It’s nice to see condition become a more important part of online retailing over the past year or so with Google making the condition attribute mandatory for items appearing in Google Product Search sometime in 2009 and eBay recently declaring the condition attribute mandatory across several categories here in mid-2010.
However when it comes to vintage collectibles neither giant has a clue. The following two cards I am currently offering for sale are both in the same condition according to eBay and Google:
|  |
I list both as “Used.” I don’t know, perhaps I should list them as “New,” but for me labeling a vintage item “New” carries connotations of reprint or reproduction, so I prefer “Used.”
Now you and I know that the only things the two cards shown above have in common is the fact that both depict actresses and each is printed on cardboard, that’s about it. eBay and Google treat them as if they’re cars and not cards with their simple grading scale.
Now I’ve always graded my cards, perhaps over-graded them to the point where the details may very well cost me sales. I give you a grade (EX), I put it on a scale (5/10 in the case of EX), and I tell you why (EX or 5/10 with wear at the top corners, off-center 80-20 with print dots, perhaps).
I do this for every single one of the thousands of cards I have listed for sale online and what’s more each one gets treated to those same few moments under the bright light as I take a gander to see just what’s wrong: this matters, it tells you something. “Used” says nothing.
If you want to see my complete guide to grading you can find it right here. It’s my own creation, but at the same time it adheres to the accepted standards throughout the world of vintage collecting.
So please, do not settle for “New” or “Used,” but please do scroll down any listing you find from me on either eBay or Google to get the real skinny on each items actual condition in terms that matter.
I appreciate eBay and Google trying to make condition matter, but the narrow standards they’ve imposed upon vintage collectibles are bound to do more harm than good.
Cliff, though I sell a totally different kind of collectible, I find myself in the same boat. You can’t call something, no matter how mine, “new.” But why do media items get designations like good/very good/like new, etc while us collectibles sellers really only get one option?
Drives me nuts!
Hillary,
I could get another whole post of out the good/very good/like new condition attributes, because they’re really screwing me up in the magazine categories where I’ve had to adjust my detailed grading guide to their simple version. Still, “New” or “Used” makes for much more confusion.
Yeah, that’s supposed to say “mint” not “mine.”
I’m not so good at the proofreading.
The only balm on this is that I think collectibles buyer know what the gig is and just blow right past that section and just read the description. At least, I do when I’m buying.
And I know the very good/good nonsense is still subjective and not perfect but I feel like they’d be at least throwing us some kind of bone with that.
Well, eBay doesn’t help positioning the New or Used attribute at the very top of the listing now. I think there’s definitely the possibility of confusion for the new or inexperienced collector.
Cliff, you should be happy.
I remember a couple of years back, all the collectible ONLY had a “new” attribute, kinda puzzling.
even more puzzling is you look in the antiques area to still find the “new” tag.
I know they’re busy over there on eBay … butt………… (yes mispelled on purpose).
on the other hand, can’t you just see the possible tirades over “mis-grading” that could occur if they dare to split “used” into more than one?
gently used, mildly used, really used, beat up, junk….
hey, I noticed the antiques area now will have a “parts” category added which is great as we do salvage too and find it hard to place items sometimes,
like old instruments, for decoration or parts… go into the shiny oboe section now.. looking forwards to it..
Me, I’d be happy if they left “used” only and then the buyer reads the listing.
at least you can stand by what’s in that easily enough.
cheers.
Vince.
Hi Cliff, pardon me for intruding here, but commenting seems to be disabled on the Warren William site–hence what may seem a strange lack of interest in John Stangeland’s wonderful piece. Thanks to you and him for bringing it to us! As to questions for him, I would like to second a two-part possibilit I’m sure you already have in mind: What did MGM think they wanted to do with him, and why did they change their minds?
I’ve seen all the movies starring WW that I really want to see (or know I want to see) at least once, and am not really in a mood to see any of the “also featuring” titles I have on hand very soon (except maybe “Day-Time Wife”), but I am salivating for that book … and, of course, your next installment.
Can you move this comment over there where it belongs? Anyway, that’s where I’ll be checking in again in a week or so!