| |
In lugnet.market.shipping, Ray Sanders wrote:
> Which kinda goes back to my basic question... What makes one LEGO set
> 'collectable' and another not ?
The only valid answer to that is "collectors".
> Is it age ?
It does make something of a difference, but Galidor figures came out around the
same time, and I doubt any of them have appreciated in value above MSRP.
> Is it appreciation above MSRP ?
You've got cause and effect mixed up there. Collectibility is what causes them
to become worth more than their original MSRP, not the other way around.
> Is it availability ?
It's hard to present a case for an item being "collectible" when the shelves are
flooded with them, but I'd still say no. People will still be collecting (and I
mean _collecting_, as compared to just buying) those sets when they're the only
thing for sale, so clearly they consider them to be collectible in spite of high
availability.
> Is it box condition ?
Box condition really just increases the value of an otherwise collectible item.
I could get a Nick Bluetooth action figure rated with the highest rating
available by a company that deals in rating the condition of the packaging and
such for collectibility purposes...and I'd still probably only be able to get a
couple bucks for it.
> Is it desireability ?
That would be one of the key components of the "collectors" answer. If people
don't desire it, they won't try to buy it, so supply will outstrip demand, so it
won't be worth what you paid for it in terms of an investment (though you could
still get your money's worth in play value).
> Other than age, most of those are intangiables which may change from day to
> day.
Mostly, yes, but there are a few lines that have proven to be highly
collectible, and Star Wars is probably the biggest one in terms of recent
releases. I doubt there's a single SW set that has not appreciated in value
once it was no longer available on store shelves. Even the Sith Infiltrator
lists over MSRP on Bricklink (the sole exception in the New category is selling
three sets with damaged boxes for $5 off MSRP). It's not how much you could
have bought it for last week that matters, but how much you can buy it for right
at this very instant.
> Probably not. Like most BL resellers, I get stuff when its on clearance,
> then retained it until such time as it sold at a fair markup.
Ah, I misunderstood the origins of this dilemma. I thought you had purchased it
from someone else. No matter, it was damaged, and someone/something is at fault
for that. Even if nobody paid for insurance on it, there should be a default
amount available for minor claims (UPS automatically provides coverage up to
$100, for instance).
> Oddly in this case it does not. This being a 'partial claim' (approx 20% of
> the insured cost of the original shipped package, the other items survived).
> The USPS IMM[1] says that for a 'partial claim' the office accepting the
> claim should inspect the item and then return it to the person making the
> claim. My comment to them was "if they make a full payment, either of us
> could just donate the crushed set to Toys for Tots at christmas time".
That's a very generous proposition, but I believe they prefer toys that won't
appear to be "damaged goods" when some kid rips off the wrapping paper. If so,
there's probably some way of getting it into the hands of some under-priveleged
kid, but it might require a little research to figure it out.
> Understood, and thats a small part of the dilemma here. Once you open it up
> to see what happened inside, then its no longer MIS(but crushed)B. A box in
> good physical shape gives you a reasonable expectation that the contents
> inside are in good shape. A Box like this does not. IMO, that would have a
> negative effect on the (resale or otherwise) value.
Heh. That is indeed something of an odd problem. Of course, if you make good
on your claim, you've already got your expected return out of it, so I'd say
that it's a somewhat trivial problem.
> There are several different themes floating around my head in this
> discussion. What should a reseller reasonably (and ethically) expect when
> something like this happens ? I bought it at one price, it retailed at a
> different price ($10), the average BL sale price is higher still (~$21), the
> average BL offer price(~$28) and the price I actually sold it for. Which one
> counts for more ?
A retail store manager could probably answer that question with more authority
than I, but I've got some thoughts on the matter. A few years ago the local TRU
store had a small waste-basket fire on or shortly before Thanksgiving Day which
caused the sprinkler system in the entire store to go off when noone was around.
Their entire stock was trashed right before the biggest shopping day of the
year. Should they recover just their original investment, or should they be
able to recover their actual losses (in this case, all that juicy profit that
generally provides the boost necessary to bump the books from being in the red
to being in the black)? I'd guess that when they insure against loss, they
insure for their expected return, not their original investment. Having product
sit on the shelves costs money, and not getting the sticker price means they'd
actually be losing money on the whole deal.
> Also keep in mind, that the buyer may have decided to purchase mine at a
> slightly higher price, because I could supply the combination of items he
> wanted in one order.
Motive on behalf of the purchaser shouldn't matter in terms of what you should
be able to collect on your damaged goods.
> Once upon a time, 7140's were going for astronomical prices until LEGO
> reissued it as 7142. That caused the market to drop out. Is a 7140 worth
> more than a 7142 ?
The short answer is...probably. Sometimes it works out that way, and sometimes
it doesn't. One major factor that should be considered is rarity. If the
earlier set was produced in huge quantities, and a large percentage of them are
still intact, but the replacement set was produced in tiny quantities that don't
even approach the number of unopened copies of the original, the newer set could
be worth more than the original. Package design can also play a part, since a
more visually appealling package could make a newer, more common reissue have
greater demand than the rarer original. The more common rule of thumb is that
many people will prefer the original over any reissue, especially if they
already own it. And other people simply won't care one way or the other, as
long as they have the same set out-of-box. This, more than anything in this
discussion, is the sort of thing that would really need to be examined on a
case-by-case basis, but even that's rather difficult without somehow being able
to obtain production quantities from TLC, and estimates of how many copies are
still unopened.
> I wonder if the issues I am encountering here are also the same issues as
> those involved with valuing an AFOLs personal collection. Especially if the
> AFOL has MISB sets in the collection. Valuing loose parts is a whole
> different animal.
They are indeed similar situations, but loose collections also have irreplacable
nostalgic value, as well as the potential for MOCs that probably can't be
perfectly recreated from memory. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has even
picked up one of my own MOCs and been unable to remember how I managed to get
all of the parts arranged into the shape that I ended up with.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
