I am grateful that bikes are a cherished hobby. I'd rather make friends and be well regarded than squeeze the last dollar. Golden rule works pretty well: I disclose up front, so there are no surprises. I hope that those who have dealt with me have always felt that things were fully and accurately disclosed. And I offer to unwind the deal (buyer pays shipping) if there are questions. life's too short for getting into petty disputes.
just my 2c.
harvey sachs.
At 10:43 7/6/2001 -0400, John_Squires@ew.com wrote:
>It's time for a brief introduction and a question. I've been reading
>the list a few weeks and enjoying posts on all matters Confente,
>Simplex and miscellaneous oddities. I ride a Waterford 2200 except
> for my weekly 90 mile commute to and from New York City on a highly
> modified RB1 with SNS joints (to foil building security guards). I'm
> presently restoring a '76 Masi GC and I will soon be selling a Masi
> Nova Strada which I've owned since new in 1985. Herein lies my
> question: Should members of the CR list have any stated goals (is
> "ethics" too strong a word?) for representing a bicycle for sale?
> Like it or not, many new collectors are not only learning lightweight
> bicycle history through the list but also auction and sales behavior.
> My Masi looks beautiful, and I can certainly take photos that show its
> best advantage and omit the fact that there's road rash on the rear
> derailleur; or that the front derailleur and bottom bracket are
> mismatched (that Angelina Jolie protrusion wouldn't fool you old
> pros). Is the standard simply "buyer beware" or is there be a greater
> test for list members who have such extensive knowledge of the
> products they sell? What's necessary in a bicycle's description
> beyond the obvious particulars about size? More important, what's
> appropriate? And though some will certainly disagree, I think any
> such standard should hold off the list as well.
> John Squires