I see the merit in standardization of evaluation, and in theory it sounds like a decent proposal. Particularly for new collectors whose knowledge of what is real, current pricing, etc... is limited. Or even for more experienced collectors to get a feel for what other's are thinking about pricing, and what constitutes quality.
However, as has been expressed already, I fear in practical application such standardization will ultimately have more negative attributes than positive.
Such as a dramatic increase in pricing.
An increased tendency to the chauvanism/elitism as expressed in some instances in the more established Nihonto community.
And particularly since Ethnographic weaponry is such a broad, and often ill-studied field a possible hardening in theoretical pedagogy that may create myths, that due to a pile of "shinsa" papers behind them, will be difficult to un-trench as new research appears. Even in our informal community here, we have often had strong debate over changing theories of origin and development, I can only imagine how much more difficult these debates would become if weak theories are propagated via hundreds of "shinsa" papers, because at the time of evaluation these theories were all that was available.
Anyways, I know one of the joys for me, when it comes to collecting Ethnographic weaponry, and one of the main reasons I have stayed away from more established collecting circles, such as Nihonto and European swords (well wouldnt say no if someone wished to donate a nice piece
Has been the informality of collecting. I dont need to be some grand wazir who has spend X number of years collecting/studying to have an appreciation for ethnographic pieces. I also dont need to be a millionaire to collect (and as someone who is below the poverty level in income this fact is very handy). There is also freedom to do my own research, and come up with my own conclusions. While we have strong debate on the forum, and we often dis-agree, in the end we are collectors voicing our opinions. There is no hard fast laws being set in stone by our debate, only additions to the discourse.
This is also part of the big reason I favor the EEWRS over many other "sword" discussion forums, particularly since attitudes and opinions are not as entrenched. I still feel that the EEWRS holds a high level of scholarly debate. While not perfect, and not necessarily fully entrenched in academic precedence or form (I do see merit in Ruel's critical thinking thread and acknowledge that I myself am guilty of not being as critical here as I would be in an academic setting), in comparisson to many other circles is still leaps and bounds ahead. It would be nice if we could all have access to provenanced collections, and be able to draw our opinions off of first hand research, but the reality is we are mere collectors who are indulging in a hobby. And in that regard, it is amazing at the level to which we can and have been able to draw theoretical research.