What is your opinion on sign-to-sign aspects?

I sometimes think modern day astrologers are stingy with orbs. I guess I'm medieval I was just thinking that planets forming sign-to-sign aspects (without the necessary orb requirements) could still effect each other. Like if your Sun and Moon are in signs that are polar opposites, but out of orb for an opposition, your Sun/Moon nature is bound to still clash, surely? And if your Venus is in Pisces and your Mercury is in Scorpio, the two signs are harmonious so there is some harmony in Mercury and Venus's purpose in the chart. So I guess I'm kind of wondering why we need to be so strict with orbs if the planets are going to effect each other regardless? Are we being too fussy with orbs, too Virgo-like (no offense Virgos)?

sign to sign aspects are more important as seeing the difference between cusp or degrees in some way. since you can get a sign that is in a sextile/trine reception in a hard minor or square aspect.

sign to sign aspects are called mutual receptions by ptolmy. which comes from the essential dignities.

one can use essential dignities and receptions to measure a certain strength of the aspect instead of using the orb.

http://postimage.org/image/69wad5ajr/

i utilize 9 applying and 8 separating orbs or maybe 9 for both.

for parts i use both nodes, mc, chiron.

so in other orbs nietzche's chart doesnt make as much sense. its basically like some t-square guy. then with these orbs and south node including now it makes perfect sense.

http://www.astro.com/tmpd/cc5ufileyumAn3-u1360536284/astro_2gw_02_n.65420.668.gif

he wrote like 6 books within two years.

Vedic astrology has always used sign to sign aspects (as their only type of aspect); the Greco-Romans (Hellenists) also only used such aspects (until near the end of the Classical period, when aspects by degrees began to come into play)

I think sign to sign aspects (once called "platik" aspects) are valid; however, I give preference to aspect-by-degrees, and only consider sign to sign aspects IF the planets involved do not have any aspects-by-degrees; I consider sign to sign aspects to be less "sharp", and more "general", than (close) aspects-by-degrees (or Parallels)

Indian astrology seems to have two types of aspects (not counting Tajika aspects, which are the same as used in Western astrology).

Planetary aspects are apparently supposed to be assessed according to degree.
However, I think that it's common to simply go by sign. But a planet in the tail end of Aries is not going to see a planet in the early degrees of Libra

Rasi (sign) aspects seem to be considered purely sign to sign, i.e. Aries simply aspects Leo, Scorpio, and Aquarius.