Understanding the pun intended by Chuck, I care to extend the idea further by agreeing that getting people to follow the guidelines would be near impossible. Currently Ebay allows many a person to get away with practically any type rating system there is but the Ebay-nazis send emails out Warning of potential misleading titles. actually, not a warning but a removal before they finally agreed they were Ok with the description and allowed it to be posted. ie. recently I posted a classic Bianchi road bicycle, the description read as follows.
Classic Bianchi 54.5cm road bicycle,NR,campy ------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------ I received a warning because the bicycle was not NR equipped. I in no way meant to mean it was campy nr equipped but using ebays own accepted abbreviation of NR as meaning No Reserve. and also by putting the campy after I had hoped to avoid this confusion. Upon responding to ebay with my explanation as above I received another email saying I couldn't use campy in the title to attract buyers!?! Ok, so I have a Classic Bianchi rd bike that is campy equipped but I can't describe it as such. Ok, I can agree with that logic...No! ebay needs to clear up there own policing methods before going on a shark hunt and screwing around with peoples auctions...Let alone hoping they develope a method of standardization for rating. It's impossible with as many users that they have, I don't think they could do it personally. But there has to be a place to start somewhere. I also agree with the thoughts of e-richie to say that by buying a New box, does that entitle someone to sell in the future NOS hubs in the New box as NIB. It is a fine line.
------------------------------------------ Walt Skrzypek in Falls Creek, PA
I have a New Cannondale Jersey for sale that was worn in the shop....or is that "shop-worn"
>From: Chuck Schmidt
>Reply-To: chuckschmidt@earthlink.net
>To: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: Re: CR parts ratings call for action! was Re: [CR] "Mint"
>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:58:23 -0800
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous