Subject:
|
Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Feb 1999 05:52:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
683 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, bwappo@ee.net (Adam Yulish) writes:
[...]
> > 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*?
I don't know if it's -worth- that much, but I was happy to get it for $400.
> It doesn't even have any unique pieces! <sigh>
But the box and instructions were in mint condition. Essentially, I paid
$395 for the box and the instructions and $5 for the pieces. I took the
risk that the set would continue to be super-rare and only come up for sale
every 6 or 12 months, and that obtaining a mint, archive-quality copy of the
box and instructions would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Too good to
pass up.
> 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>
I certainly wouldn't pay $400 for $2 Castle or Town set (not that there's
anything wrong with that).
I'm a die-hard Space collector: gotta have one copy of each set.
> 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].
Practically speaking, the more old sets become commodities, the less "LEGO
value" figures in and the more "set worth" or "fair market value" figures in
when people estimate in their head whether something is a fair trade.
Take pieces for example. All minifig heads have the same "LEGO value,"
right? Would you ever in your right mind trade 2 female Ice Planet minifig
heads for 2 classic smileys knowing that the female Ice Planet heads are
worth 20x what the classic smiley heads are worth? No way. Instead, you'd
go with someone else who'd trade you 10 or 20 or 40 classic smileys (you
could very easily find at least 10 people who would do this). But if you
couldn't find someone or didn't want to, you could easily sell the two
female IP heads and convert that to $20-$30 cash and subsequently buy up a
bunch of classic smiley heads.
Minifig heads aren't exactly commodities, but in my experience, people tend
to have a very good sense of their relative value (which is based on rarity
as much as utility).
I don't know many LEGO fans who don't take fair market value (or their best
perception of it) into account when doing trades. It just doesn't make
sense not to.
[...]
> > 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,
It would, though. Soon after 6807 was discovered and news of its existence
spread around, another popped up. I think it sold for less than half that
in an auction. It would probably only go for $100 now.
The important thing to understand there is that there are only a very few
people online who would be happy paying $400 or even $200 for the set. Once
those people have a copy (which they all do now, to the best of my
knowledge), the prices obtainable drop dramatically.
> 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.
No, the set I traded was worth a lot less, and hasn't changed much in fair-
market value in the past 3 years; that's why I rounded out the remainder of
the sale with cash (if I remember correctly).
> [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.
I'd like to hear what you have to say.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Dual value sets in a single legonomic system
|
| <snip> (...) I can't fault that. That's not my thing, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate, and obviously it works very well for you (and many others). It does have an effect on legonomics, which I'll go into in a moment.... <snip> (...) A (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CFD: e-bay (aka ranting and raving)
|
| (...) I suppose exceptions are possible, but other than momentary fluctuations, The general "level" of set worth continues to be pretty even across the board. (...) <Adam digresses for a moment> Are you serious? The 6807 is worth *that* *much*? It (...) (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
|
|
|
|
