Silver Anniversary Set
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 31, 2, 3
Author


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:23 am 
 

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.

Fair enough.  We only know for sure that two exist, and there may be more.  To assume there are only two is an equally mistaken assumption.

Since I'm tired of fighting with DL39, let's assume that there are only two, as that's the information we can confirm.  Well, that's not in a vacuum; you have to get to this point from 1000.  How can that be explained?

1.  998 of these have been destroyed in the last 6-7 years.
2.  (There are more than 2, we're decided to ignore this option.)

If we assume that 998 were destroyed, the survival rate is a very low percentage.  But that "fact" makes no sense given other supporting information.

In order for the survival rate to be this low, these sets must have been destroyed in large quantities.  Which seems to suggest not many made their way into informed collector's hands.  (Collectors would presumably be less likely to destroy them, knowing their potential value.)  That's plausible, actually.  No problem so far.  They fell into the wrong hands and got wiped out.

So the people destroying these 998 copies aren't collectors who are aware of their potential value.  However, an uninformed "destructive population" wouldn't single out only the signed copies!

It's reasonable to assume they'd destroy with equal fervour the non-signed copies, and in fact not differentiate between them at all.  There's no reason to assume the survival rate of the non-signed sets would be significantly different, if anything, the signed copies should have a slight edge, if any fell into the "right hands" and were preserved.

So how can we explain this, given that the survival rate of the non-signed sets?  They were printed in much higher quantities, but the darn things are everywhere.  Whatever the actual survival rate of the non-signed sets, it can be comfortably stated that it is not morbidly low.

The two rates cannot be that disparate, unless people were deliberately targetting the signed sets for destruction.  Possible, but unlikely.

There is a secret option 3 which squares things up far too neatly: "There never were 1000 released to market".  I have no direct evidence to support that, and don't actually believe it myself, but it's possible and it is one way of resolving the issue.  

Barring that, it seems likely that more will be found.

 YIM  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:32 am 
 

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.

I pulled the 60% figure outta my ass, actually.  It's just for comparative purposes.  I think it's even higher. ;)  

There are many forces at work.  A rare item's "survival rate" should actually increase as it becomes rare and gains notoriety, pulling the average up.  The rates are variable and too hard to calculate with accuracy, so the average is just that, an average.  Unless 13% of the Fazzle owners out there are planning on lighting their copies on fire this year...what, no takers?  :lol:

It may well be the case in another 20 years or so that the Easleys are rarer, and it would seem maybe as low as 10.  Finding the "precise" date of crossover, given the numbers I used, is possible but extremely unlikely to be correct.

 YIM  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 671
Joined: Dec 17, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 13, 2019
Location: Italy

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:38 am 
 

Collecting can have very bad consequences on the mind, it appears.

 ICQ  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor
Valuation Board

Posts: 1885
Joined: May 01, 2004
Last Visit: Jun 24, 2022
Location: Almost Lake Geneva, WI

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:42 am 
 

So is this board getting Renamed and a new "eBay" thread started?

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 563
Joined: Aug 08, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 05, 2020
Location: Chicago

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:00 pm 
 

Just getting back to the SA sets vs Fazzle discussion (sorry, came in late), I have to say what Deimos says makes a lot of sense.



Using no maths whatsoever in my argument, I would say the reason you see more Fazzles on the block than Easley SA sets is due to the time they were produced. The guys who bought the Fazzles 28 years ago are now aged what - 50 or 60? They collected in their youth, and have now reached the age where either collecting holds no appeal for them, or they need the cash. So they look at the stuff they have in the closet and put it up on ebay.



The SA sets though were only bought 5 or 6 years ago, by guys in their collecting prime. I would bet that there are several hundred (at least) of these sets in closets, but they haven't yet reached the point where they will return to market - the owners are still actively collecting, and the current value of the sets (say $100-150) isn't enough for them to sell - you'd have to think the current value of a Fazzle is clear motivation to get those on the block and cash in while its a desired item.



Regards



Mike

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

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

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:03 pm 
 

anyway, should these discussions not be moved onto the chit chat thread so we can look at interesting items on ebay here? :)

Al


Are we nearly there yet?

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:43 pm 
 

mdr003 wrote:Just getting back to the SA sets vs Fazzle discussion (sorry, came in late), I have to say what Deimos says makes a lot of sense.

Using no maths whatsoever in my argument, I would say the reason you see more Fazzles on the block than Easley SA sets is due to the time they were produced. The guys who bought the Fazzles 28 years ago are now aged what - 50 or 60? They collected in their youth, and have now reached the age where either collecting holds no appeal for them, or they need the cash. So they look at the stuff they have in the closet and put it up on ebay.

The SA sets though were only bought 5 or 6 years ago, by guys in their collecting prime. I would bet that there are several hundred (at least) of these sets in closets, but they haven't yet reached the point where they will return to market - the owners are still actively collecting, and the current value of the sets (say $100-150) isn't enough for them to sell - you'd have to think the current value of a Fazzle is clear motivation to get those on the block and cash in while its a desired item.

Regards

Mike




Only problem with this line of thought is that people were collecting TSR modules back then. I can tell you from experience, they were not. Those of us who were lucky enough to  buy our tourney modules at the time of issue, did so for no other reason than we wanted to take them back and play them.

I think more people bought the SA in order to collect them. More and more of these will surface as time goes on.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5715
Joined: Nov 16, 2002
Last Visit: Jun 23, 2022
Location: Wichita, KS, USA

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:08 pm 
 

bombadil wrote: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.


Does that curve assume that the rate of Fazzle's disappearing/being trashed/lost/thrown away/etc. is very low/zero?  Given its low production values, if 1-5 Fazzles per year are recycled/trashed/etc., that would have a greater impact on the number of possible copies, as well as the number of surviving copies.  Given that Fazzle's pretty bland looking, it could easily be tossed out with the "rest of that junk from when I was 19"  :cry:


Allan Grohe ([email protected])
Greyhawk, grodog Style

Editor and Project Manager, Black Blade Publishing
https://www.facebook.com/BlackBladePublishing/

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:18 pm 
 

grodog wrote:
bombadil wrote: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.


Does that curve assume that the rate of Fazzle's disappearing/being trashed/lost/thrown away/etc. is very low/zero?  Given its low production values, if 1-5 Fazzles per year are recycled/trashed/etc., that would have a greater impact on the number of possible copies, as well as the number of surviving copies.  Given that Fazzle's pretty bland looking, it could easily be tossed out with the "rest of that junk from when I was 19"  :cry:

It assumes approximately 13% of the remaining Fazzles are destroyed each year.  The 87% survival rate was based on 300 existing in the first place, and 10 existing in 2005, and using an exponential curve.  If any of that is untrue, the result is of course untrue.  And of course the real rate would fluctuate.

I would guess with Fazzle, a greater % got trashed near the beginning, and then it started to become rare, and less have been trashed recently.

 YIM  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 405
Joined: Nov 23, 2002
Last Visit: Jan 26, 2018
Location: The Saltmarshes of Michigan

Post Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:31 am 
 

anyway, should these discussions not be moved onto the chit chat thread so we can look at interesting items on ebay here?  



Would be nice  :wink:  :P

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1233
Joined: Mar 08, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 24, 2022
Location: Close to GenCon

Post Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:24 pm 
 

We contacted Mr. Easley and asked him about the signed prints in the 25th Anniversary Sets. He remembers signing for two days straight and believes there were 1000.  Hope this helps

-Devon

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:30 pm 
 

burntwire brothers wrote:We contacted Mr. Easley and asked him about the signed prints in the 25th Anniversary Sets. He remembers signing for two days straight and believes there were 1000.  Hope this helps

-Devon

Thanks for confirming this.  "Option #3" is out.  (I'm shutting up about it though, because so many people are making a concerted effort to get the thread back on track...) ;)  If anyone knows how to move the posts to another thread, please do so.

 YIM  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 269
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 24, 2008
Location: Clementon, NJ

Post Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:20 am 
 

i vaguley remember my first opened box not having the print and not listing it on the back as part of the contents.

So my question is are they all supposedly manufactured with prints with only 1000 that are signed/numbered or do only 1000 have the prints which are signed while the rest didnt come with the artwork at all?


"What can I get for $10?"

"Mint Rare and Shrinkwrapped-just pick that bar of soap up for us pls, we love you long time!"

 YIM  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3863
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 27, 2022
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:00 am 
 

I have come across at least six of these boxed sets that were opened. Everyone was complete with poster. If one, or even a couple, were missing a single component, I'd be more inclined to suggest it was simply a packaging error. Or they ran short and a few shipped missing the posters.

Another telling fact about this set, is that it seems to have momentarily priced out. Most sell between $75 and $105 and have held steady for the last year or so. That suggests that most collectors who really want one have one (or more as is evidenced by this group 8O ). As more collectors enter the fray, the price will climb. I just think it is an interesting indicator that 5,000 were made and that number (or however many remain) has basically satisfied the collective (no, I am not a Star Trek fan, but it seemed fitting).


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 31, 2, 3