| |
Hey Y'all:
I could use some feedback on the following. Please do not reply to me
personally at my email address, but rather reply here so that others may
take part in the discussion over the issues that may arise.
Thanks in advance,
Hop-Frog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
Construction toys are generally sold such that they are comprised of three
main components: the elements (or bricks) themselves, an instructional
booklet and promotional materials, and a box or some other packaging
material containing the whole. Larger sets may have top opening flaps,
plastic windows, and certain elements displayed in plastic bubble packages.
Instructional booklets come in a variety of forms: single folded sheets,
small stapled booklets (which may or may not have been folded in the
original sealed packaging), and even large magazine-like volumes.
Promotional materials may include catalogues of product lines and even such
things as posters. The elements are often packed in several sealed plastic
bags which may themselves include additional instructional materials. A
Mint in Sealed Box set (hereafter MISB) will certainly have ALL of the
materials originally found in the box as if it had been purchased new.
Below you will find grading criteria suitable for each component of a
complete set whether it is new, used, or somewhere in between. It is
recommended that each component be graded separately and that one do so with
a very critical eye to spotting defects.
It is a reality that no set that has already been opened can be considered
in the same category as a set that is still in its factory sealed box --
there is simply no way to track that all of the constituent elements are the
same ones that originally came in the set (what some have termed "the soul
of a set"). With this in mind, only a set in Mint in Sealed Box (MISB)
condition may considered truly mint condition. All other sets, however well
maintained, should only be considered Near Mint or graded to an even less
generous description as the "soul" of a set vanishes with the opening of the
package. Grade accordingly.
In considering single components, such as a single plastic element, one
should grade very severely. Consider that fact that even elements removed
from a freshly opened MISB set can be in less than desirable condition --
already marred with scuffs and scratch marks from the other elements in the
package. Again, such elements should be graded certainly no higher than
Near Mint. It is not the status of the element just removed from a sealed
package that makes it mint when it is considered alone -- it is the
condition of the individual element itself. Nothing else matters in such
circumstances, regardless of whether the item under consideration a single
element, an instructional booklet, or even a box being sold on its own --
How does this one item measure up? is the only question.
Special attention should be given to clearly damaged components. Be honest
in dealings with others concerning such defects as it is the case that many
construction toy builders often collect whole sets with a specific element
or short list of elements in mind. Such a person would be dismayed to
discover that the elements that they have paid top dollar for were, in fact,
in marginal or unusable condition.
A sample description might look like this (the example considers an already
opened set), note that the paranthetical notation is intended as the value
of a Numeric Grade:
"Set #XXXX Ultimate Construction Toy Set"
Box (55): Fine
Elements (64): Fine overall
Booklet (94): Near Mint
Problems: One minifigure arm moves freely and hangs loosely, one antenna
has a slight bend."
All Purpose Numeric Grading Criteria for Complete Sets, Boxes, Booklets,
Promotional Materials, and Posters: (please use your best judgement to
discern which listed characteristics apply to the item you are attempting to
grade):
98-100 Numeric Grade (MINT, or also MISB for Mint In Sealed Box)
Only the finest sets make this grade. Flawless, unused. May have a price
tag, but it does not damage the overall appearance of the box or booklet.
Does not show any yellowing, dents, scratches, tears, creases, or cracks.
Where visible in the box, loose elements appear flawless to the naked eye
and are in working order. Set is in sealed condition!
90-97 Numeric Grade (NEAR MINT, or also MIB for Mint In Box)
Has a minor flaw that is noticeable only under close scrutiny. Slight
scratches. A small curl in the packaging or booklet, one fuzzy corner, or a
corner with slight touches of wear might exist. Might have a small scratch
or a paint chip. Box may be opened while the individual element bags
remained sealed.
65-89 Numeric Grade (VERY GOOD)
Contains noticeable wear or defects. Packaging or booklet has frayed edges,
small creases, very small tears, moderate discoloration or fading. Minor
writing may be permissible as long as it does not detract from the content.
A few small scratches, paint chips, smudges, or faded decals are permissable.
40-64 Numeric Grade (GOOD)
Contains significant wear. Some yellowing of the package or booklet may have
occurred. Item may exhibit small tears or stains. More significant writing
on the package may be present, writing that may now be considered to detract
from the content.
15-39 Numeric Grade (POOR)
Heavy wear and damage is visible. Box or booklet may be creased, cracked,
torn, or curled. Original color gloss is faded. Item may be crushed or
dented in several areas. Plastic bubble packaging may show signs of dents or
crush marks. Pinholes, writing, or fraying may be evident. The value of the
item has been significantly compromised.
1-14 Numeric Grade (VERY POOR)
Piece is heavily damaged. Packaging or booklet is in almost useless
condition. Item may be cracked, scratched, water damaged, and otherwise
stained. The box, even if sealed, is so compromised as to perhaps be
missing small pieces. The booklet and promotional materials are almost
certainly equally useless. Such an item, if thought to comprise a complete
set, is ideally purchased only for the elements -- which are themselves
still presumed to be in usable condition while the rest may be clearly a loss.
Numeric Grading Criteria for Single Elements (or Bricks):
98-100 Numeric Grade (MINT)
Only the finest elements make this grade. Flawless, unused. Does not show
any yellowing, dents, scratches, or cracks. Appears flawless to the naked
eye and is in perfect working condition. If it is a printed element, the
printing is sharp and precise. No smudged or misaligned printing is allowed
in this category.
90-97 Numeric Grade (NEAR MINT)
Has a minor flaw that is noticeable only under close scrutiny. Very slight
scratches are permissable, as those that occur in newly opened sets. Printed
elements are still sharp and precise. Overall, the element retains its full
gloss and appeal as if new. The element is in perfect working condition.
65-89 Numeric Grade (VERY GOOD)
Element has noticeable wear or defects. A few small scratches may be
visible. If it is a printed element small paint chips, slight smudging or
fading is permissable. Overall, the element retains its appeal and still
looks good alongside pristine elements. The element is in perfect working
condition.
40-64 Numeric Grade (GOOD)
Significant wear is evident. Some minor yellowing may have occurred. Element
may exhibit minor staining or marking. The element is still in usable
condition, but may detract in a model comprised of otherwise pristine elements.
15-39 Numeric Grade (POOR)
Heavy wear and damage is visible. Original color gloss is faded. Item may be
minorly cracked, scratched, crushed, or dented, show teeth marks where it
may have been chewed, and even stained or marked. The value of the item has
been significantly compromised.
1-14 Numeric Grade (VERY POOR)
Element is heavily damaged. Element is in almost useless condition. Item
may be cracked, scratched, crushed, or dented, show teeth marks where it may
have been chewed, and even stained or marked. This element is not really in
usable condition any longer. This element is ready to be thrown away.
|
|
| |
<snipped it all>
Very good informative read, Rick. Reminds me of sports card grading
systems. I think it'd be cool to get into the habit of using something like
this; maybe a bit looser standards, but pretty close to.
-Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.appraisal, Chris Maddison writes:
> I think it'd be cool to get into the habit of using something like this; >maybe a bit looser standards, but pretty close to.
Any constructive criticism in developing these grading standards is very
much appreciated -- so thanks, Chris, for responding at all! The more
voices I hear the better I can improve the standards and hopefully arrive at
something that many will wish to use. Utility is the whole point of a
grading standard. If no one wants to use it I have wasted my time writing it.
And while I by no means wish to appear overly defensive about the grading
standards, I will defend the rigidity of the standards.
One has to establish a standard where a Numeric Grade of 1 represents
garbage and where a Numeric Grade of 100 represents an item in pristine
condition. It is then easy to grade a thing based upon a clearly understood
numeric scale. Rigidity in the standard is there to satisfy the needs of
someone who requires a detailed assessment of what s/he is thinking of
purchasing.
Consider this post: http://news.lugnet.com/market/buy-sell-trade/?n=12576
Does Kevin Johnston sound like a guy who wants to receive a Numeric Grade 90
set when he is offering to pay for a Numeric Grade 100 set? I don't think so...
I don't personally give a damn about boxes myself, and while I take care of
my booklets I am not overly obsessed about them either (I certainly don't
treat them as I do my rare illustrated books). What I do care about is the
quality of bricks. To each their own, I guess. Right? That difference in
what matters to each individual is what rigidity in the standards is
intended to protect.
Anyway, that's the only reason the standards are written in a hopefully
exacting manner. There shouldn't be any misunderstandings as to what
someone is specifying if they stipulate a number from 1-100 to describe the
condition of a thing.
Is that fair?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.appraisal, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.market.appraisal, Chris Maddison writes:
> > I think it'd be cool to get into the habit of using something like this; >maybe a bit looser standards, but pretty close to.
>
> Any constructive criticism in developing these grading standards is very
> much appreciated -- so thanks, Chris, for responding at all! The more
> voices I hear the better I can improve the standards and hopefully arrive at
> something that many will wish to use. Utility is the whole point of a
> grading standard. If no one wants to use it I have wasted my time writing it.
<snip>
> Anyway, that's the only reason the standards are written in a hopefully
> exacting manner. There shouldn't be any misunderstandings as to what
> someone is specifying if they stipulate a number from 1-100 to describe the
> condition of a thing.
>
> Is that fair?
Yup, 'tis fair. Also seems to be accurate, and sufficient, but I have to
confess that my eyes started to glaze over about halfway down, and I
personally will never use a grading system of that exactitude (either when
selling, or as a strict ruler when buying) This hobby is too casual for me
to meet such an exacting standard. I also feel that a good description is
better than a rating system; to use your example, Kevin Johnston's exacting
description was (to me) infinitely more useful that "Mint (100) only please"
would be - even though they're functionally equivalent descriptors.
For my intentions, "new" and "used" are the only descriptors I pay much
attention to.
$0.02
thanks,
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.appraisal, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Hey Y'all:
>
> I could use some feedback on the following. Please do not reply to me
> personally at my email address, but rather reply here so that others may
> take part in the discussion over the issues that may arise.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Hop-Frog
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
I personally like the idea of a numeric grading system that also uses the
labels you listed such as Very Good, Good, Poor, etc. Overall, your proposal
appears easy to use and understand, primarily for buyers.
The merchandising of new, unused elements may have problems conforming to
these
standards, however.
A seller of new parts would like to be able to list ALL items from a
particular
set as MINT without having to scrutinize any of the pieces. Many factors
exist
that can reduce the actual quality of pieces taken from MISB sets. It is well
known that variances in quality of Lego bricks do exist and that their
frequency appears to be increasing.
These variances in manufacture may be great enough that new pieces no longer
meet the grade of MINT and should be listed in a manner that reflects that.
This is not something that sellers would like to do, and I am sure they would
not do. Efficiency of the process would be seriously compromised and would
not
benefit the seller. And except in extreme circumstances, would not benefit
the
buyer, either.
As an example:
If a seller has 10 copies of a particular Lego set and wishes to sell all the
parts from all 10 copies, an accounting of the pieces available need only to
be
done from 1 copy of that set and ALL parts would be listed as MINT without any
inspection or scrutiny applied.
But what if 4 sets contained a certain element that does not meet the criteria
for MINT due to a manufacturing error. The proposed grading standards would
dictate that the 4 inferior pieces be listed only as NEAR MINT or VERY GOOD
while the remainder could still be listed as MINT.
This complicates the job of the seller. Now each and every piece must be
inspected and graded according to actual condition.
Expecting this level of scrutiny is unrealistic.
Personally, I do not like the term MINT; I do not use it when selling and I
place little value in the term when selecting items to buy. Understanding
that
variances do occur, I am satisfied with the Label of __NEW__ and that
resellers
do not have control over manufacturing variances.
These proposed guidelines do not address this issue at this time. I would
favor a change that would allow all NEW parts to be labeled as NEW with the
understanding that no grading or inspection of the parts has taken place. A
system that does not allow for this would not work, In my opinion.
__Kevin Salm__
....Lego brick enthusiast for over 20 years....
.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.appraisal, Kevin Salm writes:
> Overall, your proposal appears easy to use and understand, primarily for >buyers.
Well, the idea comes from things like the "Comic Book Buyers Guide", "Wizard
Magazine", or something like that. So yeah, the idea seems to be to protect
the buyers in some way. And while comic books can be worth hundreds of
thousands of dollars -- even Lego sets can get fairly pricey, so having a
standard seems fair enough to me.
> The merchandising of new, unused elements may have problems conforming to
> these standards, however. A seller of new parts would like to be able to list >ALL items from a particular set as MINT without having to scrutinize any of >the pieces.
I can see your point. I'll take my example from comic books again and
suggest that items intended for the $0.25 USD bin do not have to be
individually scrutinized. But by contrast, if you offering a single element
for over $0.50 USD each, perhaps some level of scrutiny is only fair -- such
pieces when bought in number can certainly add up to $$$. I wouldn't want
to receive a $12.00 Black Sword in 50 Numeric Grade. See what I mean?
So how about we consider the standards applicable only to items of some
significant value? All those 100s of common bricks can go ungraded for the
sake of sanity...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
|
