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".
cavscout761 wrote:Just my .02 (OK, maybe it's only worth .01)
mbassoc2003 wrote:cavscout761 wrote:Just my .02 (OK, maybe it's only worth .01)
killjoy32 wrote:mbassoc2003 wrote: ***places a bid*** .03
mbassoc2003 wrote:
mbassoc2003 wrote:In defence of the present listed valuations, I would say there is a difference between the inherent underlying value of a product, and it's present value in the market place. The fact that I can get £110K for my house in the present economic climate does not detract from the fact that it is a £80K property. I may choose to sell it when the market is up, but I would be very stupid to mortgage it for more than £80K unless I was planning to be in it for the long haul.If you consider the valuations offered as an inherent underlying value, and not a value that goes up and down at the whim of the eBay market, you should not go far wrong.I know I paid $879 for a PoVQ without folder, but that was a desicion based in part on the US vs. UK exchange rate. If I had known there was a black folder version coming up the following week I'd have bid differently.Personally, I don't think Acaeums values for products affect their sale price one bit. Far less so that their descriptions and print sequence do.Just my 2...
Deadlord36 wrote:Ethesis, I see your point, but like I said, Huckie would not be the only one to pay $1,500. Someone was willing to pay $1,495. And someone was probably willing to pay $1,100. And so on.
Ethesis wrote:Now that is nicely said.But, when I look at "value" I'm using it to determine what something will probably sell for or what I will probably end up paying to get it.
johnhuck wrote:Deadlord36 wrote:What would you personally pay for this item, assuming finances were not an issue?Difficult. These aren't meant to be smart-assed answers...If finances were not an issue and I new there was no one else in the running, as little as I thought I could get away with. $750?If finances were not an issue and I new there were others being offered it, probably well over the odds so that the seller wasn't tempted to try and play us off against each other. $1500But finances are an issue, so I would tell them to ask someone else.(Please note that the figures used were for illustrative purposes only and might be way off the mark)
Deadlord36 wrote:What would you personally pay for this item, assuming finances were not an issue?
mbassoc2003 wrote:Ethesis wrote:Now that is nicely said.But, when I look at "value" I'm using it to determine what something will probably sell for or what I will probably end up paying to get it.In which case, maybe we should be publishing 'Underlyings Estimated Value' and 'Projected Market Value for 2005/6' based on the current sales trends. That gives you one set of figures that fluctuate gradually and are likely to increase over time, and a second set of figures that refect the market more closely, but will have highs and lows.