Near mint grading

[tweedcab]

I would like to pose a question to the forum regarding a razor classification. Would it be appropriate for a razor described as being "near-mint" to have paint loss on the adjustment numbers? If so, to what degree would this be acceptable?

 

[AsylumGuido]

I would like to pose a question to the forum regarding a razor classification. Would it be appropriate for a razor described as being "near-mint" to have paint loss on the adjustment numbers? If so, to what degree would this be acceptable?

No, I wouldn't think so. Paint loss is usually rare on anything but well used razors. I may call it excellent though myself.

 

[tweedcab]

Thanks for your input. Right after I posted this I spoke to some others that echo your thoughts of no paint loss on a near mint grading.

 

[icantdie]

I remember when I could actually pick up a fatboy at the local grocery store. I recall that sometime the paint on the numbers wasn't always perfect coming from the factory actually. "As they were" off the factory floor is the definition of mint so it is hard to say whether missing paint makes the difference.

 

[AsylumGuido]

I remember when I could actually pick up a fatboy at the local grocery store. I recall that sometime the paint on the numbers wasn't always perfect coming from the factory actually. "As they were" off the factory floor is the definition of mint so it is hard to say whether missing paint makes the difference.

This is true, Roy. I suppose if absolutely no other wear can be found on the razor it could be assumed that extremely minor paint imperfections wouldn't hurt the grading. But notice I said imperfections as opposed to paint loss. Paint loss implies that the paint was previously there. Now, how to determine the true state would be a problem. You would have to assume "loss" as opposed to "imperfection" to err on the conservative side.

 

[tweedcab]

I remember when I could actually pick up a fatboy at the local grocery store. I recall that sometime the paint on the numbers wasn't always perfect coming from the factory actually. "As they were" off the factory floor is the definition of mint so it is hard to say whether missing paint makes the difference.

Point taken, but I don't equate "As they were" as "mint". If a car with zero miles was purchased new and had a dent in the fender, but that's the way it came from the dealer, would you consider it mint? The dealer might even fix it, but even then is it "mint"? I say not. This is a rather extreme example, but we are dealing with classifications that are based on the "best" specimens filtering down through time with razors that are no longer manufactured in the case of vintage Gillettes at least. This, in and of itself, does not and should not take into account the imperfections on some items as they may have left the factory. That would leave the door open for everyone to claim that "when it was new it had some paint loss" or "that scratch was there when I bought back in '55". Get my point? YMMV BTW, this is such a small and rather insignificant issue, but my curiosity is peaked as to the general concensus on this point.

 

[scottish steve]

I suppose you have to think of what a buyer'd be expecting if he got a "near-mint" item throught the post without having seen pics. This is pertinent to myself, as I can't post pics at the moment. Near mint, to me denotes an item which came out of the factory so near perfect it'd be churlish to find fault with it and subsequently has suffered almost imperceptible wear or marks-of-use in the interim period.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I think that all the paint has to be intact to call it "near-mint"