harami2000 wrote:

muaddib5 wrote:WHITE DWARF Issue 1 June/July 1977

WHITE DWARF Issue 1 June July 1977 | eBay

Apparently nice copy, but $14 for UK postage (compulsory "Special Delivery"), and a reserve. *gives that a quick check*



[edit] $80+ reserve...

*lol* Just spotted the recent question on the re-listing; http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 5244570926



=



And, on-topic, ain't we getting flooded under with Dragons 1, 2, etc., just now? Hopefully not bad timing, Mike...

improvstone wrote:
1. The bidder has NOT pushed up the price by any excessive levels

2. The Seller has requested the bidder stop bidding under that name

3. If someone wished to remain anonymous so be it

Back! Back foul Logic! Your kind isn't welcome here!







/could re-buy most, if not all, of my collection for what someone's going to pay for this one module

GraysonAC wrote:

improvstone wrote:
1. The bidder has NOT pushed up the price by any excessive levels

2. The Seller has requested the bidder stop bidding under that name

3. If someone wished to remain anonymous so be it

Back! Back foul Logic! Your kind isn't welcome here!







/could re-buy most, if not all, of my collection for what someone's going to pay for this one module

Sorry for being illogical and for being 100% careful before I drop $2500.00 on something. Maybe I am poorer then the rest of you, but I can not afford to piss away $2500.00, especially when I am not going to be sure that I didnt have to spend $2500.00 at all. Sorry. With that being said Improv does make a couple of good points, but I still fail to see any reason by wanting to be "Anonymous". Is someone afraid that we are all going to gang up them and break into their house and steal it??? Or is because like in other mulitmillion dollar auctions that there can be tax implications, or people not wanting others to know their true worth???



I am sorry, but the other thing I find completly annoying about this whole situation is that this is third ST1 that has come up for bid in the last 8 months and all of it turns into all this bullshit secretive backdoor dealing. Why??? What about this module makes everyone so secretive??? Must be me....

dbartman wrote:That being said, I still would like to see people submit the price they paid for rare items to the Acaeum, even if it's done anonymously. That way we can track the value/trend of these items over time.

Would you propose that be done parallel to the official eBay-based tracking, then, or as a component of the "valuations"?



Yes; a good idea if done honestly, IMO.

(There's nothing to stop me saying I paid $65 for my 1st Chainmail, for example ).

Wilderness Survival Guide: Nonfiction | eBay

harami2000 wrote:

dbartman wrote:That being said, I still would like to see people submit the price they paid for rare items to the Acaeum, even if it's done anonymously. That way we can track the value/trend of these items over time.

Would you propose that be done parallel to the official eBay-based tracking, then, or as a component of the "valuations"?



Yes; a good idea if done honestly, IMO.

(There's nothing to stop me saying I paid $65 for my 1st Chainmail, for example ).

I agree.  There would have to be some type of verification of the amount paid.  Therein lies the problem, especially for an item that comes up infrequently.  One bad apple could spoil the whole lot of them.



If the item could authenticated though, it should be added to the existing list, but the source of the item would need to be documented.

GraysonAC wrote:

dbartman wrote:Believe it or not, some people don't want others to know that the have a bunch of extremely valuable items around their home. Case in point, would you broadcast to the world that you had a $2500.00 diamond ring laying on your bookshelf? Probably not…

And I'm sure whoever it was is going to be really enthusiastic to reveal their identity, after this thread.



The sellers has apparently determined for sure that it's not a shill bidder. I'm honestly really surprised at all the venom being thrown around because someone wants to stay anonymous.



Now whoever it is gets to decide whether they want to bid again, using their normal eBay ID, and get blasted by folks here after the auction is over. Whee.

I guess that you missed the part where the "anonymous" bidders name is cuattheacaeumboys. I state again, that if someone was really trying to be anonymous they would have chosen an anonymous name.....



With that, this conversation has really been beat to death, lets move on to something more interesting.

harami2000 wrote:

dbartman wrote:Bummer, any reason behind blocking you? Perhaps you already discussed elsewhere and I missed it.

I saw the international bids and for some reason presumed a "green light" rather than check, as usual. Evidently I was wrong!



Presumably sellers can also choose to block on the basis of their stated shipping destination, save for any manually-included individuals?

I asked the seller what the mechanism was for that, for future reference, but they never replied.



(Would be surprised if my bid was the only one to hit that wall...).

You can set your sellers settings to block bidders outside of your listed shipping destiantions, however, in your sellers options you can also put bidders User IDs that you preapprove to bid on your auction regardless of your other buyer requirements.

dbartman wrote:I agree. There would have to be some type of verification of the amount paid. Therein lies the problem, especially for an item that comes up infrequently. One bad apple could spoil the whole lot of them.



If the item could authenticated though, it should be added to the existing list, but the source of the item would need to be documented.

*nod nods*. But in the case of that $65 1st Chainmail, for example, it would still be problematic deciding what to do if it was verified.



From my perspective any one realisation does not (or should not?) materially affect the consensus value but it can dramatically impact the demonstrated/perceived values and lead to collector mentality over-reactions in both upwards  and downwards directions.

*

("Consensus value" as noted, in passing = what the worth would be if "everyone" got around the table and a valuation was derived working from the higher bids for an appropriate number of individuals according to the likelihood of the item's availability. This is about as close to the "dog" as you can get, I think...).



jm-02-cents, fwiw.