UREGS: Radio Grading Standards

[AA7BQ]

A few weeks ago, a group of hams combined their efforts and created what, hopefully, will become a useful set of criteria for judging the condition of ANY radio equipment and assigning a condition GRADE, for use by traders.

(Note: This article was submitted by Jim Fonte, K9FI, and reprinted here at his request. Please send any private comments to K9FI@arrl.net -fred)

We researched existing grading standards from the Collins owners group as well as the Drake owners group and made needed modifications and additions to make the grading standards UNIVERSAL and applicable to any manufacturer or style of equipment.

The final DRAFT of our efforts are provided below for your perusal. Please feel free to respond with any suggestions, questions, and other feedback you might have.

Thank You!

The UREGS Commitee

------------------------

Universal Radio Equipment Grading Standards

UREGS
Compiled and Edited By:

Al Link, K4ICL
Jim Fonte, K9FI
Don Stiles, N8CSP
Dave Kaiser, AL7HG
Greg Yost, W8RCA
Darren Taylor, KF9Z


INTRODUCTION

Universal amateur radio equipment grading standards have been needed for some time. To that
end, the Universal Radio Equipment Grading Standards, or UREGS (pronounced "U-regs") are
hereby offered for use by the amateur radio community at large.

UREGS grading is based solely upon the visual condition of the equipment determined through a
close visual inspection of the equipment. This grading standard may be applied to any piece of
amateur radio equipment, and does not rely upon equipment reviews, marketing information, or
any other external subjective resource.

To insure accuracy and reliability, only persons familiar with the equipment to be graded should
assign a UREGS grade. The original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) specifications should be
used by the grader when a UREGS inspection is done.


USING UREGS

When grade a piece of equipment, the following items should be kept in perspective:

1) Grade categories of NEW, AS NEW, EXCELLENT, GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR, and BAD
were chosen because of an existing common perception that one would have of these terms.
Most people have a grasp of the meanings of the categories "new," "excellent," "good,"
"average", "poor," and "bad." We have heard and used these words all of our lives. These
Standards do not attempt to change the common meaning of the terms. Instead, the
standards provide criteria for making judgments and deciding which grade category matches
the target equipment.

2) Grading should be based solely upon what can be seen and learned of the equipment
through a rigorous visual-and-tactical inspection that includes powering-up the equipment (if
applicable), and determining whether all originally specified functions and features are
working properly and satisfactorily.

3) The UREGS criterion is only concerned with equipment condition. Grading should not be
based upon the perceived value or age of the equipment. A totally useless piece of
equipment may have a UREGS AS NEW grade, and a highly sophisticated, current
production item may have a UREGS BAD grade.

4) Equipment cannot be graded without knowing the manufacturer's specifications. It is not
expected of the UREGS grader to be able to quantify equipment specifications using
laboratory-grade instrumentation. The grader should use his experience and common sense
to make any judgments relative to manufacturer's published specifications. It is expected that
the grader verify each-and-every function of the equipment to be graded, to verify that all
manufacturer's specifications are met, thus assuring that all circuits are working.

5) The objective of this proposed grading standard is to improve equipment-grading reliability
and provide consistency of technique. As such, the grading standards have been created to
"fit" any piece of amateur radio equipment. Compromises in process and procedure are
necessary to limit the number of grade categories to a useful number while not penalizing any
classifications or types of equipment. Transceivers can be judged and graded with the same
set of standards that are used to grade antennas.

6) Modified equipment is eligible for all grade categories except NEW and AS NEW. Generally
speaking, professionally done equipment modifications that enhances its usefulness and/or
performance will not reduce its grade. Modifications that collectively and/or individually
detract from the usefulness and/or performance of the equipment should lower the grade. In
any event, if the equipment is known to have been modified, the word "Modified" must
appear after the UREGS grade. For example, if a two-meter transceiver rates a grading of
UREGS EXCELLENT and is known to have been modified to operate on MARS frequencies,
the proper grade is UREGS EXCELLENT MODIFIED.

7) The addition of a manufacturer's accessory to a piece of equipment is not considered a
modification, since the manufacturer intended that certain accessories be used with the
equipment. For example, the addition of a filter to a receiver, using a filter designed for the
receiver, is not considered a modification of the receiver. The suffix "MODIFIED" is not used
in such cases.

8) The original user's manual, which often including user's instructions, schematics, and other
technical information, usually has a unique part number, and is part the equipment. If it is
missing, the equipment is incomplete and the grade of the equipment should be lowered.

9) Interconnecting cables originally furnished by the manufacturer also have part numbers. If
manufacturer-supplied interconnecting cables are missing, the equipment is incomplete and
the grade of the equipment should be lowered.

10) If equipment has been used and/or stored in a "smoking" environment, and has detectable
tobacco or other smoke-particle residue inside and/or outside of the equipment, its grade
should be lowered.

11) The chronological age of equipment should not affect its grading. Even if a piece of
equipment is totally obsolete, it might deserve a UREGS EXCELLENT grade.

Grade Descriptions

Universal Radio Equipment Grading Standards (UREGS) categories are based upon a seven-
level grading hierarchy:

NEW
AS NEW
EXCELLENT
GOOD
AVERAGE
POOR
BAD


UREGS NEW:

This grade is only given for equipment that is still in the control and domain of the
manufacturer or the manufacturer's authorized retail vendor or agent.

Equipment in UREGS NEW condition will still be in a factory sealed shipping
container or carton, if originally provided by the manufacturer, and will have
never been sold or used in any way.

A new users manual, interconnecting cables and other manufacturer-supplied
parts will be included, if originally furnished by manufacturer.

A vendor's stock item that has been used for demonstrations or customer
evaluation does not qualify as UREGS NEW but may qualify for UREGS AS
NEW grade.

A vendor's item that has sold and, returned defective, has been repaired and
resold does not qualify as UREGS NEW but may qualify for UREGS
EXCELLENT grade.

Equipment sold by an authorized manufacturer vendor or sales agent that is
classified as "New-Refurbished" does not qualify as being UREGS NEW grade.

Once an item is sold to the initial customer, it can not qualify as being UREGS
NEW.


UREGS AS NEW:

This condition is defined as being the same condition as the equipment exhibited
when it left the factory where manufactured.

Equipment in UREGS AS NEW condition will be functioning perfectly, meeting all
manufacturers' specifications.

There will be no damaged or missing parts, no sign of wear, and the outer finish
and other surfaces will be perfect, without showing a single sign of use.

A new users manual must accompany UREGS AS NEW graded equipment
along with interconnecting cables, and any other manufacturer supplied parts
originally furnished by manufacturer.

A UREGS AS NEW graded piece of equipment will be accompanied by any
normally supplied interconnecting cables, accessories, spare parts, original
user's manual (if any), and all other related paperwork.

For grade purposes, the presence of warranty documentation is to be ignored,
unless the warranty is transferable to the new owner. In such cases, a missing,
transferable warranty and associated documentation should lower the grade of
the equipment.

No components shall have been replaced or repaired, nor should any non-factory
modifications of any kind have been made to the equipment.

There should be no dust, smoke residue, corrosion, or other chemical alteration
on any inner or outer surface of the equipment. Any scratch, smudge, blister,
dent, smoke residue, rust, corrosion, discoloration or mar of any kind on any
surface disqualifies a piece of equipment from being classified UREGS AS NEW

Restored or refurbished equipment does not qualify for a UREGS AS NEW
grade.


UREGS EXCELLENT:

This condition is defined as being nearly in the same condition in which the
equipment left the factory when it was manufactured.

Equipment in UREGS EXCELLENT condition will be completely functional,
meeting all manufacturer's specifications, having no missing or damaged parts,
and may show only very minute signs of use.

A complete, clean users manual must accompany UREGS EXCELLENT graded
equipment along with serviceable interconnecting cables, and any other
manufactures supplied parts, and any other manufacture's supplied parts, if
originally furnished by manufacturer.

The inner and outer surfaces will be perfect, and have no scratches or dents.

There will be no dust, smoke residue, corrosion, or other chemical alteration of
any surface of the equipment.

The material from which certain parts are made may not show physical age.

Plastic parts may not have changed color with age.

The equipment may have had components replaced, but the workmanship must
be equal to the quality of the original manufacturer.

There may be modifications installed that were not performed by the original
manufacturer. The workmanship must be of professional quality, and the
modifications must not have eliminated an original feature or design
characteristic, and must have enhanced the usefulness of the equipment.

There may be repairs completed on the equipment but the workmanship must be
of professional quality, and the repair work must meet all original specifications
and applicable safety standards.

Any detracting scratch or smudge, blister, dent, smoke residue, rust, corrosion,
or discoloration on any surface disqualifies a piece of equipment from being
classified UREGS EXCELLENT.

If the equipment has been modified in any way that removes or limits the
manufacturer's designed usefulness, it is disqualified from being graded as
UREGS EXCELLENT.

Restored equipment may qualify for this grade.

Note: The suffix "MODIFIED" should be included with the grade, when
applicable.


UREGS GOOD:

This condition is defined as being visibly used, undamaged, complete and fully
functional, meeting the manufacturer's specifications as originally manufactured.

Equipment graded UREGS GOOD will be completely functional, yet there could
be some signs of use and wear.

A serviceable users manual must accompany UREGS GOOD graded equipment
along with serviceable interconnecting cables, and any other manufacture's
supplied parts, originally furnished by manufacturer.

Defective, damaged or missing parts must have been replaced with components
that match the original manufacture's design, look, and intent.

There may be modifications installed that were not provided by the original
manufacturer. The workmanship must be of professional quality, and the
modifications must not have eliminated an original feature or design
characteristic, and must have enhanced the usefulness of the equipment.

The outer surface finish will have only very minor wear (a few small scratches or
signs of wear but not into the metal), and dust may be expected on the inside of
any existing cabinets.

There shall be no visible rust or salt-water corrosion on any inner or outer
surface.

The outer surfaces may have been repainted, provided the quality, color, and
finish is equivalent to original.

There can be barely discernable fading of outer visible parts or components.

Equipment with extra holes drilled into visible outer surfaces will not qualify for
this grade.

If the equipment has been modified in a manner that has removed or limited a
manufacturer's designed usefulness, it is disqualified from being graded as
UREGS GOOD.

Restored equipment may qualify for this grade.

Note: The suffix "MODIFIED" should be included with the grade, when
applicable.


UREGS AVERAGE:

This condition is defined as having no major damage, may not be fully functional,
and may not meet all manufacturers' specifications, but must be readily
repairable and restorable to factory specifications.

Equipment in UREGS AVERAGE condition might not be complete, may have
been modified, and may need repairs or realignment.

To be graded as UREGS AVERAGE, the equipment must be easily repairable
using readily available parts.

It is likely that user's manuals, interconnecting cables, and other installation parts
originally supplied with the equipment will be missing.

There will be signs of use and wear, and there may be extra holes drilled in the
inner or outer surfaces.

Panel scratches may exist but may not be extensive

The outer finish may have scratches on the metal surface that will require touch
up or refinishing.

There may be very minor rust or other minor corrosion on some inner or outer
surfaces, but the extent must not be significant.

Any excessive scratches, signs of abuse, major damage such as might be
sustained if dropped, excessive rust, or heavy salt corrosion on any surface
disqualifies a piece of equipment from being classified as UREGS AVERAGE.

Note: The suffix "MODIFIED" should be included with the grade, when
applicable.


UREGS POOR:

To have a UREGS POOR grade the equipment must be at least partially
functional for it original intended use. If it is nonfunctional and unrepairable or
too expensive to repair, it must be graded USREGS BAD.

This condition is defined as being obviously damaged and/or incomplete,
excessively used, poorly modified, abused, or badly rusted and/or corroded.

Equipment in poor condition usually is not totally functional and may not be
complete.

There will be obvious signs of excessive wear and tear, or other obvious
damage.

Equipment with uncompleted repair work, cut wires, and missing components or
subassemblies also should be graded as UREGS POOR.

Equipment with heavy rust or salt corrosion also falls into this category, even
though it might be otherwise undamaged and functional.

Note: The suffix "MODIFIED" should be included with the grade, when
applicable.


UREGS BAD:

This condition is defined as being unserviceable for it intended purpose, and
having no use beyond that of providing parts for use in repairing other similar
equipment.

Any equipment that will not fit in a UREGS POOR or higher grade category is
automatically graded as UREGS BAD.

Equipment requiring unavailable key components to make the equipment
functional (such as proprietary microchips, etc.), are graded UREGS BAD, as
such equipment is unrepairable and unserviceable.

-- 73! Jim, K9FI

[KG6JTB]

This is fine, but aren't the Collins standards good enough? Why create yet another standard?

Additionally, ham radio operators should be considered as having domain knowledge of their equipment. Therefore, excluding operational functionality from your grading standard defeats the purpose of grading equipment. If your going to grade purely on cosmetic condition, why not use New, Immaculate, Clean, Fair, and Parts/Basket Case for standards.

The C.C.A. guidelines are very objective standards. They hold the grader accountable for physical and operational condition. When apply these standards, you know what you are getting.

I applaud your efforts, but I support the C.C.A.'s standards as being first class. They are also copyrighted, and can be used only with their express written permission, as is the specific grading criteria contained within my published price guide.

Dave - KG6JTB
My Home Page (http://www.kg6jtb.freewebspace.com)

[k7unz]

A nice academic exercise........but to whom do you think this will actually be of use??

The serious collectors (as you mentioned) already have their own standards in place. As for the rest of the world, I think you may need a reality check.....

First of all, as long as you still use words such as "minor", "excessive", "major", to decide equipment condition or classification, you have a problem. #These terms remain subjective, and most sellers will allow themselves all they can get when describing condition. #A Seller's "minor" may be a Buyers "major"......

Secondly, take a look at e-bay. #I dare say that a large per centage of the sellers have little, or no, knowledge of what they are listing. #Some are right up front about it, while others rattle off descriptions they have seen used on similar items. #They are not about to consider a system such as this......and would be unable to comply with the technical requirements this system imposes.

And even here on QRZ.COM some of the listings I have read leave you wondering......and I'm talking about sellers who list call signs with their names!

Other than some "professional" traders, and the already mentioned serious collectors, the standards this system imposses are way beyond the technical levels of most sellers. #The "found it in grandpa's attic" and "bought it at an estate sale" traders won't look twice at such a system, and I dare say that a large percentage of the stuff being bought/sold on the internet is provided by these people.

And even if they say it met one of your standards, and it didn't, then what? #Court action??.....forget it!

The Collins collectors are gonna continue to use their standard, the Drake collectors will use theirs, and so on. #That's the way it is 'cos everyone knows, those Drake guys don't know beans about Collins, the Hallicrafters guys don't know beans about Drake, and the RME guys are just so far out of things nobody will listen to 'em.

Maybe I've missed something here, but I really just don't see the point. #Buyer beware still hold true with ANY system!

73, Jim

[K0rs]

Blah, blah, blah.

This reminds me of my employer, who would like to believe that it's possible to eliminate the need for actual job knowledge and employee competence if only they generate enough SOP's, process descriptions and memos. #We're buried in a blizzard of overly detailed instructions and micro-managed ad infinitum.

The would be "standard" couldn't eliminate those sellers who will be ignorant of how to apply the guidlines...or even their very existance. #And unfortunately some are simply dishonest enough to exaggerate condition regardless of any applicable "standard."

It's impossible to eliminate the subjectivness. #No two sets of eyes seem to behold a piece of equipment in the same light. #This is a true story. #It happened to me, not once but twice, at recent swapmeets while I was inspecting some ham gear. #The first case involved a Heath DX-35. #I commented that I thought the seller's asking price was high. #The guy standing next to me said, "Yeah, but look what nice condition it's in!"
Hmmm, I guess if you ignore the fact that the meter isn't original, the knobs are incorrect, the crystal door is missing, and all those scratches, it's OK. #

The next incident occured when I was looking at an NC-183D. #Unsolicited, an observer again commented about how "clean" the radio was. #I said, "Well, if you ignore all the paint spatters and scratches, it ain't too bad." #Embarassed he mumbled something about, "Well, I guess you could clean the paint off..."

In both cases, it was really hard to believe that we were both looking at the same radio. #I just can't believe implementing anally detailed grading "standards" will supplant common sense.

[W9JCM]

I would have to agree with the other prior posters. Why do we need this I do allot of bartering online and have not seen any need for it. New is new, Used is used and so on. There are already Collins standards. Why would'nt we use these that have been around a long time? Seems like something to get a pat on the back to me. Visual inspection?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif? What happened to how the darn thing operates. good luck

[w6th]

# # Now, yes, why make new changes when Collins, Drake and others have proof tested it works. And for many years where all concerned are well satisfied.

[K2WH]

New is new, used is used. Good is good, Bad is bad and Junk is junk.

Works for me. This self appointed standards group is trying to regulate common sense and good taste.

K2WH

[KD7UKT]

K2WH,

They gotta do something to justify the Starbucks and Krispy Kremes!

[K4KB]

I tend to agree with, Dave - KG6JTB. #This seems to me as a "cosmetic" rating standard. You may have an otherwise "mint-looking" piece of equipment which operationally is a dud.

If accepted by hams, how will the grading criteria will be applied? #Do you intend to create a group of people, certified by your outfit as "graders"? #Will these graders issue a grading certificate based on the condition of the equipment, which the sellers may use on equipment for sale at ebay, QRZ.com or other trading sites?

How about liability issues if the buyer doesn't agree with the grading, once the rig has been purchased.

Remember like everything in life "grading" can be very subjective.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Jorge, K4KB

[va4cqd]

I see alot of work must have went into making that "standard", but it seams only cosmetic.

Looks is one thing, and functionality is another.

I think a true grading system MUST also include the operating condition like all the funtions work and meets original specs.

[K3HVG]

I have to agree that there already enough "standards", in place. #The real problem is to have folks apply the standards. #My favorite ultimate disclaimer of condition is: #"Excellent condition, considering its age"... Now.. what the %^$$ does that mean??? #When I see a BC-348 that's obviously been dragged behind a pick-up over 20 miles of gravel road... and it states the aforementioned, you know the person selling hasn't a clue of reality. #In these cases, MIL-STD-675B (Vol 1 and 2) #"Resale Grading Standards for Amateur Radio Electronic Equipment" won't help, a bit. #I know you guys are trying very hard, but the choir already knows the words.

[wb9gkz]

I bought a Hallicrafters SX-100 from eBay one year ago. #The seller was an executive secretary that bought estate items on the side and sold them for profit out of her home. #You may want to email her and other resellers like her that you have this wonderful new Grading System that she must now become familiar with.
Maybe in their spare time, resellers could spend countless hours educating themselves as to how to "properly" grade and market the ham-stuff they find. #
By the way, my SX-100 turned out to be a real gem, the seller undergraded it because it was just dusty and a bit dirty....much to my unexpected benefit.

Bottom line here folks: #Let the Collins nit-wits pick apart their equipment and split hairs under an electron-microscope....and leave me alone! #Please, the rest of us seem to trade and buy equipment pretty well (thank-you) without need of protection from a UREGS. #The nervous and untrusting among us can easily buy our used gear at a store like AES: #they offer a 10-day trade-in refund on used gear. #

Pat WB9GKZ

[w2mc]

Hello

These specs sound almost exactly the same as the used camera rating system thats been in use for years. #I think that system was originally put in place by Shutterbug magazine, but I could be wrong. #The photo community has added plusses and minuses to the various names to try to split hairs a little further.

Unfortunately, whatever the specs are, they are subjective. #What I would rate as "like new minus" would be someone elses "excellent plus", and guess what? #We would both be right!

What you are really trying to solve is the problem of terminology.....when I say "this is in excellent shape", what does that mean, really? #Does it mean "works good, looks nice, not all beat up" (which is what I think it means, btw) or does it mean "it looks almost like it came out of the box" which is what someone else would take it to mean?

"Mint" and "Minty" are even worse. #What does that mean? #A few weeks ago, I read a complaint from an ebay deal that did not go well, because the gentleman buying the item thought mint meant straight from the factory.......on a 50-60 year old radio that's not realistic. #What the seller meant was that it looked very good, had a few minor cosmetic problems but wasn't an embarrassment sitting on the shelf, and worked 100%. Of course why everyone had to read about it on another ham radio forum was another question completely......

Its a tough problem, and its a worthy goal, but I dont know if this is a solution.

Jon
W2MC

[KG6JTB]

I should also like to add the following in support of grading standards in general, notwithstanding those created in a vacuum by people of good intent...

When someone uses and cites CCA standards, chances are they’re probably being factual and objective to a certain degree. The buyer can make a reasonably safe purchase if further research is done on the seller (i.e. level of activity in the hobby, radio club, feedback, etc). You should always perform your own due-diligence, grading standards or not, to ensure you are getting what you pay for. Try using GOOGLE, and type in the call sign.

Most guys don't use CCA terms when selling. I don't usually, but if asked to do so I would apply it. I use these standards when purchasing, as a simple benchmark. That makes good common sense.

I kind of like the idea of a "certified appraiser". This is someone who would be a second set of eyes that can act as an advocate for a buyer prior to purchase. For instance, someone sells a Kenwood TS-2000 near my home, and for a nominal fee, I as an appraiser, would "touch" the radio and verify it's grade. This is already done today when transactions take place over long distances.

Another way to handle "certified appraisals" is for an individual to appraise items prior to sale, by serial number, and good for up to 30 days. The seller can quote the appraisal date when listing the item.

In either case, this individual would have to obtain a bond, or be willing to take a risk based on their own perceived appraisal skills.

This could be a way to institute grading standards and equipment appraisals, but would be likely limited to high-end equipment.

Dave - KG6JTB

[N5OZQ]

A valiant effort. However, I think that two things are built-in assumptions/presumptions:

- That the person grading has the experience, expertise and objectivity to evaluate any given item under the criteria presented, and
- That everyone is at the same level in this regard. I don't think so.

Thanks, but I'll stick with my level of knowledge, use the CCA standard as necessary or appropriate and present my evaluation as it applies to a given piece of gear. It has been my experience that the way in which one communicates speaks for the presenter as well as the equipment. So far it has worked for both buying and selling. Perhaps a bit more tedious, and surely mercurial, but it works for me.

GL es 73'

Tom #N5OZQ

[KG4OOA]

I never met the writers but they must work for the federal government. It kinds of reminds me of this story:

Once Upon A Time There Was A Company Called Lucent...........


Once upon a time Lucent had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. #The CEO said "someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then the CEO said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?"

So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then the CEO said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?"

So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. #One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then the CEO said, "How are these people going to get paid?"

So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then the CEO said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?"

So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then the CEO said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

Auther Unnown

When buying used equipment, especially on line, there is only one standard ... BUYER BEWARE! Also remember ... IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, MORE THAN LIKELY IT IS!

73,
Bob