deimos3428 wrote:What I think would be useful is shrinking the charts horizontally (less grades), and expanding them vertically (more distinctions between printings for older works...
deimos3428 wrote:As harami2000 has pointed out, it makes no sense that a (non-true) 1st Greyhawk is lumped in with a 12th, etc. Perhaps group them by logo/presence of price on cover. An 11th is not significantly different than a 12th, they're both wizard logos.
deimos3428 wrote:Is the new "True First" DMG really worthy of a rarity 5? I've got two.
deimos3428 wrote:I don't think any item should be valued at $0. Do we really need the Poor/Fair gradings at all?
deimos3428 wrote:Oh, and because I'm fairly unobservant, is there a listing of the Valuation Board members posted anywhere? Haven't seen it.
beyondthebreach wrote:The current valuation board membership is rather small. . . several could not (or did not want to) have an active role . . .beyondthebreach (moderator)stormberdathondbartmanlawrensonjohnhuckralf_tothdarkseraphim is an "honorary" member in view of all the intitial work he has done as the original moderator.
improvstone wrote:A small group which needs assistance and you don't invite others like Harami? Hmm... one has to wonder why one of the most knowledgeable members of the forum is not included in your little party?
harami2000 wrote:improvstone wrote:A small group which needs assistance and you don't invite others like Harami? Hmm... one has to wonder why one of the most knowledgeable members of the forum is not included in your little party?Actually, it's not inviting Frank which amuses me the most given that he's owned almost all of the obtainable Rares at one point of another, has a good feel for the behind-the-scenes market and also no longer has such a "vested interest" in price trends.But given that not one single word from either of us has ever made it onto the official listings pages this is not really a surprise, I suppose. (I presume Mike <invincible> was also "too busy", though?).
FoulFoot wrote:About six months ago, I selected a group of Acaeum forum users to be part of The Acaeum Valuation Board.
FoulFoot wrote:At the present time, the membership of the Board is closed. This is due more to the fact that I'm not sure if this Board concept is going to work yet! Within the next several months, I hope to select additional Board members, which will lighten the workload on the Board as a whole.
harami2000 wrote: dbartman wrote: First, I'm afraid you have blown this out of proportion. A $200 difference, mental or real, is worth discussing/debating. Please don't tell me I'm blowing anything out of proportion in that context. And at the least you're giving me a very bad taste to go with this win... *waves to <dbartman>* Are you just going to leave me in limbo, then, with two serious unanswered messages about grading?
beyondthebreach wrote:Let's let the issue of the PoVQ rest . . . to be completely honest, I can see both sides of the issue. It appears to be a very sharp copy, however, the creases/bends are obviously apparent and this item is clearly not Near Mint. Dbartman is initially inclined to see the creases as a somewhat significant detractor . . . you admit that the item is not NM, but because of the overall condition of the entire contents, that a VF grade might be more appropriate. Myself? I can only give my best guess . . .when evaluating something with as little info as the auction provided I couldn't discount the creases (which could be worse than anticipated on the items arrival.) Conversely, they could be less extensive than apparent (in my experience many items, especially "black" covers appear worse in pictures). I probably would have split the difference and gone with FINE or F/VF. In the end, it would have had minimal effect on the overall values of PoVQ (the final sale price has a much bigger effect).
Deadlord36 wrote:Breach, I don't think Harami's issue was necessarily with you grading the copy as VF, I think it was that you graded it based on a crappy auction picture, without even asking him, and that you graded it publicly. Now if he were to try and sell it, he could get the old "well, the Acaeum board said..."
dbartman wrote:Also please let me know your assessment on the condition. It appears to be VG to Fine condition based on the sellers description and the photos.
Deadlord36 wrote:Now if he were to try and sell it, he could get the old "well, the Acaeum board said..."
beyondthebreach wrote:Your reasoning is sound and I would expect the foldered version to sell for more at auction . . . ideally ongoing valuations will determine how collector's feel about this and if the "foldered" version, ultimately proves the more valuable.
harami2000 wrote:And Ralf has said there's a consensus opinion, although I also think he means the idea of public grading rather than amongst the board members as to the actual grade.