|
|
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.appraisal)
|
|
