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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ).  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?  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.

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.