Finding this thread intriguing, I just looked at the ad by Trancehits, as well as the mutual negative feedback involved. Unless the ad has since been changed, it merely states a scale rating of 10/10, with no descriptive language used about the condition.
However, what none of us posters here know for sure, is what was contained in the negotiation correspondence Warrenh refers to. If Warren merely assumed that the cables must have been represented as being literally "New" because of their AGS rating, then he is in error and should either contact Audiogon about the possibility of correcting the feedback situation, or post a followup feedback making amends.
OTOH, it's important to realize that even if the emails between Warrenh and Trancehits did in fact describe the cables as being "new" rather than "like new", the possibility nevertheless still exists that the two of them were just getting crossed up over an honest semantics problem, rather than anyone attempting intentional misrepresentation. There does exist an AGS rating of "NEW" sans any number scale, and it would have been reasonable (and correct) for Trancehits to assume that Warrenh knew that 10/10 implied the cables had been opened and used some. If Warrenh was ignorant of this fact, it would have been reasonable (if incorrect) for him to assume that the cables were unopened and unused. If they both proceeded on these assumptions, then they could well have done all their negotiations and consumated the deal without either one ever realizing that each of them was assuming things not apparent to the other, and they could therefore have been operating under different contextual notions about the meaning of the word "new".
So (and assuming the ad was the same at the time of the transaction), only if their correspondence contained clearly explicit language stating that the cables were never opened, never used, or some such equivalent, rather than just referring to them somewhat ambiguously as "new" or even "brand new" - which may very well have been an appropriate description if Trancehits had bought them as the original owner mere days or weeks before offering them for sale *and* was proceeding on the assumption that Warrenh knew he had tried them out - only then does Warrenh IMHO have nothing to apologize for (and Trancehits would have some explaining to do). Otherwise, I think Warrenh should recognize the possibility of some error on his part concerning the AGS scale, and that the possibility exists that this all could have gone down exactly the way he thought it did, yet Trancehits could have been perfectly honest all along - as well as that this situation should have been worked out in private between the two of them with a little more effort before going negative on a fellow member. As usual, quality, careful, and detailed communication is everything when it comes to transaction satisfaction!
