RobertEG wrote:This is just one of many, many examples of the ludicrous and contradictory explanations that are routinely offered in the comments portions of your CRA reports. I have learned to simply ignore their pure stupidity. The CRAs us algorithms unrelated to the basic FICO algorithm to generate these stupid comments. This forum is replete with examples of such contradictory statements.Under all guidelines released by FairIsaac, an oldest account of 23 years is well above average, and an average age of 9 years is average. No problem there in scoring at all.If I were you, I would not be looking at the asinine comments, but rather at what can happen to your account ages based on the FICO algorithm.Changes in your oldest account and in your average age of accounts can be affected by two things. First, if you open a new account, obviously, your avg will decline. And secondly, if any of the old accounts that are currently being used in your FICO scoring reach a point where they have been closed for 10 years, then they may drop from your CR, and thus no longer be included in your FICO score. So you can lose the 23 year oldest account, along with its affect in your avg age, if the CRA drops it. That is your concern, not the comments unrelated to your scoring itself.