| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
>
> Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:Fw93r9.8yu@lugnet.com...
>
> > To Geoffrey: If you're talking a trade, using MSRP to gauge relative
> > worth may work well, but it's STILL better to use market pricing as
> > some sets are more inflated than others and using MSRP may short change
> > one of the traders.
> > I just don't agree with your second assertion that
> > (paraphrasing) "because most of the pieces in the set aren't that rare,
> > MSRP++ is fair". Century Skyway doesn't have that many rare pieces but 120
> > USD for it would be a steal. If you have some extra copies of it lying
> > around I'll gladly give you MSRP +20%!! ...and
> > you'd be a fool to take it.
> Yes, but if you go back and reread my post, I said SOME of the sets.
No, actually, what you said was this:
> > > As for asking a little more than MSRP, some of the
> > > sets listed are difficult to obtain, but for the number of pieces in them,
> > > getting them at slightly higher than MSRP prices is fair, especially
> > > considering that a lot of the pieces were in use until a few years ago.
and that's not a statement I can agree with. If a set is "difficult to obtain"
expecting to pay just MSRP++ is unrealistic. So is using it as a trade value.
If you still want to quibble, name a particular set you are referring to. Or
restate your paragraph to be more clear. The way it's written now it seems to
imply that the difficult to obtain ones that have mostly common pieces aren't
worth much, and the easy to obtain ones are???
> Certain sets ARE worth inflated prices, but a lot of them simply aren't
> worth the extra hassle to go to and pay extra $$ for them. Especially
> smaller sets, like cars, where if the set has no rare or printed elements,
> it's not worth paying 4xMSRP for it.
This is just hogwash. There is no absolute "worth". A thing is worth to *you*
what you are willing to pay for it, and it is worth, in the market, what the
market as an aggregate is willing to pay for it, that is, what it fetches when
it is offered to willing buyers by a willing seller.
The market says these things are worth a lot more than MSRP++ no matter what
your opinion is. Now, if they aren't worth that to YOU that's fine, don't buy
them, but don't come out pronouncing "they aren't worth more than X because of
Y and Zed", because that's just a statement of what they are worth *to you* and
NOT a useful guide to other buyers who need to know what to expect to pay.
You're doing other buyers a disservice when you foist your unrealistic opinions
of value on us.
And I can tell you, when I finally get around to appraising my collection for
insurance purposes, I am not going to have it appraised at what is a *fair*
price, I am going to have it appraised at what it would cost me to replace it.
Unfair or not.
> As a general rule of thumb, I suppose that the larger the set, the more one
> should probably expect to pay for it, if paying by cash.
The more as an absolute dollar amount, yes. But strangely enough, there have
been studies done on set prices vs MSRP and proportionally speaking, it's the
smaller sets that have the greatest percentage rise in price. Searching for
posts on this will give you detailed discussion.
> Otherwise, you
> need to figure out what you'd trade for such-and-such LEGO set # and a lot
> of people I deal with like to trade instead of pay cash.
That's fine too, but as I have said before, if you use MSRP you're going to get
skewed trades which is not fair to the traders unless both sides are happy
with that. Use the market value for stuff, it's much fairer. (cf. the 12 year
old that wanted to trade a brand new this years castle set for a much older set
with a similar MSRP straight up... discuss why that was a fair trade if you
can, it seems to fit your thesis)
> Which seems to be the easier option for a lot of us. With trading, there is
> an additional factor you get into, such as piece condition.
Now that is true and it does introduce complexity.
> Anyone got any good tips for cleaning LEGO?
Do a search on this topic and you will find hundreds of posts on it, many in
lugnet.general, but not all. Which leads me to believe that maybe you're
relatively new around here.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Wish List
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Fw93r9.8yu@lugnet.com... (...) may (...) more (...) just (...) of the (...) doesn't (...) have (...) ...and (...) Yes, but if you go back and reread my post, I said SOME of the sets. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jun-00, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
