I have this conversation once every couple of months - that a "MINT" or "NEAR MINT" grading of watches is absolute - i.e. everyone agrees to what it means. But when pressed to prove that everyone agrees what "MINT" is, they will refer to this or that online source.

But not all sources agree on what a "MINT" watch grade is. In fact there is no consensus on what the different grades even are. The best (but still poor) counter-argument is that they refer to some online table, most usually Timezone. But not all grading system lines up with Timezone, this is a verifiable fact. A slightly worse argument is a dictionary definition - but the dictionary does not have the proper context. Meanings change with context. The worst argument is a reflexive argument - it's mint because it's mint, without stating sources and you find out that this "absolute" definition is in fact the complete opposite - a personal definition completely devoid of sources, which of course means it is completely subjective. This is the crux of the issue - unless there is verifiable consensus, or an agreed-upon authority, it is subjective.

Which is why community grading systems were created in the first place. Online communities like Timezone produce a grading system so that their own members may have consensus. But that consensus is only within the community. There is no expectation that anyone outside that community is bound to the definition, unless it is explicitly stated - ex: "watch is TZ Near Mint"

Here's the 2 most referred to grading systems - Timezone and Chrono24. And I'll add as a third the professional grading system from Watchfacts (I will include them as they put their money where their mouth is, if a watch is not as they warranty it, they pay to fix it). Here's what the grades line up (as best as I can interpret) when compared on a table.

So if the foremost authorities do not agree, then who is to say which is true for a specific watch, unless you explicitly specify the context?

 

I think that 98% of the population likes to exaggerate the condition of their watch, especially when it comes to vintage pieces. I think its best to post lots of hi-res pictures from every angle if you are a seller and/or request lots of hi-res pic if you are a buyer - even if you are dealing with a reputable seller (some of these guys are lazy and only post 2 pics). It makes everyone's life easier if there are lots of pics and they are clear. It's always nice to have a condition description, but most of the time it doesn't even mean what it says - even if universal meanings are agreed to.

 

There's no substitute for viewing the item or adequate photos of it. Whether it be watches, coins, antiquarian books, or guns, I've never found sellers' efforts to suggest a grade to be helpful at all. Overly optimistic, ignorant, or deceitful comes to mind.

The term "mint" is used indiscriminately in the collecting world. It originated in numismatics as a descriptive term for a coin in its mint state, just as it comes out of the mint sack. A "mint" coin can still be a bit of a dog if it suffers from "bag marks" resulting from the original bag being shuffled about, perhaps for years. In coin collecting "mint" has long been subdivided into ten sub-categories. Just what the term "mint" truly has to do with watches, guns, automobiles etc. isn't clear.

 

Related to this is the clumping of Speedmaster prices. I'm not blaming @Spacefruit as he talks about it on the price guide, and urges people to take the overall look of the watch into consideration.

The problem is take a 145.022-71 and 3 watches with patina all get put at the same price in the good price range. Overall 1 looks amazing, one is average the other is just not pleasing and they are all the same price and all sell.

I've also noticed that on straight lugs and earlier watches with medium and very pleasing patina which would be mid good at best tend to push to collector price range.

Again its not the sites fault just how people use it and ambiguity on how to add value for a watch that presents well vs the same level of patina that does not present well.

 

Hi all,
I have to agree that their really is no clearly defined term of description that all of us currently agree on and doubt there ever will be, but as said by others good pictures of the entire watch case, dial and hands should allow the buyer to decide what is and is not mint to them.

The one I hate the most though is sellers who say NOS, LNIB or Mint and then go on to say small marks on the bezel or a small mark on the case which should polish out as for the love of life that's not mint then is it? I really think most people's definitions are different and just good pictures and an accurate description are the best we can hope for and always remember Caveat Emptor.

Marc

 

I almost invariably grade the watches that I list for sale conservatively, by which I mean that I characterize those that most (let alone dealers) would as "mint" as "excellent", "excellent" as "very good", etc. With that approach, I cannot recall a single buyer having been disappointed with my basic description.

 

I see people on this forum give advice on pricing this way though. I used sellers as an example, but I've seen members here do the same thing when giving advice.

I've changed the way I give advice and mention overall look of the watch as a pro con, as well as dissuading from purchase of technically correct but not pleasing patina watches with no moss. Or dials that are not evenly patinaed or have ugly bezels.

 

Whenever I am hunting for a pre-owned piece, I typically ignore how the seller "rates" the watch. As already pointed out, that rating is quite subjective and is often exaggerated. Instead, I look to the description and pictures. Does the seller list the watch as having any blemishes? If so, where and how noticeable? Are there detailed and well positioned photos showing all angles of the piece for sale?

A poorly described and/or poorly photographed watch gets an immediate pass. I don't care what someone thinks when they go to sell, I want to know the facts.

 

When it comes to mint, I am only interested in spear, pepper and winter. This double, cool, fresh, etc. you can keep.

 

As a seller, I've learned to grade at least one level lower on the TZ scale than I actually consider it to be since I'd rather exceed expectations than fall short.

As a buyer, I simply ignore ratings and rely on photos and ask detailed questions about anything lacking or unclear in the description.

 

That is what I do. A rating is useless unless the buyer can actually refer to it to see what it means.

 

This is true and a good point. I think most so within the vintage market which is not an area I'm too interested in. I spend a good chunk of my work day squinting and staring at x-ray, MRI, and CT scans trying to make out all the smallest details. The last thing I want to do for relaxation is repeat the same process on a watch. Others enjoy that aspect of the hunt. It works out nicely because I don't stress and my hard pass can quickly become your next great bargain find.

 

Find words are useless compared to the pictures on 7-80% of all FS listings no matter what forum

Several members on here are a exemption to the above. (these are the true gems you dont blink purchasing a watch from)

 

Maybe the term has more to do with cost than condition, in those cases.

 

I have yet to see an advert stating that a watch was "mint" where I agreed. I never buy on descriptions and, like Gator, absolutely love an out-of-focus picture, preferably taken at an odd angle. "Needs battery" is another turn-on

 

well mint is four grades? theres your problem!

 

I don't give a rats ass about different rating systems on different forums. They are often more or less useless. A fair description and good photos work better.

The term "mint" refers to something fresh from the mint or appearing as fresh from the mint. If you have polished away all scratches so your watch shines like new it is NOT mint, because it is not the original case finish. My alarm always start to sound when a seller only display watches in mint condition. They almost certainly are not all mint but worn and subsequently polished specimens.

If you have worn your watch very carefully so there are no scratches or anything, I would agree to call it mint. Anything at all and the watch is not mint anymore.