record price?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 51, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:44 pm 
 

Thenraine wrote:
Is this now considered a confirmed sale at a record price?

No idea.  Unless they've made a change in procedure, however, the Valuation Board won't consider it in their calculations.  BIN prices are ignored as a general rule. ;)

 YIM  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1709
Joined: Feb 04, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 23, 2016
Location: Chandler, AZ

Post Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:58 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:No idea.  Unless they've made a change in procedure, however, the Valuation Board won't consider it in their calculations.  BIN prices are ignored as a general rule. ;)


Actually Deimos, maybe that is something others will change, but BIN prices were always used and only eliminated if they were patently absurd (usually this applied only to extremely low priced BINS)

I would've said that BIN Tsoj is a completely valid price.  There has to be an upper end to the scale, Troll and Toad knows what they are doing and the buyer even logged on to show they are not clueless either.

He wanted it now . . . he paid for it.


"Gleemonex makes it feel like it's seventy-two degrees in your head... all... the... time! "

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 25, 2019

Post Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:01 pm 
 

Beyondthebreach wrote: He wanted it now . . . he paid for it.


This seems to be true.

Beyondthebreach wrote: the buyer even logged on to show they are not clueless either.


However, I think that the jury is still out on that. :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

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5625
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 23, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:14 pm 
 

No, it's in. I have e-mailed back and forth with him. He is nice, but definitely clueless.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  


Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5613
Joined: Nov 16, 2002
Last Visit: Mar 02, 2021
Location: Wichita, KS, USA

Post Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:17 am 
 

Out of curiosity, does Brian's $500 BIN snag for the 1st woodgrain get counted in the valuations?  I can't imagine that it would drag down the listed price much, given the number of higher prices out there.


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

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

 WWW  


Sage Collector
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 2719
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
Last Visit: Mar 01, 2021
Location: Olde London Towne

Post Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:35 am 
 

Good question.  Do they only count BINs if they are close to auction prices?  If so, how close?  More questions - oh dear  8O


Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height!

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6463
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 25, 2019

Post Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:44 am 
 

grodog wrote:Out of curiosity, does Brian's $500 BIN snag for the 1st woodgrain get counted in the valuations?  I can't imagine that it would drag down the listed price much, given the number of higher prices out there.


I would have to insist on the answer to that question as being no. :)  

For one, it was listed by the seller as a 2nd print,which it is clearly not, even though I actually was buying it on the premise of it being a 2nd print(I didn't look at the pctures supplied by the seller that closely until I got it in the mail and realized by inspection that it was not a 2nd print).  

Secondly, and far more importantly, that price of $500 was due in large part to a campaign of misinforation that was done to the seller by someone else, thus my comments about the auction being "tainted".  This misinformation that was given, led the seller to beleive that the set that I won was not only a 2nd print set(thus his listing it as such), but also that the set had a much lower value that it should have been.  I won't go into anymore specific details other than that, but I will say that I was fully unaware of these goings on until after I actually received the set and post my "find" here.


"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

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:00 am 
 

bclarkie wrote:Secondly, and far more importantly, that price of $500 was due in large part to a campaign of misinforation that was done to the seller by someone else, thus my comments about the auction being "tainted".  This misinformation that was given, led the seller to beleive that the set that I won was not only a 2nd print set(thus his listing it as such), but also that the set had a much lower value that it should have been.  I won't go into anymore specific details other than that, but I will say that I was fully unaware of these goings on until after I actually received the set and post my "find" here.


hardly your fault tho?



  


Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5613
Joined: Nov 16, 2002
Last Visit: Mar 02, 2021
Location: Wichita, KS, USA

Post Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:40 am 
 

Well, regardless of misinformation/less-knowledgeable sellers, the set sold for $500, which is a solid amount of money---not for a 1st printing, mind you, but certainly solid for any D&D collectible that's not an uber-rare, and within-normalcy for a 2nd woody in general over the past few years.  Now, whether that sale should count as a 2nd printing sale (since that's what you thought you bought, and what the seller thought he was selling), is an interesting question.  The fact that it actually was a 1st printing is somewhat separate from that question, in my mind, at least :D

Now, in terms of BINs being out there that are undervalued (whether mis-described or not), that happens.  Some folks see them and obviously take advantage of the savings, some folks miss them, and some items probably get ditched if they're never picked up on via the BIN (though the latter's unlikely, given your uncanny BIN radar, Brian :D ).  What's wrong with letting the dice fall where they do?  

The Fazzlewood that someone bought awhile ago that was listed as "Fazzle Wood" that they outbid me on and the whole lot went for $110 or somesuch; is that similarly excluded from the listings---it wasn't a BIN, but certainly only one other searcher had found it at the time, which doesn't mean that it's not "worthy" of being factored into a FW's value, does it?  Creative and diligent searchers find the best goodies, right? :D  If the idea of the prices is to average out (or median out) the prices, one or two outliers won't unduly impact the overall value of the books, since so many other high prices will buoy them up (if averaging), or the math itself will chop out the unreasonable low/high values (if medianing).  So the rogue FW would still be counted, but it's impact would be lessened by the other higher-priced sales out there.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud about the process here, and definitely not trying to be argumentative or to be nitpicking anyone's valuations, etc., etc.


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

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

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:43 am 
 

i cant see how such a "rogue" item would affect a considered value of an item. if it had been listed as normal as any other item, there is no way in the world that it would have sold for that. same goes for brian's BIN on the woody.

so surely they have to be dealt with from that perspective?

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 6067
Joined: May 03, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 08, 2021
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Post Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:44 am 
 

I don't think that Brian's BIN price should be counted but I don't see any reason to not to include the price that the set did not sell for when Brian tried to sell it.  All the information was presented in the auction, it was well advertised, etc.  Just because it didn't sell due to a reserve price doesn't mean it isn't a fair valuation.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:15 am 
 

Beyondthebreach wrote:Actually Deimos, maybe that is something others will change, but BIN prices were always used and only eliminated if they were patently absurd (usually this applied only to extremely low priced BINS)

My understanding was that including BINs was more of an exception than the rule, but maybe I'm mistaken.  The definition of what constitutes a patently absurd BIN is one of the reasons we have a VB, I suppose! ;)

Anyway, my main point was that they discuss this stuff behind the scenes; they're more than a simple algorithm mindlessly tabulating data.  There's no guarantee that a particular sale will be included in the valuations for a variety of reasons.

To be clear:  I didn't intend on stepping on any toes.  Discussion of what should/shouldn't be included I leave to those presently charged with the task.  8)

 YIM  
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 51, 2, 3, 4, 5