Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
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 on a web page, quote from it, etc. all without asking for permission. -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
Jim Leonard boldly stated: > >"Lee K. Seitz" wrote: >> >> FYI, the scale for comics is Pristine Mint, Mint, Near Mint, Very >> Fine, Fine (FN), Very Good, Good, Fair (f), Poor, and Coverless. The > >See, that sounds just crazy to me. That many grades means that the subtle >differences, if any, between Very Fine and Fine get argued in heated debates. >And what the hell is the difference between Mint and Pristine Mint? Can't >there be only one Mint? Well I was actually looking at an outdated copy of the Overstreet Guide when I sent that. (Today they've gone to a numeric (percentile) grade, but you can still map those ratings to the old system.) Pristine Mint is absolutely perfect. Mint is almost perfect, with no imperfections except those introduced when the comic was cut, folded, and stapled. It just goes to prove your point that the word "mint" is overused. Needless to say, you're lucky if you can get a truly Near Mint copy of a brand new comic off the rack. -- Lee K. Seitz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/ Wanted: | Visit the Classic Video Games Nexus Vintage Pac-M*n necktie| for all your classic link & news needs! Lib*rator T-shirt |http://start.at/cvgnexus -- 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/
RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
I would change it to say "...sealed WITH original factory..." -Original Message- From: Jim Leonard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 1:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The reason I mentioned shrink-wrapped was because the description of FS (don't have it handy now) uses the words "shrink-wrapped" in it somewhere, which it shouldn't. Checking... Version 0.2 (current version) says: - Factory Sealed (FS): No noticable defects and sealed in original factory or store shrinkwrap or sticker. (Not to be confused with a re-wrapped previously-opened box.) The best grade possible. That should cover all bases, right? -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/ -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The reason I mentioned shrink-wrapped was because the description of FS (don't have >it handy now) uses the words "shrink-wrapped" in it somewhere, which it shouldn't. Checking... Version 0.2 (current version) says: - Factory Sealed (FS): No noticable defects and sealed in original factory or store shrinkwrap or sticker. (Not to be confused with a re-wrapped previously-opened box.) The best grade possible. That should cover all bases, right? -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
The reason I mentioned shrink-wrapped was because the description of FS (don't have it handy now) uses the words "shrink-wrapped" in it somewhere, which it shouldn't. My other point was that FS isn't a good description of the condition. It sounds like you're saying (as I was)that FS means "no noticable defects"...which is really the definition of Mint or Near Mint. The fact that it is sealed should really be a side notation...not a measure of quality. It is misleading. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Looks really good to me. One point I'll mention is that Factory/Store sealed >doesn't necessarily mean shrink-wrapped at all. Which is why I used the term >"sealed" instead of "shrinked." Many packages (especially now-a-days) are sealed >only with a little quarter-sized sticker on the top and bottom (or some variation) >instead of shrinked. Agreed; this is why the scale uses Factory-Sealed. > This leads to another problem Sealed doesn't necessarily mean the game is in >good shape. It could be crushed, ripped, or even scuffed (if not shrinked). That's >why I add the extra labels to my ratings when necessary. If you want to keep the >scale simple (without extra labels), maybe we should change FS to some higher grade >than NM. I know we were trying to avoid Mint...but it's a thought. Also agreed; this is why the scale mentions "no noticable defects" for FS. -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/ -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Looks really good to me. One point I'll mention is that Factory/Store sealed >doesn't necessarily mean shrink-wrapped at all. Which is why I used the term >"sealed" instead of "shrinked." Many packages (especially now-a-days) are sealed >only with a little quarter-sized sticker on the top and bottom (or some variation) >instead of shrinked. Agreed; this is why the scale uses Factory-Sealed. > This leads to another problem Sealed doesn't necessarily mean the game is in >good shape. It could be crushed, ripped, or even scuffed (if not shrinked). That's >why I add the extra labels to my ratings when necessary. If you want to keep the >scale simple (without extra labels), maybe we should change FS to some higher grade >than NM. I know we were trying to avoid Mint...but it's a thought. Also agreed; this is why the scale mentions "no noticable defects" for FS. -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
"C.E. Forman" wrote: > > > And what the hell is the difference between Mint and Pristine Mint? Can't > > there be only one Mint? > > I totally agree. The term "mint" is so overused anyway (second only to > "rare"), > who needs "mint", "mint mint", "MINT mint mint", etc.? B-) You forgot "mint MINT mint mint" and "MINT MINT", which I believe came into play when "REALLY DAMN MINT" and "NO HUMAN HAS SEEN THIS ITEM" fell out of fashion. ;-) -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
> 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 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
> Like Chris, I have a slight problem with pre-published determinations of dollar > value. A copy of Clandestiny can be in perfect condition, and rare, but be > nearly worthless monetary-wise because it's such a crappy game. Or, a > real-world example: A dealer can list something in bad condition, but still > expect high dollars for it because other items of a better condition fetch just > as much money. Very true. I do list general guidelines on my pages, but only to curb the flow of "I really have no idea how much to offer for this" messages, which I did tend to get a lot of. People don't want to insult you by going too low, but don't want to overpay... though I'm always willing to let someone know if they make a ridiculously high offer (or low, for that matter). I'm also flexible with prices based on such factors as who's buying, their attitude, how much they're taking off my hands at once, how badly I need money at the moment, what sort of mood I'm in, etc. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
> And what the hell is the difference between Mint and Pristine Mint? Can't > there be only one Mint? I totally agree. The term "mint" is so overused anyway (second only to "rare"), who needs "mint", "mint mint", "MINT mint mint", etc.? B-) -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
"C.E. Forman" wrote: > > 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 fixed this in the version 0.2 that I sent out. > 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. Not a problem. I also added that to the 0.2 version recently sent out. > 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, I completely agree -- you'll notice that the MobyScale doc has textual free-form examples that specifically don't follow Moby's database format. > 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? Yes. The grading scale is just that -- a grading scale. So, if I see "VG" for the entire package, I get a feel for what VG is because I 1. have the scale to map to, and 2. have seen other VG examples. In the 0.2 version of the doc I sent out recently, I suggest that a bare minimum be box and inside contents, but that's not a requirement for using the grading scale. And besides, you will be grading individual components on an as-needed basis. > > 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. 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? -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote: > > C.E. Forman boldly stated: > > > >> 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 is absolutely true. That's why the Digital Press Guide for video > games gives all games both a scarcity rating and a dollar value. I > realize this isn't what the MobyScale is intended for, though. Like Chris, I have a slight problem with pre-published determinations of dollar value. A copy of Clandestiny can be in perfect condition, and rare, but be nearly worthless monetary-wise because it's such a crappy game. Or, a real-world example: A dealer can list something in bad condition, but still expect high dollars for it because other items of a better condition fetch just as much money. ..which is why I haven't given thought at all to attempting anything remotely related to a scarcity or value catalog, and probably never will. -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote: > > FYI, the scale for comics is Pristine Mint, Mint, Near Mint, Very > Fine, Fine (FN), Very Good, Good, Fair (f), Poor, and Coverless. The See, that sounds just crazy to me. That many grades means that the subtle differences, if any, between Very Fine and Fine get argued in heated debates. My dad recited the current coin grades to me over the phone last night (he also mentioned that we should get this spec published officially, but that's a discussion for a later date) and it was something like 12 or 15 grades. He's been collecting coins for 40 years, but even he thought that the current state of grade evaluation in the numismatic world was just silly. And what the hell is the difference between Mint and Pristine Mint? Can't there be only one Mint? -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote: > > 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.) I agree, and have made this change. However, "fine" seems to be above "very good" by most people I've talked to, so VG+ is now Fine. > >Q: Why isn't "Rare" on the grading scale? > > ??? Did someone actually ask this? No, but I'm anticipating the question. > >"The Official MobyGames Software Collectables Condition Grading Scale" is a > >mouthful, isn't it? :-) It's suggested that you merely tell other > >collectors, "I'm using the MobyScale." > > Hey, can I get credit for that? ;) Sure! ;) > I don't know how feasible it is, but my biggest suggestion is to > create a page (and mention it in the text) that shows scans of items > (primarily boxes) that demonstrate each condition. A picture really > is worth 1000 words. If necessary, you might want to have closeups of > the defects. Hey, that's a great idea!! I'll work on putting together a picture page for this when it gets posted to MobyGames. -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
"C.E. Forman" wrote: > > This is a great idea! I have a large number of Infocom "Cutthroats" > packages in varying condition that I could donate scans of. That is too wicked, Chris. I will ask you for pictures of those when I get the full page online. -- http://www.MobyGames.com/ The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
Looks really good to me. One point I'll mention is that Factory/Store sealed doesn't necessarily mean shrink-wrapped at all. Which is why I used the term "sealed" instead of "shrinked." Many packages (especially now-a-days) are sealed only with a little quarter-sized sticker on the top and bottom (or some variation) instead of shrinked. This leads to another problem Sealed doesn't necessarily mean the game is in good shape. It could be crushed, ripped, or even scuffed (if not shrinked). That's why I add the extra labels to my ratings when necessary. If you want to keep the scale simple (without extra labels), maybe we should change FS to some higher grade than NM. I know we were trying to avoid Mint...but it's a thought. Hugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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" for the MobyGames Grading Scale and its use. 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?) So, I'd like to present version 0.1 of the spec for your review. It's missing the example list mentioned in the document, but otherwise it's pretty much all there. Could you guys look it over and offer up any comments? Here you go: The Official MobyGames Software Collectables Condition Grading Scale Version 0.1 - Background: The world of software collectables is an emerging hobby that is slowly easing into the mainstream. However, being so new, there is no standard scale for grading the condition of an item, which can lead to misrepresentation of an item's value. For example, in dealing with other collectors, a multitude of grading notations have already been found: One list used a single rating for the entire item, another used a numerical rating for quality grades, yet another wildly overused the term "MINT!", etc. This lack of standardization can lead to confusion when trying to asses an item's value based solely on a textual description of the item. Which grading scale is the right one? MobyGames.com believes there's a better way to do this, and has created a standard grading scale and specification for cataloging software for collection lists. This system is officially in place at MobyGames.com, but it is our hope that it is embraced by the collector community and used universally to describe item condition. Through widespread acceptance of this scale, we hope to eliminate misconceptions and confusion in the software collectable community. This document describes The Official MobyGames Software Collectables Condition Grading Scale and its use and application. For brevity, the condition grading scale will be abbreviated as "MobyGames Grading Scale" throughout the remainder of this text. Also included at the end of the document are some frequently-asked questions, and an example collector's list to illustrate the system in use. - Item Breakdown: Before describing the actual scale, it is important to define how the scale itself is used. A common mistake for new collectors is to assess the overall quality of an item and give it a singular value. This may save the collector time, but creates confusion for other collectors attempting to view his list. This is because not everyone values certain aspects of an item the same. For example, one collector may value the condition of the box above all else, while another may value the manual and included trinkets/props/feelies higher than the box. The solution to this is to apply a grade to as many pieces of the item that are relevant. This creates more work, but is the only way to ensure accuracy and avoid unintentionally misleading people who read your lists. For example, the most common pieces of a software collectable are: - Box/Packaging - Original Media - Manual - Reference Sheet - Catalog - Registration Card - Additional Items The more pieces that are graded, the better the representation of the item. - Condition Grades: The following are the official condition grades of the MobyGames Grading Scale. The possible conditions an item can be in are: - Factory Sealed (FS): The best grade possible. No noticable defects and sealed in original factory or store shrinkwrap. (Not to be confused with a re-wrapped previously-opened box.) - Near Mint (NM): No noticable defects, but not sealed. - Very Good Plus (VG+): One or two slight defe
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
C.E. Forman boldly stated: > >> 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 is absolutely true. That's why the Digital Press Guide for video games gives all games both a scarcity rating and a dollar value. I realize this isn't what the MobyScale is intended for, though. -- Lee K. Seitz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/ Wanted: | Visit the Classic Video Games Nexus Vintage Pac-M*n necktie| for all your classic link & news needs! Lib*rator T-shirt |http://start.at/cvgnexus -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
C.E. Forman boldly stated: > >> 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, however in most collecting scales (coins, for >instance) "Fine" is considered better than "Good". I'm pretty sure, >anyway. Whoops, you are correct. (At least for comic books.) Sorry about that. FYI, the scale for comics is Pristine Mint, Mint, Near Mint, Very Fine, Fine (FN), Very Good, Good, Fair (f), Poor, and Coverless. The guides don't even price anything above NM because it's almost impossible to find such an item. (And NM has become an overused term in comic book collecting.) Because computer games aren't as old, I don't think they need as many ratings. -- Lee K. Seitz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/ Wanted: | Visit the Classic Video Games Nexus Vintage Pac-M*n necktie| for all your classic link & news needs! Lib*rator T-shirt |http://start.at/cvgnexus -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
> 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, however in most collecting scales (coins, for instance) "Fine" is considered better than "Good". I'm pretty sure, anyway. > I don't know how feasible it is, but my biggest suggestion is to > create a page (and mention it in the text) that shows scans of items > (primarily boxes) that demonstrate each condition. A picture really > is worth 1000 words. If necessary, you might want to have closeups of > the defects. This is a great idea! I have a large number of Infocom "Cutthroats" packages in varying condition that I could donate scans of. -- 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
> 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/
Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
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 when trying to asses an item's value based solely ^ I think (sincerely hope) you meant "assess." 8) >Condition Grades: >- Very Good Plus (VG+): One or two slight defects (small scratch, or slight > worn corner on box, etc.) that prevent a Near Mint rating. > >- Very Good (VG): More than a few defects (slight crease in manual, all > corners slightly worn, etc.) but still in acceptable condition. 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.) >Q: Why only six grades? Six grades is fine with me. I use my own system for grading video game cartridges, boxes, and manuals which has only 5 major levels (well, maybe six, depending on how you look at it), and sometimes have problems deciding between two. >Q: Why isn't "Rare" on the grading scale? ??? Did someone actually ask this? >"The Official MobyGames Software Collectables Condition Grading Scale" is a >mouthful, isn't it? :-) It's suggested that you merely tell other >collectors, "I'm using the MobyScale." Hey, can I get credit for that? ;) I don't know how feasible it is, but my biggest suggestion is to create a page (and mention it in the text) that shows scans of items (primarily boxes) that demonstrate each condition. A picture really is worth 1000 words. If necessary, you might want to have closeups of the defects. -- Lee K. Seitz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/ Wanted: | Visit the Classic Video Games Nexus Vintage Pac-M*n necktie| for all your classic link & news needs! Lib*rator T-shirt |http://start.at/cvgnexus -- 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/
[SWCollect] MobyScale 0.1
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" for the MobyGames Grading Scale and its use. 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?) So, I'd like to present version 0.1 of the spec for your review. It's missing the example list mentioned in the document, but otherwise it's pretty much all there. Could you guys look it over and offer up any comments? Here you go: The Official MobyGames Software Collectables Condition Grading Scale Version 0.1 - Background: The world of software collectables is an emerging hobby that is slowly easing into the mainstream. However, being so new, there is no standard scale for grading the condition of an item, which can lead to misrepresentation of an item's value. For example, in dealing with other collectors, a multitude of grading notations have already been found: One list used a single rating for the entire item, another used a numerical rating for quality grades, yet another wildly overused the term "MINT!", etc. This lack of standardization can lead to confusion when trying to asses an item's value based solely on a textual description of the item. Which grading scale is the right one? MobyGames.com believes there's a better way to do this, and has created a standard grading scale and specification for cataloging software for collection lists. This system is officially in place at MobyGames.com, but it is our hope that it is embraced by the collector community and used universally to describe item condition. Through widespread acceptance of this scale, we hope to eliminate misconceptions and confusion in the software collectable community. This document describes The Official MobyGames Software Collectables Condition Grading Scale and its use and application. For brevity, the condition grading scale will be abbreviated as "MobyGames Grading Scale" throughout the remainder of this text. Also included at the end of the document are some frequently-asked questions, and an example collector's list to illustrate the system in use. - Item Breakdown: Before describing the actual scale, it is important to define how the scale itself is used. A common mistake for new collectors is to assess the overall quality of an item and give it a singular value. This may save the collector time, but creates confusion for other collectors attempting to view his list. This is because not everyone values certain aspects of an item the same. For example, one collector may value the condition of the box above all else, while another may value the manual and included trinkets/props/feelies higher than the box. The solution to this is to apply a grade to as many pieces of the item that are relevant. This creates more work, but is the only way to ensure accuracy and avoid unintentionally misleading people who read your lists. For example, the most common pieces of a software collectable are: - Box/Packaging - Original Media - Manual - Reference Sheet - Catalog - Registration Card - Additional Items The more pieces that are graded, the better the representation of the item. - Condition Grades: The following are the official condition grades of the MobyGames Grading Scale. The possible conditions an item can be in are: - Factory Sealed (FS): The best grade possible. No noticable defects and sealed in original factory or store shrinkwrap. (Not to be confused with a re-wrapped previously-opened box.) - Near Mint (NM): No noticable defects, but not sealed. - Very Good Plus (VG+): One or two slight defects (small scratch, or slight worn corner on box, etc.) that prevent a Near Mint rating. - Very Good (VG): More than a few defects (slight crease in manual, all corners slightly worn, etc.) but still in acceptable condition. - 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. - Fair/Poor (F/P): Unusable defects (crushed, ripped, sheared, or missing box; diskette media bad; missing manual, etc.) that are acceptable only if the item is wanted for non-collectable purposes (ie actually playing the game) or wants it for "parts". - Ex
