Descriptions Of Condition Input

[wassaaaaaaaaaap]

So I have been noticing that there are wide variations in the interpretations of conditions of Oakley's when being bought off "the bay" or any other place other than Oakley direct. I have recently noticed that the descriptions no longer seem to mean what they used to a few years back (BNIB, LNIB, Used, Needs repair,etc.). I just wanted to know what you folks thought the condition of a sunglass should be using these descriptions. I know there will be varying opinions but I'm thinking there is a certain minimum standard to be met for each criteria in most peoples minds. Ex: If an x metal has scratches/chips in the lens and loose arms would you consider this to be LNIB? I wouldn't. Just curious to get other experts opinions on what they view the standard to be met in order to be classified fairly in a certain condition. For me using the descriptions above my thinking is:

BNIB: Brand new never worn with no damage at all

LNIB: Used but pretty much no way of telling by looking or wearing the item

Used:

-Excellent: slight marks on lens but almost imperceptible minor wear on frames

-Good: marks on lens but does not impact vision, some wear on frames

Needs repair: major damage to either lenses or frames or both.

 

[xmetalmaniac]

Criteria in most peoples minds is the issue. When it comes to a general seller on ebay who doesn't sell Oakley alot or for that matter, anything that means something to someone, there in it for the cash. They describe stuff to the best of their ability. Some sellers have perfect descriptions of stuff, others say" looks fine to me, I wore them with no issues" They may not have had an issue, but some of us would.

Everyone looks at things differently, so I would say, leave out the simple line description, and tell us exactly whats up with your item.. Then you will have sellers say "I didn't see any scratches" on the lenses or frame. But when they arrive you can find them for sure. There will always be someone who will say something was described correctly.

 

[wassaaaaaaaaaap]

perhaps a simpler way of putting it has anyone here found that item descriptions that don't match your interpretation of what a condition of an item should be from third party sellers. I have noticed that I have. As I described in the OP LNIB used to be that I would get an item in the condition stated above 99% of the time a couple years ago. Now it seems that the excellent or even good used example above is becoming the new "standard". I'm just seeing if anyone else has noticed a decline in condition based on description or if I was just getting lucky the first eight years and 200+ Oakley transactions through "the bay" and CL i've done.

 

[Rustpot]

I've run into this a LOT on ebay. So much that I've gotten away from paying fair prices and look for deals unless they've got really good pictures and descriptions.

Most notably was a lot of M Frame items. It had a couple frames and several lenses. Everything was described as "good" to "like new" and the seller said he had taken great care of his items. Two of the lenses are unusable, both frames had damage, he shorted me several items, no items were without fault. He wouldn't accept a return and I settled by getting a partial refund. Man it made me mad, especially the "new" lens that he claimed to have never used that clearly had a few marks and wear from installing and removing from a frame several times.

He might have just been fradulent, or he was just a buffoon that thought he beat up junk was worth money.

That's the other problem I see a lot. People think that scratches on a lens, cracks in the frame, etc don't degrade the value as much as it does. There are many beat up [Razor] Blades on ebay for $250 or 300 that are nowhere near mint and are just the glasses alone.

 

[wassaaaaaaaaaap]

I don't know exactly why this type of stuff is happening. Used to be a couple years ago i knew for the most! part what i was getting when i saw those descriptions being used. Now its like I'm always prepared/thinking i might have to contest items before they arrive. Kind takes the fun out of buying stuff.

 

[digi7alph0enix]

For me personally I break it down like this-

Mint- Item has been opened and inspected thoroughly with absolutely no defects found. No fine scratches, no marks, dings, dents, or wear whatsoever. Absolute perfection.
New- Item is unopened and hasn't been inspected. Condition is exactly how you would receive it from a manufacturer with a chance that once opened, it won't actually be perfect. (In this case sellers should be willing to do refunds or exchanges IMO)
Like New- Item has been opened and used lightly but shows no significant wear or damage. Maybe micro scratches on a lens but that's about it for wear. Exactly how you'd expect to receive a refurbished item, like new, but not new.
Good Condition- Very minor scratches not affecting vision. Maybe a very minor nick or ding in the frame that isn't immediately noticeable when you first pick up the glasses. Should still be 100% usable with no modifications.
Fair Condition- Surface scratches on lenses that don't effect vision, deeper scratches, dings, or dents on the frame but still usable with minor changes like nosepads/earsocks.
Poor Condition- Lens scratches that require lens replacement. Obvious scratches or flaws that significantly devalue the item. Nosepad/Earsock/Screw/Rivet replacement needed, possibly have to refinish the entire frame.

That's about it for me. Probably not the same as most people, but its the standard I use when buying/selling things and I wish more people thought along these lines.