Valuations ^^
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 612, 3, 456
Author


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:22 pm 
 

FoulFoot wrote:(and the formulas are certainly still "beta", a fact which I posted on last month and which most people are continuing to ignore)


Obvious question: why post "beta formula" values in public, especially as the only set of values for (inevitable) "public consumption"?

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021

Post Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:30 pm 
 

Traveller wrote:
To me, there's no way to maintain the 1st print Woodgrain's value of $2200 without fudging the numbers. That woodgrain isn't mint, which would be 100% of value, so what grade is it actually? What is Near Mint? In reality, it's the same thing as Fine in this scale, so in (my version of) reality, that NM Woodgrain is valued at only $1600 instead of the $2200 it used to be at.



Them's just the facts man.




I do not necessarily agree with that assesment only because IIRC strormber won the woody last year that went for exactly $2,200.00. Whether or not you agree at that point what the perceived grading of the item was, the cold hard facts state that it sold for $2,200.00. Now in retrospect, that could end up being an abberation, that it was high on the scale of actual value, but at this point what else do you really have to go on? The only thing to debate in regards to that particular auction, is the actual grading of the set.



This was precisely my point in my previous post.  Regardless of the what condition that the set ends up being graded at after it is all said and done, it sold for $2,200.00, period.  So, if we adjust the grading scale so that that particular set ends up with a fine grade, the basis for the value of the fine grade should be the $2,200.00. With that in mind, that would, according to scale cause the value of a truly NM set(and I would be very very leary in giving any set this grade, as in my opinion NM for a box set would be a set that you open the box and looked at its contents, put the top back on, stored it safely and never touched it again) a higher value, say $2,500.00.


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021

Post Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:45 pm 
 

One thing I also wanted to add was I think it would be beneficial to make this process more scientific. In order to make a legitimate pricing guide if that is the actual goal here, most "opinions" on values actually need to be removed. By saying that I mean this, most opinons should be provided simply on setting the grading scale itself. In order to have a effective price guide you can only use real life sold item values based on the grading scale to make it a legitamate guide. I would also propose a pretty scientific and detailed grading scale. To give an example of what I mean a near mint(if you choose to use this as a grading level) should mean the item is flawless. The next step down on the scale would be say Very Fine. In order to have a Very Fine item the item should have 3 or less minor flaws. I would set up a very specific guideline to define a minor flaw (i.e each very small scuff, very minor rubbing instance, or very small crease would count as 1 minor flaw). The next step down would be a Fine item. To qualify as a Fine item, an item would have to have 3 or less minor flaws and no more than 1 moderate flaw, or say no more than 6 minor flaws (with a moderate flaw being a medium size scuff, a moderate size, crease, some light rubbing in a small area, or maybe a very small tear, say less than 1/8"). Without going all the way through the scale right now, but just to give examples of exactly where I am coming from. The more scientific you make the scale the less "speculation" that will occur to its grade. Then, once you have your very scientific grading scale in place, the numbers themselves should all fall into place based only on previous and current sales history. The only time once the set scale is in place, that there would be room for "opinion" would only be in very, very rare occurances, where an item is clearly either exceptionally high or excessively low, and then only if there is at least an 80% concensus of all people doing valuations. That to me would insure a very scientific and hopefully less speculative guide. Once again just my .02

_____________________________________________________________



BTW, I think BTB's grading scale is at least a good start to the scientific grading process, I just think you have to a bit more specific as to what flaws qualify as minor, major, etc. and set exact numbers of flaws to down grade an item.


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2021

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:44 am 
 

Allright Foul, I will buy the counter argument that they could keep prices down. Yet that still proves the point that price fixing can be (please note I did not say IS) a problem. I'm sorry, but you can keep talking about it until blue in the face. It still doesn't change the fact that the possibility can occur at some point along the line.

I have been a baseball card collector for some twenty years now, a coin collector for a lot less time, and a role playing gamer for most of my life. If there is one thing I absolutely know, it is that these publications absolutely have to remain neutral in order for the collectors to trust them. There's nothing preventing you from doubting that claim, but then again the evidence is right in the pages of the price guides. Without that trust, the price guides likely would not exist.

Unless you can guarantee with 100% certainty that there will be no price fixing within the D&D market, there is no reason to trust the values that are generated. We can continue debating this around and around and still reach no resolution in the end. The best that can realistically be hoped for is that the inevitable price fixing that can occur is kept to a minimum.

The issue is trust, not having faith in humanity. I have faith that humanity will finally grow up in some three hundred years, but that's a completely different issue from trust. With one exception, I absolutely positively trust no one completely. Everyone has hidden agendas and motivations. Many are so cowardly that instead of telling you up front what they think of you, they will wait until you are out of earshot and then cut your head off at the knees. Without going too far into politics, the federal government isn't any better.

You tell everyone to use the system as a guide only. From personal experience, having gone to enough baseball card shows, guides aren't used as guides. They are hard and fast rules to both the dealer and the collector, despite all the disclaimers to the contrary. I am convinced that on this issue, the site is heading in the wrong direction. I'm getting nothing but negative vibes from this, and that's not a good thing.

It's a fortunate thing that I only come here to chat on the forums and pay little attention to the prices, but I take offense to the thinly veiled invitation to leave over the expression of a VALID criticism. Price fixing, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, is a legitimate concern here. To me, you have issues to address, and I really do not believe I am the only one who feels that way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On fudging the numbers, why oh why does anyone feel the need to have a curve here? Other collectibles environments, from toys to antique firearms, do not have pricing curves. A B2 cannot be graded any differently than a 1st print Woodgrain or the numbers mean absolutely nothing! Print runs, rarity, and age do not play a part in providing an accurate assessment of an items condition. A B2 which in typical condition goes for about $2 will go at most for $4, not the $15 you state. I've already covered a pricing structure for a 1st print woodgrain based upon the previous version of the valuations page, which notes the Very Good value. It is absolutely impossible to justify maintaining a $2200 price point for the 1st print Woodgrain unless it was absolutely minty fresh. It's not minty fresh, therfore it's simply not worth $2200.

It's because of this very issue of trying to maintain the value of the 1st print Woodgrain at $2200 that I pointed out that ONLY a median grade should be used in actually determining the prices of items. By doing that, it reduces or even eliminates the possibility of price fixing, because you're not looking for anything in grades other than the one you're using to determine the values. There is no doubt that in the case of that woodgrain, somebody is going to take a hit in the proverbial pocketbook, but it's a lot more fair and impartial to use a middle grade as your baseline and determining the price points for other grades using percentages than to utilize the highest grade and work down. It's also far less work for the valuation board if you think about it, because then they don't have to worry about chasing after some schlep only to find out that the guy bought a piece of crap.

One added thought. If you had read what I said earlier in this thread, there is no such thing as mint when it comes to book collecting. The best you can hope for is that the book hasn't been read, which is what Very Fine entails. These are books, and should be graded using the same criteria that is used in the book collector market. If that's not obvious, well there's very little I can do to change your mind. The system is flawed, and there are no two ways about it. Time to take the valuations back for reworking, because as they stand right now, they aren't working.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe I have made my position quite clear, but in case I haven't...

  • Switch from a comic book based grading system to an actual book system, since you are dealing with books.
  • Use Very Good as your median price and compute the prices for lower and higher graded items based on the average of all items in Very Good grade.
  • Be impartial in your grading, and do not take print runs, rarity, or age into consideration when grading an item.
  • Incomplete items cannot grade at anything more than Poor, or whatever the lowest grade is.
  • Make sure safeguards are implemented to prevent price fixing. What those safeguards are I leave to you, but if you want us to trust your pricing structure, those safeguards need to be present, and need to be communicated to everyone.



  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1709
Joined: Feb 04, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 23, 2016
Location: Chandler, AZ

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:06 am 
 

Wow! There certainly are a lot of points I want to address. . . so let me get started . . .

1) The issue of whether or not an item is complete and the relative grade is somewhat unique to RPG items. It is not something that baseball cards or comics or even books face (for the most part). I think an item needs to be valued on two separate factors:

CONDITION

&

COMPLETENESS

Thus, a boxed set missing the reference sheets but otherwise in FINE condition (overall) is still a FINE boxed set that is MISSING the sheets. If the box set in question had a Near Mint value of $100 and a FINE value of $65 you would have to determine what effect missing sheets had on the overall value. Perhaps missing sheets would incur a 25% reduction in price? Perhaps a missing BOX would incur a 60% reduction?

Maybe a collector (Deadlord or Traveller, for instance) might state that this set is all but "worthless" to them and that may be so, but valuations must be done objectively taking everyone into account. This item DOES have collectable value -- plain and simple. Whether or not it does to an individual is irrelevant, value must be determined based on the entire collecting community.

For instance: I HATE highlighter and I DESPISE tape. I will not keep any items with these flaws. I would sooner keep a heavily creased and worn module with ratty corners than an almost perfect one with one piece of tape on the spine. But that is just my own "aesthetic" preference -- it does not mean that the module with the tape is worth LESS than the "beat up" copy.

2) In regards to the issue of condition being the same regardless of age . . . this is one of the most well established collecting principles . . . in theory, that is . . . The reality is that this is often only 95% "true". There will always be some small degree of leniency that "creeps" in when grading the oldest items in a field. And that is okay, I think. We are not talking about "significant" oversights. . . just little acceptances. It happens in comics . . . it happens all the time! Let CGC reign their "tyrannical" whip over the collecting minions! Don't be fooled!!! Items fresh from the new stands these days a pristine and immaculate -- even a slight spine stress might knock it down to VF/NM or VF. But an Amazing Spider-Man from the 60's ? No, the standards are NOT the same . . . they are in principle, but not in practice (though they are often VERY close).

In any case, the "same grade regardless of age" system is what IS being used here.

3) As regards the issue of enumerating the flaws in a given grade and how many "minimal" flaws might bring an item to the next category. This, also, is good in theory and I have tried to do that to some extent. More can be done, I am sure, to help clarify the grades. But, again, the more items you see and grade the more variations and interpretations there will be. And there is always that "intangible" flaw that is based on the observation of the human eye. An example would be a minimal spine stress line . . . but HOW minimal . . .perhaps the unfortunate nature of the particular stress in relation to the color of the covers causes it to be unnaturally evident. Perhaps, it's overall effect is to drop the item down a grade, whereas a similar, but not so "evident" stress in another item doesn't appear as severe. But, regardless of what efforts are made, you will NEVER find the exact, one TRUE grade of an item . . . there are just too many interpretations. Again, take CGC (by the way CGC is the Comics Guarantee which will impartially grade and secure your item in a permanent holder. ) There are dozens of examples of a comic they graded being opened and resubmitted -- and then receiving a different grade. . . it will always be somewhat subjective.

4) In regards to the issue of the value of a First print Wood grain being set at $2,200 -- this number is derived directly from the actual sales of 1st print Woodies. Let's take a look at the FIVE (yes, just FIVE) recorded auctions for a 1st print Wood grain:

$2.282 in 2004 Quarter 2

$1.775 in 2002 Q3

$774 in 2003 Q4

$255 in 2000 Q1

$150 in 2001 Q4

Let's be realistic -- the last two prices were anomalies due to poor advertising and were quite long ago. Their presence as completed values actually provide INACCURATE information as to the value of 1st print wood grains.  Keeping in-line with Traveller's argument, this leaves 3 recorded sales with an average price of $1610. As I understand it, this would now be the Very Good Price. According to Traveller's further explanations of grades, FINE is 60% more valuable than Very Good. That Means that a FINE 1ST print Woodie is worth $2576. Quite a bit more than the $2,200 listed. "Them's just the facts".

If you argue than the two other prices shouldn't be eliminated, you are doing a disservice to the entire collectable hobby. Why not just include all sales? I distinctly remember Gamesguy (Jon O. ) stating that he paid $40.00 for a 1st print Woodie at a local Con.

Let's remember, also, that valuation is mostly from eBay and though ebay might reach a global marketplace, it is still a one-stop, 7 day shop bargain outlet. There was a time when dealers didn't EXPECT to sell their item in 7 days. That Wood grain might sit for 3 years on the shelf. . . how many antique dealers would have items in their store for years before they were sold? Give me a VERY FINE first print Woodie and let me stick it in my eBay store with a sale price of $2,700. I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE you that I would sell it . . . eventually. . . even if every member of the Acaeum made a pact not to buy it at that price . . . someone would. And don't tell me that it would be someone "ignorant" of the value of the item -- people have different financial situations and different "wants" at different times of their lives. Buying and selling is often about desire and temptation . . . I have looked at things I wanted, but the price was too high and passed them up. . . time after time after time . . . and then one day said "Ah, screw it!" and bought it anyway. . .

5) Finally, as regards potential "manipulation". I will not say I take offense, but let me make it clear that my own sense of honesty and integrity is rock solid. As the current moderator, I do have a lot of influence and the opportunity to at least attempt to "steer" prices in a particular direction.  I would never do this, nor do I think any member of the board would, but, ideally, everyone is there to keep the entire system honest and out of the hands of one person -- a built in system of checks and balances. Furthermore, if it helps keep any minds at ease . . . I am not a collector of RARE items, nor am I a reseller of them. In fact, I do not have a vested interest in determining values of Rarity 4 & 5 items at all! So perhaps I am that "impartial" party that traveller thinks is absolutely necessary?  As far as establishing grading standards and influencing more "common" items . . . reseller or not, I have always graded the items I sell with absolute scrutiny and very often overly strict standards. I have no hidden agenda other than, perhaps, deriving a certain sense of PRIDE in helping establish an accurate, honest and viable system. The items in my own collection are invariably low to mid grade and there for my own enjoyment.  As far as what the future holds -- even if you were to say you trust me and everyone else on the Valuation board implicitly, it does not mean that down the road things might change. Again, that is why there is supposed to be multiple members deriving their data from actual sales.

6) One other point: the "Book" value system OR the "comic value" system -- The goal, I think, is to establish an RPG value system.


"Gleemonex makes it feel like it's seventy-two degrees in your head... all... the... time! "

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:59 am 
 

i think BTB should be president :)



  

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 2121
Joined: Oct 19, 2002
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2021
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:55 am 
 

While I think beyondthebreach has made some excellent points regarding the grading system -- which I happen to agree with -- I'd like to address some of the other issues in your post:

Traveller wrote:It's a fortunate thing that I only come here to chat on the forums and pay little attention to the prices, but I take offense to the thinly veiled invitation to leave over the expression of a VALID criticism. Price fixing, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, is a legitimate concern here. To me, you have issues to address, and I really do not believe I am the only one who feels that way.


Perhaps it's the way you're presenting that criticism? As a thinly-veiled attack on people's integrity, including mine? I think I've answered that accusation the best I can -- and I've answered it the same way many times in the past five years. Matter of fact, I'm actually stunned that this issue continues to re-surface, especially since A) neither you, nor anyone else here, has presented evidence to support it, and B) the new system actually removes all influence on valuation from me and transfers it to a group of forum members! What more could you ask for?

If the second option is "remove all price values from the site", that will not happen. As stated in my earlier post, I believe it adds to, rather than detracts from, the collecting hobby. Yes, we've got some kinks to work out. No, it's not a complete disaster.

traveller wrote:It's because of this very issue of trying to maintain the value of the 1st print Woodgrain at $2200 that I pointed out that ONLY a median grade should be used in actually determining the prices of items. By doing that, it reduces or even eliminates the possibility of price fixing, because you're not looking for anything in grades other than the one you're using to determine the values. There is no doubt that in the case of that woodgrain, somebody is going to take a hit in the proverbial pocketbook, but it's a lot more fair and impartial to use a middle grade as your baseline and determining the price points for other grades using percentages than to utilize the highest grade and work down. It's also far less work for the valuation board if you think about it, because then they don't have to worry about chasing after some schlep only to find out that the guy bought a piece of crap.


If I'm reading you right -- you're saying that all sale prices of an item should be discarded, other than the sale prices of items in VG (median) condition? And then a straight percentage applied to those sales? I can't see how that solves anything. For one, many of the rare items don't have enough sales in total, let alone if you start discarding every sale not in VG condition. Secondly, the issue of price curves again comes into play. Let's say you determine that the median price of B2 -- VG condition -- is $2. You apply a straight percentage to that, and come up with a NM value of $4 (let's say 100% increase for the sake of argument). Now, we take some rare items:

    * An H1 Bloodstone Pass. Median VG price, let's say, is $22. That's about how much VG copies of H1 are selling for, off the top of my head -- nobody wants one with the box caved in. You double that price for your NM value and you get $44. Is that accurate? Nope. A NM H1 will go for near $100, and twice that if it's in shrink.

    * An orange B3. Again, like above, the VG price on one of these might be $150 -- nobody wants one in that condition. The NM & shrinked copy will go for $600 - $800.

    * A woodgrain set. Your VG price is $1600 -- are you going to double that for a NM set?

And on and on. The point being, if we could apply a straight percentage to all items across the board, this would be a lot easier -- and lot less accurate. All items are not the same. Collectors will pay multiple times the VG value for some items, but only a marginal increase for other items. The composition of that curve for each item is why the Board was formed.

traveller wrote:One added thought. If you had read what I said earlier in this thread, there is no such thing as mint when it comes to book collecting. The best you can hope for is that the book hasn't been read, which is what Very Fine entails. These are books, and should be graded using the same criteria that is used in the book collector market.


Agreed. And we most likely will adopt many of the elements of the book market. The use of the word "mint" is more due to habit than anything else. However, most RPG items have more in common with comic books (softback) than books (hardback), so a balance needs to be reached.

traveller wrote:The system is flawed, and there are no two ways about it. Time to take the valuations back for reworking, because as they stand right now, they aren't working.


The system is beta, which I've stated before. But we're coming around to circular arguments here. If you think the situtation is so hopeless, why are you even bothering to comment on it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, though I think I've made my points quite clear:

Switch from a comic book based grading system to an actual book system, since you are dealing with books.

    No we aren't, but we'll look at several grading systems.

Use Very Good as your median price and compute the prices for lower and higher graded items based on the average of all items in Very Good grade.

    Completely irrational.

Be impartial in your grading, and do not take print runs, rarity, or age into consideration when grading an item.

    We're attempting to do that to the best of our ability. We've said this before, so why are you belaboring the impartiality bit? Either you believe it's occuring as we say it is, or you don't trust us. Either way, your mind is made up.

Incomplete items cannot grade at anything more than Poor, or whatever the lowest grade is.

    The majority of the Valuation Board does not agree with you. Nor do I. Missing parts do not relegate an item as collectibly worthless, though it may be worthless to some collectors.

Make sure safeguards are implemented to prevent price fixing. What those safeguards are I leave to you, but if you want us to trust your pricing structure, those safeguards need to be present, and need to be communicated to everyone.

    The best safeguard we've come up with -- and which has been communicated! -- is having multiple people looking at values, and the entire group making a decision. If that's not enough for you personally, then I think you're going to be against any system not administrated by Traveller. But I gathered that already, based on your comment regarding the federal government....

Foul

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 299
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 14, 2008
Location: OHIO

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:11 am 
 

:?  :(



Sheesh.....



Really guys...the key word and central idea of the whole kit-and-caboodle is in the name of what it is you are trying to accomplish....Price GUIDE.



Guides are guides.  That's it.  Simple enough.  No matter how thoroughly it is researched; no matter how many opinions are collected; and no matter how many sources are cited, in the end, it is only a guide.  Guides are as subjective as each individual book is described.  



To one individual, a crease may be minor, to another, it may be so major that it cuts the worth of the item down several grades.  To one individual, that crease may devalue a rare item hundreds of dollars, to another (say someone that does not have the item), it may not really appear all that devastating at the time.  Same goes wtih overall worth of an item.  There are tons of variables that go into an items worth.  If you are simply using Ebay as a source, you may want to follow PurpleDragon's sound advice "PurpleDragon

Active Collector





Joined: 14 Feb 2003

Last Visit: 20 Feb 2005

Posts: 159

Location: Salem, MA

 Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:27 pm    



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if you really want to establish what these books go for on ebay, you will have to:



1. gather a time stamped source for every auction involving that item every month.



2. maintain that list until you have at least 60 instances (minimum is usually 30, but you invariably lose anywhere from 25-50% under validity tests, which is in step 3).



3. remove any instances of the item where it has been included with other items in an auction lot; or was placed in an unusual location within ebay (listed under books or magazines, etc).



4. perform a Dixon's test for outliers. This will remove instances that are far out of the range of a normal curve (such as some new ebayer paying $200 for something that is only worth $20 or a $200 item that slips through the cracks and sells for $20, the sword cuts both ways).



5. Take your final sample population and derive simple statistics on it (mode, median, and mean, standard deviation, etc). You can then get into trends an so on.



However, it may take some time to actually get the 60 instances that you can work with because you will have to establish a minimum level of item quality (mint, excellent, good, etc; and you will have to have a decent enough auction picture to make that judgement. Naturally, the higher the quality accepted the more accurate the final valuations.



Of course, all of the above only applies if you are really going to try to establish an accurate value assessment for any collectible item. If we are just going to do an "I go by this and you go by that and mine is more valid" then you are as likely to be just as accurate if you put a bunch of prices in a hat and then pick one. "



Course, there are always other sites that you can find some of the items...i.e. Yahoo, BN.com, and other gaming sites....



Just remember everyone...a guide is a guide is a guide..but never a Guido.



Best of luck at any rate.  I watch and read with much anticipation.


May Eru's light shine upon you always.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:03 am 
 

one thing you will never achieve, is pleasing everyone. it just does'nt ever happen.



i am quite happy with the valuation process as it is. some things i dont particularly agree with, but as i agree with the majority, then thats ok.



whoever you are trading with, so long as you are both happy with your valuations, THAT is the most important thing.



the more expensive something is, the bigger the difference of opinion if you ask me, as there is much more at stake.



keep up the good work guys, its a bummer of a task, but my total respect for being big enough to carry it out.



  


Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1043
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 01, 2020
Location: Leicester, UK

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:08 am 
 

killjoy32 wrote:keep up the good work guys, its a bummer of a task, but my total respect for being big enough to carry it out.




(before anyway tries to qualify this post)



Alan, thank you very much (and that probably goes for the rest of the Valuation board)  :D

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2021

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:34 pm 
 

FoulFoot wrote:The system is beta, which I've stated before. But we're coming around to circular arguments here. If you think the situtation is so hopeless, why are you even bothering to comment on it?


Did I at any point say it was hopeless?  Did I say to remove the prices completely from the site?  Absolutely not.  At this point, I could care less who you are.  Do not put words into my mouth.  That is about as offensive as your invitation to leave.  So what are you going to do for an encore?

Just because my point of view in regards to the current situation with valuation does not coincide at all with yours does not allow you the luxury of speaking for me.

You don't like what I have to say on the subject?  You believe my thinking is somehow irrational simply because of how every other group that has ever graded things has done it the way I outlined? (each grade being a percentage of the top grade)  You believe I am off base in believing that price fixing can occur, even if it may not?

Then deal with it.  Prove me wrong.

I believe I am totally on target.  I've done my homework in this area, and I fully understand the pitfalls that can and will occur.  You can and probably will of course dismiss my thoughts as irrational, as you have already done.  However, dismissing those thoughts as you have does not render those thoughts invalid.  All it allows you to do is avoid addressing those concerns, either because you're unwilling to, or unable to.

This isn't about satisfaction.  This is about ensuring that you guys get it right the first time so that the system you are concocting will last for quite some time.  In spite of this being a beta, to me none of you are even close to the mark that has been established in other collecting fields for far longer than you and I have been around.

In closing, I believe that throughout this discussion I have fulfilled the parameters required to participate within it.  I've kept things civil, brought up valid concerns, and provided alternatives to what you are doing now.  Yet I'm being the irrational one here?  More likely it seems to be you that seems to be irrational, and afraid to admit that you've completely missed the target.

But since that is not what you wanted to hear, I'll just leave this thread.  I have far better things I can be doing.



  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 682
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Sep 13, 2019
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:45 pm 
 

I'm going to stay out of this for the most part, because I don't want to contribute a lot of hours to the cause when the current board is doing quite well. :) But I did want to make some clarifications and clear up some misconceptions.

•        There is no effort by the board to manipulate prices for personal gain. None. I defy anyone and everyone to prove otherwise, which is quite easy actually, because there is no proof to be found. I myself, when asked to head the board, asked if I should resign as a conflict of interest since I am a reseller. This idea was rejected, and I proceeded to calculate valuations according to data, not emotions, regardless of the effect they had on the value of my own items. I founded the board with strict, written rules on conduct and integrity and the board has followed those rules with honor.

•        No prices were pulled out of anyone's ass. All of the valuations are based on actual hard data, pulled in September and October of 2004. If you have a problem with the dollar values that items are going for, you don't have a problem with the board. You have a problem with eBay.

•        That being said, I'm quite certain my valuations are out of date. I resigned on November 1st, and therefore no November-March data were included in the calculations. A considerable number of rarity 5 items for example were sold in November and December, so I have no doubt that some of the valuations are already invalidated by the march of time. I know that the current board is addressing this issue but I don't know how or to what extent, so that is all I will say regarding the matter.

•        To those who are annoyed that only eBay is reflected in the prices -- believe me, I tried to find other sources. I begged, borrowed and pleaded, and did 13 hours of personal contact and Google searches on this issue alone. I found a few (very few) pieces of hard data on GenCon / Origins auction forums, proven personal sales, etc. But 98%+ of the prices come from eBay. The reasons for this are twofold. One, no company or seller is willing to share sale information of their goods. Two, even when I can get a verified price, I can't get a picture to gauge condition, and so the data becomes a "floater" that has no specific price point that can be assigned to it. Anyone who has a solution, we're all ears.

•        As I designed the valuation system, there was one overriding rule that I stuck to, even in the face of passionate opposition: Speculative prices are worthless. Hearsay is worthless. The only prices that can be accurately used in valuation are proven data. If you say, "I'd gladly spend $1,000 on a mint PotVQ 1st, so it's worth $1,000," your opinion is sadly worthless. When we look to personal emotional assessments over data, the valuations cease to become a reporting mechanism on the existing market. They instead become a reflection of what we want the market to be. That is where market manipulation begins, and I forbade it. If you say, "Well so-and-so sold XYZ his Tamoachan for $800," that too is worthless, unless I can speak to both so-and-so and XYZ, get a scan and their assessments on condition, and them merge the two opinions into an average. Hearsay cannot take precedence over data; in fact it can't have any place whatsoever if the valuations are to be an accurate reflection of the market. If you want a value to become valid (and I was always eager and starved for such information), you need to provide facts. Data. Measurable quantifications. Anything else cannot be used; you either have to refine it until it becomes provable, or throw it out.

•        To those who want RPG valuations to reflect other markets: They cannot. We're forging into unknown territory here, pioneering quantification in a collecting field that does not have any orthodox system. RPG items are, despite how hardcore a collector you may be, games. It doesn't matter if you still play, or even peruse your items. They are role-playing *games.* They were created to be played. Even if you do not accept that factual aspect of them any longer, there are many other collectors who do. Specifically, RPGs are not books. They don't have dustcovers with rare exceptions, they don't have much respect in an antiquarian's eyes, they don't have print runs in the millions, none of them have been around 500 years, they don't have 1st-Edition literati chasing after them, and they don't even age and wear in the same way. RPGs are also not comic books. Comic book valuation has been so highly regimented that a book not graded by a professional organization now has significant untapped value that can't be accessed. Comic books also have too aggressive a valuation towards mint, even when there are too many grades and no two professionals can reliably assign the same exact decimal grade to the same item 9 times out of 10. RPGs are RPGs. A unique gradation system based on their own exclusivity has to be created. We can look to comic and book systems as guidelines, but to apply apple rules religiously to oranges is foolish.

•        In my mind, there are three valid and important issues that the valuation board needs to solve, with the polite and insightful input of the collecting community. These are:

•        (1) Price point. Once you have all your data, where do you assign the baseline price? Very fine? Near mint? Good? This was always a contentious issue while I was heading the board, and one we never reached a consensus on. The current calculation mechanism (which is extensive) is a forced and averaged compromise between valid and conflicting opinions. The system I devised was based on rarity and age. Rarity, because collectors are willing to pay more, percentage-wise, for a poor Tsojconth than they are for a poor B1. Age, because it is much harder to find a Very Fine 1st print woodgrain from the 70s than it is to find a Very Fine Planescape boxed set from the 90s. I will go on the record as disagreeing with those who believe age should not be a factor in valuation, because age has a direct and pronounced effect on the probabilities of finding a high condition level. (And as an aside, if you take an antique book and rebind it, its value plummets. Restoration destroys collectability.)

•        (2) Sliding scales. What is a fair item worth as opposed to a very fine, percentage-wise? This was also a contentious issue, with a similar solution created as for (1). It is still under discussion which is as it should be. My system as designed assumed, again, that a fair rarity 5 is worth more, percentage-wise compared to mint, than a fair rarity 1.

•        (3) Print differentiations. There are some "new" valuations, such as 1st-print original supplements, and some "old" valuations, such as PotVQ printings, where logic and the actual sales data were sometimes in conflict. If, for example, a 1st-print Dwarven Glory sells for $200 good and a 3rd-print sells for $400 good, does that mean that the sales data is out of whack due to the small number of recorded sales, or does it mean that a 3rd-print is more in-demand than a 1st and should be valued higher? This is an issue of situational bidding and actual rarity. Some of these items will not have enough data elements to create a valid valuation for some years yet. Once we have 50 Tsojconth sales to work with, we can play the numbers with a little more faith in the evidence.

Please proceed, there's a lot of helpful information being discussed here, and a lot of valid concerns. But there's also a lot of snotty shit-flinging that really is creating an adversarial relationship that doesn't need to exist. The board members were chosen by Foulfoot. If you don't like that, that's your problem. Intelligent and honorable people who are, above all, chosen and willing to put in the hours will be accepted to the board. Those who are lacking in any of these qualities have been removed, or will never see its internal workings. Conduct yourselves as you wish to be remembered.

Sorry to be bitter, but really people, these guys are devoting hours upon hours of volunteer effort to try to make your hobby more professional and enjoyable. The least you can do is toss off a "thanks" and try to help them out.

Carry on!

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 628
Joined: Oct 11, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 15, 2007
Location: Illinois

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:09 pm 
 

long time no see dark  :wink:

  


Prolific Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 905
Joined: Apr 09, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2015
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:24 pm 
 

Wow. There is not a single word in darkseraphim's post, that I disagree with. Thanks for putting down my very thoughts in a language much more eloquent than I ever could write.


- "When the going gets weird, the Weird turn pro."

Hunter S. Thompson (July 18, 1937 - Feb 20, 2005)



  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:41 pm 
 

Ralf Toth wrote:Wow. There is not a single word in darkseraphim's post, that I disagree with. Thanks for putting down my very thoughts in a language much more eloquent than I ever could write.


Agreed, and welcome back Dark!  (This has all actually been an elaborate plot to get you to post again!)



Valuation Board:  Lest we forget, thanks for all the hard work.  We're a nitpicky lot, ain't we?  :wink:

 YIM  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1254
Joined: Jan 01, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2021

Post Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:18 pm 
 

Ralf Toth wrote:Wow. There is not a single word in darkseraphim's post, that I disagree with. Thanks for putting down my very thoughts in a language much more eloquent than I ever could write.




Indeed, darkseraphim took the words right from my quill as if I were actually able to pen them as eloquently as he did.  

Bravo, and here's hoping this marks his return as an active member of the board again.

  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:50 pm 
 

Just a quick update of the table earlier in this thread to incorporate the current "estimated values", prior to the next reworking.



Code:
VG grade prices:

                          2001/08   2003/06   2004/12   2005/02   2005/06   2005/02 -> 2005/06 trend

Chainmail 1st                 350       750       500       440       345   

Chainmail 2nd                 175       175       175       180       225   

Chainmail 3rd                            30        20        20        25   

OD&D 1st                      750      1250      1250      1000      1275   

OD&D 2nd                      350       650       650       460       525   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

OD&D 3rd                      350       350       350       310       360   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

OD&D 4th                                140       140        90       120   

OD&D 5th                                140       140        85       114   

OD&D OCE                                100        60        45        63   

Greyhawk T1st                 110       110       110        85        90   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Greyhawk                                 35        25        21        24   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Blackmoor 1st                            35        20        48        78   

Blackmoor                                35        20        20        23   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Eldritch Wizardry 1st                    30        25        48        84   

Eldritch Wizardry                        30        25        16        20   (not shown as an increase)

Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes 1st             30        20        45        84   

Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes                 30        20        16        20   (not shown as an increase)

Swords & Spells 1st                      25        25        32        36   (not shown as an increase)

Swords & Spells                          25        25        16        19   (not shown as an increase)

Basic Set 1st                  40        50        50        41        72   

Basic Set 2nd                            18        18        22        27   

Basic Set 3rd                            18        18        18        21   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Deities & Demigods (w/Cthulhu)           40        30        26        35   (not shown as an increase)

Monster Manual 1st             85       125        65        60        84   

Player's Handbook T1st                   85        85        65       108   

Player's Handbook 1st                    85        30        45        51   (not shown as an increase)

                                                                          .

B3 orange                     250       250       250       320       429   

B10                                      30        30        26        30   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

GDQ1-7                                   40        40        41        57   (not shown as an increase)

H1                                       40        40        45        64   (not shown as an increase)

L3                                       20        20        20        25   (not shown as an increase)

R1                             80        75        75        65        99   

R2                             80        75        75        65        96   

R3                             80        75        75        65        84   

R4                             80       110       110        75        96   

RPGA1                         100       125       125        90       150   

RPGA2                         100       125       125        90       120   

RPGA3                         100       125       125        90       120   

RPGA4                         100       125       125        90        90   (shown as a decrease)

ST1                           650      1000      1000       775      1215   

WGR1                                     35        35        29        24   

WGR4                                     25        25        24        27   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Dwarven Glory 1st             175       500       500       210       360   

Dwarven Glory 2nd              65        65        65       105       135   

Dwarven Glory 3rd              65        65        65        90       129   

G/Tower of Inverness tourney  400       650       650       450       765   

Jade Hare (coverless)         100       120       120        90       114   

Jade Hare (w/cover)           350       650       650       450       570   

Lost Caverns of Tsojconth     400       650       650       450       480   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Lost Tamoachan tourney        400       650       650       450       600   

PotVQ (w/o folder)            175       500       500       330       360   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

PotVQ (black folder)          175       500       500       330       360   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

PotVQ (3rd)                   175       350       350       180       210   (not shown as an increase)

PotVQ (4th)                    55        85        85       120       198   

PotVQ (5th)                    55        85        85        55       165   

Pharaoh                       350       650       650       500       660   

Quest for the Fazzlewood 1st  300       500       500       330       615   

Quest for the Fazzlewood 2nd  150       350       350       330       615   

Rahasia                       350       650       650       500       540   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

                                                                          .

10th Anniv. Collector's Set    50       200       200       180       315   

AD&D Fighting Wheel            50        50        50        45        54   (not shown as an increase)

Artists of TSR                                    100        65        81   (not shown as an increase)

Character Archaic              90       175       175       125       138   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Character Records 1975-green              0         0        45        54   (not shown as an increase)

Character Records 1976-orange             0         0        25        38   (not shown as an increase)

Character Records 1977-lizard             0         0        20        31   (not shown as an increase)

Character Sheets (GW)          18        85        85        75       105   

Dark & Hidden Ways (w/DSG)               30        20        30        57   

Dungeon Floor Plans (GW)       18        85        85        55        39   (not shown as a decrease)

Dungeon Geomorphs 1st (per set)          18        18        29     36-48   

First Quest (casette)          40        80        80        26        33   (not shown as an increase)

First Quest (vinyl)            40        80        80        50        60   (not shown as an increase)

Hex Sheets (GW)                18        85        85        47        72   

Outdoor Geomorphs 1st                    80        80        75        96   

Outdoor Geomorphs 2nd                    80        80        65        72   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Outdoor Geomorphs 3rd                    80        80        45        72   (shown as a decrease, actually increased)

Player Character Records AC5             10        30        38        54   

Quadrille Graph Paper          15        15        15        27        45   

Secrets of the Sages           60        60        60        45        60   

Silver Anniv. Collector's Edn.           15        15        16        25   (not shown as an increase)

Understanding D&D              30        15        15         9        11   (not shown as an increase)

Wild Things (w/WSG)            45        45        30        30       108   

                                                                          .

Dragon #1                     125       125       125        90       150   

Dragon #2                      55        55        55        45        72   

Dragon #3                      45        45        45        23        33   

Dragon #4                      35        35        35        23        33   

Dragon #5                      35        35        35        23        33   

Strategic Preview #3-6 (ea.)                       80        45     54-75   

Strategic Review #1            25        25        25        18        17   

Strategic Review #2-6 (ea.)    20        20        20        16      9-17   (#2 actually an increase)

Strategic Review #7            20        25        25        16         9   



Please let me know if I typoed any of the entries...

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 18, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:23 pm 
 

You're kidding, right? Those are the current "values"?


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 612, 3, 456