Subject:
|
Re: The difference between hobbyists and collectors...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:19:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1623 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote (though not in this order,
admitedly):
> As River would say, "I understand it, I don't
> comprehend it".
Agreed. I don't see a logical, rational reason for such collecting/hoarding etc.
That would probably be why you and I are not "collectors". I've only bought two
sets from eBay that have reamined intact, assembled: the Technic Space Shuttle
and the large Technic 4x4. These are such beautiful mechanical solutions, I like
admiring them in an assembled form.
Huh. I guess that means for *some* sets, even to me, the whole is worth more
than the sum of its parts. Still, I agree I'd never pay an "outrageous sum" for
a MISB version, as the box is not that important... to me.
> So what's the difference between the Galaxy Explorer
> built out of the pieces in my basement and the Galaxy
> Explorer 'still in box' being sold on eBay for aome
> astronomical value? A cardboard box? Non-used pieces??
>
> That's not good enough for me.
It is, however, good enough for a very large number of people. The only
difference between a work of art "by the master" and a really good forgery is
*who* painted it or *when*, for instance (and that even goes for experts in the
field - witness how difficult it is to establish if a work of art is truely a
forgery, for instance, even by the "experts").
I'll restate what's been said before: the value of a thing is what someone else
will give you in exchange for that thing. Period. *WHY* someone would choose to
participate in that exchange is another question. For you or me, at least with
LEGO, it's the utility of the thing ("can I use those pieces to accomplish my
ultimate goal?") while to others it might be scarcity ("this is one of only
three known MISB 1972 LEGO sets that have a misprint on the color offset
printing on the left side of the box!"), and to still others it might be
emotional investment ("I built this Technic Mars rover the day Spirit landed in
Gusev crater, and I'm not taking it apart until the last Mars rover dies on the
martian surface!"). You can argue all you want that somebody else's viewpoint in
the above list is stupid, or unethical, or immoral, or impractical... but there
are a surprising number of human behaviors that have absolutely no basis on the
above 'rational' reasons. Like, for instance, trying to accomplish arbitrary
tasks using nothing more than small plastic and electronic parts manufactured by
one specific toy company... and spending thousands of dollars a year to do this.
Is that any more reasonable then trying to anticipate the future value of a
hoarded set in order make a profit, that could be used to buy food, a house in a
better neighborhood, etc.?
> it [sharing parts, not hoarding sets] is better for the community.
For the community that a lot of us respond to, yes. I'm not at all sure I'd
consider collectors or hoarders as part of the community you love. They happen
to have a deep connection to the same product as you and I... but for a very
VERY different reason. Are artists (who make gold or silver jewlery) and
electrical engineers (who value both those wonderfully conducting metals for a
quite different reason) part of the same community?
PS- I've got to admit here even I have done a "collectable" LEGO purchase - I
once traded 15 studded beams for a "Sandy Moondust" minifig... because, again, I
have a completely non-rational, emotional attachment to that minifig and more
importantly what it represents (robotic space missions, Mars, and collaboration
between a company I've grown to like and what I consider one of the most
ambitious undertakings of humanity as yet).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
33 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
