What did I buy and now finding out.

Perhaps such expressions as "Unused - Preowned" would be more appropriate then. "New" does not apply to items that are potentially decades old no matter how long they have sat on a shelf. Even eBay's definition of "New" does not apply to most of what is listed as "New".

"New" simply gives the wrong impression and in many cases is used deceptively on eBay. More appropriate descriptors would completely remove the air of suspicion that hangs over a listing for something that is many years old but is described as "New". And the stink rises even higher when you see exclamations of newness - "***NEW***", "NEW!!!", "***BRAND NEW!!!***, "!!!NEW! NEW! NEW!!!!".

Listing a 15 year old item as "Preowned - Unused" doesn't demand the kind of faith and integrity that "Brand New" does. Age and time have their effects on products as well. Even if an item has never been used, if the packaging has taken a beating, turned yellow, faded, or seen better days, then a seller can't expect a buyer to have the same confidence in it as in an item that is or was recently available to everyone within the recent past.

 

Agreed!

I have purchased Life-Like locomotive sets still in their cellophane and obviously never opened and removed, and have been completely satisfied with a description that included "New".

But "New" can't be used by a seller who knows nothing of the history of an item and was not the original owner. It's not accurate and borders on deceptive.

 

This is interesting. I have 20 year old locomotives that run much better than anything new in the last couple of years, from any manufacturer. Condition, as said before is not related to time. It is a description. So the 1963 split window Corvette with less than 50 miles on it, stored appropriately environmentally, could never hold any value because it is 53 years old? According to any on this thread, that would be a true statement.

I pulled out some old E units (blue box) from Kato this morning to refresh the code in their decoders. Seems they still run like Swiss watches. This would be only the second time they touched track. So I am to think these are the same as some that have been run for hundreds of hours? Using the definition above, how long after release can it be considered new? One month, two? If it stays on the shelf at the train shop for a year, is it now no longer considered new? Who makes that determination?

I have made purchases and gotten burned on Ebay, I think just about everyone has. Even private party sales can be hit and miss. The best you can hope for is to be able to work out a solution amicably. I sent a locomotive purchased here on Trainboard to a member that I did not realize had a broken handrail. Since I did not have any of the parts for this unit, I sent him a complete locomotive to use as a donor at no cost. I have also had individuals who did something similar for me when I found issues with the purchase. It is simply called Integrity.

 

Some of those comments remind me of a defunct not-so-local shop well off the beaten path.
It was the sort of place that could have almost doubled as a museum and, if you were looking for some item made a decade or more ago, just might have it still sitting in otherwise "new" condition in the display case.
That display case would receive direct sunlight for a fair portion of each day and, during the summer, climate-control was courtesy of whatever breezes blew in through the open windows.
Particularly amusing was the owner's habit, as he removed an item from the display case for a customer, to surreptitiously - or so he thought- wipe the top of the box across his trouser leg to remove the accumulated dust.

 

So, Hans, what do you have for sale?

 

Ahh! Give us a little more time Boxcab. We are having so much fun!

Let me give everyone an example of how "New" has been abused. A seller had what looked to be a beautiful ABB set of Western Pacific IM F3's. All that was supplied was a photo of the locomotives in their jewel cases and a photo of the insert ends.

Item Condition was designated "New". His description said:

"I acquired this item along with other R/R models at a local auction. All the items came from the estate of a gentleman with a huge collection of scale model R/R paraphernalia.…To the best of my knowledge these locomotives have never been used."

First, the seller was not the original owner so he had no knowledge of the history of these items. Nor does his description imply any knowledge of or relationship with the "gentleman" from whom he received these items. "Estate" implies the former owner is now dead and that this was a total stranger to the seller. Does the seller have any business listing these as "New"? Honestly, having read no further what would folks here say?

Second, if a seller is going to use the condition of "New" then you would assume 1) that they had carefully inspected the items prior to listing them, and 2) they knew something about N-Scale, or model railroading in general, and could properly evaluate the items being offered. Are those not fair assumptions from a listing using "New" and one in which the Description includes "To the best of my knowledge these locomotives have never been used"?

Upon receiving the set of locomotives it was immediately obvious the moment these were removed from their jewel cases that something was wrong. All three, though beautiful looking, locomotives had been struck with the dreaded zinc rot. Their frames had expanded and none of them where in any condition to run.

Now there are only two possibilities here: 1) The seller was completely out of his league on evaluating these items and had no business using the condition of "New", or 2) They new exactly what they were trying to sell and deceptively used a condition and description that implied the items were "New".

Upon being confronted with the photos of the destruction the seller promptly refunded all charges - I'll give him credit for that. However, that doesn't excuse either the lazy, misleading listing, or the deceptive attempt to make a fast buck that caught up with him. My point? "New" can't be used so lightly.

 

Doesn't "zinc rot" (or "zinc pest") simply develop over a period of time, regardless of any usage?
The frames could well have expanded or disintegrated even if the locos had just been sitting in the boxes and without ever having been run.
Haven't we seen this phenomenon occur with older Atlas/Rivarossi locos - and even some much more recent models?
This is one of the risks you take buying so-called "new-old-stock" merchandise sight unseen without the benefit of a close personal inspection.
I will grant you that the phrase "to the best of my knowledge" seems to get overused as a means of shirking a certain amount of responsibility.

 

I can't disagree with anything you've said. Nevertheless, does any of that excuse the seller for listing these items with a condition of "New". Based on the actual condition of the items they were not New by any stretch of the imagination no matter how unused they may have remained over the years.

Here is another example: Another seller has just listed a set of Kato Alco PA/PBs with condition "New" and a title that includes "NIB". Well, they must know something about the history of these items, right?

Hardly! His description states, "I just purchased a large estate collection. Owned by a collector who never ran his equipment, only bought and stored it in his home away from heat and dust." How in the world can he back these claims? Has he known this "collector" all of these years since the original purchase of these locomotives? How does he know they have never been run? Does he personally know that these items have only been in storage all of these years? I doubt it or he would have added these more intimate details to the listing to bolster his claims.

Then how can he, in good conscience, list these as "New" if he knows only what's been passed on to him? You can't claim New, never run, unless you personally know that is the case.

 

The first question is can an otherwise "new" item that has never been removed from the box and never been run deteriorate over time to the point of being unusable? Yes.
Should the seller of such an item be expected to verify its operating condition before listing it for sale? Maybe. But then the item can no longer be described as "new" - as in unopened and never run. Sounds a bit like a Catch-22 situation.

Guess it boils down to exactly how you want to define the term "new."

On one level, you could define it as still in a retailer's inventory and has never been sold to an end customer.
You also might want 'new' to mean that the item was recently produced, such as within the past several months.
New-old-stock would imply the same, with the addition of the passage of some non-negligible period of time.

The coin, stamp, antique train, etc. markets have their own terminology to describe condition.
Terms like 'never removed from box' are self explanatory.
'Mint' suggests that the item may have been removed from the box, buy is still unused.
'Test run only' leaves doubts about just how much running was done to perform the test.
Was it just a quick back-and-forth or was it closer to 10 laps around the track?
And so on further down the grading scale.

In the case of your IM F3's, it appears that they were made at least 10 years ago.
Knowing that, you'd want investigate if there have been any issues with those models failing over time.

Beyond that, the best you can do is pose those same specific questions to the seller. If the answers are acceptable, then bid as you see fit.
If not, then don't bid no matter how badly you might want the item. If it turns out that the seller lied, then you can seek some means of redress. You'd think that seller feedback would be the solution, but apparently that system can be gamed and manipulated to the extent that it's of questionable value.

 

That is a great example of something you would put in the description. "This locomotive runs better than any of the new locomotives I have ran in the past couple of years." Something like that. But no matter how you spin it, that locomotive will never be NEW.

Um....huh? (a) Nobody said anything about items not holding their value. (or at least I missed that if they did) Just because something is not new doesn't mean it's value decreases. (b) comparing model trains to classic, collectible automobiles is...errr....well one could MAYBE find a farther-out analogy but it could take some time. Oh, and (c) that Corvette is still not NEW. If you advertised it as "new" you would be laughed off the planet and maybe institutionalized.

Nope, not the same at all. But neither are new.

Again, if the shop is a proper retail establishment with climate control etc. then I think it could be considered new for some time, but eventually things like zinc rot and locomotive lubrication need to be considered. At some point it becomes "new old stock" I know there are standards for all of this, and multiple ones at that, and I don't know the specifics. You can justify "new" in many, many ways. But in my mind, if you bought a Life-Like GP20 from a shop and then turned around and put it on eBay then....calling that New just seems very "used car salesman" to me. LL hasn't been around for what 15 years now?

Exactly. Integrity.

If one chooses to tell their kids that all of the boxes of trains that have been stored in a 120-degree attic for 30 years are all "new", well I guess they'll have a little more of a challenge selling those items without some feedback is the nicest way I can say it.

If you want to advertise a 20+ year old Kato blue box (with decoder) as new, that's your prerogative. Someone will buy it probably, and from the sounds of it they'll be very happy to have a nice running locomotive. But for every one of that story there are 99 where the buyer is scratching their head thinking....NEW????

 

When id doubt, look stuff up on Spookshow's N Scale Locomotive Encyclopedia!

 

So, I'm assuming b&m will take them back then, since they're new?

So you're comfortable buying a V-belt for your car that's been on the shelf 20 years? I mean, it's new, right?

 

Lock Down in...5....4....3.....

 

I did get a brand "NEW"........pack of cigarettes this morning....
Plastic wrapped and sealed....still had the factory air in it...

 

Oh no, you need to return that! Not good for your health my friend.

Back on topic - Because of the differences in opinion on new related to time or new related to usage, maybe we should just standardize on two properties.

We can call it Age - this is for the time folks, and we can call it condition for the use folks.

So I have several IM F3 units that are 12 years old, but in new condition meaning they have never been out of the cases yet. That seems to settle both themes.

It seems like this would be a reasonable compromise......

 

Cant return em David...

I opened em and smoked half of them already. Dangnabbit !!!!

Are the ones still in the box considered "NEW" ?
Are the ones in the ashtray considered "Used" ?
Sooooooooo confusing....