In article <31974982.6694@chevron.com>, anei@chevron.com says...
>Bob Neuman wrote: [corrected quote - original messed up in editing]

>>Having been a subscriber to Shutterbug for many years, and a
>>too-often purchaser of equipment from the classifieds, I have
>>long found the Shutterbug ratings too vague for most people to use >>accurately. Part of the problem may lie in the absurd part of the >>descriptions regarding percent of original finish (intact?): the >>"90-99% original finish", for instance (Does that mean that if 10%
>>of the original finish is completely missing, but 90% remains,
>>that the piece of equipment qualifies for an "Ex +" rating?! ;-). >>Since there is some vagueness, the majority of sellers tend to
>>stretch the ratings a bit (at the very least!). The Shutterbug
>>ratings may still be useful (with the "%" nonesense excised),
>>though a 0-10 rating system (allowing fractional ratings),
>>combined with a verbal description of any faults that
>>detract from perfect condition, may be more useful. [...]

>The following descriptions are used for audio equipment at one web
>site I visit frequently and may be of use here. [rest deleted]

Adapted to be more appropriate as photographic equipment descriptions,
the list given seems excellent, though the ratings names are identical to the lower-standard ones used by Shutterbug, so would be confusing.
Perhaps another set of ratings names could be devised for your list, such as: "Perfect", "Extremely Fine", "Fine", "Clean" (or, "Decent"), and "Worn" (otherwise known as: P, EF, F, C, W - or some such (with +/-'s useable everywhere for fine-tuning [except for "P+"]).
Hope This Helps