[CR]NOS? New Old Stock or Not Overly Scarred?

Example: Production Builders

From: "brucerobbins" <brucerobbins@supanet.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:32:01 -0000
Subject: [CR]NOS? New Old Stock or Not Overly Scarred?

I was just looking at an old saddle on Ebay which is supposed to be NOS. This one looks like it's been lying at the bottom of someone's toolbox for a few months. It raises the question, "How do you know something you might bid on is actually NOS?" More to the point, how does the seller know unless he was the one who bought it new? Furthermore to the point (?), if a saddle described as NOS has quite a few marks and scrapes, is it any better or more valuable than a saddle that has been used but is in fairly pristine condition? Should it be?

NOS seems to be attached to all sorts of cycling stuff on Ebay that carries marks and gouges. Am I being cynical or are there cycle traders out there who get an old item, think it looks pretty unworn and just label it NOS knowing that it's difficult for people to argue otherwise? Having heard stories about some of these characters, I wouldn't put it past them. I mean, how much genuine NOS stuff from the '40s, '50s and '60s can there be left out there now anyway? Somehow, caveat emptor seems a pretty lame defence if you've just been ripped off.

Bruce, with more questions than answers in