>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 the scale.
..Although, in your example, a reference card might be graded seperately
from the package itself, true? B-)
Hmm... how about making it "UD" (Unusable Defects)? The current
definition for "FP" even states this.
>Hm... I do see your point, but if it isn't good, wouldn't it be "poor"?
I'm
>speaking through the eyes of a collector: If it isn't in at least Good
>condition, I wouldn't want it except for parts or for just playing the game
>without regard to it's collectability.
True, and that's why there's only one rating below Good. But everything
below Good is not equally bad. "Fair to Poor" implies a declining range
of qualities. "Poor" implies poor, period. I really liked having those
two extra words at the beginning to say that, while it's still not an
acceptable collector's piece, it's not necessarily a total piece of junk.
Again I'll stress that I'm not in favor of a second rating below Good,
but there's a big difference between:
A package with a crease along one side and some wear/dents on the corners
and edges.
A package that's had coffee spilled on it, been accidentally set on fire,
then dropped from a 6th-story floor, left out in the rain, and finally
walked over by your friend Bob while wearing his golf shoes.
My concern is: I have a number of packages that, if I'm following the
Scale correctly, are just a bit too crushed/damaged to count as "Good"
-- "Good" being defined as *slightly* torn/crushed, where anything more
than *slightly* no longer meets that definition and must be dumped into
the lowest possible rating. If that rating is "Fair to Poor", it feels
like it fits, because I'd call it "Fair". If the rating is "Poor", I
don't know where to put it, because it's not quite Good but it's also
definitely not outright Poor. Lumping both Fair and Poor in the same
category doesn't bother me, as long as the *description* of that category
reflects this.
There's also the psychological impact of "Poor". I'm concerned as
Shoppekeeper that people will see that "P" marking and assume that
everything bearing it is not worth buying... which isn't necessarily
true if you're going to play it or don't care about package condition.
I know it makes me look neurotic, but I can't help it.
(I should probably mention that I wouldn't be protesting this quite so
vocally if I hadn't just spent 3 days of my life scoring packages, only
to have the description change ex-post-facto... or if the word "Fair"
had never been there to begin with.)
>What I'm interpreting from you is that the word "poor" is too harsh, almost
>like saying that the grades would go from Good to Crap. I'd suggest "Fair",
>but as previously discussed that shares a letter in the scale. I guess we
>could get around it like this:
>
>1. Continue using Poor as the final grade ;-)
If we went this route, I'd probably broaden my interpretation of "Good"
a little, and allow the not-quite-Good but not-quite-Poor packages to
cling to the Good rating.
>2. Think of another word for the final grade, like, um, Mediocre? :-)
Lee's "Inferior" works for me. Or the U/UC/UD I suggested.
>3. Keep Fair as the final grade and standardize on 2-letter abbreviations:
MS,
>NM, FI, VG, GO, FA
The problem with this is it doesn't really resolve Hugh's original issue,
which is that "F" and "FP" were too similar. I have a feeling he's right,
people are going to get "FI" and "FA" mixed up, just like they'd get "F"
and "FP" confused.
Anyway, let me know your thoughts, and sorry to be a total pain in the @$$.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
