ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

RollieNZ · 25 March 2010, 02:05 PM

Not sure if this subject has been covered before, or if info is elsewhere,
but I'm confused by some of the terms used, especially by sellers, to describe the condition of their watch.

Whilst I appreciate that an owner's view of their watch can be subjective, and that it is impossible to obtain
100% uniformity, it would be helpful if there was at least some degree of logic to the descriptions given.

My understanding of the terminology is as follows:

BNIB = Brand New In Box
Unworn, stickers still intact, perfect condition as purchased from AD, complete with warranty, all original boxes, papers, tags, etc.

LBNIB = Like Brand New In Box
Tried on a few times, worn occasionally - but not regularly, unmarked, indistinguishable from new, with or without stickers intact,
some original warranty remaining, complete with original box, papers, etc.

MINT = Worn occasionally, unmarked, indistinguishable from new,
with or without original box and/or papers etc

EXCELLENT CONDITION = Worn regularly, some light everyday scratches, and wear marks. No deep scratches or dings

GOOD CONDITION = Worn regularly, everyday scratches and wear marks, and dings commensurate with age of watch

Am I on the right track here?
Are there other commonly used descriptions?

What annoys me is sellers describing their watch as 'MINT' when photographs show quite clearly wear marks and/or scratching.

According to my dictionary the term 'Mint' is:
'in perfect condition as when first made'

IMO the term 'Mint' is widely abused. How can a watch with scratches on be "Mint'?

Your comments welcomed.

Tools · 25 March 2010, 02:13 PM

Every condition is widely abused..

Even the BNIB term gets used by re-sellers, when, in fact, it cannot be "Brand New".

The buyer should always determine if the watch meets his criteria and not what the seller claims.......

RollieNZ · 25 March 2010, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tools

Every condition is widely abused..

Even the BNIB term gets used by re-sellers, when, in fact, it cannot be "Brand New".

The buyer should always determine if the watch meets his criteria and not what the seller claims.......

Hmmm... interesting.

But I disagree.

If the watch has been bought from an AD,
by a grey market dealer of TRF dealer, and then offered for
sale in exactly the same condition then I would happily accept
the term 'Brand New' - just not AD 'brand new' :)

It's not always possible to accurately determine the real condition
of the watch if buying at a distance.

I suppose we get back to 'buy the seller - not the watch'

Tools · 25 March 2010, 02:47 PM

I guess that we disagree then..

A watch can only be "Brand New' once..After that it can only be "Like New"..

But, still, sellers will continue to call it whatever they believe will get the highest price..

RollieNZ · 25 March 2010, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tools

I guess that we disagree then..

A watch can only be "Brand New' once..After that it can only be "Like New"..

But, still, sellers will continue to call it whatever they believe will get the highest price..

Larry, I agree with you, - technically

I think the term 'As New' would cover this situation better.

moviefreak · 25 March 2010, 02:53 PM

I will buy an extremely abused full of nicks and dents Rolex as long as Jacques Cousteau wore it..

or if the price is right...

Singslinger · 25 March 2010, 05:07 PM

Interesting post. I have a question:-

I have a friend who bought a Sub LV from an AD about a year ago, purely on the off-chance that the watch would be discontinued. It's never been worn, nor has it been sized to his wrist, so it's essentially been taken out of the AD's safe and transferred to his safe, where it has lain for 12 months now. When the time comes for him to sell - as it surely will - can he justifiably describe the watch as "brand new in box''?

RollieNZ · 25 March 2010, 05:19 PM

Hmmm... interesting question, in response to my interesting post :)

Let me think...

This whole area gets pretty fuzzy really, doesn't it?

Contradicting my response to Larry above, I would have to say that
he couldn't fairly advertise it as 'brand new in box' - but he probably
will.

I think a more accurate description would be 'unworn in box, in as new condition'

Personally, I think the time frame plays a part in the description. The longer a
watch is in the possession of the person who first purchased it from the AD the more
the description 'brand new' becomes less appropriate.

This is especially so if the model is discontinued IMO.

In further response to Larry's post -

If I buy a TV set from a retailer and leave it boxed up and untouched
with the warranty still valid (as it has not been registered with the
manufacturer), can I advertise it as 'Brand New' ?

DanP · 25 March 2010, 05:41 PM

Good Topic Great thread! LOL
I mean they are not baseball cards, so there is a grey area there.
Yup I guess its back to buy the Seller.

Jason71 · 25 March 2010, 09:04 PM

One thing that I have learned when buying pre-owned watches is that "Mint" to one seller is not the same as "Mint" to another seller. Several sellers that I have dealt with are more conservative in their grading, a couple of them have been a bit more liberal. I have gotten a "Mint" watch before from a seller that had:

2 scratches on the crystal
a small ding on one of the lugs
one of the lugs is mis-shapen on the outside near the lug-hole due to excessive polishing
a gouge on the underside of the case beside the caseback.

All of these defects were only noticeable after close inspection, but they were there nonetheless. I was still happy with the transaction (got a good deal), but thought it was not a very accurate representation of the watch.

Ebruner · 25 March 2010, 08:41 PM

I think the term "mint" is abused. I read all the time, "mint condition, just came back from RSC".

By the definition of Mint it CANNOT have been to the RSC and polished up. Being a rare coin dealer it tears me up the see this term abused.

-Eddie

mborner · 25 March 2010, 11:47 PM

The way I see it, once the watch is sold by an AD to a person, it can no longer be called "brand new". Here's why. Once the serial# of the watch is registered with Rolex with a buyer, it can't be sold as new simply because it's had a previous owner. "Brand new" means "not previously registered to any person" That's how I see it.

RollieNZ · 26 March 2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mborner

The way I see it, once the watch is sold by an AD to a person, it can no longer be called "brand new". Here's why. Once the serial# of the watch is registered with Rolex with a buyer, it can't be sold as new simply because it's had a previous owner. "Brand new" means "not previously registered to any person" That's how I see it.

Good Point!

25 March 2010, 02:05 PM	#1
RollieNZ "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Mark Location: Auckland, N.Z. Watch: Day Date YG Posts: 320	Watch Condition Terminolgy? Not sure if this subject has been covered before, or if info is elsewhere, but I'm confused by some of the terms used, especially by sellers, to describe the condition of their watch. Whilst I appreciate that an owner's view of their watch can be subjective, and that it is impossible to obtain 100% uniformity, it would be helpful if there was at least some degree of logic to the descriptions given. My understanding of the terminology is as follows: BNIB = Brand New In Box Unworn, stickers still intact, perfect condition as purchased from AD, complete with warranty, all original boxes, papers, tags, etc. LBNIB = Like Brand New In Box Tried on a few times, worn occasionally - but not regularly, unmarked, indistinguishable from new, with or without stickers intact, some original warranty remaining, complete with original box, papers, etc. MINT = Worn occasionally, unmarked, indistinguishable from new, with or without original box and/or papers etc EXCELLENT CONDITION = Worn regularly, some light everyday scratches, and wear marks. No deep scratches or dings GOOD CONDITION = Worn regularly, everyday scratches and wear marks, and dings commensurate with age of watch Am I on the right track here? Are there other commonly used descriptions? What annoys me is sellers describing their watch as 'MINT' when photographs show quite clearly wear marks and/or scratching. According to my dictionary the term 'Mint' is: 'in perfect condition as when first made' IMO the term 'Mint' is widely abused. How can a watch with scratches on be "Mint'? Your comments welcomed.

25 March 2010, 02:13 PM	#2
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,514	Every condition is widely abused.. Even the BNIB term gets used by re-sellers, when, in fact, it cannot be "Brand New". The buyer should always determine if the watch meets his criteria and not what the seller claims....... __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

25 March 2010, 02:47 PM	#4
Tools TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Larry Location: Mojave Desert Watch: GMT's Posts: 43,514	I guess that we disagree then.. A watch can only be "Brand New' once..After that it can only be "Like New".. But, still, sellers will continue to call it whatever they believe will get the highest price.. __________________ (Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member

25 March 2010, 02:53 PM	#6
moviefreak "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: in my house... Posts: 5,524	I will buy an extremely abused full of nicks and dents Rolex as long as Jacques Cousteau wore it.. or if the price is right... __________________ Cheers, Eduardo Be a WIS not a WUSS... and remove all the stickers..

25 March 2010, 09:04 PM	#10
Jason71 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Real Name: Jason Location: USA Watch: Rolex/Tudor Divers Posts: 7,973	One thing that I have learned when buying pre-owned watches is that "Mint" to one seller is not the same as "Mint" to another seller. Several sellers that I have dealt with are more conservative in their grading, a couple of them have been a bit more liberal. I have gotten a "Mint" watch before from a seller that had: 2 scratches on the crystal a small ding on one of the lugs one of the lugs is mis-shapen on the outside near the lug-hole due to excessive polishing a gouge on the underside of the case beside the caseback. All of these defects were only noticeable after close inspection, but they were there nonetheless. I was still happy with the transaction (got a good deal), but thought it was not a very accurate representation of the watch. __________________ Best Regards, Jason Just Say "NO" to Polishing Card-Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch Curmudgeons LIfe is too short to wear inexpensive watches PLEXI IS SEXY

25 March 2010, 05:07 PM	#7
Singslinger "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: singapore Posts: 6,424	Interesting post. I have a question:- I have a friend who bought a Sub LV from an AD about a year ago, purely on the off-chance that the watch would be discontinued. It's never been worn, nor has it been sized to his wrist, so it's essentially been taken out of the AD's safe and transferred to his safe, where it has lain for 12 months now. When the time comes for him to sell - as it surely will - can he justifiably describe the watch as "brand new in box''?

25 March 2010, 05:19 PM	#8
RollieNZ "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Mark Location: Auckland, N.Z. Watch: Day Date YG Posts: 320	Hmmm... interesting question, in response to my interesting post :) Let me think... This whole area gets pretty fuzzy really, doesn't it? Contradicting my response to Larry above, I would have to say that he couldn't fairly advertise it as 'brand new in box' - but he probably will. I think a more accurate description would be 'unworn in box, in as new condition' Personally, I think the time frame plays a part in the description. The longer a watch is in the possession of the person who first purchased it from the AD the more the description 'brand new' becomes less appropriate. This is especially so if the model is discontinued IMO. In further response to Larry's post - If I buy a TV set from a retailer and leave it boxed up and untouched with the warranty still valid (as it has not been registered with the manufacturer), can I advertise it as 'Brand New' ?

25 March 2010, 05:41 PM	#9
DanP Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Real Name: Dan P Location: Vancouver. Canada Watch: GV-U-Kno-Me :) Posts: 2,436	Good Topic Great thread! LOL I mean they are not baseball cards, so there is a grey area there. Yup I guess its back to buy the Seller.

25 March 2010, 08:41 PM	#11
Ebruner "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Real Name: Eddie Location: Kentucky Watch: 118208 Posts: 2,510	I think the term "mint" is abused. I read all the time, "mint condition, just came back from RSC". By the definition of Mint it CANNOT have been to the RSC and polished up. Being a rare coin dealer it tears me up the see this term abused. -Eddie __________________

25 March 2010, 11:47 PM	#12
mborner "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Coral Springs, Fl Posts: 99	The way I see it, once the watch is sold by an AD to a person, it can no longer be called "brand new". Here's why. Once the serial# of the watch is registered with Rolex with a buyer, it can't be sold as new simply because it's had a previous owner. "Brand new" means "not previously registered to any person" That's how I see it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)