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

(Example: Events:Eroica)

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:58:23 -0800
From: "Chuck Schmidt" <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
To: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: CR parts ratings call for action! was Re: [CR] "Mint"
References: <20011126181952.36222.qmail@web11905.mail.yahoo.com> <002901c176ab$a031fbc0$e9dc1b41@cinci.rr.com>


Questor wrote:
>
> 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

What do I think? I think it would be pretty tough to get anyone to actually follow any quidelines on stating conditon of items for sale when people won't even take the time to sign their posts with their first and last name and the city and state they live in ;)

Chuck Schmidt
South Pasadena, California