Re: CR parts ratings call for action! was Re: [CR] "Mint"

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2002)

To: questor@cinci.rr.com
Cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:37:12 -0500
Subject: Re: CR parts ratings call for action! was Re: [CR] "Mint"
From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>


You don't spend rare coins and you don't post mail with rare stamps. If a part is shopworn and also listed as mint, it will still perform its function as if it just arrived from the factory. Don't misunderstand me, I welcome a standardized 'rating' system. I am a collecter and only buy NOS/NIP parts and nothing else. Something either fits that m.o.or I don't buy it. For anything less than new, I see a guideline as confusing and ambiguous as the current movie rating system, but I look forward to seeing what we can come up with. I recall the auction of a 60s Campagnolo hub box and all the scuttlebutt surrounding the 'possibility' that the high bidder 'could feasibly' put some box-less hubs in it and turn it out as New-in-Box. Would these be 'new', 'mint', 'kinda-but-not-so-new-in-an-unused-box', or what? Good luck with the jargon. e-RICHIE

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:53:18 -0500 "Questor" <questor@cinci.rr.com> writes:
> CR and/or Ebay needs to establish "rules of the road" when a seller
> claims
> that a vintage part is in a specific condition. I always wonder
> about
> sellers asking premium prices for what they describe as "shop-worn"
> and
> imply it is in mint condition. The bottom line is that there is no
> uniformly applied ranking of bicycle part conditions that people
> adhere to
> on Ebay or the CR.
>
> I have written Ebay about this in the past and they have refused to
> get
> involved, saying they are only a listing agent and that any implied
> descriptions of items for auction are solely between buyer and
> seller.
>
> Consider this a call for action for CR members to decide what
> descriptions
> should apply to the following proposed ratings. Prehaps different
> description should apply to frames versus parts/components?
>
> Mint
> Excellent
> Good
> Fair
> Poor
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards, Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Rafael Rednor" <fred_rednor@yahoo.com>
> To: <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Cc: <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [CR]"Mint" - was Fun Spectating: Big dollar Simplex on
> eBay...
>
>
> > > ...but in the bicycle world it seems that
> > > "mint" means "never crashed". Just an
> > > observation.
> > Joe,
> > Your observation is correct. As you can imagine, that's just
> > what bothers me at this point. When old parts and frames were
> > still relatively inexpensive I suppose some amount of leeway in
> >
> > this regard was acceptable. But I feel that people who want top
> > dollar for their parts and frames are obligated to go by the
> > same standards that aply to all other expensive collectables.
> > Best regards,
> > Fred Rednor
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just
> $8.95/month.
> > http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1