or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Second opinion on condition of these used skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Second opinion on condition of these used skis

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
If you ordered a pair of used skis described as looking "great", "8 or 9 out of 10", with "normal superficial surface scratches for a slightly used pair of skis", and these showed up, would you feel that they had been misrepresented?  To be fair, the bases look OK.

post #2 of 16
They look more like a 6 or 7 out of 10 to me.  That's a lot of scratching.

You didn't ask to see pictures?

If the bases are good, this damage is not going to affect performance.  I'd be mad if I paid more than a couple of hundred ($200-300) bucks for these.

Just for reference, I bought the same skis new (without bindings) for $300 at the end of last season.

Mike 
post #3 of 16
I'd say they look "beat". 

In Tahoe, edges and bases are more damaged than the resort norm because the mountains are very rocky, we might say bases looked decent even  if they had taken quite  a few hits. regionally variable term.


some of the ebay companies have established a set of standards for specific descriptive terms re' used skis. check it out.
post #4 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post

They look more like a 6 or 7 out of 10 to me.  That's a lot of scratching.

You didn't ask to see pictures?

If the bases are good, this damage is not going to affect performance.  I'd be mad if I paid more than a couple of hundred ($200-300) bucks for these.

Just for reference, I bought the same skis new (without bindings) for $300 at the end of last season.

Mike 

They came with a money back guarantee (from an online retailer, not an individual), so I didn't ask for pictures.  I'm sending them back tomorrow and I don't have any reason to believe they won't honor the guarantee.  I'm just a little irked that I wasted my time and have to pay return shipping.   FYI, I paid at the upper end of your range.  It would have been an excellent deal if they had actually been an 8 or 9.  Given their actual condition, I'd say it's very borderline.  Regardless, it's not what I signed up for.
post #5 of 16
Sorry to say so, and without being overly impolite, but to these untrained eyes, those being touted as a "9 out of 10" or "slightly used" seems to be shall I say a bit optimistic, overstated, or imaginative. I might be cautious were I to consider purchasing a used parachute from the same seller. Is the word "chutzpah" in your vocabulary? I might apply that term to the seller.

On the other hand; that pair of skis looks like they've got some mojo in 'em. If you decide not to raise a fuss with the vendor, I'd certainly bring them to a good tech and have them set up for your boots and make sure that a binding release check is performed.
post #6 of 16
That's alot more scoring on the bindings and top sheets than I would consider normal for a slightly used pair of skis. Actually its alot for a pair that were toward the end of their useful life. It looks like a bargain bin ski.
post #7 of 16
Those things look like they've been through a meat grinder...I'd give them maybe a 3 out of 10 at best at least based on the topsheets and bindings. Granted if the bottoms are fine they should still ski well but man those things look like they have been through some wars.
Misrepresentation? Big time yes
post #8 of 16
I would not have sold a pair of skis and bindings  that looked like that for more than $150 tops.There is too much really good stuff out there for the $200-$300, the seller must not care about their reputation. I am doing most if not all of my buying from Bears or the shops that support this site. The quality is much better. I used to buy on ebay all the time, very little now.
post #9 of 16
Definitely misrepresnted.
post #10 of 16
They look beat up to me, I would have sold them as "tops wasted", "tip-smacked", "bindings uglyscratched".

I hope you get your money back, or perhaps better, an apology and a gorgeous pair of 78's from the same seller.

I would guess those skis have way way over 100+ days on them, from various users---they have VERY little value, regardless what the bases look like.
post #11 of 16
Got pics of edges and bases?
post #12 of 16
Wow! My rock skis look way better than that.

Fraudulent misrepresentation at its worst, well beyond the boundaries of puffery.

Please name the retailer so we can avoid them.
post #13 of 16
 Sheesh, those are at best a 3 out of 10.  They look like rental/demo beaters (which the bindings suggest).  The iM78 is a great ski though.

Given the abuse the tops and bindings took, the bases must have been stone ground if they look good.  Which is a downside, as it probably removed 10-15% of the tunable life of the ski.
post #14 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input. 

No pics of the bases, but they looked fine.  Edges were so-so.

I'm hesitant to call out the retailer at this point, since I just shipped the skis back today and I don't have a final resolution yet.

Then again, return shipping cost me $30 and I was counting on having a "new" pair of skis for this weekend.  Google is your friend.
post #15 of 16
AttorneyBernie...e-mail the retailer a link to this thread. Let them know that since all of us say you were mislead by the condition report of the skis...you want the cost of return shipping refunded.

If they do not refund ALL of your dough....name them here so none of us get ripped off by the same outfit.

TWIWD...Thats what I would do.
post #16 of 16
 3 out of 10.  agreed.  bargain bin.  agreed.  100 bucks tops, and you should have had to sign a disclaimer before strapping into those bindings.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Second opinion on condition of these used skis