I love that term. Rogering.

The grade system is a real pain because generally there are way too many + terms for crappy conditions: Fantastic, Great, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fine... Then you get to Poor or something at the bottom. I think it's why items in original shrink sell for a premium, seemingly beyond what they probably should.


Sea-to-sky-games is another case of a real pain. The type of individual who builds up a lot of redundant post in a short period of time. Then makes his move against somebody with,"There's nothing unusual or inconsistent about these two observations, nor is it anything worth getting upset or preachy about. Sellers do not have to be an expert in what they sell, nor do buyers in what they purchase." Of course most of STSG's previous posts were pretty "preachy" and very redundant...

Sea-to-sky-games wrote:Those seem like perfectly reasonable item descriptions for about 99.99% of the population. After all, they are in good/excellent condition as most understand the terms: the covers aren't torn off, there are no missing pages, there probably isn't any writing in them. They are nice, usuable components of a game that are 20+ years old.

I can't see the second item, perhaps it's gone or the link is broken.  

The I4 isn't "good" by my definition of the term, and I tend to be fairly lenient on these things.  (I may well be the subject matter expert on "low grade" items; I certainly have a lot of them! )

Subjective definitions aside, no reasonable person would describe that module as having "slight cover damage".  It's clearly heavily worn.  The current price (1.99 pounds) is about right.

Although I can't view your links I have a good idea of what you are talking about.  Most people use the same terms when grading, Good, Very Good, excellent, near mint etc. but the definitions can be drasticly different between sellers.  I've purchased items "in Mint condition" before and they have been used.  A collector who is familiar with grading terms might think Very Good means an average to below average item while to a non-collector it could mean in above average condition.  Hopefully there is a good quality picture in the ad.

Many times if you are the buyer it can be a guessing game as to what the condition actually is.  Maybe this tip will help.  Many times a seller will say that they are former players and are selling off their collection.  My instinct is to say "used material" is what they are selling and not to expect collectible condition.

Really what I think is really important is whether or not the item is complete and does the item have writing or highlighting.  Many sellers are not experts and they have no way on knowing (and don't do any research) if an item comes with a map or is complete.  As a buyer I would say it is on me to find out if the item is complete.  Asking a question might help (or not).

Another good thing to do is to find a seller that you have good success with and stick with them.  There are many good sellers out there and I think you can find some threads that will identify them.

forkbeard wrote:Sorry if you could not see the link, perhaps a copy and paste of this will do?


** expired/removed eBay auction **


Now you can see what a dog could be capable of...

I see - for 'slight cover damage' read 'f***ed'

napoleonsdad wrote:
** expired/removed eBay auction **


Here's a good example for this thread.  Anyone who would include the word MINT in the description for this item is just dishonest.  Luckily the photo is good enough so you can just laugh.  Probably the seller used the word MINT in the title as a teaser to get you to look.  Condition guides will tell you that grading is subjective but MINT is not a subjective grade.  An item is either MINT or not MINT.

Mint as in "an after-dinner mint that has been rogered by forkbeard's dog".



The title is not the only misleading part of the auction; the description is also misleading.  If one has never seen any other RPG modules in his life, then I suppose that the seller is accurate in his gushing "...REALLY, THEY DON'T GET MUCH CLEANER THAN THIS IS.."

Xaxaxe wrote:"Rogering" is a good term, but I need some context. Does it mean just "eating" — as in, "my dog rogered my homework" — or is it more of a "shaking the thing from side-to-side and tearing at it with dirty paws" sort of thing?

Either way, I'm going to borrow the term for my next listing of a thrashed item: "this poor module has been rogered by my cranky house rabbit" or something like that.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rogering  

I was unfamiliar with the term also until I encountered it several times in the Neal Stephenson Baroque Series.

Needless to say if somebody descibed their eBay listing saying an animal had rogered it, it would not (hopefully) get any bids.

What with me being the seller in the bottom one I think you are being a little bit harsh.

On the scale of poor, average, good, v good, excellent, fine, nr mint and mint I think it is about right.  The cover had  a bit of fading and only a bit; no tears or other marks.  Staples weren't rusty, or I would have mentioned it, no writing or marks.  All in good shape, clean and fresh smelling.

If you would have asked I could have told you in specifics.  I don't know what you class as excellent but I though it was a fair description.  

You may have been able to judge whether my description was accurate from one scanned picture but its only supposed to be a guide and I expect emails asking for a further description.  I used to write complete description but still people continued to email me so I gave up and just reply to the emails.

So again I don't think its too fair of you to pick random items from ebay and say thats its a crappy description.  Its one word and its supposed to be a guide.  If you had emailed me and I have given wrong or misleading information then so be it and I should expect what I get.  Again if you received an item and it was wrong then I expect poor feed back.  In nearly 400 transactions I have had one negative feedback as somebody didn't want to pay the shipping to Australia so I think I'm doing OK.

It is a hobby for me but it can still cause offence and damage.  Please check your facts.

Just as an aside how would you describe that item?  What condition would it 'warrent'?

simonmwh wrote:8O What with me being the seller in the bottom one I think you are being a little bit harsh.

The Pharaoh module from the first post:

. . .  
** expired/removed eBay auction **

On the scale of poor, average, good, v good, excellent, fine, nr mint and mint I think it is about right.  The cover had  a bit of fading and only a bit; no tears or other marks.  Staples weren't rusty, or I would have mentioned it, no writing or marks.  All in good shape, clean and fresh smelling.

If you would have asked I could have told you in specifics.  I don't know what you class as excellent but I though it was a fair description.  

You may have been able to judge whether my description was accurate from one scanned picture but its only supposed to be a guide and I expect emails asking for a further description.  I used to write complete description but still people continued to email me so I gave up and just reply to the emails.

So again I don't think its too fair of you to pick random items from ebay and say thats its a crappy description.  Its one word and its supposed to be a guide.  If you had emailed me and I have given wrong or misleading information then so be it and I should expect what I get.  Again if you received an item and it was wrong then I expect poor feed back.  In nearly 400 transactions I have had one negative feedback as somebody didn't want to pay the shipping to Australia so I think I'm doing OK.

It is a hobby for me but it can still cause offence and damage.  Please check your facts.

No one but the first poster commented on the I3.  Guilt by proximity to the first module could be inferred, I suppose.

Just as an aside how would you describe that item?  What condition would it 'warrent'?

Your description says, "This item is in excellent condition.   All present, correct and intact."  However, the cover is obviously worn, and no mention of that wear-and-tear is made.  One can not help but think what else is missing from the description.  Caveat emptor.



I would have prefaced your description with "Except for fading and cover wear" or included the mjaority of what you said above.



And you said it yourself in your post; "All in good shape, clean and fresh smelling."



Thank you for being civil and well-spoken.  Ummm . . . I'm sure someone will manage to not return the favor, but you shouldn't take any offense at that.