Audiogon Grading Scale - the gold standard?


I recently got duped by an eBay seller's item representation, "...excellent cosmetically." Seller offers no equitable restitution, maintaining we merely have a difference of "opinion" as to the meaning of "excellent." My question is, how effective do you feel the "Audiogon Grading Scale" has been in eliminating misunderstandings/misrepresentations that would otherwise arise by way of subjective characterizations? I am pleased to say it's been working quite well thus far for me. Any suggestions as to how it might be further improved upon? BTW, for those interested, why not get a laugh out of this at my expense (literally). Check out http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1291871809
fam124
I visited the link you provided, not to have a laugh, but to read more about your claim before commenting. I assume that you have already consulted Ebay officials and determined that you have no legal or punitive recourse that is acceptable to you. No lawyer I, but I would think that the sellers statements concering his definition of "excellent" false. If the description of an item's condition were solely at the discretion of the seller we would not have lemon laws for automobiles. There are in fact laws to protect consumers. But, as I said, I am not a lawyer, and cannot comment on the legality of this issue.

I can, however, sympathize. And to be honest I don't think a grading scale will prevent such individuals from taking advantage of this new medium called the internet with inaccurate, or just plain deceitful, advertising. To my mind, the problem isn't the grading scales, it's the expense required of the buyer to bring the legal system to bear; expense both in terms of money and time. And businesses such as Ebay seem to go out of their way to make it difficult to contact them about these matters. I've tried to use their system in the past and it just wasn't worth the effort.
It appears that Fam124 has just learned the reason why I don't trade on the ebay site. Having said that however, I don't feel that the grading scale here is any better than the particular "selling individual". Most items that I've bought here do fit the described condition no problem, but some did not. You simply must try to know who you're dealing with. If a seller has enough feedback (here) that they appear to be of good integrity, then the description is likely valid. But in any other case, described condition may be suspect. Two of the "ebay type" individuals with whom I've dealt were clearly not of the typical caliber of an Audiogon member, thus I tend to view these characters with much greater caution. And having been somewhat taken in the past by those types, when I'm selling I tend to describe any existing flaws with accuracy to a fault. I'd much rather have my customer say "that wasn't so bad after all" than to say "what kind of junk are you trying to pass off as mint condition here?".
Gallaine: I appreciate your response. I may be able to recoup $200 (eBay's max coverage) if and when my claim is approved. Moreover, if such comes to pass it may (according to eBay) result in this seller getting the official boot, which is clearly my objective. I wish to ensure other unsuspecting victims do not fall prey. I've filed a fraud report with the NFIC in Washington. Beyond that, cost to litigate too prohibitive + this character's based in Canada.