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

Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:58:16 -0500
To: <>
From: "WD Baseley" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]NOS? New Old Stock or Not Overly Scarred?
In-Reply-To: <009601c3f677$699b6a80$58bf28d5@Robbocomp>

At 11:32 PM 2/18/2004 +0000, brucerobbins ushered forth:
>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?

Q: When you bid on *anything* on eBay, how do you know it is accurately described? A: You don't.
>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?

It is a question for the seller, to determine his opening bid and/or reserve price. It is a question for the bidder, to decide what each is worth to him.
>NOS seems to be attached to all sorts of cycling stuff on Ebay that
>carries marks and gouges.

The acronym never sells me anything. It might get me to take a look, which is why it gets used so much. (As a seller I find this a bit annoying, but ah well.) It is a combination of description, photographic representation, and reputation that gets me to bid. (A stupefyingly elaborate and constantly changing array of variables sometimes manages to get me to bid more than I should, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)
>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 am absolutely certain it happens. As a buyer I have received "NOS" items that have clearly been used.

As a seller, I only put "NOS" in the title when I'm 99% certain that is indeed what it is. This probably costs me sales but I'd rather sleep well. In descriptions I may use the term "near NOS" for items that show no sign of use; others might call such an item "mint". (I use "mint" to describe items that have been used but are in fabulous, nearly new condition.)
> 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.

And yet it will have to do.

rgds, Dave Baseley, desperately seeking employment in Berks County PA