Strange Slabs Nov 25, 2016 15:30:43 GMT -8
Post by Organic Squishee on Nov 25, 2016 15:30:43 GMT -8
Example of Grading Scale by Omission of Reference:
3 Defect X Allowed
2 Defect X Allowed
1 Defect X Allowed
Anyone using the above scale would naturally be led to the conclusion that Defect X is not allowed above 3.
I totally understand your point, and see why you come to that conclusion, but I don't agree with it, because Arnold isn't trying to make a case for every possible scenario...he's talking about the average scenario or scenarios. As you point out, even with books from the 60's, sub-creases aren't "typical" (though they are common.)
You're looking at it from an implicit point of view; that is, if it's explicitly mentioned in a particular grade, it is implicitly precluded above that, and I don't think that was Arnold's intent, at any time. And this isn't supposition; the very example you cited at 4.0 is evidence that there are flaws that may be explicitly mentioned at a particular level, but which aren't precluded above it.
And, Arnold says essentially this on page 129: "The grade descriptions attempt to provide an overall view of the defects that can come into play throughout the scale. There are, of course, many other defects that are not mentioned specifically within those descriptions, but are just as important when determining grade."
In other words, because a specific defect is mentioned in a specific grade, does not necessarily preclude that defect from appearing in higher grades.
I remember these discussions on the eBay comics board we had at the time, and Arnold was soliciting opinions from us. I seem to remember that the language "such and such a defect can't appear above such and such a grade" was specifically mentioned as being something Arnold didn't want to do. He wanted the descriptions to be INclusive, rather than EXclusive.