Deadlord36 wrote:D20's. The standard should be D20's."i'll give you 500 D20's for that 3rd print brown box.)
tsrart wrote:So, realistically, it is worth $1,500, since everyone else's bids would be destroyed by John's. You can't take the average, which seems around $800, because the Huckster just made it worth $1,500. Do you see?Well, only if you are talking about a very limited time span and circumstance. What if the Huckster is the only person on the planet willing to pay more than $800? Say he buys one for $1500. No one else will pay more than $800 - so is the value for the NEXT copy $800? Or $1500 (which no one will pay)?Valuation on any non-unique item has to be based on an average, not an isolated abberrant price. Otherwise, you end up with a VERY unstable market, with no item really having a true "value."Besides that, valuations based on "assuming finances weren't an issue" aren't worth much. If finances weren't an issue, I'd offer $25k for the Robh Ruppel painting I'm trying to get away from the owner. However, if finances weren't an issue, he wouldn't need the money . . . . Real world dollars are the only ones that matter. And that's even more true in the case of the Tamoachan, which isn't a unique item.Just my $.02!Pat
So, realistically, it is worth $1,500, since everyone else's bids would be destroyed by John's. You can't take the average, which seems around $800, because the Huckster just made it worth $1,500. Do you see?
bclarkie wrote:I think one point being missed here in this discussion is the fact are we talking about the "value" of something or are we talking about "how much someone is willing to pay". Both I think are totally different amounts and I think there is some confusion to that point. Fact of the matter is just because some JACKASS is willing to pay $450.00 for a Warriors of Mars, does not mean that it has that "value" . I mean using that logic, I could say well sh*t, "I'd pay $20,000 for a second print B2!!!", but as everyone clearly knows, that sure in hell does not mean that it has that "value". That is were I think the valuation board comes in, and establishing figures on what items actual values seem to be based on previous sales history. I know this has been beat to death, but a price guide is simply a GUIDE. The guide itself is supposed to be just to establish the relative particular "value" of an item and it is not set up to say that is what you have to pay. It is also not to determine "How much is somebody willing to pay". As stated before, I know we don't live in a vacuum, and I know instinctually a lot of people view price guides as saying that is what you have to pay, but in order to have an effective price guide you have to do it based on the averages. Just another of my .02(I am going to have to start selling off my collection if this keeps up )
Traveller wrote:Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered replying to this thread, as I seem to be as welcome as Maxwell right about now.
Xaxaxe wrote:Keep posting, Trav. I might not have been in agreement with everything you've written, but I do appreciate that you're attempting to approach the subject with logical arguments and great passion.I've learned a lot, both from your posts and from those of some who have fired back at you. I hope everyone keeps bringing forth suggestions, and I further hope we all try to dial down the snide remarks and witty comebacks ... no matter where one stands in the Great Valuation Debates of 2005, it's important to remember that there's a difference between criticism and constructive criticism, not to mention a difference between defending yourself and being too defensive.End of sermon.
Various statements from the previous posts.
beyondthebreach wrote:Traveller, just to throw in my own opinion . . . of course, you are welcome to continue to post . . . in fact, I hope you do. But you must admit, you got downright rude and insulting with your replies . . . if you don't believe me, just put yourself in my shoes and go back and read them. . . That is often the curse of the internet sometimes. It is easy to get carried away when we are typing things out to people whom we identify with mainly as "screen names'.
traveller wrote: and refuse to sugar coat my words simply to make people feel better. That's not how I work. That has NEVER been how I work.
Traveller wrote::roll:Getting a bit melodramatic are we?
harami2000 wrote:Traveller wrote::roll:Getting a bit melodramatic are we?If that's all it is, I love a decent melodrama to chill out...Still seems like "ivory tower" syndrome, though; can read claims to be "listening", but little or no evidence to back such claims.(Easy to see where the frustration comes from in such circumstances).
Ralf Toth wrote:harami2000 wrote:If that's all it is, I love a decent melodrama to chill out...Still seems like "ivory tower" syndrome, though; can read claims to be "listening", but little or no evidence to back such claims.(Easy to see where the frustration comes from in such circumstances).And my frustration is the direct result of sarcastic smart asses who contribute NOTHING but keep on criticising and bashing. Go post a proposal for an improvement to the valuation system before you reply to my comment. Traveller did that. You never did.
harami2000 wrote:If that's all it is, I love a decent melodrama to chill out...Still seems like "ivory tower" syndrome, though; can read claims to be "listening", but little or no evidence to back such claims.(Easy to see where the frustration comes from in such circumstances).
beyondthebreach wrote:How about starting a concern with a: "that looks good, but have you ever considered. . . " or "one thing that occurs to me as a possible flaw is that . . ."or"maybe it might be beneficial to. . ."
