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
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/
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
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/
