burntwire brothers wrote: We are holding onto them as we feel they will keep going up in value over the next few years.
Deadlord39 wrote:So that's two. Anyone else? If not, it is officially rarer than Inverness, Tamo, Fazzle, etc. since the total number of known copies is far greater.
mud2guard wrote:I've got one of the signed sets, bought from the collection of Keith Strohm via gal_havoc. But no longer in shrink! It cost about 102$ I think.If anyone is interested in a 1st edition games workshop players handbook1st print (complete with phone number), its on sale in:http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 8775465550free postage to the UK.
Deadlord39 wrote:If you wanted to figure in unproveable hypotheses, I would point out that a large number of tourney players kept the modules, or sold them to other players/collectors. We can assume that many of the people who bought Easley sets immediately deshrinked them, and probably used the Easley print for a wall decoration. The reasoning behind this is that the tourney mods were obviously rare when they were marketed, whereas the Easley sets were not. Heck, even I didn't know the difference.
Deadlord39 wrote:Nope, doesn't work that way, Deimos. As I said, people KNEW Fazzle was rare. I doubt anyone thought the Easley set was. Besides, you can't go by Acaeum sales for Fazzles or Easleys. I've sold 2 Fazzles privately that were never listed.The only valid data that can be used is copies of either one that are DEFINITELY in existence. Since the only real collection method we have is polling, that is the data that has to be used. Ergo, STATISTICALLY, Easley is rarer.But the end result is this: More people would rather have a Faz than an Easley, therefore it is worth more.
Deadlord39 wrote:Nope, doesn't work that way, Deimos. As I said, people KNEW Fazzle was rare. I doubt anyone thought the Easley set was.
Deadlord39 wrote:Since the only real collection method we have is polling, that is the data that has to be used. Ergo, STATISTICALLY, Easley is rarer.
Deadlord39 wrote:3.5 Easleys for every Fazzle, assuming 300 were printed, which is another unproveable. Were they all sold? Were any trashed? Where were they marketed? Was the regular set out at the same time for less money? There are too many variables to make an accurate assumption. Assumptions were made about ST1, and look how THAT turned out.
bombadil wrote:Interesting discussion, guys.Shouldn't the comparison of rarity be made relative to the length of time the products have been on the market? Given enough time, an item will become rare even with a low attrition rate.Assuming the survival rates of Fazzle and Silver Ann are what Tyson stated (approx 87% an 60%, respectively), this is what the remaining numbers look like after comparable periods on the market:[ Image ]Relative to length of time on the market, the signed Silver Ann is rarer than Fazzlewood.