Jim Leonard stated:
>
>Yep: http://www.mobygames.com/info/MobyScale Is this link not in the version
>you have? If not, it may not be the most current.
Rather than try to dig up my own copy, I just searched on Google.
This link isn't indexed by Google, nor does it seem to have any pages
linking
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Also, is there not an official page for the MobyScale at
> MobyGames.com? I can't find one and Google returns the ones at YOIS
> and GOTCHA.
Yep: http://www.mobygames.com/info/MobyScale Is this link not in the version
you have? If not, it may not be the most current.
I would say that yes; the book is ED. However, if you're using the
abbreviated form and grading the entire contents of the game with one grade,
I would not list the entire contents as ED. If everything else was F (for
example), it might bring down the contents to VG or G (it's subjective, of
cour
1. Personally I never use [MS(T)]. A tear in the wrap exposes the package
to scuffing, shelf wear, oxygen, etc., just as if it were off completely
torn off. Hence the best rating I will use with the "T" modifier is "NM".
(In other words, I use "mint-sealed" to mean no defects not only with the
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> My take:
>
> - The circular hole is generally intentional and is not a defect in any way.
> It would be classified as MS. In fact, that hole is a good indicator of
> original shrinkwrap.
If it is a PERFECT circular (or oval) hole. An irregular one larger than 1cm
in diame
My take:
- The circular hole is generally intentional and is not a defect in any way.
It would be classified as MS. In fact, that hole is a good indicator of
original shrinkwrap.
- I add descriptive notes to the title. For example "Winger Commander
(OEM)" vs "Wing Commander."
- Same for autog
Ack, I can't believe I didn't thank everyone as well. Thanks to all that
contributed comments, no matter how large or small!
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> It looks awesome! And is now up on my site as well. Thanks Jim...and
> thanks to all who helped make this possible.
>
> -Original Message-
It looks awesome! And is now up on my site as well. Thanks Jim...and
thanks to all who helped make this possible.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Leonard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 6:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[SWCollect] MobyScale 1
> I wonder how you get through the day NOT supporting BM. ;-)
BM is optional, you said so yourself. I choose not to use it. B-)
--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing l
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> >2. The C modifier is mainly for unopened packages, although you might
> >arguably use it when rating a box. (Will this lead to people
> >(incorrectly, IMO) rating boxes as "NM, (C)"?)
>
> This I'd interpreted to mean any box, since it doesn't specifically
> say sealed
That was it for me.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Leonard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 8:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.3.0 -- please review
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Jim Leona
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>> 3. The IM and MMC modifiers are used when grading an entire package,
>> although from the examples IM can be used as a separate "grade" when
>> there's no item of which to state the condition.
>
>Uh, I don't understand what you mean by "IM can be used as a separate
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Jim Leonard boldly stated:
> >
>
> >Each grade can also have a modifier associated with it:
> >
> >- Sealed (S): Sealed with original factory (or store) shrinkwrap or sticker.
>
> >- Compressed (C): Package has been crushed or compressed.
> >
> >- Torn Wrap (T): Sealed
>1. The S and T modifiers are only used for grading an unopened package.
That's how I understood it. If the wrap is torn enough for the box to
be opened, it can't be rated sealed. "T", if I follow correctly, means
sealed (not opened) but the wrap isn't perfect.
>2. The C modifier is mainly f
Okay, you've convinced me. Makes sense.
I do have to say, though...
>use BM when you know it because that condition affects the value to some
>collectors.
[...]
>I guess the point of BM (and why I support it)
[...]
>Ultimately, you can ignore BM if you don't think you'll never need/use it.
..H
Wednesday, November 01, 2000 3:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.3.0 -- please review
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>Each grade can also have a modifier associated with it:
>
>- Sealed (S): Sealed with original factory (or store) shrinkwrap or stic
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>Each grade can also have a modifier associated with it:
>
>- Sealed (S): Sealed with original factory (or store) shrinkwrap or sticker.
>- Compressed (C): Package has been crushed or compressed.
>
>- Torn Wrap (T): Sealed package has tears in the shrinkwrap.
>
>- It
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> >This is true, but you don't have to use the modifier if the status isn't
> know.
> >In other words, you'd only use Bad Media if you *knew* the media was bad
> (of
> >course, it would be painful to note such a condition, but you'd do it in
> good
> >conscience if you were
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Oh, and, but now that my initial reaction has passed (again, I'm sorry,
:) Our internal applications at the bank have, coincidentally, abbreviations
of GAS and FECES, so it was only natural (snicker) to non-coincidentally name
our internet security team the Firewall Adm
>This is true, but you don't have to use the modifier if the status isn't
know.
>In other words, you'd only use Bad Media if you *knew* the media was bad
(of
>course, it would be painful to note such a condition, but you'd do it in
good
>conscience if you were listing the item for sale or trade).
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Oh, and, but now that my initial reaction has passed (again, I'm sorry,
> Hugh), I thought
> of one additional thing to expand upon:
>
> > - You would have to check your media on a regular basis to make sure it is
> > still working (even if you don't normally touch the p
Oh, and, but now that my initial reaction has passed (again, I'm sorry,
Hugh), I thought
of one additional thing to expand upon:
> - You would have to check your media on a regular basis to make sure it is
> still working (even if you don't normally touch the package), and in doing
so you would h
> Maybe we want to make Bad Media (BM) a modifier?
*Snicker*...
Um, it's a good idea, makes sense, but... could we maybe find a different
abbreviation? I just can't help thinking of the *other* thing "BM" stands
for when I see it. (I know, I'm so freakin' immature. B-)
Sorry... B-)
--
to make Bad Media (BM) a modifier?
-Original Message-
From: C.E. Forman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 1:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.3.0 -- please review
Looks great to me. No problem with the not-in-all-package
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Looks great to me. No problem with the not-in-all-packages items, I can do
> without and it'd be less confusing anyway.
>
> Any last-minute changes, speak up now!
I have no further changes... anyone else?
--
http://www.MobyGames.com/
The world's most comprehensive his
Looks great to me. No problem with the not-in-all-packages items, I can do
without and it'd be less confusing anyway.
Any last-minute changes, speak up now!
--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed
C.E. Forman boldly stated:
>
>Also, an optional modifier we might consider adding is one for those =
>rare items included in some, but not all, game packages, for example the =
>lapel pin and Ral Partha order form in the first 5000 copies of =
>Infocom's "BattleTech: The Crescent Hawk's Inception"
I agree with everything below. I too am waiting for the final scale (with
the changes we last agreed upon) so I can upload my updated site.
By the way, I have a Dragon Wars with the poster. It is the same as the
box cover (but 4 times bigger). Let me know if you want any details.
Best regar
ject: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.8
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> C.E. Forman boldly stated:
> >
> >These are fine with me. I would also like to add a modifier for promotional
> >/
> >dealer demo copies of games, as I have several of these in my own collection
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Can it be abbreviated to "XD" instead of "ED"? We don't want to offend
> people named Ed by associating their name with a negative rating, plus "X"
> is 20 times cooler than "E".
>
> (This is a joke; I'm not serious like I was with the protest against "P".
> B-)
Scaril
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> C.E. Forman boldly stated:
> >
> >These are fine with me. I would also like to add a modifier for promotional
> >/
> >dealer demo copies of games, as I have several of these in my own collection
> >and come across copies for the Shoppe as well. ("P" or "D" would do.)
>
C.E. Forman boldly stated:
>
>These are fine with me. I would also like to add a modifier for promotional
>/
>dealer demo copies of games, as I have several of these in my own collection
>and come across copies for the Shoppe as well. ("P" or "D" would do.)
I think that departs from the purpose
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 8:45 PM
Subject: RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.8
> Okay, I am getting around to converting my scale to Moby Scale and I have
a
> few discrepancies that I wanted to bring up. I'm not saying we need to
&g
Oh yes, I would also like to suggest "(IM)" as an abbreviation for Item
Missing and "(S)" for Sealed.
-Original Message-
From: Hugh Falk [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 9:45 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SW
Okay, I am getting around to converting my scale to Moby Scale and I have a
few discrepancies that I wanted to bring up. I'm not saying we need to
address these in the scale, but if we don't, I will likely deviate slightly
to accommodate these. They all deal with modifiers, and since they are
serious like I was with the protest against "P".
B-)
- Original Message -
From: Jim Leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)
> On Fri, Sep 29,
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Lee K. Seitz wrote:
> Jim Leonard boldly stated:
> >
> >If noone has any objections to Undesirable Defects, I'll make the change.
> >Naysayers, you have a couple of days to suggest something better. :-)
>
> I prefer C.E.'s Excess Defects, but I'm gettin
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>If noone has any objections to Undesirable Defects, I'll make the change.
>Naysayers, you have a couple of days to suggest something better. :-)
I prefer C.E.'s Excess Defects, but I'm getting tired of quibbling
over it (as I'm sure you guys are).
--
Lee K. Seitz
Please send out the latest version when ready.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Leonard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)
Hugh Falk wrote
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> Undesirable Defects works for me, but again, I don't find it any more
> palatable (to a consumer) than poor. I also think Undesirable is fine on
> its own (without "Defects).
I'd like to keep the "defects" since otherwise it's an opinion that the entire
item is completely u
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Jim Leonard boldly stated:
> >
> >Undesireable Defects? Anyone?
>
> I dunno. It's not bad, but it begs the question: What's a desirable
> defect? 8)
>
> BTW, I realized a problem with my Inferior suggestions. It might be
> confused with Item Missing. So then I tho
2000 9:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Hmm... how about making it "UD" (Unusable Defects)? The current
> definition for "FP" even states this.
Unusable De
>Undesirable Defects is a little more palatable to me... how does that
wording
>sit with you?
This works for me. Lee, if it's redundant... would "Excess Defects" sound
better?
(That one's fun to say three times real fast! B-)
>I severely hope you don't have anything in this condition ;-)
I use
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>Undesireable Defects? Anyone?
I dunno. It's not bad, but it begs the question: What's a desirable
defect? 8)
BTW, I realized a problem with my Inferior suggestions. It might be
confused with Item Missing. So then I thought why not change it to
just Missing, but
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Hmm... how about making it "UD" (Unusable Defects)? The current
> definition for "FP" even states this.
Unusable Defects implies both an opinion *and* seems just as harsh as Poor.
Hm... I'll give this some more thought.
Undesirable Defects is a little more palatable
- Original Message -
> Another question: Am I correct that MS can apply to things other than
> the box. For example, I have a copy of Star Saga: One that's been
> opened, but there are two sets of manuals inside that are still
> shrinkwrapped. So I could list the box as VG and the manu
>Unusable to Collectors isn't accurate in my opinion, because even a Poor
>package can still be usuable to collectors ("Now I have that reference card
>I've been looking for!", etc.) Unusable to Collectors also implies a bit
of an
>opinion, something I was trying to get away from in suggesting th
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Another question: Am I correct that MS can apply to things other than
> the box. For example, I have a copy of Star Saga: One that's been
> opened, but there are two sets of manuals inside that are still
> shrinkwrapped. So I could list the box as VG and the manuals a
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>2. Think of another word for the final grade, like, um, Mediocre? :-)
How about Bad (or maybe Inferior)?
>3. Keep Fair as the final grade and standardize on 2-letter abbreviations: MS,
>NM, FI, VG, GO, FA
This would work for me as well.
Another question: Am I c
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> I disagree... moving from "Good" to "Poor" feels like quite a gap.
> I have a number of packages that I wouldn't quite call good, since
> they're not in acceptable condition to the average collector, but
> I wouldn't go so far as to label them poor. Having the "Fair" in
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Just one little modification I'd like to see: Move "IM" (Item Missing) to
> the bottom of the list, as a modifier (alongside "Sealed"). Just seems
> like a logical place for it, since it further describes the condition of
> the game.
Agreed; I've made this modification.
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> But there isn't a Fair right now anyway. There is only FP. It's not like
> you're getting rid of a grade between Good and Poor. If we need two grades
> below Good (which I don't think we do) then we should have 2, not lump them
> together under FP. Otherwise Poor is good
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> UC works for me, but I prefer Poor...it's more intuitive, but I wouldn't argue too
>hard for it. Let's take a vote.
Unusable to Collectors isn't accurate in my opinion, because even a Poor
package can still be usuable to collectors ("Now I have that reference card
I've bee
Hugh Falk boldly stated:
>
>UC works for me, but I prefer Poor...it's more intuitive, but I wouldn't argue too
>hard for it. Let's take a vote.
I'm with C.E.
--
Lee K. Seitz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/
Wanted: | Visit the Classic Video Game
#x27;t
shake the discomfort of "Good is only one step above Poor".
Make sense? Sort of?
- Original Message -
From: Hugh Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6
> But t
fort of "Good is only one step above Poor".
Make sense? Sort of?
- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6
> But there isn't a Fair r
or. Anything below Poor isn't worth mentioning.
Hugh
-Original Message-
From: C.E. Forman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6
I disagree... moving from "Good" to &quo
a way that would handle both, though I can't think of it
at the moment. Maybe change the "Fair" in FP to something that
starts with another letter?
- Original Message -
From: Hugh Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:50 PM
Sorry for a seriously belated question here. In all of the back and forth,
didn't we change: "Fair to Poor (FP)" to something else? Regardless, I
remember that one change in particular was to change VG+ to F (Fine)
because we didn't want confusion, but now we have 2 that start with F.
I sug
>
>Just tell him the situation called for him to put on his
>peril-sensitive sunglasses and then he wouldn't notice.
>
>OR
>
>Tell him that, in order to make it up to him, you'd already included
>"no tea" in the package free of charge.
>
If you ever need to translate something there is a neat site
C.E. Forman boldly stated:
>
>Sold a guy a shrinked "Hitchhiker's Guide", which he proceeded to
>open (the horror! The HORROR!!), and found there was no fluff
>inside. Original shrink, had the sticker to prove it.
Just tell him the situation called for him to put on his
peril-sensitive sunglass
Sorry; I thought this was implied, but we can't assume anything in defining
this. I have made the modifications and the scale now stands at version
0.2.6. When the scale document stops getting modified for a week or so, I'll
post it to the list again so that everyone has the most recent version.
vision to allow people to spot incomplete
packages easier.
And could the "Sealed" notation have an abbreviation of "S"?
- Original Message -
From: Lee K. Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 3:31 PM
Subject: R
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>Note that, for all forms
>suggested above, there was only one grade listed for Mint Sealed items.
>This is because all pieces of a sealed item must also be in the same
>condition, since the item was never opened.
This now needs to be changed. First, add some example
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Actually, one more little nagging change? Could we eliminate the hyphen
> altogether, making it "FP"? (Just so there's no chance of mix-up with "F".)
> Either way works for me, though, LMK your thoughts.
I agree with that. Done (but I'll spare the list a resend until
Actually, one more little nagging change? Could we eliminate the hyphen
altogether, making it "FP"? (Just so there's no chance of mix-up with "F".)
Either way works for me, though, LMK your thoughts.
- Original Message -
From: Jim Leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> I would change it to say "...sealed WITH original factory..."
Done.
This and some other little niggly bits have been changed, so I'll post another
revision of the scale document in a week or so.
BTW: Just in case it wasn't implied, you *can* reproduce this document, put i
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Jim Leonard boldly stated:
> >
> >:) I'm trying to stay away from the term "Mint" since it's so
> >overused/misused. Let's take a vote: Who here would like to see
> >"Factory-Sealed" on the scale be renamed to "Mint Sealed"? A yay or nay from
> >everyone will be enou
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Question about "Fine": If we change it to "F", it will be the same as
> "Fair".
>
> ..or do "Fair" and "Poor" always go together, hence a single entry on
> the scale (F/P)? And if that's the case, would you mind if I wrote that
> as "F-P" on the Shoppe pages, as it's ea
Question about "Fine": If we change it to "F", it will be the same as
"Fair".
..or do "Fair" and "Poor" always go together, hence a single entry on
the scale (F/P)? And if that's the case, would you mind if I wrote that
as "F-P" on the Shoppe pages, as it's easier to decipher "F-P/NM" than
"F/P/
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>>
>> FYI, the scale for comics is Pristine Mint, Mint, Near Mint, Very
>> Fine, Fine (FN), Very Good, Good, Fair (f), Poor, and Coverless. The
>
>See, that sounds just crazy to me. That many grades means that the subtle
>differences, if any,
I would change it to say "...sealed WITH original factory..."
-Original Message-
From: Jim Leonard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 1:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The reason I mentioned shrink-wrapped was because the description of FS (don't have
>it handy now) uses the words "shrink-wrapped" in it somewhere, which it shouldn't.
Checking... Version 0.2 (current version) says:
- Factory Sealed (FS): No noticable defects and
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>:) I'm trying to stay away from the term "Mint" since it's so
>overused/misused. Let's take a vote: Who here would like to see
>"Factory-Sealed" on the scale be renamed to "Mint Sealed"? A yay or nay from
>everyone will be enough.
Yay.
--
Lee K. Seitz * [EMAI
I second Hugh's opinion.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 10:22 PM
Subject: RE: Vote (Was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale, version 0.2)
> Yay.
>
> Mint Sealed should be as close to perfect a
Yea -- a sealed item can be both mint or utterly destroyed. "Mint sealed" adds a
level of refinement to the grade.
Chris
Jim Leonard wrote:
> "C.E. Forman" wrote:
> >
> > > Now that I think about it, if I were doing such a scale (and I've been
> > > thinking about formalizing my personal scale
: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 11:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Vote (Was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale, version 0.2)
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> > Now that I think about it, if I were doing such a scale (and I've been
> > thinking about formalizing my personal s
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Okay, this version fits my current needs, so I can stop bitching now. B-)
Never a bitch! I specifically created this list so that we could all agree on
the scale before it goes "final". I *wanted* your comments and suggestions
(and I see I have more to read, so I'll s
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> > Now that I think about it, if I were doing such a scale (and I've been
> > thinking about formalizing my personal scale for video game cartridges
> > for a long time), I would not make "factory sealed" a condition, but
> > rather something that should be noted separatel
Chris Newman wrote:
>
> Now that's unusual because in the comic book world, at least as I remember it from
> my collecting days 20 years ago, a "fine" rating is strictly middle of the road!
> It is quite interesting the way related media can evolve along different paths.
Agreed. The numismatic
The reason I mentioned shrink-wrapped was because the description of FS (don't have it
handy now) uses the words "shrink-wrapped" in it somewhere, which it shouldn't.
My other point was that FS isn't a good description of the condition. It sounds like
you're saying (as I was)that FS means "no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Looks really good to me. One point I'll mention is that Factory/Store sealed
>doesn't necessarily mean shrink-wrapped at all. Which is why I used the term
>"sealed" instead of "shrinked." Many packages (especially now-a-days) are sealed
>only with a little quart
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> > And what the hell is the difference between Mint and Pristine Mint? Can't
> > there be only one Mint?
>
> I totally agree. The term "mint" is so overused anyway (second only to
> "rare"),
> who needs "mint", "mint mint", "MINT mint mint", etc.? B-)
You forgot "mint
> That's a very good point, and I'll change the wording of that for version
0.3.
> Can I have your permission to quote sections of the above?
Of course.
--
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
t
> Like Chris, I have a slight problem with pre-published determinations of
dollar
> value. A copy of Clandestiny can be in perfect condition, and rare, but
be
> nearly worthless monetary-wise because it's such a crappy game. Or, a
> real-world example: A dealer can list something in bad conditi
> And what the hell is the difference between Mint and Pristine Mint? Can't
> there be only one Mint?
I totally agree. The term "mint" is so overused anyway (second only to
"rare"),
who needs "mint", "mint mint", "MINT mint mint", etc.? B-)
--
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Again if you're using this to grade the overall package I'd personally
> prefer
> to avoid grouping missing ref cards in here, as they're minor and shouldn't
> significantly devalue an otherwise VG+/NM package. Maybe clarify this?
I fixed this in the version 0.2 that I
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> C.E. Forman boldly stated:
> >
> >> Q: Why isn't "Rare" on the grading scale?
> >> A: "Rare" isn't an indication of condition; it's an indication of value.
> >
> >This is nit-picking, but I would like to point out that rare does not
> >necessarily
> >equal valuable, it m
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> FYI, the scale for comics is Pristine Mint, Mint, Near Mint, Very
> Fine, Fine (FN), Very Good, Good, Fair (f), Poor, and Coverless. The
See, that sounds just crazy to me. That many grades means that the subtle
differences, if any, between Very Fine and Fine get argue
Now that's unusual because in the comic book world, at least as I remember it from
my collecting days 20 years ago, a "fine" rating is strictly middle of the road!
It is quite interesting the way related media can evolve along different paths.
Chris
P.S. Sorry for not contributing to the group!
> Now that I think about it, if I were doing such a scale (and I've been
> thinking about formalizing my personal scale for video game cartridges
> for a long time), I would not make "factory sealed" a condition, but
> rather something that should be noted separately. (Partially as an
> explanati
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:36:39 -0500, you wrote:
>Okay, this version fits my current needs, so I can stop bitching now. B-)
>
>Replacing VG+ with FIne was definitely a wise move -- thanks to whoever
>first suggested it... Lee, I think.
>
In the used book world, FINE is the highest rating without a
Okay, this version fits my current needs, so I can stop bitching now. B-)
Replacing VG+ with FIne was definitely a wise move -- thanks to whoever
first suggested it... Lee, I think.
- Original Message -
From: Jim Leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] boldly stated:
>
>Sorry, meant to say "Jim,..." below.
Well now you've gotten my opinion anyway. Thanks for clarifying,
though.
--
Lee K. Seitz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/
Wanted: | Visit the Classic Video Games Nexus
Vint
[EMAIL PROTECTED] boldly stated:
>
>Lee, any thoughts on my comment that "Sealed" isn't really a representation of
>quality?
Uh (Thinks: Why did Hugh single me out? I only made like one or
two comments on the scale.)
Now that I think about it, if I were doing such a scale (and I've been
Sorry, meant to say "Jim,..." below.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Lee, any thoughts on my comment that "Sealed" isn't really a representation of
>quality?
Hugh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's an updated version of the Scale document, still a work in progress. The
most significant change was
Lee, any thoughts on my comment that "Sealed" isn't really a representation of quality?
Hugh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's an updated version of the Scale document, still a work in progress. The
most significant change was based on a suggestion from Tom Hlavendy and Lee and
others on the m
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Since you're asking, I really think you shouldn't have two conditions
> with such similar names. I think it will lead to confusion. Perhaps
> they should be FS, NM, VG, G, Fine, and Poor instead. (VG+ becomes
> VG, VG become G, G becomes Fine, and drop the Fair off F/
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> This is a great idea! I have a large number of Infocom "Cutthroats"
> packages in varying condition that I could donate scans of.
That is too wicked, Chris. I will ask you for pictures of those when I get the
full page online.
--
http://www.MobyGames.com/
The world's
Looks really good to me. One point I'll mention is that Factory/Store sealed doesn't
necessarily mean shrink-wrapped at all. Which is why I used the term "sealed" instead
of "shrinked." Many packages (especially now-a-days) are sealed only with a little
quarter-sized sticker on the top and b
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
