Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1

2000-09-12 Thread Jim Leonard
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 it

Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1

2000-08-27 Thread C.E. Forman
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

[SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1

2000-08-18 Thread Jim Leonard
I've started using the grading scale I previously asked your comments for (new guys, check the mailing list archive URL listed below), and I have it on good authority that C. E. Forman and others will start adopting it as well. So, to make it pretty much official, I've drafted an official "spec"

Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1

2000-08-18 Thread Lee K. Seitz
Jim Leonard boldly stated: The Official MobyGames Software Collectables Condition Grading Scale Version 0.1 - Background: another wildly overused the term "MINT!", etc. This lack of standardization can lead to confusion

Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1

2000-08-18 Thread C.E. Forman
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

Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1

2000-08-18 Thread C.E. Forman
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/P.) This is a good point,