 | | Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
|
Hey Y'all: I am not the cross-posting genius or anything, so forgive me if this annoys. I just thought that the first time I posted this I might have pigeonholed it a little too much. The original of this post is available here: (URL) I could use (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.market.appraisal)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
|
Looks good to me! --Gary jedi*mugin alaskanjedi to many aliases to list in this sig.... richard marchetti <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:GLqJo3.IyD@lugnet.com... (...) annoys. (...) it (...) to (...) bit (...) the (...) new (...) only (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.appraisal)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
|
(...) I think these are an excellent piece of work. Where I think more verbiage might be helpful is in a discussion of what exactly "sealed" means. Sets are sealed in many different ways depending on the technology. One of the more common ways is (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.appraisal)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
|
This is very useful and I wish it was around a fews months ago when I had problems with a buyer. So with all this being said, if a seal looks like it might have been moved or opened, where would this fit in the categories? A 98 perhaps? Thanks for (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.appraisal)
|
