Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:31:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8010 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> Even changing the number on the set
> would have the same effect of preserving the collectibility of the original
> run. • [snip]
> No, the problem isn't the blue bricks. I am {glad} that more Maersk blue
> bricks will be available via this second run. My problem is that the
> collectibility of an original run MISB 10052 has taken a severe hit due to
> some (however unintended) misdirection on the part of TLC.
John, I really don't understand this point. I mean that literally, I don't
understand. You may very well be right within this odd-sounding (to me)
corner of the collector world. But personally, I fail to see how a simple
set number change affects anything of the "collectibility". Maybe I just
don't understand at all what you mean by "collectibility". If the set is
materially identical, then the set number difference is no more than an
administrative change, and in my opinion, worthless as any kind of market
value differntiator, if that's what you're trying to assess.
Let me ask this: assuming you've already bought a 10152 because you
speculated it had some kind of monetary value beyond the normal, and they
issue this extra run under a different set number, which you say preserves
the "collectibility" somehow, would you feel that buying a copy from the
extra issue would have comparable "extra value" to the first one you bought?
Would it in fact have even more, because it comes from an even smaller lot
size and therefore is rarer? So following that through, if instead of using
set numbers, TLC instead serialized every box with a unique serial number,
but no set number at all, then would that make each one of those phenomenonly
valuable to you, and you would want to own every single one of them because
they are all so rare (or simply for world domination)? Maybe I'm missing it,
but I think this scenario shows the truth that set numbers are irrelevant
to "value".
A key point that some here (and it *appears* you are among them) seem to
miss and/or conveniently overlook is that none of these sets have any
intrinsic "value" at all. They start out initially with a retail price which
sets a basic *cost* to acquire. But their "value" is simply what most people
are willing to pay for them at any given time. Even retail that is often not
full price. In aftermarket, sometimes people want to pay more, each for their
own reasons. That is the only thing that establishes any kind of "value" that
you can point at. If you bought something because you perceived, for whatever
reason, that it would be limited in production, and now you are ticked that
it is not, then the only reason you would be griping about it *in regards
to value* is that you *speculated* that limited production would make other
people desire these sets more, that they would thus be willing to pay more
in order to obtain one, and should you decide to sell one that the price
you could obtain for it would therefore be higher, and thus that its
*theoretical* value while in your hands would therefore be higher. But again,
that *theoretical* value doesn't materialize until you actually sell it and
get that price.
The fact that the production quantity will not be as small
as you believed (regardless of why you believed that) simply means that you
*now speculate* that people will desire these sets less, that they would
thus not be willing to pay as much for one as before, and should you decide
to sell one that the price you could obtain for it would therefore be lower
than you originally thought, and thus that its *theoretical* value while
in your hands is now lower.
The point I hope I've made (if not to you, then to others following along
painfully at home) is that you were *speculating then*, and you are still
*speculating now*. The possible effects of set number changes is only
*further speculation*.
Ultimately, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else will be able to learn who,
if anyone, is correct about the effects this extra production run would have
on future aftermarket sale prices. They may very well have no effect at all.
But the difference between collectors like myself and speculators like
yourself is that I judge the "value" of the set based on what it is worth
to me, not on its potential resale value in the future, whereas you base it
(at least partly, and apparently, significantly so) on its potential resale
value in the future (to the puzzling point that set numbers are somehow more
important that set contents or production quantity). If those are our
respective worlds, then hey, we agree to disagree. But please at least accept
the fact that you *speculated* (regardless of reason), gambled on it, and
now *believe* that you've lost. Suck it up, I say, hopefully you'll do better
in the future..., not that it's possible to prove that you've actually done
*worse* on this occasion. :]
> What I am talking about is the value of an MISB set that was implied to be
> limited. Even if TLC makes a new run as they have stated they are going to
> do, they could still preserve the limitedness of the original run by simply
> changing the number on the set of the new run. Does that make sense?
No. ;]
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <various snippaging> (...) (URL) From the above post by Jake: "This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
