Subject:
|
Re: Sellers of Guarded Inn as if it were 6067, BE ON NOTICE!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:56:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
535 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Timothy Wade writes:
> I'll add my two cents to this...
>
> I did something in a similar vien the other day, although it wasn't quite the
> same and on retrospect, I'm a little ashamed. I emailed directly the highest
> bidder on an original Metroliner to inform him that he could get a copy of it
> MIB soon directly from Lego. Poor taste? Yes. Unethical? Probably. It just
> angered me to see this fellow willing to shell out over $100 for something that
> he need not. Of course I've vowed never to do this again, but it goes along the
> same vien.
>
> Is it fair for people to sell something above what the actual market value is?
> We here at Lugnet know what they're worth now...and the prices should be
> lowered accordingly. Is there something we can do? Or is it even our place?
Was the Metroliner being bid on a MISB set? If it wasn't, some of
what I'm going to say may not apply. But if it was...
I think you are making an error if you are equating the market
values of the Original ML with the Re-release. The original, as a
collector item, is "worth" much more than the in-production set.
This is from the collector's point-of-view, not the builder's. To
a builder they are basically the same set with equal value. To
a collector there is a huge difference.
There is nothing "unfair" with selling an Original set when there
is a Re-release pending or in production. The Original set still
has a unique value to collectors that should not affected by the
Re-release. If the bidder you notified was a collector, then
he doesn't care about the Re-release because he wants the Original.
Your assessment that the bidder was going to pay "over $100 for
something that he need not" would be incorrect unless that bidder
was just wanting the set to build and play with and would be just
as happy with the Re-release.
When the seller does commit the no-no is when they deliberately
mis-represent a Re-release as being the original. That's fraud,
for any item, in any market. The seller Richard pointed out
at the beginning of this thread is a fine example.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
