Upon reflection and other posts, I realize that I left out tobacco and tar
resins.

Some people consider that a negative - but I have never seen a chassis
covered in tar which is rusty. So, the tobacco resins must serve as a rust
preventative.

Therefore, those using my suggested rating system should add a "+" sign to
the numerical rating to indicate an ehancement.

73, Colin K7FM


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04

How would you describe... I kept it all this time and paid for a storage
area to keep it semi dry and dusty between trying to sell it at hamfests. I
had a friend once in the Midwest who did this for years and not only "lost"
money on boatanchors but got a rep for having the best junk people could
wait him out to put on sale.

I like the scale. Is NIB a 10 or a 9? Guess it matters if the factory wrap
and seals are broken or if it was taken out to "test" 5 years ago.



"Dr. Al Link" wrote in message
...
The Ten-Scale Rating Chart

10 NEW
9 AS NEW/MINT
8 EXCELLENT
7 GOOD
6 HIGH AVERAGE
5 AVERAGE
4 LOW AVERAGE
3 POOR
2 BAD
1 JUNK

Details at www.uregs.org

I think a ten-step scale is asking for subjective,
indecisive opinions and will spawn arguments.
What, really, is the difference
between "AS NEW" and "EXCELLENT?"

There are a lot of smart people here;
perhaps we can create a six-step scale
with solidly-defined benchmarks that
make the difference between
"Excellent" and "Good" easy to understand.
We just need to chew on it a bit.
One way to make fewer steps but with better
definition is to make it "dual-scale"
with specifing phrase, spliting the five steps
into two scales, one for working equipment and one
for non-working equipment.

For instance:
An R-390 in average surplus condition working fine:
Condition "GOOD/WORKING"
The vast majority of gear would fit here.

An R-390 in average surplus condition,
working except for the top band:
Condition "GOOD/WORKING less top band"

A KWM-1 without a scratch that has been in storage
for twenty years- you don't want to recap it and
don't want to turn it on for fear of frying things:
Condition "EXCELLENT/NOT WORKING untested due to long storage"

A Hallicrafters S-38 with rusty chassis, scratched-up face
and only buzzes with that "roasty smell:"
Condition "POOR/NOT WORKING"

If a person is interested, he'll write for details.

That would give us two scales, something like this:

1. NEW IN BOX/SEALED or /UNSEALED
2. EXCELLENT/WORKING or /NOT WORKING
3. GOOD/WORKING or /NOT WORKING
4. FAIR/WORKING or /NOT WORKING
5. POOR/WORKING or /NOT WORKING
6. PARTER (not working by definition)

plus a specifying phrase if needed.
With a little head-scratching, we can
develop benchmarks for these that will take
most of the guess-work and opinion out of it.

Just MHO,
73 Dave AB5S

Several people have suggested we stick with the
Collins Collector's scale (which applies to any radios)
which is well-established, respected and defines conditions
in solid terms. This sounds like a good idea to me.
The scale can be found at:

http://www.collinsradio.org/html/cca_grading.html