Re: [CR]Re: CR parts ratings...

(Example: Racing:Jacques Boyer)

To: OROBOYZ@aol.com
Cc: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:11:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: CR parts ratings...
From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>


I just got back from a quick thirty miles and my head is now screwed on again. I still look forward to seeing how this 'grading' system evolves. In most cases a less than perfect transaction involves a misunderstanding between the seller AND the buyer. Always ask questions. NEVER buy anything that the seller won't let you return for what you paid for the item. All items pertinent to this thread are quite old and rare. If there is a disagreement, you don't want store-credit. Ask for your money back. That's a win-win system. e-RICHIE 50ish in Chester and I gotta these new email features

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:47:12 EST OROBOYZ@aol.com writes:
> I think all of us would be happy to have a solid reliable way of
> rating parts
> and bike condition, but eBay in particular has lead the way in a
> reckless
> abandonment of all previous standards and I don't expect that to
> change.
>
> In our own little world, (CR) at least we could perhaps agree to
> some very
> basic stuff like "Mint" versus "shop worn" versus "used in any way"?
> Will
> someone of us take the time to compose a standard that we could
> discuss here.
>
> But we would be extremely naive to expect that shark infested world
> of eBay
> to adhere to our rules! Insert here Caveat emptor, E Pluribus Unum
> and other
> Latin cliches!
>
> Dale Brown
> Greensboro, NC