Subject:
|
Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:11:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
607 times
|
| |
|
|
> > In addition, lego commerce happens on two levels: buying/selling, and
> > trading. No matter how high or how low the "actual" prices for sets may
> > go, the level of trading will remain the same. Set prices could inflate
> > to 200%, and the trading field stays level. If people were just
> > interested in one theme, then things would be unreasonably imbalanced
> > between themes, but there are way too many people into lego to worry
> > about theme inbalance. RTL/Lugnet and the Internet as a whole has long
> > since surpassed the prerequisite critical mass necessary for theme
> > balance.
>
> I wonder if there are exceptions to this... Certainly if someone has a
> brand new 6074 Black Falcon's Fortress which typically goes for (say) $100-
> $150 in auctions, and someone else has a brand new 6980 Galaxy Commander
> which typically goes for the same amount (say), then a trade would be
> equitable...
I suppose exceptions are possible, but other than momentary
fluctuations, The general "level" of set worth continues to be pretty
even across the board.
> But if someone wants to trade a brand new 6074 Black Falcon's Fortress
> ($35 set from '86) for a brand new 6807 (unnamed $2 European Space set from
> '85), then the person giving up the 6074 is getting a great deal while the
> person giving up the 6807 is getting ripped off by $50 or $100 (or more).
>
> (OK, well, "ripped off" is relative -- since maybe both people are pleased
> with the trade.)
<Adam digresses for a moment> Are you serious? The 6807 is worth *that*
*much*? It doesn't even have any unique pieces! <sigh> Stuff like that
drives me nuts. That one also goes in the list of stuff beyond my
comprehension, but hey, if the shoe fits.... <end of digression>
If people trade for "lego value", as in your first example, things are
going to come out pretty even in terms of lego. And if people are
trading based on "set worth", then anomolies like <groan> a 26-piece set
being worth more than a castle can happen. But if all parties can come
to an agreeable trade based on *that* scale, then it still works out. I
personally would never trade a big set for something like a 6807. I
don't use the "set worth" scale when trading. But I sure would use it to
sell that baby[1].
> The point is, unless the fair market values of the items being traded are
> reasonably equal, a trade really isn't a fair trade; even in pure trading,
> the cumulative side-effects of buying/selling/auctioning play a role.
I'm assuming you mean the proportion of fair market values i.e. how
much the sets are inflated. Yes, I agree. The side effects would play a
role if the effects weren't evenly distributed across the whole spectrum
of lego. But I think they are. Whether one uses the "lego value" or the
"set worth" scale (I gotta come up with better names than that), both
are evenly affected by legonomics.
> Some additional data: A couple years ago, someone was kind enough, upon
> discovering a previously unknown very small Space set, to offer it to me
> before putting it up for auction or soliciting other trade offers. We'd
> done a few trades/sales in the past and trusted each other and I also
> happened to have an old set he had on his want list. I thought his offer
> (of granting the right of first refusal) was *extremely* kind, and we worked
> out a trade valuing the set at ~$400 US. I think I paid for in part using
> cash or other LEGO sets, including another older Canadian/European-only
> Space set. So basically, in this case, the trade was super-lopsided in
> terms of the original prices, but quite fair (I hope) in terms of current
> fair market values. I think we were both very pleased with the trade.
And I think that's more important than anything--you were both very
pleased with the trade. I don't think that would change if the trade
were to happen today, because the relative values would be the same,
even if the actual values were different. While the rare space set may
be worth even more thanks to legonomic inflation, so would the sets you
traded, and I think that they would balance each other out.
Adam
bwappo@ee.net
[1] The ethics of going between the scales of "lego value" and "set
worth" may make for an interesting discussion, but I won't go into it
unless people feel it's relevant.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
| (...) That just demonstrates the level of insanity some completists can achieve. :) To some a set is worth the some of its parts. To others the set as an entity has value that far outweighs the sum of its parts. I fall into one of those groups. :) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, bwappo@ee.net (Adam Yulish) writes: [...] (...) I don't know if it's -worth- that much, but I was happy to get it for $400. (...) But the box and instructions were in mint condition. Essentially, I paid $395 for the box (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, bwappo@ee.net (Adam Yulish) writes: [...] (...) I wonder if there are exceptions to this... Certainly if someone has a brand new 6074 Black Falcon's Fortress which typically goes for (say) $100- $150 in auctions, and (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
89 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
|
|
|
|
