| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Koesel writes:
> I think that the term MIB (Mint in Box) was conceived first.
> Later, the term MISB (Mint in Sealed Box) was created because
> MIB was not specific enough. I don't think either term is
> specific to the Lego market.
>
> To me, the better question is, "How is 'mint' defined"? It
> would seem that if pieces were removed and touched, then they
> are no longer 'mint'. That is why, for the most part, I try
> not to buy anything labeled MIB unless I can really get a good
> look, or detailed description of just what shape the parts are
> in.
Yeah, too bad that we can't really have a true standard. Maybe we need to do
something like:
Pieces Complete Instructions | Box
=========|==============|==============|==========
M (mint) | C (complete) | M (mint) | S (sealed)
G (good) | L (lacking) | G (good) | G (good)
U (used) | | U (used) | U (used)
| | N (none) | N (none)
Hence, Mint could only describe things that were sealed.... or perhaps were
only touched once (someone sorting sets out, and selling the never used
instructions... maybe worthy of 'mint' title)
But anyway, that'd be odd... might get confusing, forgetting the order of
Pieces, instructions, box, etc.... plus it would mean instituting a new
standard... hard to set a *new* precedent
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
