|
 |
| | | Author: | gfones  | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2013 13:07 | | Subject: | condition codes? | | Viewed: | 185 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Suggestion to add codes to the condition column that indicate:
A. Unused mint (No damage and unused)
B. Unused not mint (Rubbing in bag, etc.) Seller is required to add description
of damage in item description and can only be combined with items described with
the same damage.
C. Used Near mint (Used but no damage)
D. Used Damaged, seller is required to add description of damage in item description
and can only be combined with items described with the same damage. Additional
idea the seller also has to provide a non-stock picture of time?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2013 13:13 | | Subject: | Re: condition codes? | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, gfones writes:
| | Suggestion to add codes to the condition column that indicate:
A. Unused mint (No damage and unused)
B. Unused not mint (Rubbing in bag, etc.) Seller is required to add description
of damage in item description and can only be combined with items described with
the same damage.
C. Used Near mint (Used but no damage)
D. Used Damaged, seller is required to add description of damage in item description
and can only be combined with items described with the same damage. Additional
idea the seller also has to provide a non-stock picture of time?
|
The idea of parting out multiple copies of big sets would be immense.
if you had 3 1500 piece sets, right now, it's easy..
With more conditions, you'd have to inspect each piece thoroughly.
something like non-mint is subjective, where is the line between mint and non-mint
or poor
I've listed used bricks as 'like new', meaning I could have probably listed them
as new and think no one would notice, except for my whole moral code thing
I don't think people would use the codes at all, it's counter productive.. Also,
the price guide isn't set up to show prices for different grades, so you'd have
to change that too.
I'd vote no
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WhiteVanMan | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2013 13:50 | | Subject: | Re: condition codes? | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, gfones writes:
| | Suggestion to add codes to the condition column that indicate:
A. Unused mint (No damage and unused)
B. Unused not mint (Rubbing in bag, etc.) Seller is required to add description
of damage in item description and can only be combined with items described with
the same damage.
C. Used Near mint (Used but no damage)
D. Used Damaged, seller is required to add description of damage in item description
and can only be combined with items described with the same damage. Additional
idea the seller also has to provide a non-stock picture of time?
|
I'm sorry, but I'm guesing that you have had a few elements that were sold to
you as new, but, in your opinion were used.
However, please bear in mind that this possible scenario can happen, and I'm
not saying that it will with all of the major sellers.
Over time, parting out sets will build up one's stock, and there are cases of
where even I have seen the quality differences between a set's elements from
5 years ago and today.
My example is this:-
A seller has parted out 10 identical sets that contains 4 1x1 Blue Bricks upon
his start up of his store on BrickLink.
The seller parts out more different sets over the years and occasionally, 1x1
Bricks in blue are added to the stock, but don't get sold.
6 years go by and NONE of those 1x1's have sold because no-one wants them...
Seller reduces the price, and boom, they get sold.
Because of HOW these 1x1's were stored, the orignal ones have signs of 'use'
even though they are classed as new because they didn't get used.
Buyer complains that the 1x1's have small 'micro-scratches' even though they
got taken from MISB sets
Seller responds by say that they are NEW...
Buyer retorts saying that they are not becuase of the scratches...
Negatives get placed etc etc
Now, I use my storage system like how BrickLink's parts catalogue is set up...
I use multi drawer cabinets and each drawer is allocated a certain element(s)
I snap together all of my USED Lego as it is easier to count that way as I can't
part out 2x4 plates as well as 2x4 Bricks, and obviously small parts like Technic
pins are bagged.
All of my NEW is kept separate, again in drawers, lined with paper to stop surface
rubbing, again with certain elements in per drawer.
It is inevitable that some elements WILL get rub marks and this is ACCEPTED by
the mainstream BL community
Even BL states that elements taken from a MISB set may have rub marks and the
parts are still classed as new.
Hope you can understand what I have said.
Paul
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb200521 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2013 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: condition codes? | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Suggestions, gfones writes:
| | Suggestion to add codes to the condition column that indicate:
A. Unused mint (No damage and unused)
B. Unused not mint (Rubbing in bag, etc.) Seller is required to add description
of damage in item description and can only be combined with items described with
the same damage.
C. Used Near mint (Used but no damage)
D. Used Damaged, seller is required to add description of damage in item description
and can only be combined with items described with the same damage. Additional
idea the seller also has to provide a non-stock picture of time?
|
I'm sorry, but I'm guesing that you have had a few elements that were sold to
you as new, but, in your opinion were used.
However, please bear in mind that this possible scenario can happen, and I'm
not saying that it will with all of the major sellers.
Over time, parting out sets will build up one's stock, and there are cases of
where even I have seen the quality differences between a set's elements from
5 years ago and today.
My example is this:-
A seller has parted out 10 identical sets that contains 4 1x1 Blue Bricks upon
his start up of his store on BrickLink.
The seller parts out more different sets over the years and occasionally, 1x1
Bricks in blue are added to the stock, but don't get sold.
6 years go by and NONE of those 1x1's have sold because no-one wants them...
Seller reduces the price, and boom, they get sold.
Because of HOW these 1x1's were stored, the orignal ones have signs of 'use'
even though they are classed as new because they didn't get used.
Buyer complains that the 1x1's have small 'micro-scratches' even though they
got taken from MISB sets
Seller responds by say that they are NEW...
Buyer retorts saying that they are not becuase of the scratches...
Negatives get placed etc etc
Now, I use my storage system like how BrickLink's parts catalogue is set up...
I use multi drawer cabinets and each drawer is allocated a certain element(s)
I snap together all of my USED Lego as it is easier to count that way as I can't
part out 2x4 plates as well as 2x4 Bricks, and obviously small parts like Technic
pins are bagged.
All of my NEW is kept separate, again in drawers, lined with paper to stop surface
rubbing, again with certain elements in per drawer.
It is inevitable that some elements WILL get rub marks and this is ACCEPTED by
the mainstream BL community
Even BL states that elements taken from a MISB set may have rub marks and the
parts are still classed as new.
Hope you can understand what I have said.
Paul
|
you miss another example : when pieces get damaged (not a lot) during transport
of set (I get a couple from a MISB bought in a toy shop). then the part is new
but not mint (as coming from the production line)... Another opportunity to argue
about parts quality
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | andy1024 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2013 14:52 | | Subject: | Re: condition codes? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, gfones writes:
| | Suggestion to add codes to the condition column that indicate:
A. Unused mint (No damage and unused)
B. Unused not mint (Rubbing in bag, etc.) Seller is required to add description
of damage in item description and can only be combined with items described with
the same damage.
C. Used Near mint (Used but no damage)
D. Used Damaged, seller is required to add description of damage in item description
and can only be combined with items described with the same damage.
|
I agree.
I would merge code B with code D - it doesn't matter what is a history of a brick,
it is condition what matters. If bought once a pack of dark grey tiles 1x2, and
most of them were so scratched, that they were suitable only for decorating the
trashcan. The seller said they were new even if scratched a little and refused
a refund. Second thing from him was big lego dish (8 x 8), that was bent heavily,
also "new".
To sum up: I don't care what you've been doing with your bricks. If they are
damaged, they aren't new.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | marlinjc | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2013 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: condition codes? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, gfones writes:
| | Suggestion to add codes to the condition column that indicate:
A. Unused mint (No damage and unused)
B. Unused not mint (Rubbing in bag, etc.) Seller is required to add description
of damage in item description and can only be combined with items described with
the same damage.
C. Used Near mint (Used but no damage)
D. Used Damaged, seller is required to add description of damage in item description
and can only be combined with items described with the same damage. Additional
idea the seller also has to provide a non-stock picture of time?
|
This can be taken way too far. How much time should the seller of a common element
listing for $0.03 be expected to spend on each element? It may make sense to
get picky about elements with high value, but who can look critically at each
1x2 white plate and sort and price it into detailed descriptions?
In 12 years as a BL member and participant in Todd Lehman's Auczilla auctions
way before that, I have had very few bad experiences with sellers or buyers.
We should target abusive sellers, rather than increase buracracy.
For most of us selling is part of the hobby. Condition is quite subjective.
I buy used items at garage sales that look new and others that show wear or have
obvious heavy dust. At most we should consider something like new, nice, and
well used. But even there subjectivity will rear its head, especially where something
like an assembled minifig is considered "used". If adding a damage description
for each group of items is required it will add immense time requirements.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb70394 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2013 22:09 | | Subject: | Re: condition codes? | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, gfones writes:
| | Suggestion to add codes to the condition column that indicate:
A. Unused mint (No damage and unused)
|
Way too picky. The only way to obtain an absolutely untouched brick is to catch
it in a butterfly net as it rolls of the conveyor belt.
We own some touched only by our hands, and even those aren't perfect.
I'd recommend parts be labeled
1. New meaning never built with
2. Gently used, meaning built with but never damaged.
3. Heavily used, meaning scratches, stress markes, but no teeth imprints.
Anything beyond this is just fuel for endless arguements.
As a buyer, I'm not picky. If its the right color (itself sometimes difficult
to determine) and the right part number, I'm happy. Lego elements are for building,
not treating as precious gems.
Larry & Melissa
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oregon
Canada, Ontario
United Kingdom, England
France, Grand Est
Poland, w. Pomorskie
