However, there are certain expectations that should be assigned to sellers marketing bicycle parts through auctions or sales. Based on parts I have seen on Ebay, most should rate a "GOOD" because they have been used and show weear.
I do not believe that a Japanese-style points rating system should apply because we have precious little accurate documentation on how these parts were originally produced by the factories and in what quantites. Sometimes manufacturers mixed components based on what was available at the time. As a result Raleigh bicycles in the mid 1970s sometimes came with a mix of parts as Raleigh transitioned from one model series to another.
The bottom line is that grading the OEM quality parts is not an exact science, but I believe that there are certain commonly held beliefs that could be applied.
1.) "Mint" should mean perfect original condition - never been applied or used, no scuff marks rust or discolorations, in original and correct OEM packaging. Should not have any oxidation or discoloration, looks like it just came out of the factory... It does not get any better than this!
2.) "Excellent" should mean any part mounted on a bike, contains all original parts, no scratches or scuff marks, no missing decal or paint cracks, no pits, rust, nor any sign of wear. Should be in original finish without modification or enhancement. May show some signs of being mounted, no signs of use. May require polishing to remove oxidation or dullness to the steel/alloy components.
3.) "Good" could imply any of the following: light surface rust, parts or decals replaced, low to moderate wear, mix of correct or incorrect OEM parts, some noticeable scratches or scuffing, some minor pitting, requires polishing, generally considered a usable and complete "rider" part.
4.) "Fair" very noticeable pitting or wear, scuffing, needs through polishing, mismatched parts, missing parts, broken parts that are noticeably repaired, may or may not not be able to be used as a "rider" part.
5.) "Poor" bottom of the barrel, part that can't be repaired, significant scratches or pits that can be corrected without significant effort. Etc.
What do you think?
Regards, Steve Neago
"The Cincinnati Kid" :-)
> Is anyone up to reading another post on this thread? If so, here's my two
> cents:
>
> It doesn't matter how much effort, thought and consensus goes into a
rating
> system - it will not work, not here, not there (ebay), not anywhere.....
>
> I have been restoring, buying and selling British sports cars for well
over
> twenty years - same issues applied regarding grading. What I have learned
> from experience is this, regardless of the definition of the various grade
> levels, is that everyone sees the item being graded through there own
eyes,
> and rarely, very rarely, do different eyes see the same thing. Many
> automotive/classic car grading systems exist and the only time any one of
> them works is within the one company or person using it. There is
> consistency then, but as soon as that system is used by two or more
> companies/people, they apply the standard differently. Same will happen
> here.
>
> A grading system will only help to have a common definition for each of
the
> rating tiers; but what has not been discussed is the fact that the rating
> being applied is based on the individual person rating it. Can having a
> rating system help those of us on the CR list - probably not, my
experience
> has been that everything I've bought through this list I've been satisfied
> with - I think we are an honest lot of people interested more in the hobby
> and friendships then we are in maximizing a profit at the expense of same.
>
> Over the past year I've gone through a lot of boxes of my stuff, struggled
> with the notion of selling it (I like to collect) since I may need it in
the
> future; once I made the decision to sell I put together a list with as
> honest a description as my eyes and integrity allow; then I post to the
> group; then I add that I will supply JPEG's on request; then I send the
item
> out before payment is received; then I will accept the item back for a
> refund if it isn't what was expected - never happened yet. Such a system
> has worked fine without a rigid list of definitions and grades. I am
> comfortable with how I judge, describe and rate an item - I would not be
> comfortable applying my judgement to a predetermined rating list agreed
too
> by some consensus.
>
> So what's my point? Know who your buying from. If that's not possible,
> know what you expect and communicate that back to the seller with a
request
> for photo's to back up their claim that the item is to your expectations.
> Yes, the burden should be on the seller, especially on this CR list. The
> problem exists mainly on ebay or other selling venues, accept that the
> burden is clearly on the buyer and as has been pointed out in various
> previous posts, ask questions, get good clear photos, and if something
seems
> fishy - it is - always.
>
> I say, forget a rating system - it will create more confusion on this list
> by forcing people to use a canned rating instead of their own description.
> A person's own description will almost always be better then forcing them
to
> apply a canned version.
>
> That's my experience and opinion for whatever it is worth.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Eric Elman
> Somers, CT where it has been in the low 60's today