Subject:
|
Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.appraisal
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 06:13:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1952 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
| (...) <snip> (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.appraisal)
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
