Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;baseball21, post: 2315582, member: 76863&quot;]I agree they certainly have had some looser periods, though in my opinion they&#039;ve tightened right back up in the last year.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>But let me ask you this, does it really matter?&nbsp; To me grading in its most simplistic form is nothing more than a ranking system.&nbsp; If we say an F is now a VF and a VF now and XF ect, in the end the old VFs are still regarded as a better piece with their XF grade than the new VF is.&nbsp; The ranking didn&#039;t actually change the term and grade just evolved.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>If we look way back to me it seems some methods were more accepted back than then they would be today, and to be fair the reverse would certainly be true as well.&nbsp; Granted some of those wiping methods ect were a necessity given the lack of preservation methods at the time but in my opinion that sort of reinforces my earlier point that we really aren&#039;t comparing the exact same systems or standards.&nbsp; We&#039;ve added so many new layers to the grade and the grade within the grade that while the terms may be the same as before, there are fundamental differences that are often over looked in comparisons.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I think it would be fascinating to be able to go back and use their grading system as well as have them come forward and use ours to see what the differences really are when compared within the same system.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in