Informal poll
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 41, 2, 3, 4
Author

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 03, 2022

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:28 am 
 

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.



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6834
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Dec 05, 2022
Location: UK

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:06 am 
 

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.




By the same token, I'd be very pleased if some seller's would visit the site and set their BIN prices accordingly.  :D


This week I've been mostly eating . . . The white ones with the little red flecks in them.

 WWW  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6455
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 10, 2022

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:19 am 
 

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: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.




Hey folks, just trying to be the voice of reason here, but in all fairness here, I think that this is what is causing tension around here. I agree that there are definitely some things that are not correct with the current valuations, but I think the way everyone is going about it is wrong. I think part of it stems from hard feelings about who is and who is not currently on the valuation board. I am sure that the kinks on these valuations for the most part Will be fixed, but there is no Perfect system. Traveller and Harami, I am not trying to pick on you guys or single you guys out specifically, but the 2 comments listed below just happened to be the first couple that I was able to find relatively quickly because they were posted very early in the discussions about the valuations. Believe me, there have been many others by several people on both sides:



harami2000 wrote:Good God, that's a horrendous mess! :( :( :(



Page Not Found



Make 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.




Now at this point, I agree that so far the folks of the valuation board have met some of the suggestions with resistance, and have been relatively defensive about the current valuations, but if I was a member of the current board, I would probably be feeling a little bit defensive myself. Being a member of the board, I think you have to expect a certain amount of criticism with the figures no matter how good they are, but when the new valuations were first posted, people just came out FIRING with accusations and about how everything was screwed up and it was just SO wrong. At this point, I still see a lot of attacking and defending going on and it is preventing the process from progressing. Remember NOBODY is perfect. Currently, it is currenly one side against the other and it is clearly not working that way. I think everyone needs to take a step back and reassess the situation. If this is going to work, everyone has to work together. I don't think(I could be wrong on this of course, I have been many times in the past :oops: ) that it is feasable for Foul to just put up the old figures, so for right now we have to deal with the figures that are currently up. I think at this point we should start everything anew and try to work together fresh from step 1. Remember Everyone's opinion matters in this discussion, but try also to remember to respect other positions as well, as they may differ from your own. We can make this work, but only if we do it together. :D

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

***** now ducking, as I am sure a volley of attacks is sure to follow up this post.**** :wink:


"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

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:51 am 
 

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".


Warning: This post is a complete sidebar.



From a software development viewpoint, the term "beta" refers to software in the process of "beta testing".  



It's not really a qualitative term, all betas are "faulty" until they complete this testing.  



A "gamma" is a feature-complete version of a beta, but not less faulty.  Yes, I'm a pedant.



From http://www.answers.com/topic/software-testing

Alpha testing

In 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 testing

Following 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 testing

There 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".




 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6834
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Dec 05, 2022
Location: UK

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:53 pm 
 

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...


This week I've been mostly eating . . . The white ones with the little red flecks in them.

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 41
Joined: Feb 21, 2005
Last Visit: Apr 23, 2005
Location: Portland, OR

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:17 pm 
 

"By the same token, I'd be very pleased if some seller's would visit the site and set their BIN prices accordingly."







Exactly why I was one of the many who joined this site in Feb. While I admit that most of this valuation discussion is WAY over my head, even as a 'newbie seller' I can appreciate EVERY side and consider myself fortunate to be learning so much from so many different viewpoints. Granted there are no 'barbs' being slung my way (since I am too ignorant of the process to contribute to the discussion) I prefer to consider passion as the reason for the heat in the discussion rather than animosity towards anyone. From a very new persons standpoint, I have found this site to be EXTREMELY useful (and entertaining). My hat is off to ALL OF YOU for breaking new ground in trying to merge two seemingly incongruent systems into a new one for a relatively new market. (although I still have yet to figure out why two OCE sets in about the same condition went for $51 and $110 but I am still learning)



Just my .02 (OK, maybe it's only worth .01)


Scouts out!

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6834
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Dec 05, 2022
Location: UK

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:27 pm 
 

cavscout761 wrote:Just my .02 (OK, maybe it's only worth .01)


:D  :lol:  :lol:


This week I've been mostly eating . . . The white ones with the little red flecks in them.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8241
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Mar 05, 2022
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:50 pm 
 

mbassoc2003 wrote:
cavscout761 wrote:Just my .02 (OK, maybe it's only worth .01)


:D :lol: :lol:




***places a bid*** .03


Are we nearly there yet?

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6834
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Dec 05, 2022
Location: UK

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:59 pm 
 

killjoy32 wrote:
mbassoc2003 wrote:
:D :lol: :lol:




***places a bid*** .03


Do you know something about cavscout's packing method for his 2 cents that the rest of us don't, Alan?  :D


This week I've been mostly eating . . . The white ones with the little red flecks in them.

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 276
Joined: Feb 26, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 28, 2011

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:28 pm 
 

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...




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.



<i>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. </i>



Actually, the general public takes the guides as summaries of what the prices are likely to be.



Though I ended up paying more to get a rules Cyclopedia because I (a) wanted one and (b) no one seemed to be letting them slip through e-bay for less.



I follow sword sales, somewhat, and the issues are similar.  I'm always amazed to see items where there are wait lists go for significant discounts sometimes and a mark-up at others.



Classifieds (Non-business Users)



can be an interesting experience.



I'm still learning here, while I try to get the heroquest file materials back (all the internal chaosium papers pre-Robin Laws actually putting the rules together) and other misc. stuff.



And, I still need to get to the post office to mail out my current box of stuff to Paul.


Regards,



Stephen

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 276
Joined: Feb 26, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 28, 2011

Post Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:31 pm 
 

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.




I'm not sure we are disagreeing.



I'm almost tempted to post some various market and value theories, some marxist labor theory of value, etc. stuff.  But then, I don't want to become an example of why many economists are loathed, hated and disliked. ;)



(Most of those theories disagree, and many claim that the other ones are long discredited).



Anyway, this has been an interesting post indeed.


Regards,



Stephen

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6834
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Dec 05, 2022
Location: UK

Post Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:02 am 
 

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.


This week I've been mostly eating . . . The white ones with the little red flecks in them.

 WWW  


Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:55 am 
 

First time I've been back to this thread since my first post.



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. $1500



But 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)




To put my answer in other words, what I was trying to say was that in the hypothetical situation of finances not being an issue, I would still want to pay the least amount I thought I could get away with while still getting the item.



This could be as little as $750 or as much as $1500 depending on my understanding of the sellers postion.



However, in the real world I would not be bidding anything.

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 276
Joined: Feb 26, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 28, 2011

Post Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:06 am 
 

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.




That is not a bad idea, and the way many stock analysts discuss stock.  You have the estimated long term value and the current range of market prices.  The one is the value to a collector, the other is the current price a buyer or seller would expect.


Regards,



Stephen

  
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 41, 2, 3, 4