Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 3105235, member: 27832&quot;]Then, for heaven&#039;s sake, let&#039;s have vector instead of scalar grades!</p><p><br /></p><p>Each <i>aspect</i> gets a number. If you need to have a single measure, pick a standard function that takes all four numbers, does some math, and produces a single result. You can even make <i>that</i> number the one that gets displayed prominently at the top of the slab -- but make sure the others appear clearly.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, to achieve Market Happiness, figure out your <i>own</i> mapping function, and see where it differs from the standard. That gives you a numeric guide to potential bargains, where <i>your</i> composite score for the coin is <i>higher</i> than the market score.</p><p><br /></p><p>The measures aren&#039;t orthogonal -- you can&#039;t decrease preservation but so far without decreasing luster, and you can&#039;t decrease <i>any</i> of them too far without hurting eye appeal -- but I&#039;m pretty sure that you can&#039;t determine any one from the other three. (I thought eye appeal, but maybe that&#039;s the catchall for toning and more subtle things.)</p><p><br /></p><p>It works for diamonds; why not for coins?</p><p><br /></p><p>Then again, I&#039;ve got a computer-science background, and I <i>always</i> want access to the raw data.[/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