|
 |
| | | Author: | melbourne_josh  | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 08:43 | | Subject: | SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 230 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| The nice thing about the current condition grading system is that it's clear-cut
what you're getting. New's never been used. Used is everything else. Bricklink's
terms specify what you can expect from used parts, but there are subjective grey
areas as to when condition defects need disclosure.
I think we could add another, simple grade: ex-AFOL. Ex-AFOL LEGO would have
only ever been used by a responsible party, and as such hasn't received much
playwear - it certainly wouldn't have formed a spaceship that crashed into a
wall, been dragged along a hard floor or been exposed to a hungry dog or child.
One encounters a lot of LEGO in ex-AFOL condition on BrickLink; I'm happy to
buy and use pieces in this condition. This, of course, assumes AFOLs just build
models, and don't play with their models... at least, not in the way children
do.
Used elements that have an unknown or non-AFOL provenance (ex-child, ex-yard
sale, ex-auction site) would get graded "other"; I'd prefer to steer away from
these pieces. I'd imagine all existing Used parts would be shifted to this condition,
with the sellers upgrading as needed.
The existing New condition would continue to be traded as is.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | swoosh_factor | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 08:58 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:
| | The nice thing about the current condition grading system is that it's clear-cut
what you're getting. New's never been used. Used is everything else. Bricklink's
terms specify what you can expect from used parts, but there are subjective grey
areas as to when condition defects need disclosure.
I think we could add another, simple grade: ex-AFOL. Ex-AFOL LEGO would have
only ever been used by a responsible party, and as such hasn't received much
playwear - it certainly wouldn't have formed a spaceship that crashed into a
wall, been dragged along a hard floor or been exposed to a hungry dog or child.
One encounters a lot of LEGO in ex-AFOL condition on BrickLink; I'm happy to
buy and use pieces in this condition. This, of course, assumes AFOLs just build
models, and don't play with their models... at least, not in the way children
do.
Used elements that have an unknown or non-AFOL provenance (ex-child, ex-yard
sale, ex-auction site) would get graded "other"; I'd prefer to steer away from
these pieces. I'd imagine all existing Used parts would be shifted to this condition,
with the sellers upgrading as needed.
The existing New condition would continue to be traded as is.
|
It's still a very subjective system. I would consider most of my childhood collection
to be in "ex-AFOL" used condition, just as I'm sure there are some AFOLs who
prefer using their teeth rather than a brick separator. Unless somebody can
come up with a universal, objective system for grading used parts, I think the
current system is fine.
Andrew
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mhn1957 | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 09:47 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, swoosh_factor writes:
| | In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:
| | The nice thing about the current condition grading system is that it's clear-cut
what you're getting. New's never been used. Used is everything else. Bricklink's
terms specify what you can expect from used parts, but there are subjective grey
areas as to when condition defects need disclosure.
I think we could add another, simple grade: ex-AFOL. Ex-AFOL LEGO would have
only ever been used by a responsible party, and as such hasn't received much
playwear - it certainly wouldn't have formed a spaceship that crashed into a
wall, been dragged along a hard floor or been exposed to a hungry dog or child.
One encounters a lot of LEGO in ex-AFOL condition on BrickLink; I'm happy to
buy and use pieces in this condition. This, of course, assumes AFOLs just build
models, and don't play with their models... at least, not in the way children
do.
Used elements that have an unknown or non-AFOL provenance (ex-child, ex-yard
sale, ex-auction site) would get graded "other"; I'd prefer to steer away from
these pieces. I'd imagine all existing Used parts would be shifted to this condition,
with the sellers upgrading as needed.
The existing New condition would continue to be traded as is.
|
It's still a very subjective system. I would consider most of my childhood collection
to be in "ex-AFOL" used condition, just as I'm sure there are some AFOLs who
prefer using their teeth rather than a brick separator. Unless somebody can
come up with a universal, objective system for grading used parts, I think the
current system is fine.
Andrew
|
I use a four tier system.
1) New (out of the package)
2) Used (everything else, except for)
3) Filler (scratches, bite marks, damaged, stickered poorly, or too worn to grip
well. Not worth selling.)
4) Not worth keeping.
I grade myself as a "filler" as my grip isn't what it once was.
"Ex-AFOL" is not really descriptive of condition, but more as you said provenance,
and frankly I don't care if a piece was owned by Jon Voight the actor, John Voight
the dentist, (Seinfeld ref.) or a child as long as it is in good condition and
still works.
Descriptions of condition using provenance is the old used car dealer trick.
This was owned by a little old AFOL who only opened it to drive her
to church on Sundays .
Mark (MHN1957)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | MathBuilder | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 13:39 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | aftepes | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 10:01 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, swoosh_factor writes:
| | It's still a very subjective system. I would consider most of my childhood collection
to be in "ex-AFOL" used condition, just as I'm sure there are some AFOLs who
prefer using their teeth rather than a brick separator. Unless somebody can
come up with a universal, objective system for grading used parts, I think the
current system is fine.
Andrew
|
Well considering you weren't an adult when you were a kid, you can't call the
toys from your childhood ex-AFOL, maybe ex-pre-AFOL.
But you hit the nail on the head with the subjective part. We have a problem
with sellers who can't or who won't differentiate decent parts from garbage.
This is what gives Used a bad name. As such, I overpay sometimes to get New parts
because a few bad apples have ruined it for the rest of us.
I've heard rumors that John P's Used stuff is in better condition that some New
stuff, but...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_27495 | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 11:15 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, aftepes writes:
| | In Suggestions, swoosh_factor writes:
| | It's still a very subjective system. I would consider most of my childhood collection
to be in "ex-AFOL" used condition, just as I'm sure there are some AFOLs who
prefer using their teeth rather than a brick separator. Unless somebody can
come up with a universal, objective system for grading used parts, I think the
current system is fine.
Andrew
|
Well considering you weren't an adult when you were a kid, you can't call the
toys from your childhood ex-AFOL, maybe ex-pre-AFOL.
But you hit the nail on the head with the subjective part. We have a problem
with sellers who can't or who won't differentiate decent parts from garbage.
This is what gives Used a bad name. As such, I overpay sometimes to get New parts
because a few bad apples have ruined it for the rest of us.
I've heard rumors that John P's Used stuff is in better condition that some New
stuff, but...
|
It's no rumor, you are right about John P's used parts. I have bought a bunch
of them from John and they all looked to be in new condition.
LegoJohn
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | MathBuilder | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 13:42 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mthomason | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 09:27 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:
| | I think we could add another, simple grade: ex-AFOL. Ex-AFOL LEGO would have
only ever been used by a responsible party, and as such hasn't received much
playwear - it certainly wouldn't have formed a spaceship that crashed into a
wall, been dragged along a hard floor or been exposed to a hungry dog or child.
One encounters a lot of LEGO in ex-AFOL condition on BrickLink; I'm happy to
buy and use pieces in this condition. This, of course, assumes AFOLs just build
models, and don't play with their models... at least, not in the way children
do.
|
Speaking as a responsible adult, I *always* make sure I crash my toy spaceships
into a soft surface such as the bed to avoid permanent damage 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | 4brickmoney | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mthomason writes:
| | In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:
| | I think we could add another, simple grade: ex-AFOL. Ex-AFOL LEGO would have
only ever been used by a responsible party, and as such hasn't received much
playwear - it certainly wouldn't have formed a spaceship that crashed into a
wall, been dragged along a hard floor or been exposed to a hungry dog or child.
One encounters a lot of LEGO in ex-AFOL condition on BrickLink; I'm happy to
buy and use pieces in this condition. This, of course, assumes AFOLs just build
models, and don't play with their models... at least, not in the way children
do.
|
Speaking as a responsible adult, I *always* make sure I crash my toy spaceships
into a soft surface such as the bed to avoid permanent damage
|
Im also a responsible adult but my cat is not.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | opii | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 10:43 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Why not just have a third condition called "Damaged"?
Damaged would be any brick that has been bitten, scratched, broken, melted, smashed,
anything that would be considered damage to a normal person (defined by admins
and written up)
Used would simply be bricks that have only been used to build models or play
with, but not damaged.
New would new bricks that have only been handled for sorting/packing purposes.
-S
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_8789 | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 10:47 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, neosmosis writes:
| | Why not just have a third condition called "Damaged"?
Damaged would be any brick that has been bitten, scratched, broken, melted, smashed,
anything that would be considered damage to a normal person (defined by admins
and written up)
Used would simply be bricks that have only been used to build models or play
with, but not damaged.
New would new bricks that have only been handled for sorting/packing purposes.
-S
|
Good idea... perhaps some certain will stop thinking that MISB stands
for: Mangled Incomplete Soiled or Broken.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 11:26 | | Subject: | Sellers with High Quality Used items | | Viewed: | 110 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I voted no. I think the current system works fine just the way it is. Any attempt
to change things by introducing additional subjective conditions will only make
things needlessly more complex without really fixing anything. The problem is
not the system. The problem is people having different subjective opinions and
expectations regarding what is acceptably used and failing to note shortcomings
in the item descriptions. None of the additional conditions suggested objectify
things or remove this subjective element. Thus, the suggestions all suffer from
the same "problem" they attempt to fix.
For me, absent actual experience with the seller, feedback is the best way to
determine the usability of used items being sold by any given seller. And, in
my experience, the best used items I ever received were from the following sellers:
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=carolannee
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=hopper25712
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?u=tomsmith
These three sellers consistently sold me used items that were often better than
or indistinguishable from new items. Maybe some of the problems with used items
can be alleviated if others expanded on this list of recommended sellers who
consistently sell high quality used items.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 17, 2011 19:52 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Voted NO. We're selling 99% used items, but do not need any subjective qualification
system in addition.
In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:
| | The nice thing about the current condition grading system is that it's clear-cut
what you're getting. New's never been used. Used is everything else. Bricklink's
terms specify what you can expect from used parts, but there are subjective grey
areas as to when condition defects need disclosure.
I think we could add another, simple grade: ex-AFOL. Ex-AFOL LEGO would have
only ever been used by a responsible party, and as such hasn't received much
playwear - it certainly wouldn't have formed a spaceship that crashed into a
wall, been dragged along a hard floor or been exposed to a hungry dog or child.
One encounters a lot of LEGO in ex-AFOL condition on BrickLink; I'm happy to
buy and use pieces in this condition. This, of course, assumes AFOLs just build
models, and don't play with their models... at least, not in the way children
do.
Used elements that have an unknown or non-AFOL provenance (ex-child, ex-yard
sale, ex-auction site) would get graded "other"; I'd prefer to steer away from
these pieces. I'd imagine all existing Used parts would be shifted to this condition,
with the sellers upgrading as needed.
The existing New condition would continue to be traded as is.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | hga09 | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Voted YES.
There is a very large amount of variation on the condition of used parts sold
on Bricklink. Responsible sellers usually have a subjective rating system of
their own, or they at least will add a note to their listing for parts that show
wear and tear. However, I have received parts with bite marks, scratches, or
other damage that is beyond the usual wear and tear for a used part. These parts
were listed as "used" without any remarks regarding the condition at average
BL prices. Coincidentally, many of the sellers who sold these parts didn't even
bother to respond when the issue was pointed out. The "retaliatory" feedback
threat makes it difficult to deal with these cases through the BL feedback system,
especially when the dollar amount of damaged parts is not on the high side.
Here are the only ways I am able to deal with this issue so far:
1. Buy only from preferred sellers who I have done business with in the past
whenever possible. Luckily, there are plenty of great sellers on BL.
2. When a part is not available from a preferred seller, look for a new seller
that has their own notes for parts, e.g. "excellent" "like new" or "shows wear
and tear", "scratched", etc. This is usually a sign that a seller is taking a
time to evaluate the condition of their used parts when they are listing them
for sale.
3. Any seller that ships damaged parts and does not make any attempts to amend
the issue goes to the least favorite sellers list.
It is true that rating used parts can be a subjective exercise and there is an
especially gray area in the middle of the condition range. However, giving the
sellers the ability to annotate a used part by checking one of a couple of boxes
(e.g. "excellent" or "shows wear") could be a lot simpler than typing a specific
note for each part. Parts without any boxes checked could be assumed to be in
"normal" used condition. Basically, what I am proposing is a simple 3-grade rating
system for used parts: "excellent", "normal" & "shows wear"
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rolf | | Posted: | Feb 16, 2011 15:23 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:
(snap)
I vote no. No matter how many definitions out there is, you can't get rid of
bad sellers other way than proper feedbacks and never buying from them again.
As of the good sellers, they are generally doing just fine with current system.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Locutis | | Posted: | Feb 17, 2011 07:56 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:
| | The nice thing about the current condition grading system is that it's clear-cut
what you're getting. New's never been used. Used is everything else. Bricklink's
terms specify what you can expect from used parts, but there are subjective grey
areas as to when condition defects need disclosure.
I think we could add another, simple grade: ex-AFOL. Ex-AFOL LEGO would have
only ever been used by a responsible party, and as such hasn't received much
playwear - it certainly wouldn't have formed a spaceship that crashed into a
wall, been dragged along a hard floor or been exposed to a hungry dog or child.
One encounters a lot of LEGO in ex-AFOL condition on BrickLink; I'm happy to
buy and use pieces in this condition. This, of course, assumes AFOLs just build
models, and don't play with their models... at least, not in the way children
do.
Used elements that have an unknown or non-AFOL provenance (ex-child, ex-yard
sale, ex-auction site) would get graded "other"; I'd prefer to steer away from
these pieces. I'd imagine all existing Used parts would be shifted to this condition,
with the sellers upgrading as needed.
The existing New condition would continue to be traded as is.
|
I know this is long, but here goes. In collectible paper money, collectors and
dealers agree on a standard which gives many many different condition listings.
It almost seems like some Lego buyers (and sellers, maybe?) wish to apply multiple
"grades" to bricks, too, in an effort to sell their used but less used brick
at a higher price than used but more used brick.
If you don't want to read the long stuff that follows, you don't have to, it's
an excerpt from a catalog which I have put input into. Here's an example of
how grading Canadian paper money works (As printed in the Charlton Standard Catalog
of Canadian Government Paper Money, 20th Edition 2008). I think if you want
to start applying standards to "grading" of bricks, you're going to have to come
up with some sort of technical description like what follows here, or nothing
at all besides "new" and "used" like is currently in place. Just think of some
of the terms, and how they could apply to Lego, such as "cleaned" or "pressed"
referring to washing bricks, for example. If someone can re-write this to refer
to bricks, I think it would be rather interesting.
---- Long technical stuff not Lego-related, but may someday describe bricks
here!:
GEM UNCIRCULATED - GEM UNC - GCU65
1. A near perfect original note.
2. Colours must be bright, original with exceptional eye appeal. Paper must be
bright and fresh.
3. The note must have near perfect centering with sharp square corners and edges.
4. No noticeable impairments upon close examination: counting flicks, soft bends
or machine marks, paper flaws, writing, pinholes, etc.
5. The note must not be processed or pressed.
Tips for different series of GEM UNCIRCULATED
1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved
printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature.
1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavily inked areas.
Journey notes with holograms will show no "cutting cup" or banding marks.
CHOICE UNCIRCULATED - CHOICE UNC - CHCU63
1. A near perfect original note with much eye appeal.
2. Colours must be bright. The paper on older notes may exhibit minor toning.
3. The note may be slightly off centre. It must have sharp edges and corners.
4. No noticeable impairments upon close examination with the exception of one
of:
A minor original paper flaw prior to printing, a very slight soft corner, one
very small counting flick.
5. The note must not be processed or pressed.
6. The note may have only one demerit point.
Tips for different series for CHOICE UNCIRCULATED
1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved
printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature.
1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavily inked areas.
Journey notes with holograms may show a slight "cutting cup".
UNCIRCULATED - UNC - CU60
1. An original note, must not be processed or pressed.
2. Colours must be bright with eye appeal. There may be noticeable paper toning,
but no major distractions.
3. The note may be noticeably off centre. Edges and corners may be muted, thus
not sharp and precise.
4. There may be minor flaws or defects resulting in up to three demerits, such
as: visible counting creases (one demerit each), tight margin (one demerit).
5. Banding strap marks, ATM or counting machine marks that have caused small
indentations in the note are acceptable.
6. Notes with blemishes or distractions, a small tear, nick, crease with broken
fibre, including an edge bump or folded corner, would not receive an uncirculated
grade.
Tips for UNCIRCULATED
1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved
printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature.
1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavily inked areas.
Journey notes with holograms may show a "cutting cup".
DEMERIT POINTS
Counting crease, no broken fibres; one point each
Edge bump; one point each
Paper toning; one point
Counting flick, no larger than 2 cm; one point each
Soft corner; one point each
DEMERIT POINTS FOR GRADES
GEM UNC No demerit points
CH UNC One demerit point
UNC Three demerit points
AU (About Uncirculated)
1. An attractive, original note with bright colours.
2. Paper toning may be present, especially on earlier notes.
3. Note may have several small counting flicks, or one light centre fold, but
not both.
4. Minor original flaws in the paper prior to printing may be present.
5. The note must have basically sharp edges and corners; however, very minor
edge bumps from banding straps, or a couple of soft corners, are acceptable.
EF (Extra Fine)
1. An attractive note with bright colours.
2. Original paper ripples may not be present.
3. Heavy counting creases, or one centre crease with broken paper fibres, or
two light folds may be present, but no combination of these.
4. The note still must exhibit sharp edges, but two or more soft corners and
edge bumps may be present.
VF (Very Fine)
1. Will have good eye appeal, but colours will have decreased hue and vibrancy.
Considerable paper crispness will remain.
2. Evidence of wear will be present along the edges and corners, with no weakness
in the design. The corners will not be rounded.
3. The note may have up to four major creases or folds with broken paper fibres,
but no design loss in the creases.
F (Fine)
1. Signs of considerable wear (circulation) with wear along the edges and corners.
The corners may be rounded, with wear showing within the design areas.
2. Noticeable soiling will be present.
3. Will have four or more heavy creases or folds with broken paper fibres, with
additional minor folds, but the design should not be worn off completely in the
creases.
4. Paper will retain some crispness.
VG (Very Good)
1. Evidence of heavy circulation, with little or no paper crispness remaining.
2. Considerable soiling, with some loss of colour hues and vibrancy; some design
loss on the creases.
3. Heavy vertical and horizontal creases and folds will be present; edges and
corners will be worn.
4. Tiny edge nicks and tears may extend into the design. Pin holes are usually
present. No pieces are missing from the note.
Good (G)
1. A heavily circulated note wich may have numerous tears and defects, but no
large section of the note should be missing.
2. Paper quite soiled and often dark. Colours may be noticeably faded or altered.
3. Basically a whole note, but with very heavy wear along the edges and corners
which may begin to look rather tattered. Heavy folds with wear on the design
within the creases, some separation often beginning along the heaviest creases.
A limp and lifeles note.
In addition, to grade a note accurately it is necessary to consider any additional
impairments. These should include:
a. Minor counting creases or edge defects, especially for EF and AU grades.
b. Tears, pinholes or signature perforations.
c. Stains, smudges, crayon marks or writing.
d. Missing corners, cut and punch cancellations or edge defects.
e. Rubber stamp impressions.
f. Any repairs, such as with sticky tape, scotch stape, stamp hinges, etc.
g. Chemical damage, paste or glue from attachment to a page.
h. Poorly centered or badly trimmed edges.
i. Pressing, cleaning, trimming of edges, erasure marks.
A note with portions missing should be graded as if it were a whole note, then
the amount missing should be fully described. This process is much more informative
than "net grading", which should be avoided.
Proof, specimen and essay notes are commonly accepted as being in uncirculated
condition.
Otherwise, the should be described as impaired, with the type and degree of impairment
stated.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | maxx3001 | | Posted: | Feb 17, 2011 08:39 | | Subject: | Re: SUGGEST: conditions: unused/AFOL/other | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, melbourne_josh writes:
Sorry, but no.
We already have a good enough system.
With this I would need yet another storage area for parts that are slightly used,
hardly used, medium used, light bluish gray used, only used on a sunday by an
old grandmother who took them to church etc etc....
Where would we stop.
Sure, used is a very broad description, but sellers should put up their own grading.
On another matter, I have found that my own stores used parts are no longer used
like it used to be (lot of used in there).
Their quality has nearly become new, with the only note, that I know they were
used before.
Making it very hard for me to start mixing in actual used parts like from bulk
buys.
So I now need to sell my bulk bricks in other places as not to sell lower quality
bricks on here....
I find this very frustrating, I used to sell used bricks here, now it almost
all NEW or almost new (USED).
I think if I needed to start grading my bricks and separate them even more, I
would need to stop selling here.
It would not be worth it, as is, the current market follows the US, so the prices
follow the US prices.
This means the US sellers make more profit as is (or we make less profit ),
they buy their sets cheaper than other countries.
By needing to separate into more nieces, bricks would need to be even more expensive,
stretching the prices even more.....
Bad for sellers, bad for buyers.
Very bad bricks are nearly only sold by starting sellers, like I used to do,
but after a few remarks from buyers, you quickly learn the BL way.
Deal with it!
Maxx
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia, Victoria
Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador
USA, Ohio
United Kingdom, England
Netherlands, Overijssel
