Comments on: eBay survey sellers on Item Condition attribute

By: Sue Bailey

Sue Bailey — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:20:30 +0000

Yes, but then I’d’ve had some disappointed customers when they were all new in packets not “cleaned to eBay standards” or whatever the euphemism for “stinking just the way you like them” is

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:01:31 +0000

Question in this case is would have actually sold for more Sue, if you had put “Worn” rather than “New” ?

By: northumbrian

northumbrian — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:04:21 +0000

Oi stop nicking my customers

By: katakitty

katakitty — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:22:39 +0000

Well I completed the survey and put my tuppence worth in for what it’s worth.

I recall a buyer I had a couple of years back who told me I had “ambushed” her into purchasing some Waterford crystal which was chipped. I had 6 glasses, 4 perfect and 2 with problems to the rim. Put 3 auctions up, the chipped ones over an hour later so that they were away from the others. I put chipped in capitals in the title, in the description and also pictures of the damage. When I queried what the hell she was on about and how did she miss the word chipped, she said “I don’t have time to read the listing you should have listed them somewhere else like Amazon!!!”

By: jimbo

jimbo — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:58:52 +0000

I’m happy with just New and Used and elaboration in the description.
What I don’t like is “New” or “New with tags” (somthings don’t have tags!).

Item specifics are good for refining search but shouldn’t be seen as a way of replacing the description. especially in such a diverse marketplace as eBay.

By: Sue Bailey

Sue Bailey — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:25:56 +0000

Jimbo, seeing as the only options eBay would give me now would be “new” or “used”, I wouldn’t have much option but to pick “new”, would I? They’re certainly not “used”… ! (anyone been reading that thread on Q&A? )

By: jimbo

jimbo — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:51:07 +0000

I would say with your nylons you would need to elaborate in the description that they are “dead stock” and “vintage”, which would be an added selling point for the item.

I think that the item specifics are really meant for refining search – would someone searching for new nylons want to be presented with your product (may be a pleasant surprise)?

To sell discontinued lines, cabbage stock, catalogue returns, shop clearance as “New” (without clarification) is ……… a common practice.

By: Sue Bailey

Sue Bailey — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:27:18 +0000

“not used since mf” and “not older than 5 years” are not mutually exclusive. I once had a whole stack of 1960s nylons to sell – still sealed, still in packets, never worn by anyone. New, or not new?

By: Bigpoppa

Bigpoppa — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:54:15 +0000

Am I alone in thinking that “New” means not used by anyone since it was created/manufactured etc.

The obvious exception for me would be antiques. I wouldn’t feel honest describing something as “New” if it was say older than 5 years. Then “Unused-Since new” would be simple enough.

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:41:14 +0000

I would guess the outlets are putting pressure on eBay to do something about “new”.

With eBay focusing on the selling of new retail items the outlets must be unhappy about their new products being placed in the same search result as new products that in reality are not new as defined by something that you buy from a shop.

On the definition that new is something that you buy from a shop are you sure that “New old stock” is the answer?

I always use “used” for mint in their original packaging collectables as I believe that collectors only look at used items anyway in those catagories in which I operate. I may be right or wrong but the items for the most part always appear to be found whatever.

There are issues around used items in certain catagories (clothing as an example) so ultimately this is a matter of judgement for the individual. How you define “new” in clothing may be completely different to how you define “new” in a media section.