaps a camera

that is in exceptional condition will be left in the case more than

another camera in lesser condition (and not used to its full

potential). My Father wraps his professional Canon gear up in bubble

wrap and silica gel, and only gets them out to dust them - seems a

waste of good gear to me!

 

When you look to buy a camera how important is condition to you - or

do you prefer a slightly tatty one that will be put to work properly?

 

All the best,

 

Ian, UK

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

The second used camera I ever bougth (the first one was a Zorki4K - I was glad when I got rid of it again) was a LeicaIIIa. Lots of scratches and brassing, with a sync post slammed on the top plate (not the sync conversion done by Leitz). The front end of one shutter curtain looked a bit worn - it still looks the same 20 years and many rolls later. Shutter curtains were OK, slow speeds a bit off but still OK for b/w film. On a camera show noone would be interested in such a worn item. I wanted a working rangefinder camera with interchangeable lenses, and I got one.

 

It depends. If it is a camera I am really interested in I don't hesitate too much to buy an ugly item. However, I don't mind if a camera looks nice - but not too nice. As you mentioned, in this case I would be reluctant to throw it in a camera bag, and it would rather sit on the shelf.

[lee_osborne]

Physical condition is very much a secondary factor to me. As long as it works, fine - I buy cameras to use, not to display. I have a grubby and slightly battered Kiev 4 in very good working order, and I'm very happy with it. As long as it has clean optics, focusses properly, and reasonably accurate shutter speeds, it will do for me, even if it is very scruffy indeed.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I personally think that a camera in very good mechanical condition with some wear and brassing looks better. It reminds me that the camera has a history and wasn't confined to a box for 50 years.

[curt_saxton]

Personally I like the look of a camera with a little brassing better than a mint example. It shows the camera was actually used and probably works better than the unused shelf queen. I don't mind small scratches and dents on a user, but I think twice if the counter or meter doesn't work properly. Often old RF meters don't work anymore so it depends how much you want this particular camera and what you can live with.

[bonsignore_ezio]

It depends on your personal level of mental stability. We classic users-cum-collectors are all a little bit nuts, but some of us are positively on the far side of it. I personally know a guy, who lives in a small two-and-a-half rooms apartment because the other and much larger flat he owns is completely occupied by his camera collection, and as such it must be kept in partial darkness and constant temperature and humidity. Amongst other nice things he owns an Hassie gold-and-blue, mint in box that he has seen only once ever since buying it some 15 years ago, because, as he says "if you keep opening and closing the box it will soon no longer be mint". At a camera fair, I have seen with my own eyes a guy coughing up several thousand euros for a special edition Leica M6 TTL without even being able to handle it, because the seller would not let anyone touch the camera unless they bought it first. As I said, it depends on whether your brain is still more or less OK.

[connealy]

I'm always looking for good users, and am usually happier finding something less than perfect in regards to cosmetics. I don't mind having nice looking equipment, but it is irritating to get in a bidding tussle on the basis of cosmetics that I don't care that much about. I think I ended up paying a bit more recently for my Retina IIa because the pictures didn't show the Zeiss bumps on the back.<br>    Some cameras still look good after quite a bit of use because of superior design and materials. For instance the Retina IIc has a very tough covering and the metal parts stay very bright over time.

[rob_murray]

The mint condition ones I find I put on Ebay for the collectors.

I use the ones that are beat up and may get more beat up.

[conrad_hoffman]

I mostly buy users, but I'm pretty fussy about the kinds of defects I'll live with. I hate dents- they tell me the camera has been banged around and may have suffered internal damage. I want the optics in very good shape. If I can see obvious cleaning marks, it's no sale, but several of my lenses have cleaning marks visible under a magnifier. The best buy is a camera with damaged and curled coverings, bad light seals, and/or a gummy shutter. All those things can easily be fixed and the camera will be as good as new. OTOH, some problems are more serious than they appear. I have a nice Retina IIIc with a broken casting ear that holds the flip up meter cover. There is no good way to fix this, as the area is too small to epoxy or otherwise rebuild. An ugly piece of tape does the trick for now.

[lex_jenkins]

"Mint" applies only to breath fresheners, numismatics and toilet deoderizers.

 

In cameras "mint" means overpriced and would usually equal most people's "good".

 

Anyone describing a camera as "a good user" or, my favorite, KEH's "ugly" can probably be trusted more than those who inflate conditions and prices.

 

I don't really care about cosmetics. My Rollei TLR and Nikon FM2N look really good. Maybe not mint, but really nice. My F3HP is beat up and battle-scarred. It's a working camera. All of 'em work just fine. That's all that matters.

[chris_eve]

I really don't mind either way, I use them all with the same degree of care. My experience is that very often a "mint" collectable is in that condition because it ceased functioning correctly early in life and was put away in a drawer. A "well loved" example indicates that it worked well for a long time, and will probably continue to do so. Either class of camera will probably need a basic CLA anyway.

[ed_balko3]

The answer must depend, at least in oart, on who is rating the camera, buyer of seller.

 

A "User" rating offered by a seller can mean anything from minor brassing to barely working. "Mint" may be a more reliable rating in that it probably implies that the camra has been treated more gently.

 

If you examine the camera before purchase, then of course, the rating is yours. A nice find would be a gently worn camera with a recent CLA sticker on the inside.

[madwand]

Henry Scherer has many useful comments and advice on his web pages <a href="http://www.zeisscamera.com/First.html">http://www.zeisscamera.com/First.html</a> that are generally applicable. He provides a definition of "mint" which is that it was essentially never used, and well preserved. He states that such a camera would be worth about 5 times the price of a normal camera, and that any camera that is not so expensive would not really be mint, moreover that as soon as you start using it, you'll experience such a steep depreciation yourself. These points sound reasonable to me.<p>

 

However, he, if I recall correctly, makes another more interesting point elsewhere (which I couldn't find so readily) -- that vintage cameras, even fine ones such as Zeiss, were not entierly made to fine tolerances, and that differences in performance / sub-optimal performance were sometimes seen. He says that cameras that didn't take good pictures were the most likely ones to sit unused in a closet, whereas the ones that did take good pictures were more likely to get used. I find this point to be reasonable, consistent with some experience, and interesting. Of course, there will be some rare cases where cameras were acquired or given and never used regardless of the performance of the cameras. But we should know how rare these cases are likely to be.<p>

 

I like clean and shiny cameras myself, but the cosmetic condition is not a realiable indicator of the mechanical and internal condition. Moreover, camera servicers such as Henry Scherer repeatedly make the point that the internal condition of all old cameras is likely to be poor due to the eventual degradation and breakdown of lubricants and other parts. The cosmetic condition may however be some indication of how carefully the previous owners have handled the camera, so this is something worth considering -- Henry Scherer also makes the point that the cameras contain some very delicate mechanical components, and rough handling are likely to cause them to fail early.<p>

[dan_fromm2]

Ian, with all due respect your father is nuts. Tools are made to use, not to cherish.

 

To be fair to him, if he's a collector than only examples in perfect condition will suit him. But I'm not a collector.

 

As to what to buy, well, that depends on one's reason for buying and -- dare I say it? -- budget.

 

For some collectors, only perfect will do. On the other hand, one of my neighbors is a serious collector of Zeiss gear. He has more Contaxes with 50/1.5 Sonnars than I have lenses, and most of them are in beautiful shape. But he also has a lot of battered old stuff that filled gaps and didn't cost a lot. As for example a really grotty 60/5.6 S-OrthoPlanar whose price was right. The Contaxes and their normal lenses sit in his display cases. He uses some of the battered old stuff, but seems to use his modern equipment most. And he is an active photographer as well as a collector.

 

Unlike real serious collectors, I buy equipment to use, not to have and hold and cherish. So for me, the cost of the gear in good working order is most important, cosmetics much less so.

 

What I've learned, naturally the hard way, about used gear is that its used and can't be expected to function well without some attention. This is truer of camera bodies and shutters than of lenses, but goes for lenses too. When buying gear sight unseen, as via the Internet or from offers on eBay, one gambles and has to budget for service.

 

I don't know how other people treat gear after it arrives. I try not to abuse mine, that's all. Everything that arrives goes through acceptance testing. Once its working I don't want to break it myself. Moan over the inevitable dings, no. Maintain as required, try to prevent damage, yes. I try to sell equipment bought as a speculation as quickly as possible, otherwise maintaining value isn't much of a consideration. But then, I'm an idiot user, not an idiot collector.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[nolan woodbury]

I don't consider myself as a collector, but I think I am, judging by the number of vintage or antique cameras lying about. In my heart, I'd rather use them (and I do, at least, most of them) but a few examples are so nice, I'm hesitant to subject them to the rigors of dust, dirty hands, and the inevitable bangs and bruises the occur. In my field of photographing new and vintage motorcycles, the conditions are often pretty harsh (travelling on the bike, racetracks, wind, rain or shine) and it seems I can chart the wear visually. Case in point: My new 1-year ago, Nikon N90S looks like...well, most of the user N90S's you see. Wear marks through the clear, lettering faded. The depreciation is breathtaking. It has however, made me far more than it cost, so viewed in that light it was a successful purchase, but the...'collector' in me knows its preservation is pointless.

 

I have three cameras -a mint, boxed, and brand new gray w/gray case Yashica A TLR with bill of sale, a late 60s Minolta Autocord CdS III (same description) and a new, jewel-like Rolleiflex 'X' that I refuse to donate 'to the cause'. I'd like to pass these on to my son, to show to his children what cameras used to look like, and as a reminder of his dad's photographic interests. I cock and fire shutters, look over and even occasional shoot these (except the Yashica) but for the most part they stay in. Besides, I have user examples of each to enjoy.

 

For an odd twist, the TLR I've used more than any is a 1958 Autocord Import that has seen thousands of rolls. A couple of years back, when sending the camera to Paul Ebel for a CLA, I asked Paul to install a Camera Leather/black leather recover kit, just to give the old girl a bit of love for its years of faithful service. Amazingly, the non-covered parts of the Autocord's chassis are still shiny and bright, and when I got the camera back it looked so good...well, you know what I was thinking! But no. Not this one. Not my right arm, my Number One. But, no matter how crazy the situation, I take the time to carefully secure it and stow it away. It deserves that.

[david_blackett]

Ian,

 

If you are buying the camera to use, even occasionally you should stay clear of a vintage camera that is in pristine condition. It hasn't been used much and is therefore more suseptible to things like frozen shutter. A used camera in good working order has been getting excersized over its life time and hasn't been given the opportunity to freeze up - if it is still working after all these years, the bugs have been worked out.

[david_blackett]

Just another note to add - I'm of the school that believes someone made it to be used, so use it.

[jonathan_stark]

I try to collect only functional cameras (I don't always succeed!) Appearance is of seconday importance to a point - I have a thing about missing leatherette, vulcanite, etc, will tolerate a small amount missing only. I've no rational explanation for this.

 

The family Leica IIIc still bears the dents where Dad dropped in in the driveway about 30 years ago. He shrugged, picked it up, and kept using it. It was mechanically restored last year, but the dings in the body are still there. I remember the day this happened, I was standing right there.

[mskovacs]

No question for me: user. I'll normally avoid major dents and damage but I've also bought and fixed a few nice cameras with such issues like my $40 Nikon FM2N. (not a classic yet?)

 

My 1956 Rolleiflex has a couple of tiny defects in the Xenotar lens coating. I've never been able to see any effect in photos including 7 rolls of mostly backlit/fill-flash wedding photos I took last month for a friend.

 

Just bought a late CZ Sonnar 50/1.5 in Contax mount with a touch of separation, hopefully not visible on photos. Wish me luck on this one! (its the bad epoxy kind according to Scherer's description but the price was right) When my 1960 Kiev 4A arrives, I'll have choice between this Sonnar and the Jupiter 8M and still only have $75 invested.

[dan flanders]

My Parker shotgun is older than I am. Sure, its case colors and much of the blue were worn off long ago, most of it before it came to me, and I kinda feel a camaraderie with the previous owner. What if the previous owner was an SOB? . . . Well, at least there was one admirable facet to his personality. It was never abused. It still busts the clays when I do my part, and it rests proudly on the rack alongside my Leica III which has lost much of its black enamel and was once the proud possession of someone else I never knew but believe I would have wanted as a friend. . . On the other hand my 20+ year old M6 sits there too but it hasn?t acquired the 'well used' look yet (I really don't use it as much as the III but I don?t mind admitting that I fondle it)! I once knew a guy who was such a perfectionist that he gave me a practically brand new Leonard fly rod because he had broken the tip. I still fish with it today. He was a little eccentric, but he had some generous traits, and I still remember the good old days when we threshed the same waters. No, it doesn't have to be a museum piece to be a cherished collectible!

[pc1]

Everything that Chris Eve said . cheers ! pc

[silent1]

For me, an ugly old user is the only way to go -- because I'll never have my hands on the mint classics; they're far out of my budget. I have old, well used, examples of some cameras that were high end consumer gear, not professional, and they're better than I am; I have two that were snapshooters more than fifty years ago, and they never let me down. When I get good enough that the quality of the lenses and shutters on this old equipment is a serious limitation on my ability to make better pictures, then I'll probably find I can afford better gear -- but for the meantime, my Speedex Jr., Standard Speedex, Wirgin Auta and Moskva-5, all older than I am (though the Moskva only by some weeks or months), can still teach me a few things -- and they don't need perfect plating and leatherette to do it. Same things goes for my Kawee Camera and Ica Ideal, of course -- neither one will win a beauty contest, but the Kawee just plain works, and the Ica should finally be rid of bellow pinholes (I'll know for certain later tonight).

[joseph_wei]

When I first started out in photography, I thought all my equipment had to be shiny clean. Now I know better. I'd take a good, working, beat-up camera or lens any day (optics have to be at least OK on lenses, though - they're the ones that actually "make" the pictures). It's way better than having to worry about adding that extra scratch to that flawless chrome finish. Plus, it's often very economical. :-)

 

JW

[Jochen_S]

I buy my classic gear for the feeling of using it. If I wash my motorbike 3 times a year I should feel mad and look for psychiatric aid; 2 times are surely enough and it was already ugly, when it left the factory... So I realy love used looking cameras. It's a good feeling to be unable to spot the first scratch you caused on it among all the others. I also like the understatement and provoking the gearheads. A disadvantage of this ideology is worn cameras tend to be worn out. So one has to be lucky either, or spend the same for serious repair and a old beater as for mint + CLA. So don't shop mailorder without return policy and check out if the camera is in working condition.

[mike_elek]

Lately, I've been skipping the beaters. Sometimes physical condition of the camera indicates mechanical condition. But sometimes it doesn't.

 

Personally, I go for the soiled cameras. They usually look pretty good once you strip away the decades of dirt.

 

I like cameras that look good. I'll be the first to admit it. I use my gear a lot, but I also take care of it. I don't find any special honor in allowing a camera to look like it was used to hammer nails. I know other people feel differently, and that's fine.