Subject:
|
Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.appraisal
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:37:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2235 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
