Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="eddiespin, post: 7597921, member: 4920"]Wait a minute. What did you just do? My statement was "The grading scale looks like it's a continuum but it's hardly intended to be used as such." You took what I said, "it's a continuum," out of context, to argue the same exact point I was making, "it's hardly intended to be used as such." Do us all a big favor. Pay attention the next time, before you reply. You might even actually learn something that way. To wit, here's one definition of "continuum," con·tin·u·um/kənˈtinyo͞oəm/ nounnoun: continuum; plural noun: continuaa continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. Do you see that word, "perceptibly?" Do I have to supply you with the definition of that, too, before you can follow this? The grading scale is a continuum from 0-70. It's "a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other." But they are different from each other, vastly different, in spite of the perception they're not, when they hit AU58/MS60, the demarcation between the grading tiers, Circulated and Uncirculated. Bottom-line, these two grading tiers, which indeed are distinct, are lumped together in a continuum. There's a lot of merging of the grading criteria governing these distinct tiers for that continuum, which should be kept distinct. And there's where grading is, these days, with technical grading. Throw in market grading and these tier-distinctions along the continuum become even the less distinct. And we've all seen the unfortunate consequences on our grades of that...[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches