Looking For Tips Cataloging Inherited Stamp Collection

Hi All,

if you look at the MATHEMATICAL centering, the numbers are absolutely correct. Now, if you want to call a centering of 60 VF, then so be it, but that is where disagreements can occur. If I say a stamp is a 60, then everyone knows what that means. If you look closely at the Right side of the yellow green stamp, it is Significantly smaller than the left side. Not well balanced.
the numbers for all 4 margins are in the screen shot. Look closely & you will see that the egrade is correct

regards
Marios

Hello, Marios,

Everyone knows that 60 means 60, but what else does it mean? Once you start to relate the numerical ranges to the traditional taxonomy for centering, you have simply shifted the subjective factor onto another plane (from analog to digital, if you like). Whatever the number, the stamp in question is better than Fine. The right margin is noticeably, but not significantly, smaller than the left. It is not perfectly centered, but the design is well clear of the perforations on all sides. A VF 60.

Here is a screenshot of the Grading scale used in EzGrader. But I stress that it is the NUMERICAL grade that distinguishes it from all other subjective grades. What you call a VF-60 someone else may call F-60 or XF-60. The 60 tells you that one side is 40% smaller than the other. I do not buy into the "Fine for the Issue" argument. Whenever I purchase a stamps, I always check the centering grade. I cannot count the number of times someone describes their stamp as VF or XF when in fact it is badly off centered. The stamp in question here (yellow green) is not a VF in my opinion, but that is the problem with descriptive grades. There is no standard that can be measured or quantified. But a grade of 60 is understood by all. The point here is to ignore the descriptive grade & look as the numerical grade. Lots of people do not like this, but to me, it is the best way to describe the centering of a stamp.
Marios

Agreed mostly, especially about the "fine for issue." The disconnect comes from using the same terminology for the eGrade as for the traditional (and imprecise) descriptive taxonomy. Let me ask: On what basis is VF defined as the range between 77.5 and 87.49? Why not between 74.87 and 83.62? I think the numerical grading as an independent taxonomic system is fine as long as it is not connected to descriptive terminology that has long historical associations.

Hi, our descriptive grade is just that, ours. it is not based on any one elses. When we initially released Ezgrader, we had so many requests to include a traditional descriptive grade, we came up with our own. it seems to make people feel better. personally, I ignore the descriptive grade and only look at the numerical grade.

Marios