Subject:
|
Re: Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.appraisal
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:30:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2730 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.appraisal, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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:
> http://news.lugnet.com/market/appraisal/?n=510
>
> Anyway, I could use some feedback on this so any and all comments are
> welcome.
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 with the round barcoded clear plastic seal. This seal can be
defeated, the contents removed and replaced, and it can't be detected... It
also sometimes comes off or comes loose on its own. I don't have a concrete
suggestion there, just a concern.
Also I'm with Kevin on what new sets contain. I referred to this in my
definition of "missing piece risk" in my auction definitions (which I have
to reload somewhere, my voyager.net site is down). If you buy a MISB set,
you get what you get, which may include defective or missing pieces. To my
way of thinking if I am buying elements that came from new sets, what I want
to hear is that they were only handled the minimum necessary. I'll take my
risks after that.
But that's not a showstopper, it just needs to be dealt with somehow in the
discussion.
Overall this can be quite useful to the community. Thanks for doing it.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
