Subject:
|
Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 04:43:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
472 times
|
| |
|
|
Bill Katz wrote in message ...
> I've recently bought a huge collection (600+ sets, 100,000+ parts), and
> I'm planning to sell 90+% of it off. I'm curious about people's opinions
> of how old a set has to be in order for it to be worth more as a
> whole set than as parts. As Todd has proven time and again, you can
> make money (if you don't value your time :-), maybe if you do)
> breaking up relatively recent sets, bought either at full retail
> or 20-50% off. We've also seen realatively small 10 year old
> sets sell for $2-$4/piece (6011, 6023) as sets.
Small sets that don't have much more than 1 or 2 special parts (counting a
mini-fig as 1 part here), probably will net close to the same amount of
money either as a set or as pieces. One thing which might help is to bundle
several small related sets. One problem is that if a small sets best value
(when considered as parts or complete set) is less than 10 bucks or so,
people may not be willing to bid much higher than a few bucks, because the
postage cost if you only win one small set becomes a significant additional
cost. This problem may end up trapping most small sets to the few dollar
price range.
> These sets are all mixed together. And since many are buckets, window
> packas and roof packs I'm going to have to have some big parts auctions
> anyway. Is it going to be beneficial to sort out all the sets, or
> do the equivalent of "breaking up" older sets and selling them as parts.
>
> As an example, there are ~10 copies of 6265 Sabre Island. WIll I do better
> auctioning the white walls and blue guards, or making up the sets? Or
> some of each to appeal to both the builders and set collectors?
If there are that many copies of a set, consider some as sets and some as
parts. One thing to do also is keep the parts bundles to reasonable sizes
(though I suppose in some ways, a small number of large bundles may net a
higher dollar amount because some of the bidders want SOME parts at any
cost).
The other reason to consider selling much of the collection as sets, is look
at Todd's reflections on parts auction sizes. Granted, you may not be doing
continual parts auctions like Todd, but it sounds like there's an incredible
effort to run a parts auction for huge numbers of pieces, and he's had
several years of practice.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) When considered with the above consider these two questions: 1) are those 1 or 2 special parts no longer made? 2) are the rest of the parts fairly uncommon? (include color as a rareness factor) (...) Percentage-wise per set, sometimes the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Sets vs. Parts
|
| I've recently bought a huge collection (600+ sets, 100,000+ parts), and I'm planning to sell 90+% of it off. I'm curious about people's opinions of how old a set has to be in order for it to be worth more as a whole set than as parts. As Todd has (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
