Skip to main content

Überstationmeister posted:

It is less than black-and-white...

Generally (and very broadly), if it has all original parts authentic to the piece (save things like brushes and light bulbs or minor parts), or has been assembled from entirely correct original parts, and has no new paint or touch-ups, it would be considered original since there is no practical way to tell the difference. This naturally includes any piece that has had general maintenance. The "C" TCA standards cover the condition of these pieces (note that they are based on appearance, not function). The prices will vary with this overall condition.

Restored/refinished returns the piece to mint appearance and usually includes re-painting/re-plating, with the "R" TCA standards covering the quality of the restoration. This is where replacement of major parts (including wiring) with non-original resides as well. Price varies with quality of restoration and level of replacement parts. Non-factory variations or fantasy assemblages of parts would probably reside here too ("non-professional restoration").

Arguably, rebuilt/reconditioned returns the piece to optimum operational qualities not covered by the TCA standards directly, such as new e-unit, armature/field, wheels/bearings and mitigation of Zincpest (via any means other than part replacement). Price is usually comparable to condition, but generally lower than an all-original of the same condition. 

Overall, honesty between buyer and seller is important. In my experience, sellers often say that the piece was "completely gone over" without committing themselves to what they actually did unless it is completely obvious (e.g. wrong color, reproduction parts, new wheels, new wiring). However, I have never had even one seller tell me if a whistle or horn works, so I guess they never "go over" those .

 

The chief station master said " I have never had even one seller tell me if a whistle or horn works, so I guess they never "go over" those .".

He must have missed most of my Ebay locomotive/tender listings.  If it's a Lionel tender, I almost always say the whistle work - few that I haven't been able to do that.

Horns are another story.  Here's what I say in a current Ebay listing.

I cleaned and adjusted the horn relay and it is now working properly.  The horn has good sound.  Anyone familiar with Lionel diesel horns knows they are problematic.  I don't know if it will work after shipment, so all that I can assure the buyer is that this horn was working well just before I packed the unit for shipping.

 

C W Burfle posted:

Tabs, stakes and rivets provide a practical way to signal the potential of a restoration or alteration, but do not guarantee it. Repair and maintenance is not restoration. Taking something apart and putting it back together is not the same as substantive alteration and restoration. Along the same lines, swapping a boiler/ part/ chassis between locomotives of similar patina, once completed, allows for no practical method of identification of originality of the assemblage.


If an item has been disassembled to the point of disturbing tabs, staking or rivets, then as far as I am concerned the item really cannot grade very high as a collectors item, and isn't likely to be something I'd be interested in owning as such.  It might make a great piece for operating. (I have both).


To each their own.

 

CW Burfle says "If an item has been disassembled to the point of disturbing tabs, staking or rivets, then as far as I am concerned the item really cannot grade very high as a collectors item, and isn't likely to be something I'd be interested in owning as such.  It might make a great piece for operating. (I have both)."

Taht makes me wonder how fussy actually are collectors.  Some can afford to buy only C-7 unaltered, but how many fo us are collectors who would like to have a certain set of pieces and will buy what is affordable even if it's not perfect.

I'm a collector to a modest extent.  I wasn't going to cllect when I began this activity five years ago. Later I decided to collect what is in the 1948 catalog - my last year of playing with Lionel before a 60+ year side trip into HO model railroading.

But I'm not trying to have much like new.  I'd rather have my collection on the rails and looking like what a sixth grade boy would have had after several years of use.

I bought my GG1 for $200.  The stripes are faded as are most but still discernable.  It has a few dings, but from three feet away it looks good - I've seen the real thing in operation and they didn't ever look like new.  I'm happier having a realistic looking GG! than I would be with one that is perfect and took another $300 away from other things I can do with that money.

 

 

 

 

George S posted:

Good point on Bruce's books being older than the "new" grading standards. I was actually thinking about the reference guides instead of the price guides, but you bring up a valid point. In the reference guides I recall seeing only two to three price points depending on the manufacturer being covered.

In the Greenberg Guide to Lionel Trains vol IV for example, he only priced VG and EX. He has a great discussion on values, in which he says that values are determined by multiple factors, but condition is the most consistent determining factor. I think that is true for the best condition trains, but for anything less, price seems to uncouple from grade today.

I haven't bought a  price guide recently nor looked for one. Today there is lots of information available on the internet of what items sold for, usually with pictures of the item. Most of the sites make you sign up to get access to the prices.

George

 

George said "I haven't bought a  price guide recently nor looked for one. Today there is lots of information available on the internet of what items sold for, usually with pictures of the item. Most of the sites make you sign up to get access to the prices."

I haevn't bought a Greenburg price guide for two years.  I do all of my buying and sellign on eBay and don't see a strong relationsdhip to Greenburg prices.  Prices there will vary by as much as 2:3 for items with the same description.  The ,ow price is for an item that was listed as an auction at the wrong time.  The higher price was a buy-it-now seller with patience.  If you've nothing better to do with your time than reasearch eBay prices , you can make good money  on Lionel buying low and selling high.

There's a term that has become popular amongst the automotive set in recent years:  "Restomod".  For example, if you take a vintage car in poor condition, restore the body to pristine shape and put a modern engine, transmission and suspension in it, that's considered restomodding.   

I've done that with various equipment over the years;  for example, I'm currently working on putting a recent make can motor into an old Bowser Birney... 

Mitch 

I'm posting this on a couple of the topics in which I've been active recently, about the Sprimgfield show.  I'd be interested in meeting. others in this group and attaching real people to names.  Anyone interested ?

IT was suggested on one topic that we meet for a group photo at 1:00 at OGR or RCS.  I'll be there.  I'll be in Springfield for setup on Friday afternoon/evening, dinner on Friday and until early afternoon Friday.

The three descriptions are distinct and often used incorrectly, particularly on E-Bay.

Rebuilt means just that. A box of parts for the same piece disassembled and in need of cleaning. You clean everything and reassemble.

Refurbish means to fix. Non-running equipment possibly missing parts. Take apart, clean everything, repair armature, repair the motor with new brushes, springs, rollers, repair E-Unit parts. Replace missing pieces.

Restore means just that. To bring back to an original state. Completely dismantle, clean and or strip each piece, and refinish to original finish and look and reassemble. When complete, the piece should look like it pretty much just left the factory. This does not apply to poorly repainted items, or items with parts or pieces with issues. Those would be called mistakes.

Tin

According to the dictionary these words do not help to define what has been done; the descriptions are not distinct (and so cannot be used incorrectly); a description of the actual activities done on an item should be more helpful.

Rebuilt: repair, especially to dismantle and reassemble with new parts

Recondition: restore to a good or satisfactory condition; repair; make over

Refurbish: to furbish (to restore to freshness of appearance or good condition) again; renovate; brighten

Restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition

Regards

Fred

I've been into toy trains for quite awhile. I do not recall the terms "rebuilt", "reconditioned", or "refurbished" used to describe the condition / state of a toy train. Only the term "restored".  (The words might appear as verbiage in a description, not as a one word summary)

Of course people can use any words they please to describe their goods. And that works fine so long as both parties to a transaction agree on the meaning of those terms.

When one joins a train club, one usually agrees to uphold that organization's bylaws. The organizations with which I am familar have defined terms to describe the condition / state of a train. So, wouldn't upholding bylaws include using defined terms?

Want to say your train for sale/trade was refurbished? Go ahead, the other party to your transaction may have a different idea of what that means.

Can we expect a major organization to define refurbished? Doubtful. Should a refurbished postwar lionel loco have new pickup rollers? E-unit drum and fingers? Brushes and springs? How about fresh light bulbs? How about the various bearings / bushings in there?  And so on. 

By the way, unless something has changed, TCA descriptions are only based on cosmetics. The train does not have to be functional. Not certain about other clubs. At one time many of them adopted TCA definitions.

In a way it is unfortunate that toy trains have become so costly that we even need to think about the fine points of describing conditions.

That detail about functional struck home once I visited the TCA site and conditions definition and realized an engine with a crumbled frame could be a C6 condition piece...  Same goes for wiring etc.  Crumbling wiring rates a higher C condition than the same piece yet rewired with correct or not type wire.  The point about using an organizations interpretations as a "standard reference" certainly makes sense. However, as you point out, it is only valid when both parties are familiar with those "standards".  If one is an outsider lets say, then you pretty much have no choice but to come to an agreement or to walk away. 

 

So, then, there are no authoritative standards to determine the quality of the internals of a train? If its parts, function, performance, etc are at all good, and it runs as if it just came from the factory, or indeed if it doesn't even run? If not, then why not, if even the boxes of toy trains have a complex rating system? Isn't the question of how well a train runs--which is its purpose--particularly important? After all, that's what they were made for.

So, then, there are no authoritative standards to determine the quality of the internals of a train?

Not to my knowledge.
If you find any, please post them.

Folks have suggested standards here for the operation of Modern era stuff with electronics, but I think the idea just evaporated.
Even if folks participating in this board agreed to adopt them, they would only have meaning here anyway. And this board wisely will not get involved in resolving disputes, and will not allow complaining about transactions either. 
Plus, while I very much enjoy this board, its members only represent a small fraction of the population into collecting or operating toy trains.

Do you belong to any of the national organizations that might develop standards?
They need our support.

Last edited by C W Burfle

Sorry - I find the whole notion that we need a systems of authoritative standards - absurd and archaic.

Why do we need this system? Where do we use it? When?

Its just a short hand hack that requires you to refer to some set of predetermined definitions.

The use of these "standards" dates back to when guys used a typewriter and a sheet of paper to keep inventory - and a shorthand code was a handy way to save space on an inventory list. (or memory on old 64K computers!)

Times have changed! We now all have (obviously) computers - with enough memory that we don't pine over how many characters we use.

And - hi-resolution digital cameras - have made the old truism "A picture is worth a thousand words" even more true!

Why not just describe the train using the very excellent ENGLISH language?

Any other system is INFERIOR.

I'm grabbing a train off the shelf - here's my description:

LIONEL ALCO 2023 Union Pacific

Tandem Variation B. Overall condition is very good. Signs of use/play/runtime - but no major scratches. Yellow finish has nice patina. Decals intact. Shells exhibit some - but minimal warping commonly seen in this model. Frame is clean, no corrosion in battery compartment. Wheels and motor move freely. Takes power, but has E-unit issues and won't run. No box.

There isn't much more to say about this loco. A few pictures included will tell the whole story.

Isn't that infinitely preferable to "C-6"? - which is just a generic pigeonhole...with no specifics to this loco.

I do support the referencing of descriptors and classifications created by third parties like Tandem.

Last edited by Former Member
Roving Sign posted:

Sorry - I find the whole notion that we need a systems of authoritative standards - absurd and archaic.

Why do we need this system? Where do we use it? When?

Its just a short hand hack that requires you to refer to some set of predetermined definitions.

The use of these "standards" dates back to when guys used a typewriter and a sheet of paper to keep inventory - and a shorthand code was a handy way to save space on an inventory list. (or memory on old 64K computers!)

Times have changed! We now all have (obviously) computers - with enough memory that we don't pine over how many characters we use.

And - hi-resolution digital cameras - have made the old truism "A picture is worth a thousand words" even more true!

Why not just describe the train using the very excellent ENGLISH language?

Any other system is INFERIOR.

I'm grabbing a train off the shelf - here's my description:

LIONEL ALCO 2023 Union Pacific

Tandem Variation B. Overall condition is very good. Signs of use/play/runtime - but no major scratches. Yellow finish has nice patina. Decals intact. Shells exhibit some - but minimal warping commonly seen in this model. Frame is clean, no corrosion in battery compartment. Wheels and motor move freely. Takes power, but has E-unit issues and won't run. No box.

There isn't much more to say about this loco. A few pictures included will tell the whole story.

Isn't that infinitely preferable to "C-6"? - which is just a generic pigeonhole...with no specifics to this loco.

I do support the referencing of descriptors and classifications created by third parties like Tandem.

Sure, a long written description would be best. Your written description contains multiple subjective terms. What is 'nice patina'? How much warping is minimal? What is a major scratch? And so on.

I can agreed that properly taken, detailed photos are best.

But unfortunately I have ended up with Ebay lots where the flaws weren't apparent to me in the photos. And I don't want to take and keep multiple photos of the trains I have insured. The insurance company accepts my TCA standard condition descriptions. 

Every special interest group has its own terminology, and acronymns, which could be thought of as shorthand. I don't see why or how train folks should be different.

 

Last edited by C W Burfle

Most if not all major antique and vintage collector hobbies have established grading scales. The TCA exterior grading scale seems to be well established and accepted. However, as I suggested, it doesn't deal with some of the most fundamental characteristics of a train, characteristics that could very significantly affect its value. I would pay a lot more for a train with an excellent exterior and interior than a train with an excellent exterior and nothing inside, or what's inside is in such bad condition that it cannot reasonably be salvaged. And I certainly take into consideration informed judgements based on recognized grading scales. If someone estimates the exterior of a train to be C-6, or C-7, or C-2, I certainly take that into consideration in gauging desirability and value. Perhaps I am in a small minority in that regard.

Just to close a loop.  Bruce has nothing to do with the pricing guides....they are all Kalmbach Publishing.  He has everything to do with the new Standard gauge and forthcoming O gauge book.  These books are the best reference works to date that happen to include the current snapshot of pricing (value?) that is compiled from many knowledgeable sources.

This is an interesting discussion. Good job gents!

Last edited by Rob English

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×