| |
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. Please respond in this forum so that others might see your
comments and see what has gone before. Besides additions or corrections to
the proposed standards, I am seeking feedback as to whether or not people
are inclined to use such a grading standard in the first place.
If I get some approval of the standards overall, I will clean them up a bit
and present them in a more appealing html format. I view this as merely the
first written draft.
Just to get you up to speed on the discussion so far...
Chris thinks the standards might be too rigid. Kevin thinks that the
standards may be too complicated to apply to all bricks esp. if they are new
out of the package (a kind of "hassle" factor). James thinks that the only
useful descriptions are "new" and "used" and the rest is best left to chance
as he is a casual hobbyist.
Here's what I think in response to these comments:
The rigidity of the standards is intended to encourage precision in item
descriptions on the part of the seller and this is probably a good thing
(newbie sellers on eBay could certainly use some help in this area). At the
same time, and as per Kevin's comments, I have suggested that the standards
might apply only to items where it makes sense: single elements valuing more
than $0.50 USD and complete, or semi-complete, sets where condition is a
factor in valuing the item. It is suggested that the standards should not
apply to items valuing less than $0.50 USD as it quickly becomes cumbersome
to scrutinize every item and the return for the effort is minimal. And
while I am sensitive to James' approach, I have been burned often enough and
over enough money that I think we NEED some kind of easily referenced
grading system to facilitate trading and purchases amongst construction toy
enthusiasts.
I apologize for the length of this post, but I think it occurs in pursuit of
a worthwhile cause...
Thanks in advance,
--Hop-Frog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposed Construction Toy Grading Standards
Construction toys are generally sold such that they are comprised of three
main components: the elements (or bricks) themselves, an instructional
booklet and promotional materials, and a box or some other packaging
material containing the whole. Larger sets may have top opening flaps,
plastic windows, and certain elements displayed in plastic bubble packages.
Instructional booklets come in a variety of forms: single folded sheets,
small stapled booklets (which may or may not have been folded in the
original sealed packaging), and even large magazine-like volumes.
Promotional materials may include catalogues of product lines and even such
things as posters. The elements are often packed in several sealed plastic
bags which may themselves include additional instructional materials. A
Mint in Sealed Box set (hereafter MISB) will certainly have ALL of the
materials originally found in the box as if it had been purchased new.
Below you will find grading criteria suitable for each component of a
complete set whether it is new, used, or somewhere in between. It is
recommended that each component be graded separately and that one do so with
a very critical eye to spotting defects.
It is a reality that no set that has already been opened can be considered
in the same category as a set that is still in its factory sealed box --
there is simply no way to track that all of the constituent elements are the
same ones that originally came in the set (what some have termed "the soul
of a set"). With this in mind, only a set in Mint in Sealed Box (MISB)
condition may considered truly mint condition. All other sets, however well
maintained, should only be considered Near Mint or graded to an even less
generous description as the "soul" of a set vanishes with the opening of the
package. Grade accordingly.
In considering single components, such as a single plastic element, one
should grade very severely. Consider that fact that even elements removed
from a freshly opened MISB set can be in less than desirable condition --
already marred with scuffs and scratch marks from the other elements in the
package. Again, such elements should be graded certainly no higher than
Near Mint. It is not the status of the element just removed from a sealed
package that makes it mint when it is considered alone -- it is the
condition of the individual element itself. Nothing else matters in such
circumstances, regardless of whether the item under consideration a single
element, an instructional booklet, or even a box being sold on its own --
How does this one item measure up? is the only question.
Special attention should be given to clearly damaged components. Be honest
in dealings with others concerning such defects as it is the case that many
construction toy builders often collect whole sets with a specific element
or short list of elements in mind. Such a person would be dismayed to
discover that the elements that they have paid top dollar for were, in fact,
in marginal or unusable condition.
A sample description might look like this (the example considers an already
opened set), note that the paranthetical notation is intended as the value
of a Numeric Grade:
"Set #XXXX Ultimate Construction Toy Set"
Box (55): Fine
Elements (64): Fine overall
Booklet (94): Near Mint
Problems: One minifigure arm moves freely and hangs loosely, one antenna
has a slight bend."
All Purpose Numeric Grading Criteria for Complete Sets, Boxes, Booklets,
Promotional Materials, and Posters: (please use your best judgement to
discern which listed characteristics apply to the item you are attempting to
grade):
98-100 Numeric Grade (MINT, or also MISB for Mint In Sealed Box)
Only the finest sets make this grade. Flawless, unused. May have a price
tag, but it does not damage the overall appearance of the box or booklet.
Does not show any yellowing, dents, scratches, tears, creases, or cracks.
Where visible in the box, loose elements appear flawless to the naked eye
and are in working order. Set is in sealed condition!
90-97 Numeric Grade (NEAR MINT, or also MIB for Mint In Box)
Has a minor flaw that is noticeable only under close scrutiny. Slight
scratches. A small curl in the packaging or booklet, one fuzzy corner, or a
corner with slight touches of wear might exist. Might have a small scratch
or a paint chip. Box may be opened while the individual element bags
remained sealed.
65-89 Numeric Grade (VERY GOOD)
Contains noticeable wear or defects. Packaging or booklet has frayed edges,
small creases, very small tears, moderate discoloration or fading. Minor
writing may be permissible as long as it does not detract from the content.
A few small scratches, paint chips, smudges, or faded decals are permissable.
40-64 Numeric Grade (GOOD)
Contains significant wear. Some yellowing of the package or booklet may have
occurred. Item may exhibit small tears or stains. More significant writing
on the package may be present, writing that may now be considered to detract
from the content.
15-39 Numeric Grade (POOR)
Heavy wear and damage is visible. Box or booklet may be creased, cracked,
torn, or curled. Original color gloss is faded. Item may be crushed or
dented in several areas. Plastic bubble packaging may show signs of dents or
crush marks. Pinholes, writing, or fraying may be evident. The value of the
item has been significantly compromised.
1-14 Numeric Grade (VERY POOR)
Piece is heavily damaged. Packaging or booklet is in almost useless
condition. Item may be cracked, scratched, water damaged, and otherwise
stained. The box, even if sealed, is so compromised as to perhaps be
missing small pieces. The booklet and promotional materials are almost
certainly equally useless. Such an item, if thought to comprise a complete
set, is ideally purchased only for the elements -- which are themselves
still presumed to be in usable condition while the rest may be clearly a loss.
Numeric Grading Criteria for Single Elements (or Bricks):
98-100 Numeric Grade (MINT)
Only the finest elements make this grade. Flawless, unused. Does not show
any yellowing, dents, scratches, or cracks. Appears flawless to the naked
eye and is in perfect working condition. If it is a printed element, the
printing is sharp and precise. No smudged or misaligned printing is allowed
in this category.
90-97 Numeric Grade (NEAR MINT)
Has a minor flaw that is noticeable only under close scrutiny. Very slight
scratches are permissable, as those that occur in newly opened sets. Printed
elements are still sharp and precise. Overall, the element retains its full
gloss and appeal as if new. The element is in perfect working condition.
65-89 Numeric Grade (VERY GOOD)
Element has noticeable wear or defects. A few small scratches may be
visible. If it is a printed element small paint chips, slight smudging or
fading is permissable. Overall, the element retains its appeal and still
looks good alongside pristine elements. The element is in perfect working
condition.
40-64 Numeric Grade (GOOD)
Significant wear is evident. Some minor yellowing may have occurred. Element
may exhibit minor staining or marking. The element is still in usable
condition, but may detract in a model comprised of otherwise pristine elements.
15-39 Numeric Grade (POOR)
Heavy wear and damage is visible. Original color gloss is faded. Item may be
minorly cracked, scratched, crushed, or dented, show teeth marks where it
may have been chewed, and even stained or marked. The value of the item has
been significantly compromised.
1-14 Numeric Grade (VERY POOR)
Element is heavily damaged. Element is in almost useless condition. Item
may be cracked, scratched, crushed, or dented, show teeth marks where it may
have been chewed, and even stained or marked. This element is not really in
usable condition any longer. This element is ready to be thrown away.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
