Severity, Location and Visibility

How deep, extensive, permanent or consequential is the defect? Has the surface merely changed appearance, or has material been displaced, lost, weakened or broken?

Where does the defect sit in relation to display, identity, structure, handling and function? A mark on a quiet underside is not automatically equivalent to the same mark across a focal or load-bearing feature.

How readily is the defect perceived under normal viewing, close inspection, tilt, raking light, magnification, functional examination or specialist imaging?

Distinguish haze from a shallow scratch, a scratch through coating, a cut into the substrate, a full-section crack and a puncture. Similar-looking marks can represent very different material loss.

Use terms such as isolated, localised, scattered, repeated, regional, widespread and overall. A shallow change may be widespread while a puncture is severe but highly localised.

Record abrasion, flaking, missing material, bending, warping, crushing, displacement and collapse. Ask whether the object's shape or information has been permanently altered.

A defect may be cosmetic only, slightly impede handling, prevent correct closure or assembly, stop operation or create a risk of further failure.

Separate an old stable defect from lifting laminate, flaking paint, spreading corrosion, mould, adhesive failure or a crack that opens under movement.

Loose dust, reducible distortion, permanent staining, irreversible material loss and damaging previous intervention belong to different severity classes.

Areas where the viewer's attention naturally rests and where defects most strongly shape presentation.

Examples: Faces, central artwork, coin devices, front-cover illustrations, figure emblems, dial centres and prominent labels.

Grading effect: A small high-contrast defect here may be more grade-significant than a larger mark on a quiet reverse or underside.

Areas that carry attribution, authentication or variant information.

Examples: Dates, mintmarks, signatures, serial numbers, edition statements, copyright lines, printer codes and maker's marks.

Grading effect: Even slight loss, abrasion or alteration can affect identification, originality and disclosure as well as condition.

Areas that bear load, retain components or enable opening, movement, assembly and safe handling.

Examples: Book hinges, figure joints, box seams, ceramic handles, record spindle holes, card corners, rims, tabs and fastenings.

Grading effect: A concealed defect can be severe here because propagation or failure matters more than immediate eye appeal.

Areas routinely touched, gripped, slid, opened, stacked or exposed to impact and friction.

Examples: Edges, corners, figure feet, lid edges, toy handles, record outer grooves and raised projections.

Grading effect: Wear may be expected, but its pattern helps reveal use intensity, preservation quality and future vulnerability.

Lower-attention surfaces that contribute less to immediate display but may still carry condition evidence.

Examples: Plain backgrounds, reverse surfaces, undersides, interior faces and less prominent edges.

Grading effect: Location may reduce visual penalty, but it does not excuse structural weakness, contamination, alteration or poor storage evidence.

Areas visible only through opening, safe movement, component removal or specialist examination.

Examples: Battery compartments, box interiors, book gutters, internal staples, undersides of bases and surfaces beneath clothing or flaps.

Grading effect: Low visibility can coexist with high significance for completeness, originality, stability, safety and future failure.

Assess the object without magnification, under diffuse light, at a normal display or handling distance and in its ordinary orientation. Defects visible here strongly affect presentation.

Look for edge wear, small chips, colour breaks, local staining, short scratches and minor deformation that are not obvious at first glance.

Low-angle or moving light reveals topography and reflectivity: indentations, rippling, hairlines, erased areas, retouching, foil disturbance, gloss change and shallow dents.

Use proportionate magnification to clarify edge fibres, corrosion, print characteristics, tooling, micro-scratches and retouching. Do not assume every microscopic irregularity carries equal grading weight.

Some faults appear only when an object is opened, articulated, rotated, assembled, played, listened to or checked for fit. Do this only where movement is safe and appropriate.

Ultraviolet, infrared, radiography, microscopy and material analysis may reveal overpainting, adhesives, internal cracks, replaced components or repairs that routine inspection cannot confirm.

A faint reverse scratch, tiny stable underside rub or small interior box mark may have modest effect below elite grades, though it should still be recorded.

A shallow black scuff on white plastic, tiny chip on a figure's nose or light scratch across a glossy focal field may be superficial but visually dominant.

A hidden joint crack, internal hinge separation, concealed repair or active battery corrosion may present well while creating serious structural, originality or future-risk concerns.

A major front tear, deep central crease, broken limb, large gouge or extensive staining normally imposes a strong ceiling because both condition and presentation are compromised.

Visibility rises when colour, gloss, texture, depth or reflectivity differs strongly from the surrounding surface: white fibres on a dark edge, bright metal beneath patina or glossy retouching on a matte field.

Fine marks may disappear into complex line work but become obvious on solid black, foil, gloss or uncluttered backgrounds. Camouflage reduces visual impact, not evidential existence.

A scratch parallel to a border may be less noticeable than one crossing it. A crease following a design boundary may present differently from one cutting across a portrait or text line.

A shallow indentation may be invisible straight on but obvious under raking light. A short crease may dominate the grade. Front artwork, autograph, foil, corners and text areas can carry different locational weights.

Marks in open fields often appear more conspicuous than equal marks inside detailed devices. Damage to dates, mintmarks, rims or altered surfaces may affect attribution and grading outcome beyond eye appeal.

A visible spine tick can be structurally minor, while a concealed staple tear or hinge separation may threaten attachment. Front cover, title, issue number, centre fold and page completeness require separate attention.

Paint loss on a face may have greater presentation impact than loss beneath a foot. A hidden joint crack can be more physically serious because movement may cause separation.

A small rim chip may be more noticeable and functionally relevant than equal loss on the base. A repaired handle can remain disclosure-significant even when visually convincing.

A conspicuous surface mark may be inaudible, while a less obvious groove defect repeatedly affects playback. Grade the visual and functional evidence without assuming they correspond.

Cosmetic back-panel wear may matter less than a tiny seal break, blister crack or seam separation when unopened state is central to collectibility.

Grade the primary object, integral components, accessories, internal packaging, external packaging and later protective materials separately where practical. Do not bury component differences inside one vague overall grade.