You are referring to my post wherein I informed the forum it was listed on e-Bay.
If going by Acaeum grading then yeah my grading was perhaps too harsh.
I just edited the post to instead indicate my opinion that it is in ROUGH condition.
Which is my opinion, not a condition grade.

For me that Adventure Module is a playing/reading/placeholder copy only.
Not collectable grade.
If I was to purchase a semi-rare item in that condition (which I have done many times before and will continue to do so) I would still be searching for a better copy as a true collectable.
Once I found that better copy (or finished reading/playing the rough copy) the rough copy would be sold as soon as possible.

imo many of the conventions listed under good, would render an item poor (water damage, mustiness, significant staining) while the rest imo should make an item fair. on the other end, i believe an item is not mint unless there could not be a better copy. some other copy may tie it for quality, but none better.

Hey there,

Well . . . I wrote those guidelines myself all those years ago.  Someone needed to write them in the early Valuation Board days, after all.  

Anyway,  I had spent a good chunk of my life as a die-hard comic collector as well an an RPG collector and reseller.  So . . . I based all my grading off of the comic book scale.  Sure, I took into account a lot of the differences between the two types of items, but in many ways they are similar.

In any case . . . GOOD condition = Crap.  Anything "Good" is something to steer away from . . . unless you want it on the cheap.  Of course, GOOD can see a lot more use in RPG collecting because modules are stilll used to game with . . . so a GOOD copy isn't always bad to have around if you actually want to utilize it.

The collectable grades really start at FINE.  Anything less than this condition would usually only be of interest for very rare and high priced items.


Also, keep in mind that comics used a +/- and crossover scale.  Thus:

GOOD -
GOOD
GOOD +
GOOD/VERY GOOD
VERY GOOD -
VERY GOOD
VERY GOOD +
VERY GOOD/FINE
FINE -
FINE
FINE +
FINE/VERY FINE
VERY FINE -
VERY FINE
VERY FINE +
VERY FINE/NEAR MINT
ETC.

When writing the Acaeum guidelines, I tried to keep it simple and ultimately boiled it down to just the main categories.  There is a lot more generalization when done this way so something might be at the low end of GOOD . . . or the high end . . .  The truth is that there isn't enought collecting and grading interest (in my opinion, of course) to warrant being that specific about grades.  Even though I used to use the more specific grades in the beginning, I ended up getting rid of the +/- designation. (Though I have always kept the crossover grades.)

So, my recommendation would be:

FAIR
FAIR/GOOD
GOOD
GOOD/VERY GOOD
VERY GOOD
VERY GOOD/FINE
FINE
FINE/VERY FINE
VERY FINE
VERY FINE/NEAR MINT
NEAR  MINT
NEAR MINT/MINT
MINT



As I see it, you really can not have multiple grading scales for any collectible that is to be taken seriously.  It is fine for RPGs, I guess, as they are still small market,  but the actual grading scale REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.  It only matters that eveyone accept the scale and fit the items in appropriately.  If RPGs were ever to really rise to prominence in collecting, everyone would have to accept one scale.  Like it or not . . . just find your grade and fit in the item where it goes.  Standardization is the first step.

Rule #1 (and only) - You can't grade from a picture.  You might be able to limit it - "That's no better than very good." - but that's all.

Comics have long defined rules for grading.  And it's still an art.  Out of 1.5+ million comics listings on ebay, how many do you think check and perfectly grade items?  RPGs are no different, except there are far fewer for sale.  For me, the way to go is to provide pictures of defects, list the defects, and then assign a grade.  If someone buys the items and disagrees with your grade, that's fine, as long as all the defects have been disclosed.

Professional grading requires judgment and being able to make sound decisions based on the overall condition of an item.  You can not always make generalizations such as "cover detached = POOR".

i.e. A cover detached from the staples on an otherwise NEAR MINT item does not, necessarily, make the item POOR.  In this situation, it might bring it down to VERY GOOD - the penalty of one (and only one) critical flaw on an item.

Comic conditions are written similary - many examples are given and it is from these the the grader is supposed to determine the overall condition based on each item's unique qualities.

Sometimes . . . we don't agree with the grade.  For instance, if you think the cover detached makes it POOR, then by all means, don't buy it or invest in it!  You accept a grading scale for the sake of uniformity and make you own personal determinants for what you find acceptable.

I would rather have a beat up module than one with writing in it.  Some would rather have a beautiful looking module with lots of writing in it.  These items could, ultimately, be the same grade.  It does not mean that they are still equally desirable to the collector.

Cheers.

Ermmm...
In an effort to pile on....
The Cover was never attached to the booklet for the R series of modules.
Just like most later TSR modules.

Example here for another listed on e-Bay

** expired/removed eBay auction **


FWIW: I would shell out $200 for the copy of R-2 linked in this post sooner than $100 for the one listed in the 1st post in this thread.

How many truly Mint things are there on 40 year old collectibles? I think it's a ruse to include it in a serious guide, as really 1 in 10,000 items might ever achieve that, and likely you'd find someone who'd argue it isn't Mint because of x, y or z. I find NM is really the top of the list. Even day 1 products are rarely truly Mint by book, comic or coin standards.

Busman wrote:How many truly Mint things are there on 40 year old collectibles? I think it's a ruse to include it in a serious guide, as really 1 in 10,000 items might ever achieve that, and likely you'd find someone who'd argue it isn't Mint because of x, y or z. I find NM is really the top of the list. Even day 1 products are rarely truly Mint by book, comic or coin standards.

There's that really dangerous habit of grading something as "fine, for its age", too.
You'd deserve a visit from Tiamat (or Ningirsu, as the case may be) for trying to pass off foundation cones thus. *jk*

=> ?

I'm still vehemently opposed to coin and comic book grading and slabbing (especially the $ silliness in the higher gradings), however, and would personally not welcome any tendency towards that here or hereabouts. It's bad enough IMHO that we've already caught a dose of "number 1 syndrome".

Gnat the Beggar wrote:Older Collectables in Mint Condition do exist in the RPG market.
I have seen perhaps (maybe) a dozen older collectable RPG items that were (IMO) in Mint condition.
Three of them were in the original Shrink Wrap when I last saw them.

Not all oB3s?

What do you do for genuine production faults, then? R4s, I'm looking at you...

Can someone explain why collectors downgrade an item so much for rusted staples?

Aesthetically I really don't mind at all assuming there is very little to no rust staining on the pages. On the other hand a single word underlined in pen or highlighted would leave me completely disinterested in a book.

What Im wondering is does rust indicate a progressive damage will will get worse over time or something like that?