Tomart Ripp Off!!

Scott Bradley
April 18 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

Kirsten Schaulin writes:
> much over buying this book, regardless of the price. Tumbusch is a
> smart guy. He knows that. He also knows that people in the proto area
> of collecting are limited, so if he lowered the price, he wouldn't make
> enough money from the few extra people he'd pick up to warrant dropping

That is pretty much the crux of the matter. I don't hold with the
aforementioned reason of the high costs to obtain, process, and publish
the photos - it's simply ridiculous. :^P

It's a pretty risky marketing move on Tomart's part. This rip off
book only targets a small market, and hiking the price to cash in on that
market is a bad move. It follows Michael Eisner's move to hike prices at
EuroDisney when attendance was dropping in the early days to maximize
short-term profits.

Most of the SW collectors have already purchased this book from
its original incarnation, and will not shell out more for a mere few pages.

I was kind of angered when I first heard about this way back when.
IMHO it's a blemish on the SW collecting community - especially when one
of our own commits it.

What they should have done was to issue the photos as supplemental
material, and issue it on regular print paper - not on some special stock
with the accompanying special binding. Tomart is just trying to add
perceived value to justify the ridiculous price hike.

Sad.

-Scott.

woods01
April 18 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

> but what examples of this do you have? that's the thing I don't get.
Several
> folks here have said what I said above ad nauseum, but it doesn't sink in.
> Why is that?

If you remember a few months ago, there was a huge thread along the lines
of "my take on the newsgroup" it covered most of the same ground in this one.
Towards the end there was a brief discussion on the ROTJ carded and the way
it went was that it sounded like the posters were trying to justify that
because low prices can be had on ROTJ then people should collect them. That's
not a good example of elitism, but that is one thread I can remember. I don't
have time to use dejanews and go through 3000 old posts, but there have been a
few posts where the writer had a holier than thou attitude IMO.

> I don't think either is silly. Everyone has a hobby or vice of some sort.
> I'd rather be buying potf2 or 12 backs than cigarettes and beer.

Come on man, admit it! SW collecting, or any sort of collecting, is really
really silly when you think logically. In the mid 80s many were throwing
this "junk" into the garbage cans, or using the old BB gun on em!
If someone said to 10 years ago or even 5 years ago that a carded plastic
cape jawa would be worth more than a $1000 you'd probably laugh. Or how
about the price and demand for the double telescoping sabers? Hundreds of
dollars are being spent on a tiny tube of plastic that isn't even the correct
colour (yellow vs blue) of what was in the film.

Most things in our world are silly and stupid, and will be of little value
or interest to anyone 100 years from now (any pro athletes reading this?). But
that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them!

-John

PS lets put this thread back to what the subject is. Bashing faceless
corpartions is much more fun. They don't respond!

stuntboy
April 18 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

Kirsten Schaulin wrote:
> income than SW collecting does. To you guys, SW is *the* main hobby,
> and one that promts you to travel all over the country, write articles
> in collecting publications, and go to obscure little conventions in
> Cinci as an excuse to visit ex Kenner people. ;) I suppose I used the
> term "proto collectors" as a stereotype without explaining myself, so I
> can see where the confusion lies. No, proto collectors don't need a lot
> of money to collect. However, what *do* they need? Connections. How
> do you get connections? Lots of time, aggressiveness, traveling all
> over the country, writing articles, and visiting obscure little
> conventions. You also need a fairly good knowledge of SW collecting,
> and that usually comes from having a collection of your own, which
> indeed means you have spent some money on it. Ok, my mind works a
> little quickly and a little strangely, but when I see a proto collector,
> I see someone who has been in this hobby for some time, and has spent a
> heck of a lot more than I ever will on it.

i just wanted to quote all of this because it means alot and i think you
nailed it on the head with just those last two lines. perhaps if more people
looked at it this way then we wouldn't see this "elitist" bashing going on.

> explain it again. The reason I feel that the price of the book is so
> high, is because those of you that are willing to spend $2k on something
> extraordinary like a Rocketfett or Han proto doll, won't really debate
> much over buying this book, regardless of the price. Tumbusch is a

somebody let me know where you guys are getting these dirt cheap rocketfetts
and han hoth dolls, please! :^)

> smart guy. He knows that. He also knows that people in the proto area
> of collecting are limited, so if he lowered the price, he wouldn't make
> enough money from the few extra people he'd pick up to warrant dropping
> it. Soooo...why not keep the price high so he can make a good amount of
> money on it? Is this making more sense now?

i agree. i was basing my willingness to pay $80+ on what tumbusch told us
about the costs he was incurring in order to print it. if it's not costing
him as much then he lied, but if it is costing him alot then we will just have
to pay it. or we can choose not to pay it because nobody is twisting anyone's
arm here. the extra 30 pages won't appeal to everyone so even if it was just
$20 more than the standard edition of the book those folks wouldn't buy it. it
could be a $20 addition to the book or a new $50 book and we'd have the same
situation. nobody i know that wants the book wants to pay $80+ for it, but we
aren't in control of this. i don't like paying $6 and issue for his magazine,
but that's what it costs.

it's funny that folks are bickering over this "pricey" tomart edition when
nobody has mentioned the brand new sw action figure book that's due out now
(and been publicized) by john kellerman which carries an "affordable" $30
price tag. this book will have 650 photos of everyone's favorite action
figures including variations, multi-packs, catalog packs, displays, etc. i
can't wait!

i think people just like complaining. :^)

-chris

John Wooten
April 18 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

>If you remember a few months ago, there was a huge thread along the lines
>of "my take on the newsgroup" it covered most of the same ground in this one.
>Towards the end there was a brief discussion on the ROTJ carded and the way
>it went was that it sounded like the posters were trying to justify that
>because low prices can be had on ROTJ then people should collect them. That's
>not a good example of elitism, but that is one thread I can remember. I don't
>have time to use dejanews and go through 3000 old posts, but there have been a
>few posts where the writer had a holier than thou attitude IMO.

Well, if you're going to make such statements about the attitude here, then I
expect you to back it up with *something* of substance. Obviously there's a
reason you believe that, but I happen to really think it's more your
impression of things than anything that has actually happened. Sure,
sometimes a few posts are a lot down on potf2, but look in rasscm...75% of
those there are bitching about that stuff and how they collect it too.

>Come on man, admit it! SW collecting, or any sort of collecting, is really
>really silly when you think logically. In the mid 80s many were throwing
>this "junk" into the garbage cans, or using the old BB gun on em!
>If someone said to 10 years ago or even 5 years ago that a carded plastic
>cape jawa would be worth more than a $1000 you'd probably laugh. Or how
>about the price and demand for the double telescoping sabers? Hundreds of
>dollars are being spent on a tiny tube of plastic that isn't even the correct
>colour (yellow vs blue) of what was in the film.

>Most things in our world are silly and stupid, and will be of little value
>or interest to anyone 100 years from now (any pro athletes reading this?). But
>that doesn't mean we can't enjoy them!

You are basically elaborating on what I'm getting at. Everything is silly and
we all do silly things so why not collect something no matter what it is.

>PS lets put this thread back to what the subject is. Bashing faceless
>corpartions is much more fun. They don't respond!

sure thing :^)

John Wooten
April 18 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

>i think people just like complaining. :^)

duh

nighthawk
April 20 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

Hmmmmm Don't know if this will work or not, it's my first post. John,
it's possible that in 100 years all this original Star Wars original toy
stuff will be priceless. Star Wars willbe 9 movie spanning 35 years. The
first and possibly only multi-generational American Epic. There's no
telling how big it willbe in 80 years from now. It already is. The dt
sabers are valuable for the simplist of economic principals. Supply and
demand. The people that have them, flaunt them, the people that don't,
want them and gripe about not having them. I want them! Those are the
only two I need for a totally complete loose mint collection. Minus the
red coat Bib Fortuna and rocket Fett, which there are more fakes of than
real ones by 10,000% or more. They are valuable by their existance. An
error print stamp that there is only 25 of is priceless today. Why?
It's a screw up for 1, 2, it's an old useless piece of paper, and 3,
it's just a stamp. Yet it is worth thousands of dollars. The red and
blue DT sabers are no different. They are rare, they are special, and
people want them. More people want them, then there are sabers to be
had. That is why they will hold their value as long as anyone knows what
Star Wars is.

Keith A. Schneider
April 22 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

>Here is the question we should be asking: Why should people who collect
>rare stuff continually have to defend themselves on this newsgroup?

You don't have to defend yourselves. You choose to. The question is
why you choose to defend yourselves. What is at stake? Your
reputation? What sort of reputation are you trying to maintain that is,
in your opinion, being damaged?

You guys just like to argue and try to show people how highly you think
of yourselves. You often try to blame other people (like me) for these
arguments, but these arguments continually resurface. I don't start
them. Maybe you should consider that the fault is actually yours. How
many people have to bring up the same criticisms of you guys before you
begin to think that perhaps the criticisms are valid and not just
brought up by some random nut (like me)?

keith

Keith A. Schneider
April 22 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

Chris Fawcett writes:
>How is saying "anyone who collects potf2 can afford to collect vintage"
> being elitists? IMO, it's just trying to deispell some common
>misconceptions about vintage collecting. Ie: That it has to be
>expensive.

I think we've been through this before. It is certainly possible to
spend the same amount of money on a "vintage" and new collection, it is
just that your "vintage" collection will either have a lot fewer items,
or they will be in worse condition (loose for instance).

You know very well that people who collect the older items spend quite
a bit more than the people who collect only the newer items. I'm
guessing that you newsgroup goons spend on average at least $5000 per
year on your collections.

keith

Keith A. Schneider
April 22 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

Chris Fawcett writes:
>Yes good question. You never see loose figure collectors arguing in a
>thread like this. You never see ship collectors, trading card
>collectors, comic book collectors. Yet, it seems several times a year
>something like this comes up aimed at the "high-end" collectors. Why is
>that?

I'll take a stab at this one. Is it because you guys often act like
pompous asses?

keith

Keith A. Schneider
April 22 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

>Anyway, anyone think they can define "high end"? carded figures? a single
>prototype? Proof cards? a sealed Death Star? I mean, what's the criteria?
>I'd sure like to know how to start pigeonholing myself. ;^)

It has to do with cost. "High end" stereo equipment, for instance, is
general very high quality, and the price really shoots up much faster
than the quality. (My friend, for instance, has a $20,000 turntable
drive unit that is only marginally better than, say, a $2000 turntable
drive unit.)

I would say that, as a general rule, high end Star Wars collecting
starts at $200 per item (fair market value). There really are not a
large number of carded figures that sell for more than $200 or so (and
I personally only have a few items that are worth over $200). A high
end collector might have a collection valued at, say, over $20,000.
Items that fall in this class are the rarest of 12-backs and POTF
figures, many of the 12" dolls (boxed), many prototypes.

A "mid range" might be from, say $50-200 (I have a large number of this
class of item). Total value for collection, say a few thousand dollars
and up. Common items here are high-quality carded figures, perhaps
loose 12" dolls, some ships and playsets.

>And what's a low end collector, while I'm at it?

Hmm... below $50 per items? Ballpark. A "very low end vintage
collector" might collect loose figures and items that generally don't
cost more than $20 each (such as ROJ carded figures). Most if not all
new toys fall in this range. Most people probably start collecting
this sort of thing.

Anyway, we could quibble about the exact numbers, and there is of
course no exact dividing line (just as there isn't between "upper
class" and "middle class" people's incomes), but I think you get the
general idea.

keith

Keith A. Schneider
April 22 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

Kirsten Schaulin writes:
>Didn't I ask everyone to please not take my post out of the context it
>was written in? I REALLY don't feel like recapping my entire point, but
>I assure you, the amount of money certain people spend on SW items is
>*extremely* relevant to my point on *why* the price of the book is so
>high. Please go back and check dejanews to see the entire discussion.

Now now, have you guys started arguing amongst yourselves since I've
been away? (I just read a previous post of yours where you say that
you never anger the newsgroup gods (or something like this).... think
again! I had to point this out.)

>I HAVE NO DESIRE TO OWN ANY PROTOS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY COST.

I don't like prototypes, either. I consider them to be workshop scraps
(sorry). The value I see in itmes is their packaging--the fact that
they were once sold on the shelves, and lots of people bought and played
with them, but now there are relatively few left unopened in their
packages.

I suppose a prototype is a unique piece of artwork created by one of the
toy designers. I'd rather have the finished product, myself.

keith

Keith A. Schneider
April 22 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

>Maybe it's because a lot of it's members have to constantly deal with the sort
>of judgemental bullshit and jealousy showin in those recent threads. It gets
>old.

Why do you have to deal with it? Who forces you? You know you enjoy
it. Why else would you participate in these threads?

keith

paulleve
April 22 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

> I'll take a stab at this one. Is it because you guys often act like
> pompous asses?

In order to achieve the maximum enjoyment out of this response, please insert
one Barry Manilow 8-Track into player and wait for "Copa Cabana" to begin:

Here comes Keith Schneider,
a first-class whiner.
Making statements oh so bold,
some call him "Super Troll."

He has an obsession,
with Gus's collection.
It gets a little much.
(This poor boy is truly touched...)

He complains and moans,
"Leave the oppressed alone.
Or I'll call you 'goons'
and I won't be leaving soon!"

On the Newsgroup, the rassc.v newsgroup.
He'll argue new and old, first a flame and then a troll.
Here on the newsgroup, the rassc.v neeeeeeeewssssssssgroup,
High-end collector bashin', is always Keith's passion!

On the newsgroup... don't fall for a troll!

[;^)
Paul

Paul Nguyen
April 22 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

Just great, Keith is never going to leave (although the song is very funny)...Oh
well, at least we got one of the 'goons' looking over us :)

This just proves that Keith is just one fine troll. This thread has been dead
for about week, but Mr. smart-guy Keith just couldn't leave well enough alone.
He just has to dig it all up again and play Devil's Advocate (I wonder what other
foolish things Keith will add to this thread).

Keith A. Schneider
April 24 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage

>> [...] You also need a fairly good knowledge of SW collecting,
>> and that usually comes from having a collection of your own, which
>> indeed means you have spent some money on it. Ok, my mind works a
>> little quickly and a little strangely, but when I see a proto collector,
>> I see someone who has been in this hobby for some time, and has spent a
>> heck of a lot more than I ever will on it.
>i just wanted to quote all of this because it means alot and i think you
>nailed it on the head with just those last two lines. perhaps if more people
>looked at it this way then we wouldn't see this "elitist" bashing going on.

I don't think anyone is questioning anyone's knowledge or commitment to
the hobby. Not all experienced collectors are called elitists, just
the ones that ought to be more humble. No one enjoys being around
people that seem a bit too pleased with themselves.

keith