Subject:
|
Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.appraisal
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 06:41:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2051 times
|
| |
|
|
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....
.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.appraisal)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.appraisal)
|
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
|
|
|
|
