Can we just agree on what NOS means please!

Tootyred

Old School Grand Master
Feedback
View
Following a couple more prime examples of miss use....can we please accept a common standard...

As far as Im aware the acronym NOS stands for New Old Stock....

So as far as im concerned thats an item thats........well NEW...

Im happy to accept that the "old stock" part may mean the items been moved about a bit, possibly lost its original box / packaging / instructions and I even conceded thst in theory it may be damaged or missing something....

One thing I DON'T think it is, is USED! Used in any way.....because then its USED!

If its been on a bike then removed, even if its only been peddled round the block or test ridden....its used.

In those instances I tend to favout the term "take off" as it its been on a bike, been used for display, test ride, 2 miles.....and has been taken off....its still used though..just good used 🤣.

Is it just me? Am i wrong?
 
Fully agree, your definition sums up how it should be. Not barely used (that still means used FFS) or even just clean! Which seems to be the case sometimes.
 
NOS is one of the easiest definitions as it cannot be more black and white. Apart from NIB, that is. But at the same time, so much NOS inflation going on. Apart from the blatant NOS when it's not (mounted, ridden, refurbed, etc) there is also NOS'ish, NearNOS and almost NOS. All of it is not NOS. It can be VGC, it can be in excellent shape, but it is not NOS.
 
Think about it like a toothbrush.

It’s either new or it isn’t.


However ….. if you bolted a load of NOS parts onto a NOS frame is that classed as NOS as a full bike? But if a part is removed , it can’t be NOS……
 
Think about it like a toothbrush.

It’s either new or it isn’t.


However ….. if you bolted a load of NOS parts onto a NOS frame is that classed as NOS as a full bike? But if a part is removed , it can’t be NOS……
Would that scenario not just be classed as 'unused bike'?
 
Back
Top