Subject:
|
Dual value sets in a single legonomic system
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:28:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
628 times
|
| |
|
|
<snip>
> > 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.
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>
> 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.
A great example--so much so that I must drop the idea of "lego value".
I thought there were two scales, since every set trade in which I've
been involved came out pretty even in terms of lego pieces, but some
sales I've made went for unusual prices. I realize that the trades
having the same "lego value" and "market value" were coincidental. Most
trades work out that way, but that's because market value is pretty
consistent (and most sets have a proportional amount of unusual pieces).
> 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.
I agree completely.
<snip>
> > 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.
Until more space collectors came looking for it. If they really are
that rare, the price will eventually go back up. If not, then perhaps
you "overpaid" for the set, though I don't think that's the case for a
first discovery like that (and I'm guessing you agree, from how pleased
you are with getting that set).
> > 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).
Hmmm. Then the question becomes: Is this an anomaly caused by the
discovery of a hitherto unknown set, followed by the saturation of
demand, or is this an example of uneven distribution of set inflation?
It sounds like the former. The set's worth was unknown at the time of
discovery, and gradually settled into a stable amount after some time.
Once reaching stability, it joined the rest of the lego sets in
consistent market value.
> > [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.
<laughing> It got shot down before I even had a chance to do so. :)
Actually, the structure is still kosher, but the removal of "lego
value" also removes the possibility (not inherency) of any ethical
questions.
There are two types of lego collectors: those who collect sets,
and those who collect pieces. There seems to be a rather balanced
distribution between both types. Set collectors want the instructions,
box (if possible), and especially completeness, when
buying/selling/trading sets, or at least a good shot at being able to
complete a set. Piece collectors want, well, pieces.
Often these two lego value systems coincide, but there are points where
set collectors and piece collectors diverge, and this provides the
opportunity for legonomic profit. A set collector is willing to pay
upwards of $200 for a yellow castle, while a piece collector wouldn't
come near that price. Likewise, a piece collector will buy quantities of
certain types of pieces, and will pay more for pieces that he/she wants.
For example, I can sell a yellow castle for $200, and then turn that
money around and buy a number of new sets off the shelf that have
popular parts, part them out, and sell the parts for more than what I
paid for the set as a whole. Both cases involve a transferral from one
scale of values to another, and both are legonomically profitable.
That's the structure of legonomics. Had there been two unrelated
economic scales, there might have been questions of manipulating value
by going from one scale to another. But since set collection and piece
collection are two aspects of the same "market value" scale, these
questions don't have a chance to come up, even when the discussion turns
to sets that are "created" out of lego pieces that were never originally
part of a set.
This would be a good time to mention that I have no economic background
whatsoever, and I don't pretend to have a really coherent grasp on the
matter. :) But I do find the matters interesting.
Adam
bwappo@ee.net
|
|
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 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)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
