google shopping

[sidthelamp]

Frankly, I'm not too sure about unused items being actually listed as unused. I have an item that was not used for its intended purpose, but since it's from the 1950's I doubt if I'd call it new or unused. I'm of the opinion that once an item has been sold and removed from its original packaging it is "used" despite whether or not it has been physically used or not. If it hasn't been physically used, that should be noted in the description, in my opinion.

Of course, I'm not a fan of a "New Without Tag" condition designation either. If an item originally came from the manufacturer with tags it should still have them if it is to be considered "NEW," in my opinion. "New Old Stock" should also be in its original packaging with any manufacturer's tags in place. Again, my opinion.

Personally, I consider anything that has been sold to a retail customer or member of the consuming public to be used if tags are removed. Of course, when it comes to vehicles, I believe that once the title of the vehicle is transferred from a dealer, it is legally classed as "used" regardless of how few miles it has been driven.

so
you list a necklace from the 1970s 80s and call it new, yet it cant be new can it its from the 1970s 80s , id say its unused not new, do you now understand why we had this debate years ago to distinguish new from unused.

[moonwitch]

Of course, I'm not a fan of a "New Without Tag" condition designation either. If an item originally came from the manufacturer with tags it should still have them if it is to be considered "NEW," in my opinion. "New Old Stock" should also be in its original packaging with any manufacturer's tags in place. Again, my opinion.

When reselling new clothing bought as overstock I had to remove or clip all tags before selling the items on to prevent people buying from me then taking to a store for a refund.

All clothing was new when it turned up at my place and was new without tags when I sold it on.

This is standard practice in the Uk

[buttons-and-bows]

I have 1960s dolls clothes that are not used and still NRFB in original packaging they are new, but they are not new, but are not used

[Anniemcc2]

On looking for something else, I cam across this:

https://www.ebid.net/forums/showthre...ot-unused-quot

[JaBek1]

so
you list a necklace from the 1970s 80s and call it new, yet it cant be new can it its from the 1970s 80s , id say its unused not new, do you now understand why we had this debate years ago to distinguish new from unused.

I believe the item to which you are referring, if you read the entire listing, is one designed using vintage and new components. However, the actual necklace would be considered new, in my opinion, because it is not something that has existed in its current form previously.

Of course, if we judge a piece of jewelry by the age of its components, I suppose any item containing a diamond or other precious stone could not be classified as being "NEW" since the stone was created perhaps millions of years ago.

[sidthelamp]

I believe the item to which you are referring, if you read the entire listing, is one designed using vintage and new components. However, the actual necklace would be considered new, in my opinion, because it is not something that has existed in its current form previously.

Of course, if we judge a piece of jewelry by the age of its components, I suppose any item containing a diamond or other precious stone could not be classified as being "NEW" since the stone was created perhaps millions of years ago.

i
guess new as you put it in the 1970s 80s missed you this time round

[JaBek1]

I have 1960s dolls clothes that are not used and still NRFB in original packaging they are new, but they are not new, but are not used

​Would those be considered "New Old Stock" (NOS)?

[sidthelamp]

​Would those be considered "New Old Stock" (NOS)?

there's no such thing as new old stock its a contradiction in terms,

[JaBek1]

i
guess new as you put it in the 1970s 80s missed you this time round

I'm sorry, Sid, but I don't quite understand what you're saying. I also have an item that I describe as "not being used for its intended purpose." However, that distinction doesn't make the item "new," "almost new" or "unused." In my opinion, the item needs to be classified as "used," although "previous owned" I suppose would also describe it. My point is, when it comes to classification of condition, I think it best to rely on the description to give details.

Frankly, Sid, I've never really understood why NEW or USED is considered to be a condition. An item is NEW until it is bought, then it becomes USED. It's sort of like virginity, one is until they are not. There isn't really any degrees of it, as far as I know.

[JaBek1]

there's no such thing as new old stock its a contradiction in terms,

The way I understand the term's usage is that it is an item is still in its original manufacturer's packaging that has been stored or warehoused for some period of time. Of course, I suppose that overstock and discontinued merchandise purchased at liquidation sales could be considered to be "used" since they were sold.