A collectable in the making…maybe…and a lawsuit like no other

Do you have room for a couple more cameras? Hey, is the Pope a catholic? Yes, of course, you have some free shelf space just itching for the addition of a couple more cameras. Especially when you can get in on the ground floor and start a budding camera collection. Right?

Before you head to the local auction house and bid on cameras like you’re buying a Stegosaurus skeleton, here is some background information on an ideal beginner’s collectible camera… maybe.

Oddly enough, this story begins with a lawsuit between two colossal corporations. Naturally, “colossal” will be taken with a grain of salt today. Why? Because the defendant in this case was Minolta Corporation. Sure, Minolta has lost its luster nowadays, but at the time of this legal battle, this camera manufacturer was at its prime. The plaintiff in the case was Exxon Corporation (now known as ExxonMobil Corporation). This is the same company that is a lightning rod for accusations and controversy, as well as earning billions of dollars each year. It seems obvious how this lawsuit is going to be litigated — hold onto your lens cap, Minolta.

This legal tussle isn’t related to petroleum or fossil fuels. Rather, it’s a war between the “exes.” No, this isn’t a case of martial infidelity; this dispute centers on the use or misuse of double “X’s.” Specifically, the uniquely joined crossed “X’s” found in the Exxon logo as shown below. Unwittingly, Minolta stumbled into this logo controversy by applying a similar crossed “X’s” logo to its new camera line: Minolta Maxxum. “Only from the Mind of Minolta,” right? [Please note: this quote references the Minolta advertising campaign tagline used in the 1980s – 1990s.]

Surprisingly, this story ends with a very amicable settlement. Minolta agreed to alter its camera logo, and Exxon said, “Ok.” And that’s it; end of lawsuit. Legendary film camera authors and historians James M. McKeown and Joan C. McKeown indicate that Exxon allowed Minolta to continue to sell the remaining Minolta 7000 AF infringing cameras/lenses/flashes (see Figures 2, 3, and 4) until a gradual “phasing in” of an altered spelling could be made to upcoming production schedules (see Figure 5).

Furthermore, on the subject of Minolta Maxxum cameras, the McKeowns state that it “could” “probably” become collectable if allowed to “sit around.” Unfortunately, rarity isn’t likely due to the large number of double “X” Maxxum 7000 AF cameras that were produced.

As a footnote to this battle of the “exes,” there is a completely unsubstantiated rumor that Minolta built a transition “bridge” Maxxum 7000 AF model. This supposed bridge model did not have the “Maxxum” name printed on the camera’s faceplate. Hmm, is there also an appropriately vintage lens (lenses) lacking the Maxxum label?

Therefore, a complete Minolta Maxxum 7000 AF collection would include three cameras: a Minolta Maxxum 7000 AF with the double “Xs” name printed on the faceplate along with an appropriate lens similarly labeled, a Minolta Maxxum 7000 AF without the double “Xs” on the faceplate accompanied by a suitable lens, and, finally, if the provenance can be proven, a Minolta Maxxum 7000 AF with a blank faceplate. Happy collecting.

Enjoy.