There is some wear but overall the pf is not bad, I'd put an 8 on that. cab is an 8.5. Backglass marginally a 7. Overall a nice machine. Up in your neck of the woods 1000. In a bigger market 1500+

Without seeing it up close and personal, I would grade the backglass no better than an 8 (flaking if girls legs etc.).

With the hole wear, planking (which is very common for 70's Gottliebs), and ball dinging, I would also not put the playfield higher than an 8.

Hard to tell about the cabinet. They are always faded but it seems pretty nice. Maybe a 9.5?

I think you guys are being generous. Mine is in as good or better condition, and if I had to grade it, I wouldn't give any of it above a 6 or 7. (But I'm restoring mine back to a 10!).

Big question for the OP: how much cupping do you have in the inserts? It's pretty common on this machine, and it's tough to see in the pictures. That has a lot to do with how you grade the playfield.

Yea, everything is relative...

True, I was trying to be a bit generous but I also consider a 6 or 7 to be much worse than what we are seeing. To me 4's and 5's were games we ended up junking. I guess I need to add decimal points or fractions to my grading system.

It seems more and more, it's tough to find a 70's Gottlieb that doesn't have cupped inserts. It kind of comes with the territory.

I'd probably go about a 7. Dings for the backglass and playfield wear. The cabinet looks pretty nice, probably an 8 but overall I'd give it a 7. Might argue 6 if I was trying to get a deal on it and pick it apart but overall it looks reasonable. An 8 would probably have a repro backglass and touched up playfield (or slightly less wear). A 9 would be more of one that found its way into someone's basement early on, very little playfield wear, near mint backglass kind of thing. I doubt you'll find a 10 that hasn't been fully restored.

Looks like you might be able to go to town on the playfield too and brighten it up a bit.

Playfield rating also needs to consider whether the inserts are cupped or sunken. I can't get a good handle on that from the photos. If the inserts are all flat and level, maybe 7.5 to 8. If not, the rating goes down.

Ive bought a couple of NOS Solitaire pf's off of "BallyOp" ebay seller and they are cupped too althou the 2nd one not as bad. Solitaire art is identical to Diamond Jack..with 1 minor difference that doesnt show.

0. I'll take it off of your hands. Just kidding.

I'd say an 8, 8.5, or 9 on a good day. Cabinet looks especially very nice. In an ideal world where I was rich I'd buy it and ship it here...

I'd be scared to rate my games. They play like 10s to me, so they're all 10s dadgummit!

Estimate from available pics: Playfield 7.5-8, Cabinet 7.5-8, Backglass 5

I would call it a 7 to 7.5 as far as grading machine overall. To me a "players grade machine" is something that would rate in the 5 to 6 range - overall rough around the edges but still plays good.

I think when grading machines and what is called a "players grade machine" would vary depending on age of a machine. So a Woodrail in rougher condition might grade higher just because of age compared to a Williams System 11 machine in similar condition.

To me once you get to System 11 (or newer) standards jump up a little as far as what is expected for a machine in "nice condition" - say 8 or better.

i agree

Wow. I have GOT to stop thinking like an anally-obsessive DMD guy...

Or just stop being such a perfectionist! My apologies to the OP for being off by a bit!

A 10 is something that's been fully restored or a game that was (sadly) hardly played, yet meticulously maintained. 9 is a game that's been gently played...not too much!...and then it goes down from there. But I defer to the guys with more EM experience than me!

Just admit it Boob, it's a classic case of competition of new-pickup mine's b̶i̶g̶g̶e̶r̶ better

Screenshot_4417 (resized).png

That's how I would look at it. This is a great thread to learn from because there are different viewpoints. I was thinking about asking about ratings in a post since I am still new.

If I were to look at it, I would do it your way. A 10 would be as close to perfect as possible, so that would be a HEP-type machine still all in perfect condition, or a brand new one in box. A 1 would be a total disaster, non-salvageable. It is flooded/molded, everything smashed or missing, etc. There was one a while back in a post where the playfield was completely black, I think it was burned. That would be a 1, you might get a few parts out of it to reuse but that would be it.

Then you have to figure out the scale in between.

So I would think like a 5 or 6 or something like that on the backglass, because of the amount of flaking. And something like 7 for the playfield, it has some wear. And the same for the cabinet, around 7. But that is looking at it strictly as it is, not in relation to what it is and the age. For a machine of that age and in original condition, those would be great numbers. Even if you say it is 7s and less, still this is a great C37 (to me) and I wouldn't mind having it. So I could see the argument that it should be rated higher because of its condition in relation to its age.

In the end, the pictures will tell the story and if you are a buyer you would need to decide what it looks to you. Or of course even better would be seeing it in person.

Now, I think it could be possible to set up a fairly standardized rating system. By accessing the thousands of photos in different conditions of different restore threads and the like, you could do some work in Photoshop and put together a series of sample images of backglasses, playfields, cabinets, boards, etc, and find examples of different numbers from 1 thru 10 on a ratings scale. If you could manage to get everyone to agree on the results (probably not likely) you could have a visual representation of the ratings scale and it would make things more objective, rather than pretty subjective as it is now.

I guess everybody operates on a different scale. I bought a C37 in very similar condition for $1600 if that helps.

I totally agree with everything you said! You have Nailed it!

Cabinet: 8, Playfield: 7, Backglass: 5, Overall: 7

I know you're kidding, but you wouldn't say that if you saw the current state of my Joker Poker (pre-restoration). It's all but ready for a dumpster fire.

I meant your C37, of course.

Well hey, Joker Poker is a good game. Of course everybody loves nice games but you gotta have a soft spot for "dumpster fire" games. If it proves too much for you my birthday falls on Pinfest setup day.

your not being a perfectionist at all. grading a game around here is like being a one leg man in a ass kicking contest you never win.
the problem is everyone grades on different aspects on a different scale.
i agreed with em-pinman because that title tends to be faded much more, the pf tends to have more wear and planking
i try not to grade but when i do it is against others of the same title.
and when you say restore yours to a 10 some purist will say that repaint lowers it or clear coat lowers it
if say something is a 8 ten people will tell you it is a 5
that is one reason i don't give anything a number i give a picture and let you determine what it is.

That's pre-restoration, too. And I'll buy you a cupcake for your birthday, cupcake.

I'm fully aware of that, and that's the quandary of restoring EMs. Nobody on the DMD side squabbles about a perfectly restored game, even if it's a new decal job, playfield, etc. But that seems to rub some people on the EM side the wrong way.

For me, while I respect a 40+ year old game that's still original and miraculously in perfect condition, when it's not, I do everything I can to restore it to a state that's better than when it left the factory. For me, that's a hell of a lot better than a cabinet with holes in it or brackets and plates screwed in everywhere by decades of boneheaded operators.

It's a good candidate for a new playfield. Would love to own it because of the cabinet condition. New playfield,plastics etc and a new backglass and you've got a really nice machine. Of course, that's at least $1000 in parts.

my view is that these things are never going into some museum. they are yours do with them as you wish. most the time they look and play 100 better than when they were found.
purists tend to push their views
IMO nothing better then finishing a total restore and seeing everything look new.

IMO, Age should never factor into the rating of a game. The saying I hate most seeing in an ad is "Its in good condition for its age". What the Hell is that supposed to mean?

And number of plays SHOULD not be a factor as to condition either. Some games were cared for extremely well and played to death. Other games saw no preventive care at all and after poor storage conditions, a number of years of occasional play, could be virtually destroyed cosmetically.

There are just too many factors that can effect the overall condition of a game over its entire life. And length of life, should have little to do with it.

You're never going to get a consistent answer with regards to quality. "Fully Restored" "Shopped" "Collector Quality" "Player Condition" "Mint Condition" "Home Use Only"
These words mean Nothing.

I've bought games that were advertised as Fully Restored and Mint Condition before; yet they have switch errors, old capacitors, crappy lighting, old rubber, dirty cabinets, rusty legs, ect.

The point is, everyone's definition is different. Inspect games in person before buying if possible.

Some sellers only mention the negative things about their machines( I love those types), and others try to give you false impressions on how awesome their machine is(avoid them).
My rule is to buy a good title in decent condition at a fair price and get it looking like I want it to. Seems like that's what your are doing. If you can wait, Wade should have that title out in about 2 years. Just a guess.

I prefer a good description with photos of the machine rather than just 8 cabinet, 7 playfield.

Bruce

You've got 2001, Jumping Jack, Abra Ca Dabra and Quick Draw already in Wades queue. That could change. But I know 2001 is next am guessing that won't be available for another 4 months, probably longer.

Maybe I can help you out...
Your playfield is nice enough to restore.

No one likes to wait but Wade's product are well worth the wait.

We have completely different ideas on that To me good canidate for a new playfield is finding a machine with a nice decent cabinet with a nice decent backglass and the shittiest most godawful playfield. (Those definitely come up a lot, the combination makes sense) To me this is far from a playfield-upgrade machine but to each their own!

Are you kidding? This machine needs a new backglass and playfield unless you're satisfied with an average game. The cabinet seems fine, haven't seen pics of the coin door. Hope to find a game in this condition in Allentown.

To me that is far above average with a couple of very tiny issues. With some further cleaning and a good waxing the lines may clean up even better. I would take that playfield over a brand new reproduction one but I understand that others may not share the same opinion. However, I am surprised though that you think it is so bad.

Backglass is also very very presentable, I would consider it a 7.5 out of 10 with only a little flaking in the reds.

With a cabinet that nice I would consider this not spot on, but in the ballpark of, a CQ game.

Often times it is about how nice an original game is rather than how deep your wallet for a reproduction part is. Anybody can get one of those easily. To me this game is very nice (with the most dramatic thing probably being the kickout hole dings) and I would be very very happy to own it as-is. Personally I think you are being too picky. Not sure if you buy only nice games or project games for your collection to improve but they get A LOT worse from there. A lot, and very frequently. It is not uncommon to find a game with a dinged up cabinet, a playfield worn to the wood, and with major flaking in the backglass. If these games were somehow naturally immune to this and most examples were perfect, then yes, these issues would be a lot more dramatic. But this is a very very nice survivor, looks like a very low-played machine. I guess it is easy for anybody to be spoiled in an era of remade playfields, painted cabinets, and reprinted backglasses. I do not know the OP, nor have I seen the game in person, nor do I mean to overstep my opinion but looks like a gem to me. Nothing is more beautiful than a fully original mint condition game IMO, they have a certain essence to them.

How's that SkyRocket backglass going? Are you going to bgresto it?

Not feeling confident mine would make the trip well unfortunately. Hope somebody does it one day.

Mines in better better shape, feel confident. Probably will do it.

Check out dirtflipper's C37's if you want to see examples of what I'd consider solid 9's and probably as close to 10's as you'll find "natural".

http://www.pinballowners.com/dirtflipper

Unless you're looking to do a full restoration I don't think I'd spend the money on a playfield swap. Maybe a few touchups if you wish but I'd just clean it up and play it as is. Going at it with some cleaner (naptha, alcohol, novus, whatever) and then a nice wax would probably make it look pretty respectable. You could try your hand at touching up the glass or splurge a bit and get a repro. It's always tough to tell just how bad the flaking is in reality and maybe a couple colored leds might make the wear a bit more tolerable. My Quick Draw has flaking in the lettering but it actually doesn't look too bad when playing it and gives it a bit of character, almost a "sketchy" kind of look.

I'm mostly in the keep it as original as possible camp and do your best to clean it up and enjoy it. Use the extra money to expand the collection.