> Chris: I made sure to describe Factory-Sealed to include original
store-sealed
> packages as well, to cover early sealed Infocom games that never had
*factory*
> seals. (Just out of curiousity, were there other publishers as well that
> relied on the store to do initial wraps?)
Not to my knowledge. The Infocom greys were unique because you could either
wrap the whole box, or just the inner tray (which is what Infocom did for
some
titles) so that the retailer could choose whether to leave the browsie part
open
for potential customers to skim through.
> - Good (G): More severe defects (box slightly torn or crushed) or minor
> missing components (reference card or catalog missing); acceptable only
if
> the item is hard to find or highly desired by the collector.
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 also noticed on Moby that you include "Item Missing" on the list. I know
your system proposes rating individual components and that this is useful
for indicating just what's missing in Moby's database. However I was
wondering if you'd object if, for the Shoppe, I were to use "IM" as an
extension to the normal ratings you've given above. See, let me explain:
I was hoping to incorporate these ratings at the end of my item
descriptions,
but to keep the text detailing the specific defects. That way, somebody
just browsing for a NM title could simply scan the ratings, check out the
ones with "NM" and quickly screen out everything else.
My concern is, while I want to use Moby's rating system, I don't want to
have to essentially adopt Moby's *database* format in my descriptions,
listing every prop, every condition for those props, etc. (The Shoppe page
is long enough as it is, plus it'd be too time-consuming at the moment for
me to go through and rewrite it all.)
So I guess my question is, on the Shoppe page, could I have ratings such
as: "VG, IM" to describe the whole package, and then detail why said
item is "VG" and which items are missing, while still conforming to the
Moby standard?
> 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 merely equals hard-to-find. Example: Awhile back I
bought
a small stack of "Beatle Quest" games from the author for a low-low price.
The game was only released in the UK, only for Commodore 64, only on
cassette, the author's personal stock is now depleted, and I have less than
10 copies left. That's rare. But it's not valuable, because I still *have*
those copies left -- nobody seems to want the damn thing, and the most
I've ever gotten for one was $15. Quite a contrast from the Starcross
saucer, of which far more were produced, but which consistently fetch
$500+ at auction. It seems more to be the combination of scarcity and
the number of collectors who want it that add up to a valuable game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
