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. . ."
harami2000 wrote:How about asking people's opinions before foisting a system on them in the first place without any advance notice?Have already mentioned that it would be easy enough to run the two in parallel. Similarly, you could revert to the old valuations for the time being; take the critique, both positive and negative, do some brainstorming, and come back with a "gamma", rather than a faulty "beta".Leaving the current "valuations" in the public domain will be taken "as gospel" by passers-by. (Just like no-one has yet corrected the "Dungeon Masters Guide (2nd Alpha): NM: $562 (9/04)" line, which I pointed out, in passing).Thanks again for all the hard work.
Traveller wrote:harami2000 wrote:How about asking people's opinions before foisting a system on them in the first place without any advance notice?Have already mentioned that it would be easy enough to run the two in parallel. Similarly, you could revert to the old valuations for the time being; take the critique, both positive and negative, do some brainstorming, and come back with a "gamma", rather than a faulty "beta".Leaving the current "valuations" in the public domain will be taken "as gospel" by passers-by. (Just like no-one has yet corrected the "Dungeon Masters Guide (2nd Alpha): NM: $562 (9/04)" line, which I pointed out, in passing).Thanks again for all the hard work. I have to agree here. Price guides are not taken as guides by the general public, and never have been. That's the reality of the situation, although most collectible markets, if they publish a price guide, they still call it a guide and make mention that these are suggested values simply to cover their own asses.The current page is not ready for public consumption, and you will have people who frequent this site to check on prices taking those prices and applying them to their auctions or other sales. What happens when you finally get the page fine tuned only to see values of items, versus what they've paid for the item drop?You're going to have a great number of VERY upset people.You of the valuation board do yourselves a favor. For less headaches until you get the valuation system worked out, take down the new page and put back the old one. Once the kinks are worked out, then you put the new page up. Of course, you have a LOT of kinks to work out, so it may be a while.
Traveller wrote:I have to agree here. Price guides are not taken as guides by the general public, and never have been. That's the reality of the situation, although most collectible markets, if they publish a price guide, they still call it a guide and make mention that these are suggested values simply to cover their own asses.The current page is not ready for public consumption, and you will have people who frequent this site to check on prices taking those prices and applying them to their auctions or other sales. What happens when you finally get the page fine tuned only to see values of items, versus what they've paid for the item drop?You're going to have a great number of VERY upset people.You of the valuation board do yourselves a favor. For less headaches until you get the valuation system worked out, take down the new page and put back the old one. Once the kinks are worked out, then you put the new page up. Of course, you have a LOT of kinks to work out, so it may be a while.
harami2000 wrote:Good God, that's a horrendous mess! Page Not FoundMake mine a SW'd Blackmoor in Poor condition. (*g*)Plus a 1st Greyhawk in VG.And a Fair 4th print OD&D box. (Maybe even a 2nd, too...)No idea why the T1st DMG prices were "updated" after Paul's research...*blinks eyes*<...>Could you please re-post the old valuations so I can save them for reference (flawed though they were).p.s. Am with you on the NM/M distinction, but if appealing to comic grading & pricing a truly Mint (10.0) copy should cost 5 or more times a NM (9.4) one, not virtually the same... (*lol*)*points to the CGC debacle...*. And even they don't go as hyper over trashing the lower grades.
Traveller wrote:I think part of the problem that has some objecting is this: the members of the valuation board are not being impartial in their grading. Some of them are resellers themselves while others are collectors. All of them though have a vested interest to maintain the highest prices possible. For the resellers, to maximize their profit. For the collectors, to say "my book is valued at X" and to maximize their profit if they sell.
harami2000 wrote:Similarly, you could revert to the old valuations for the time being; take the critique, both positive and negative, do some brainstorming, and come back with a "gamma", rather than a faulty "beta".
Alpha testingIn software development, testing is usually required before release to the general public. In-house developers often test the software in what is known as 'alpha' testing which is often performed under a debugger or with hardware-assisted debugging to catch bugs quickly. This technique is known as white box or glass box testing.It can then be handed over to testing staff for additional inspection in an environment similar to how it was intended to be used. This technique is known as black box testing. This is often known as the second stage of alpha testing.Beta testingFollowing that, limited public tests known as beta-versions are often released to groups of people so that further testing can ensure the product has few faults or bugs. Sometimes, beta-versions are made available to the open public to increase the feedback field to a maximal number of future users.Gamma testingThere are companies that introduced the so-called gamma tests, which means feature-completed, but the software did not run through all the in-house quality checks. Some cynics refer to software release as "gamma testing".
