06-17-2003, 03:09 AM
I believe Paul's rating scale is based on an overall comparison of pieces of a particular type or variation he's seen - and he's seen a lot. To take this Red Banner from ebay, for example, this particular piece is better than ~ 60% of all that he's seen and conversly, it is worse than ~ 40% of those he's seen. In his early authentications, he used to use specific percentages such as 63% for example but he changed that a couple of years ago. I think he did so because that required considerably more precision than individual ranges encompassing 10% slices. It gets pretty subjective to rate a piece at 63% versus 64%.
As I said above, this is how I understand his grading based on a conversation with him a couple of years ago. If I've got something wrong here, please speak up.
BTW, I think this Red Banner was a pretty good deal despite the condition. If researched, I bet it will have a great citation. Back in the early days of 1941 - 1942, these really meant something. Of course, you guys that know me know that I'm more interested in the historical aspects of these than the asthetic.
Doug
As I said above, this is how I understand his grading based on a conversation with him a couple of years ago. If I've got something wrong here, please speak up.
BTW, I think this Red Banner was a pretty good deal despite the condition. If researched, I bet it will have a great citation. Back in the early days of 1941 - 1942, these really meant something. Of course, you guys that know me know that I'm more interested in the historical aspects of these than the asthetic.
Doug
