Why wouldn't you just ship them back for calibration? They should be able to replace any damaged parts and provide you with new coefficients. Unless you are setup with everything needed to check them, I wouldn't mess with them.
I never said I want to mess with them. I would like to know how big of an error I have to expect
if I use the cal constant from another identical kit.
Are the manufacturing tolerances between different sets that big?
as for calibration by anritsu, I dont know if you have had to deal with them in the past or not, but in my 3 experiences with them
they are simply the biggest aholes in T&M compared to my similar experience with other manufactures. I'm afraid they are gonna charge me $2k-$3k for calibration if they even accept it from an individual/hobbyist. But I will contact them
It's used. How would you know how much error there would be without having some way to measure it. Worse case, you were sold some damaged parts and now start inserting them into good connectors, damaging them. Suddenly the cost goes up... Who knows how many cycles have been on the used parts or the condition of the plating. Not to mention all the other mechanical tolerances that need to be checked.
I'm a little confused. In your original post you mention an ENA and I just assumed it was a typo. Now after reading your posts, it seems like you may have an Agilent/Keysight ENA and want to use these standards with it. I've looked at buying used standards but the sellers want a third to half the cost of a new set. It makes no sense to me as I could end up with more invested in the used set than buying brand new, plus getting the correct ones. I looked on eBay at the low cost standards from drkirkby, $742.82 for the basic set. For me personally, I would rather invest in a new Keysight set.
With the HP/Agilent standards I have used, they are indeed held to very tight tolerances and the parts are able to be changed. Of course, that comes at a price! You plug one of those standards onto a low grade connector, that may be the end of it. They are very easily damaged. With the newer equipment using S-parameters, they can get away with lower material costs and may achieve better results (in the short term). These lower end standards wouldn't be interchangeable. There are some good papers on this subject available for free.
For your home use, maybe it doesn't matter. I recently made a video for the NanoVNA V2 Plus 4. I made a few changes to the low grade cal kit that was supplied with it but used the ideal model throughout the review. For my own home use, my standards are home made. Below a GHz, even 1.5GHz, this hasn't been much of a problem. I would like to play around at higher frequencies and sorted some low grade loads and got some help from one of the members here to characterize them. This or course required a few friends loaning me some parts. It may be possible for you to do something similar with your used set.
I'm excited to see the next generation of low cost VNAs as they push for 6GHz. Crazy....