I would be interested to know peoples thoughts on shooter lane condition. Thoughts?20140106_215758.jpg

3-4 may be too generous, because the flaking occurs in key areas like the title and key characters I would say 1-2.

I for one am sick of the shooter lane BS, if a buyer wants to critique and not buy my machine cause of a shooter lane, then I don't want to sell it to them anyway. It's stupid.

It's even more complicated. A game from the 60's or 70's is naturally going to be most likely in worse condition than a game from the 80s or 90's so while opinions change person to person expected condition changes from era to era and game to game making any rating system overall flawed.

No noticeable wear under cliffy, I kinda thought around an 8 myself but I have never really been sure what people consider "acceptable" wear. (Btw, thats from a fishtales)

While I like your initiative, I think getting a consistent grading system will be very challenging. I rarely use a numbers rating unless specifically asked because it's so subjective.

I think this is exactly right. It's not just getting a consensus it's also a matter of what each individual finds important. As Practicalsteve just pointed out. While the Sweet Hearts glass looks almost presentable the heavy flaking is a big issue to many because it's in the lit areas. To some it may be less bothersome or acceptable if the flaking were in the non-lit areas. And to some anything less than near perfect they may consider unacceptable. One man's mild insert wear may be another's required playfield swap.

I think Pafasa's Sweet Hearts Backglass is a 5 rating because a major item for me is can you still read all the Function Lights on the Backglass on your example. Feature Lights being the Ball Count, Game Over, Tilt, Player 1-4, and Misc as if the ink is wiped out on the Backglass the game is hard to track in many areas and affects the overall fun factor in conjunction with the Artwork being an eyesore instead of a thing of beauty.

Now as far as my 1971 Williams Stardust Backglass I would rate it a 4 as it too retains all the Function Lights but has more overall ink loss then your Sweet Hearts.

As a side note I could possible rate a Backglass lower if it say had more ink left then my Stardust Backglass but because I could not read some or all of the Feature Lights, it now affects Gameplay.

Just my 2 cents.

Ken

DSC04045.JPG

I wish I was that driven.

Hmmmm. I would rate Pafsa's and AlexFs backglasses the same:

Crappy
Poor
Needs replaced etc.

When it gets below about a 6, who cares? It's pretty well toast.

These ratings discussions might make more sense in the 7,8,9 area.

Never understood this either, it's only the shooter lane, has no relevance to the table or how the game plays.

I think the general difference between an 8 and a 9 often boils down to two types of people. One oversells and one undersells. The 9 guy likes to paint an overly positive picture and may have some smooth talking sales skills to back it up. The 8 guy likes to rate conservatively so expectations are met to a larger audience and hates to worry about disappointed buyers.

Shouldn't some of the backglass discussion include whether it is still functional or totally trashed? At least when you are getting into the <5 ratings? I would think most glass that still indicates "ball in play" and has a legible "tilt" and "game over" as at least a 5.

Wow. I would put Ken's Stardust backglass down around a 2. And the Sweet Hearts would be well below a 4 for me. I guess I have always been more critical of the Backglass since when I started Collecting, reproductions didn't exist. Playfields were fairly easily touched up since no light shines through them. But Backglasses show their damage very prominently. So, as others have suggested, for me, it is more about how many areas allow light to shine through and reveal the damage. Damage in an unlit spot would have far less weight than damage where your eyes tend to go all the time (lit name, Ball In Play, Match lights etc.) Obviously, there is a big difference about a 50's game with light up scoring where the entire Glass is probably an integral part of playing the game. Verses a 70's score reel game with no backglass features other than Ball in Play, Match, Game Over.

As to the Shooter lane, I wouldn't give it a thought in judging a playfield unless it was truely damaged. On an EM, thhe groove sometimes cut in the upper arch is more prominent than a little denting down at the shooter. But I do know a lot of collectors of more contemporary games use Shooter Lane wear to indicate heavy play as someone else has already mentioned.

Like was mentioned, Perhaps it is necessary to have a different set of rating rules for older EM games verses newer SS stuff. I think it may become way too messy to lump the rules set all together.

Words over numbers... description rules

8.5
o-BO-DEREK-570.jpg

I would give the Sweethearts a 4-5... mostly there but what is missing is pretty ugly and it looks like more pieces will fall off if you sneeze while looking at it.

Stardust is IMO a 2-3, major sections are straight up missing and the rest is pretty cracked. Not much room below that, any more missing and it will be mostly glass.

That shooter lane is an 8, there are a couple of tiny areas where the finish is worn through. 10 would be looks like it has never been played (also mint or like new), 9 would be you can tell it is not straight out of the box but just barely (near mint). But yes I agree that this is one of the most pointless things to care about.

I give Bo Derek a 7 but I'm not a fan of cornrows or skinny thighs.

Meh I'd give it a 6

Oh, sorry - I forgot to check for wear in the shooter lane.

"Seen the new Playboy?"
"Good?"
"Bo Derek's Tits!"
"Alright!"
"I like sex!"
"People on ludes should not drive!"

One important factor in grading a backglass is to grade it in 2 different light conditions:

1) bright daylight with power off
2) darkness with power on

Make sure that you rate (and weight) the backglass in the manner you plan to experience the machine the most...

I have two backglasses that have opposite issues:

1) Grand Lizard with bubbling, looks like a 7 while playing in the dark, and a 4 in the daytime (with all the bubbling which catches all the ambient light in the room)
2) Barracora looks like a 8 during the daytime, but it's a 4 while playing it, since someone used a rattle can on the backside of it, and that blocks the light coming through.

So it's not that daytime always looks better than nighttime, or vice versa.
Examine both situations equally when buying a machine.

thanks!
-mof

IMHO

Sweethearts - 5
Stardust - 3.5

both acceptable for players games.

The only time i would care about a shooter lane is if i was buying a 10k machine.
On a players game unless its really torn up who cares

--Jeff

I rate them using a royalty system. Condition is king!

I think someone pointed out some big differences in EM vs. SS. games. I think this thread should be one or the other. Games that are 35-60 years old will have a different standard than more 'modern' games....

I am so glad you guys started this thread. Is it okay if you guys rate the condition of my Silverball Mania or do I need to take it to a SS forum?

114175-i.jpg

I knew it, I knew it, you do have a SS game. HA!

At least that playfield is well grounded

I'd say it's almost as nice as that KoD you just picked up,

On a scale of 1 to 10, my rating would be -5. Parts missing, playfield wood missing, art work missing.

But I was told by Bob Borden that this is collector quality! -5? How dare he!

i'd give the silverball a .5 rating because the apron, flipper bats all look salvageable. You probably could get $50 worth of parts off that thing depending what the backside looks like.

Can this thread be put in the EM forum?

Sweet Hearts backglass - I guess a 4, but would never buy a game with a glass like that.

Definitely more EM as most SS have translites and clear coated playfields. Different way of rating them so more interested in rating EM's.

I wish it wasn't so subjective, and a scale of 1-10 can be a large swing of subjectivity.

Even verbal ratings of Like New, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor would be subjective.

For me the back glass is what people look at first. It's the advertisement for the game, the artwork is trying to draw you into the game.

So for me that Royal Guard glass would be a 4 at best because the flaking is in the lit areas. If the same amount of flaking was in non-lit areas I would say a 7 because touching up non-lit areas is fairly easy and not nearly as noticeable.

The Captain Fantastic would be a 10, even with the rust on the channel area.

I am very harsh when it comes to the back glass.

I am more lenient on the playfield. I have a Spirit of 76 that has a very good playfield with center kick out wear on the playfield. Other than that it's in extremely good shape. So I would have to say it's an 8.5-9.

The cabinets I'm even less critical about. When I line them up you see little of the cabinet other than the fronts. At this point for an EM the cabinet is the patina you don't disturb unless it's been repainted or wall papered. The cabinet tells a story.

With that said my Spirit of 76 cabinet is a 6-7. But I don't care as my eyes are first drawn to the glass then the playfield.

The condition of the back glass and playfield on this machine would raise the overall rating of the pin, even with the cabinet that's a little rough looking.

But that's just my subjective 2 cents.

Looks like it just needs a little Novus 2.

Here! Here!

Agree 1000%