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
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
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"
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
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
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,