The same problem applies to everything else on eBay- rare coins, used motorcycles parts, vintage movie posters, classic cameras...
And eBay is correct not to get involved in this. The only way it could be done is if they hired expert appraisers (hundreds of them) with specialties in each field, and had them verify an item's condition via e-mail and crummy photos prior to each auction. How well do you think that would work? And how much would you pay for that? The answer is that you would pay at least 20-30% of your auction income, not just to cover the cost of verified appraisals, but to pay for the lawyers that have to be put on retainer to protect eBay, since they would effectively be guaranteeing the condition and worth of millions of auction items a day.
In other words, it ain't ever gonna happen.
Unlike stamps and coins, there is no universal, scientific grading system for bicycles/parts (or most other things). One person's "mint" deraileur is another person's "very good" deraileur, and both could be acting on equally honest principles.
The safest route is not to bid on anything unless it is accompanied by good, clear, sharp, CLOSE-UP photos. Good photos will tell you everything you need to know, and crummy photos will hide the facts from you. Thereafter, the decision (and the responsibility) is all yours.
Herb Langston Evanston, IL 1979 Benotto (recently restored) 1977 Motobecane (almost done!)
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>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