Well, I'm all for having a standard usage for the scale, which would be how
90% of everyone should use it. Of course people can deviate, but that is
their choice, and hopefully they would call attention to it and reasons why on
their site. I think I could conform my collection to any scale, and
> Because different collectors have slightly different needs. The ratings
all
> mean the same thing (i.e. they are universal) but how people employ them
can
> very slightly, as we've seen in this discussion.
Yea I understand. I guess I misinterpreted the reasoning behind inventing
the Mobyscale
> Why was it designed to be flexible so individual collectors could tailor
it
> to individual needs? I might be mistaken, but wasn't the scale designed
to
> be universal? Being able to tailor anything universal creates confusion,
> no?
Because different collectors have slightly different needs.
> I also think NM (S) is still valid. What if you have a defect on the
shrink
> other than a tear (like writing)? I wouldn't call it MS.
Ah, good point. "NM (S)" could indeed apply if there's a defect on the
wrap, but not the game package.
---
> Good point about (S) (T). I agree it's redundant. (T) alone works. What
> about (C)? The original reason that we had (C) was for a game that was
> sealed, but had become "compressed" due to the air getting sucked out of
the
> shrink. However, the current wording for MobyScale could also use
