[Leica] Mint & Virginity by 3 Definitions

[Leikon35 <Leikon35@aol.com>]

 Just for what it's worth, here are 3 definitions of Mint as applied to Leica
cameras:

 Leica Historical Society of America - "Only the slightest hint of any use.  A
near 
 perfect example with no signs of deteriorationor damage."

 Leica International Price Guide -"Used but only the slightest signs of use."

 Shutterbug Ads -"100% original finish, just like factory new BUT must be 
 pre-owned."

 I have seen Leicas advertised as new when they actually have been used 
 as demos or just sitting on the shelf for years.  The justification for this
 seems to be that some dealers consider an item never sold to be as new.
 I disagree with this as any item just sitting on the shelf for unknown years
 will suffer some deterioration  -  just like my 75 year old virgin aunt.
 
 Marvin (slightly used) Moss
 ===========================================================
In a message dated mm/12/98 6:50:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dmorton@journalist.co.uk writes:
> 
>  Martin V. Howard wrote:
>  
>  > How can something that has been used be MINT+ ?!??  I thought the
>  > definition of "mint" was that is appeared as a coin fresh from the mint,
>  > i.e., never used (bascially never touched either).
>  
>  Even if the item *hasn't* been used, it's manifestly nonsense to describe
>  it as mint+, unless it's somehow been 'improved' over the original
>  brand-new condition.
>  
>