Correction — 12 September 2026: This article now uses the saved 11 September inventory snapshot. We have withdrawn the earlier claim that buyers pay the original asking price: the calculation used current recorded asks, which cannot establish historical negotiation discounts. The original URL and publication date are retained.
The oldest listings in a store are easy to notice. They are the ones you recognise every time you scroll past them, and the ones you keep meaning to clear.
We assumed they also held most of the value we needed to move. Then we split our own inventory by age.
What we found in our store
In the recorded 11 September 2026 snapshot, Still In The Box had 419 live listings with a combined asking value of $108,145.
| Listing age | Listings | Asking value | Share of asking value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under 90 days | 322 | $103,844 | 96.0% |
| 90 days or more | 97 | $4,301 | 4.0% |
| Total | 419 | $108,145 | 100% |
Almost all the asking value was in listings less than three months old. The older group averaged about $44 per listing.
Those are our recorded asking prices, not cash recovered, inventory profit or an independent valuation. The age calculation uses the recorded listing date, falling back to the inventory record’s date where necessary. It describes our store at that point in time; another seller’s mix may look very different.
Still, it changed how we looked at the workload. A list sorted oldest first tells us what has waited longest. It doesn’t tell us where a review would make the biggest difference.
The price claim we couldn’t support
Our first reading of the sales data went further. The median sale appeared to achieve 100% of its recorded asking price, which seemed to suggest that buyers rarely corrected our pricing through negotiation.
But the calculation compared retained sale amounts with the current recorded ask, not a preserved asking price from the time of each sale. Prices can change. Refunds can change retained revenue. That comparison cannot tell us how much negotiation happened.
So we cannot conclude that “the price you list at is the price you get”. Nor can a fast sale, by itself, prove that we underpriced something. We would need reliable price history and comparable market evidence to support that claim.
The useful habit is to record why a price was chosen, what changed and when, then check the result against that evidence.
Old stock still matters
Four per cent of asking value is not four per cent of the work, storage burden or opportunity.
Some older items may be straightforward to clear. Some expensive recent listings may already be well priced and need no intervention. The age split alone cannot rank those decisions.
For each candidate, the review should consider the actual item and variant, relevant sold evidence, listing quality, shipping terms, traffic where available, and the time needed to act. The answer might be a price change, a listing correction, a bundle, or leaving it alone. The evidence needs to explain which.
What changed for us
We still want to clear the aged tail. We also want to inspect newer listings when there is a concrete reason to question a price or a listing decision.
The 96% finding supports that broader view of the book. It does not prove that newer stock is mispriced, that older stock is unimportant, or that a repricing tool will recover a particular amount of money.
For TurnGoods, that makes the job specific: help a seller find decisions worth reviewing, keep the evidence attached, and measure what happens afterwards. Age is useful context. It is not a diagnosis.
Read the companion analysis . These figures describe our own Still In The Box AU store; no external seller outcome has yet been measured.