Sold this Shimano Ultegra cassette for 45 bucks. Now the seller is upset and says I sold him a heavily worn cassette. I described it as „in mint condition“ as I rode it approx. 300-400 miles. Can you judge from the pictures I posted?
by co-medi
Sold this Shimano Ultegra cassette for 45 bucks. Now the seller is upset and says I sold him a heavily worn cassette. I described it as „in mint condition“ as I rode it approx. 300-400 miles. Can you judge from the pictures I posted?
by co-medi
30 Comments
you can send it in for xray and hardnessgrading into a lab. (Joke.)
visually you can either identify new or way overdone and sharktoothed. No inbetweens. Its bad when it skips.
I just don’t sell or buy used cassettes. To much variables that spoil the fun of buying or selling used ones.
It clearly has some marks from use. You should not have described it as mint because it is clearly not.
If you’d said it was used and had been ridden about 400 miles you would have covered yourself better.
I’ve thrown ones out with similar wear, where the customer wanted larger climbing gears and didn’t take their old cassette.
The largest cog looks quite worn
I rate it 1-12, on account of it having 12 gears.
I wouldn’t have described it in mint condition if it had three or four hundred miles on it. That opens you up to conversations like this.
Maybe good condition? With a statement that it has actual miles on it?
>I described it as „in mint condition“
i wouldn’t have called it mint.
Isn’t not mint but it’s good enough that the buyer shouldn’t have to buy a new one for months
I almost never use “mint” in descriptions because it’s simply too easy for malicious actors to deliberately misinterpret. I always give a conservative subjective evaluation, disclose any flaws I am aware of and then typically just some variant of “see pics”. I figure this way it’s very difficult to claim I misrepresented something if the buyer changes their mind, or decides they actually want a discount after they’ve got the item in hand.
To my eye it does look practically new though, and the price seems fair to me. Using something like a Rohloff HG-Check can also give a little more of an objective analysis of sprocket wear.
I wouldn’t call it ‘heavily worn’, but also definitely not ‘mint’.
I guess people have different definitions of those terms. If it were me, I’d refrain from describing the condition and would just mention how many miles it has seen. But that’s just my two cents.
“Mint” would imply never been used. If it is very lightly used maybe you could get away with “near-mint”. But if a seller describes something to me as “mint” I would assume “less than 1km of use” not several hundred kms.
looks very good with mild wear. My local coop charges $35 for similar or worse.
The middle cogs are worn out. You don’t want any sharp pointy teeth, there are plenty on this set. Also the chain and cogs degrade together, often a new chain on and old cog or visa versa will result in bad shifting. So do yourself a favor and buy new. You can buy second hand product, but never buy any wear & tear parts second hand.
Both parties are wrong. It’s not mint or heavily worn.
Worn out
You’ve put miles on it. It’s not mint condition.
Don’t buy or sell second hand bike parts, but do buy and sell a lot of musical instruments and equipment.
Mint implies it’s essentially new, but has been removed from packaging. No marks of use. This cassette is not mint.
As a cyclist, this cassette is also not ‘heavily worn’ either. Seems like you’re both over-egging your respective puddings.
I sell plenty of my cassettes but they are all local cash sales or shipped sales with zelle were no dispute can be filed. Basically I try and give the best photos possible and a guess of the miles.
IMO, I wouldn’t say this is mint. Mint is like maybe 1-2 rides or a takeoff.
This is not a mint condition cassette. Mint condition implies it’s new or a good as new. This certainly isn’t after 300-400 miles.
I’m going to have to side with the other party here based on your description.
That being said, the cassette is in a alright condition and are still usable.
“mint” means never used, but not necessarily in original packaging. It refers to the process of minting coins.
What you have there is a used cassette. If you stated the mileage you are in the clear, otherwise you are obliged to refund and list accurately.
Definitely not mint my guy, I can see wear on it…
it used but it worth more than 45$
It’s not mint. It’s serviceable, in good condition. Mint = like new. Clearly this one isn’t
Nowhere near ‘mint’. It’s not too bad as I can see the original texture but is clearly ‘used’. Thank god you don’t call it ‘minty’
Ebay is such a scam. The last thing I sold on there a “case” was opened for “item not as described”, and the buyer demanded a partial refund. When I refused, the buyer then wanted a full refund, which would have been fine, but I was on the hook for the return shipping cost- which was of course more money than the partial refund. There was a time when I took pride in my feedback score, now I just use OfferUp or Marketplace.
Good nick? Yes
Mint? No
The simple answer is that whatever platform you’re selling on should have a guide to what “Mint” “Very good” “Good” etc should constitute so that when discussions such as this come up, you can counter if the buyer is not satisfied. Unfortunately I’ve learned this the hard way when selling pairs of running shoes in various states of use.
If the platform did not have this then I feel for you, but I personally would not have described this as mint regardless. Easiest thing to do is meet the buyer in the middle, as shipping back to you is hassle and it’s wasting your time in having to relist
Why would someone buy a second hand cassette? Drive-train parts should always be new.
That’s not heavily worn but it’s definitely not mint either.
I can’t tell from pictures I’d have to ride on it.
I would never buy a used cassette, period.
Not saying you’re wrong, only that I can’t objectively answer.