Pamela Green
April 11 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Michael Mierzwa
>> The sad fact is, though, for you folks who don't want to spend $100 on the
>Pamela Green wrote:
>> new Tomart's guide, I'm betting that all of those pictures will probably
>> be available somewhere on the web literally within hours after the book is
>> out.
>And why do you consider that sad.
It's sad that the high price tag on the new Tomart guide will force people
into copyright violations.
It's sad that this will mean yet more repetitive, unoriginal Star Wars
pages.
I don't whether you have a web page--perhaps this is something you only
come to understand once you maintain a page. Setting up a photo shoot and
converting images is a lot of work. So is pursuing interesting items and
photos so you can share images of unusual collectibles with your audience.
It's sad to see someone steal another's hard work, without permission, or
credit given.
--Pam
BRoehl102
April 12 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>Are you trying to anger me John? :)
>Sheesh. *everyone* knows the Han Hoth 12" proto is *the* holy grain of
>SW toy collecting. :)
>Cj
>-Han Hoth Collector
>--
>Chris Fawcett
I always thought that the vinatage 12" Lando Prototype was the "Holy Grail" of
vintage collecting. It is just my opinion but I thought that the term "Holy
Grail" is used in conjunction with items that don't seem to exist because
people can't find them. That is not to say that they don't exist. If
something is deemed to exist, it can't be deemed a "Holy Grail." I guess it's
just semantics :).
Anyway, I would like to interject my opinion on the price of the Tomart's New
SW Collectibles Guide. I do think that an $80.00 price point is way too steep.
However, I have spent more on college text books that I have never looked
beyond the cover : ).
Brad
Christopher Maybury
April 12 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Chris Fawcett (cfawc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: MegatrollForever wrote:
: > because it is so cool. for some reason rarity=cool and i just think that
: > it is the wrong way to collect .
: What if, for me, I *do* think rarity is cool? is there something
: inately wrong with that? I like rare stuff. So what?
No, nobody should have to justify or explain why they like or choose to
collect certain things. If collecting rare pieces makes you happy, then
great. I'm just getting tired of some people getting up on their high
horses and dictating what is or is not "right" to collect.
Chris Maybury
Gus Lopez
April 12 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Christopher Maybury
>I'm just getting tired of some people getting up on their high
>horses and dictating what is or is not "right" to collect.
This is really a great point--I wanted to quote it so people could see it
again.
I have never heard a seasoned, veteran collector (i.e. one who was serious
about SW collecting long before me) or someone whose SW collecting
knowledge and insight I respect ever suggest it was a "virtue" to avoid
collecting rare pieces.
No amount of spin-doctoring is ever going to turn "sour grapes" into
"virtue". To each their own.
Gus
Michael Mierzwa
April 12 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Pamela Green wrote:
> It's sad that the high price tag on the new Tomart guide will force people
> into copyright violations.
Actually it will force *more* people than normal. There are always
people who will copy these photos to place on the net.
> I don't whether you have a web page--perhaps this is something you only
> come to understand once you maintain a page. Setting up a photo shoot and
> converting images is a lot of work. So is pursuing interesting items and
> photos so you can share images of unusual collectibles with your audience.
> It's sad to see someone steal another's hard work, without permission, or
> credit given.
Actually you don't have to have a web page to know the amount of effort
it takes to create one. You just have to have tried to make one. ;)
And I agree it is a ton of work, hence to date I've not created my own
page. :) But don't worry when I do it won't be quite like too many
things out there ... largely because I want a fan based "SW travel
log". (Yes there are some out there now, but most all of them focus on
the main character or at the very least 'human' worlds.)
While stealing is sad, it is also going to happen. But I think that
doesn't justify it. Instead that just means more aggressive means to
prevent or discourage it should be taken, but I don't have too many good
ideas there ... :/
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
April 12 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> This thread has gone on far too long and I think that if people read the
> first couple of responses,
Megatron, you are welcome to think that ... but you would be wrong in
some cases. People keep reading, you'd be surprised.
> they would get the idea of where this should of
> went, but this issue got far too convoulted when people started
> interjecting their own personal idea of what was being said, on both my
> part and others.
If people want to, there is no "invisible hand of posting" that is
stopping them.
> TO think that all that was said was that $2000 dollars is
> too much to spend on certain Star Wars items, on my part. I didn't see you
> cut down Kirsten Schaulin when she said that $2000 was a waste on any Star
> Wars item nor should you for it is just that person's opinion.
Actually Gus and Pam have both responded to several of Kristen's posts
.... I'd have to reread the entire thread to see how many times, but
believe this or not, there are several different discussions being
batted around.
And BTW it wasn't until Richard brought up the ghost of your scalping
POTF2 (which I thought I saw months ago, but honestly forgot about) that
has down just what chris g. said it would do for me ... it has caused me
to assume (right or wrong) that you are more than a bit "self focused".
> I have my
> own understanding of people's motivatioins and am entitled to it, just as
> you yours. Am I don't think that I am error to think that scalping is not
> wrong, being that people are willing to pay that much and that people
> artificially create demand for new, as well as vintage items!
OK. But criminals often don't have moral objections in doing what they
do ...
But more to the point, there is a huge difference between vintage and
current market places. The entire issue of supply and demand takes two
entirely different lifes between the two hobbies.
There is a static (if not decreasing) supply of vintage items.
There is a growing supply of POTF2 items (aka new figures and even CS
limited editions).
When you hoard a vintage piece, you always decrease the supply. When
you hoard a current POTF2 piece, you *may* decrease the supply -or-
Kenner might just wait 1 quarter and produce more items shifting the
supply curve right back.
There are other differences, like questions of value added to products.
For example, since I *can* buy new POTF2 figures at Target stores,
scalpers add NO VALUE to POTF2 figures. In fact they are middlemen or
leaches (sp?) if you like living off the profits of Kenner and
retailers. NOTE: comic books stores and high priced distributors
actually do add value to the market in the form of diversity of options
.... scalpers actually take away options.
The dealers of vintage items do work as middlemen, but for a much more
significant portion of the vintage marketplace they actually artifically
increase the supply by bringing sellers and buyers together. In other
words, I would have a MUCH harder time finding vintage SW toys if not
for the work of vintage dealers. I can't walk over to Target or TRU and
buy a vintage Admiral Ackbar, but there are TONS of online dealers who
can find me these figures ... and for INCREDIBLY low prices. :)
> Yet I still
> thiknk that people going after rare items just because thaey are rare is
> pretty stupid and is the motivation behind many purchases. I never said
> that I thought it was wrong, just that I was getting at the core of many
> people's motivation.
OK, how about this, "Why do you scalp POTF2 figures?" I'm assuming that
you do. If you don't, I'm very very sorry for thinking this. And by
scalping I mean buying new hot SW toys at retail and marking them up or
buying them at retail price and marking them up while they are still
available at retail.
Michael Mierzwa
james pancoast
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Don't forget the lower than normal print run :). I could see
those factors adding that much to the overall price, and the fact that
tomarts is a small publisher. Despite my previous post, I'm probably
going to end up ordering it anyway.
The real problem I'm having with this whole situation is that I
didn't know about the limited edition version when I bought the original.
If that's because I wasn't paying attention, then that's my own stupid
fault, but if it's because Tomarts didn't make it well known, then I think
there's somethign wrong with that. Anyone want to buy a softcover second
edition for cheap? :).
Christopher Maybury
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Gus Lopez (l...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: I have never heard a seasoned, veteran collector (i.e. one who was serious
: about SW collecting long before me) or someone whose SW collecting
: knowledge and insight I respect ever suggest it was a "virtue" to avoid
: collecting rare pieces.
This attitude is even worse than that, Gus. Not only are some people
trying to dictate what is and isn't "right" to collect, they're also
dictating what you should or should not *like* to collect. It's as if you
like to have "rare" pieces in your collection, then there's something
inherently wrong with that.
Chris Maybury
schaulkr
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
"MegatronForever"
>I didn't see you
> cut down Kirsten Schaulin when she said that $2000 was a waste on any Star
> Wars item nor should you for it is just that person's opinion.
Well, you know, that might be because I hold some respect for the people I was
addressing my post to (regardless of whether I agree with them or not) and I
tend to speak to them as such. Ya think?
-Kirsten
Richard Glass
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Gus Lopez wrote:
> Based on
> what they told me, a hardcover, color version of the Tomarts guide costs a
> lot due to the type of binding and amount of printing involved.
> Gus
I think people would be surprised if they knew the true manufacturing
cost of books like the Chronicles book. I am pretty sure that the high
cost of the new Tomart's book has less to do with printing costs and
more to do with the way Tomarts does business. They basically run a
minor monopoly which is not very common in publishing. Name another
publisher that authors its books, prints them, and distributes the
books, besides cults and right-wing militia groups.
Tomarts will charge what they think they can get for this book because
they can. Their reasons could be anything (greed, previous bad business
decisions, strapped for cash, whatever), but I doubt if it's becuase of
any humanitarian reason.
Richard
Kirsten Schaulin
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Gus Lopez wrote:
> Just for the record, I've spent over $2000 on a single item only *twice*
> in my life--the 12" Han Hoth proto and a rocket firing Boba Fett first
> shot. As a point of comparison, other people have spent more on
> production telescoping and vinyl cape figures that I even spent on those
> two splurges.
> Every single other item in my collection cost less than this threshold.
Ok, I'll take this to mean that you still don't understand what I've
been saying. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
Gus, you've spent $2000 on one item twice. That's fine, you don't need
to justify it, that's just the way your priorities are arranged. It's
your money. I'm spending $2000 to spend a month in Europe this summer
(which, incidentally, is my 2nd time to do this). That's how my
priorities are arranged with the same amount of money. If someone
spends $2000 on a carded DT figure or VC Jawa, that's their priority and
they don't need to justify it either. You buy a boxed Brazillian TIE, I
spend a week in London. It makes no difference. However, my *point*
was, the main group of people who are willing to spend $100 on the
Tomart book, are those like you: people who *occaisionally* shell out a
large chunk of money for one SW item. Those of us that have interest in
the book but not enough interest to shell out the cash for a proto, are
the people that are a bit miffed over the price. My justification for
this rather broad statement is the fact that I haven't seen you, or Ron,
or Chris G, or Paul, or any of the other high-end collectors complaining
about the price. On the contrary. I've seen excuses and overall
support for Tumbusch and Sansweet (although I wonder if this has
anything to do with your personal involvement with the two of them),
rather than an annoyance at the high price tag.
Again, I don't want to reiterate my other posts, so please don't take
this out of the context it was written in.
-Kirsten
Michael Mierzwa
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Christopher Maybury wrote:
> Not only are some people
> trying to dictate what is and isn't "right" to collect, they're also
> dictating what you should or should not *like* to collect.
Actually I see what Eric as saying as being a bit differently. He is
not talking about people collecting on the basis of like or dislike, his
"virtues" (Gus's words) are based on when your collection is *not* based
on your likes, but instead some other thing such as rarity.
And no, I'm not saying collecting things because they are rare is good.
Not anymore than I'm saying collecting things because they are rare is
bad.
However, collections do speak to the people whom assembled them. If for
example somebody was to walk into my house when I wasn't around, they
would judge me based on the order or disorder and contents of my
collection ... actually they would jugde me based on my presentation of
my collection! :) And they would be perfectly in their rights to do
so!
Earlier in this thread I talked about the varring degrees of
"completists". I would guess that somebody seeing my collecting shelf
would notice that one shelf is *1* of every vintage figure, with the
exception of there being an extra Admiral Ackbar and few POTF85 figs
missing! Of course, only careful observers would spot this, but it is
something that is painfully obvious.
I can only guess what this person might think of me, but they might
guess that I'm trying to assemble a "complete" collection of loose
figures.
When they then look at my other shelves and find I have displayed carded
Admiral Ackbar figures (I display *no* other carded figures) and plenty
of loose Ackbars mixing in with an otherwise random assortment of new
and old figures, then they just might guess that the extra vintage
Ackbar is a reflection of my liking that character.
> It's as if you
> like to have "rare" pieces in your collection, then there's something
> inherently wrong with that.
Now to wrap my thoughts up ...
So now if your average "Joe" walks into the collection of a prototype
collector and only sees prototypes, "Joe" will likely make some
assumptions ("Joe" has every right to do so and will hopefully update
these assumptions if he gets new information).
"Joe" might think it rather 'elitist' or 'odd' is the prototype
collector's display is *only* prototype. "Joe" might think that the
collector doesn't like the common things, and gets pleasure from having
that which few others have. The display doesn't necessarily mean that,
but "Joe" might make that assumption and it isn't wrong, as according to
"Joe's" logic and the information given to "Joe" this is ... well ...
"Joe's" business.
Elsewhere, I read comments that Steve Sansweet has everything, thus has
no need to travel to shows. A reply to that comment was that Steve
still goes. The original comment isn't any sort of dictation. In fact,
understanding the lack of one piece of valuable information (that being
the fact that Steve still attends shows), the conclusion that Steve
would have little need for shows is fairly logically ... assuming of
course you discount the fact that people actually enjoy seeing other
people's collections and keeping up with the market. :)
It all boils down to "a matter of perspective". I think Eric has stated
clearly that everything he has said thus far is based on his
perspective.
Boy ... I could go on and on. :)
If anybody is reading my post, here is something I think would be cool
to do sometime:
A group of vintage and/or new collectors take photos of all our
collections or a sample thereof.
All the photos can then be scanned and sent to one person along with our
handles/names.
Then the names and photos are mixed up and people must try to match each
and every SW collector with part of his/her collection. And explain why
in a few cases! :)
Not only would this illustrate the concept of "collecting", but in theory this is something most all of us like!!! :)
Michael Mierzwa
Gus Lopez
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Michael Mierzwa
>Actually I see what Eric as saying as being a bit differently. He is
>not talking about people collecting on the basis of like or dislike, his
>"virtues" (Gus's words) are based on when your collection is *not* based
>on your likes, but instead some other thing such as rarity.
Some people just like to collect rare things. This analysis doesn't
consider that.
>"Joe" might think it rather 'elitist' or 'odd' is the prototype
>collector's display is *only* prototype.
Why does prototype collecting make one elitist? I think such a conclusion
says more about Joe than about the collector Joe is judging.
>"Joe" might think that the
>collector doesn't like the common things, and gets pleasure from having
>that which few others have.
This fallacy has been addressed time and time again on this newsgroup.
People do not collect rare items to deprive others of items. People tend
to collect rare items for the novelty and the challenge. It is impossible
for *anyone* to own every rare Star Wars item.
Doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous to buy into "lessons" and "conclusions"
about people who collect rare items that are promoted by people who don't
have any experience with rarities?
Please, let's end the scapegoating. We all collect different things, and
no one is "better" than anyone else because of what they choose to
collect.
Gus
Phidias Barrios
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> So now if your average "Joe" walks into the collection of a prototype
> "Joe" might think it rather 'elitist' or 'odd' is the prototype
The first thing I would ask "Joe" is what the hell is he doing in my
But seriously, like you said, it's all a matter of perspective.
On the contrary, I would be thinking that this person must have worked
This is no knock on you Michael M. but I frankly believe that most of
P.Ba
Jeff
Isn't this "discussion" getting a tad bit old?
Michael Mierzwa
Phidias Barrios wrote:
Thanks! :) But you'll see that I rarely complain of elitists.
I think my point about perspective still stands. If a person is worried
As for how does "Joe" get places like your room? Well "Joe" is sort of
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
Gus Lopez wrote:
Actually it is possible the analysis did consider that, just rejected
The way I like to think about it is if I went into a girl apartment,
If I were to find a stack of cigarette cartons ... a MAJOR turn off for
Ditto for looking at a slice of a SW collector. If *all* I see is
> Why does prototype collecting make one elitist? I think such a conclusion
Yes, of course it does. And that has been my point *all* along. That
NOTE: I never said "Joe" was me, but rather that he/she is more likely
> This fallacy has been addressed time and time again on this newsgroup.
Believe me Gus, I've been around for a long time ... just I'm usually
> People do not collect rare items to deprive others of items. People tend
I don't think anybody in this thread has suggested that. Of course
As for it being impossible for everybody to have every unique item ...
> Doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous to buy into "lessons" and "conclusions"
No, not at all. I think you've missed the point of *my* post. :(
What I'm trying to say, is this: "People have every right to make
Imagine if you are a teaching assistant. And imagine if as a TA you
Of course the TA could have written a note on the door that says,
Life is about information and the lack thereof. :)
> Please, let's end the scapegoating. We all collect different things, and
Scapegoating? Could you please inform me how I was scapegoating?
I've been a long time advocate on this and other RASS.* groups about the
The easiest is to keep on posting!
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
stunt...@ols.net wrote:
Hmmm. I think competition is good in some situtations, and counter
As for interest in the game, I don't see that as an issue. If a game
And who said it isn't "winning" to sit in a fortress in the Alps??? :)
But as this is a SW collecting newsgroup, I must admit that I find it
> > People are not going after what they want, but what othres want.
> i do believe this happens, but it's not always the norm.
Even if and when it does happen, it too is their right. The question is
> it is. but most of the time rare = cool because people like to see and own
OK, but for a collector like me, a rare neat piece like the Imperial
But I remember saying a similar thing about the B-wing ... I now have
OK, maybe not as cool as the Imperial Shuttle, but that is because I'm
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
John Wooten wrote:
Or is it supply. ;) I think POTF85 is in shorter supply than say, ESB
> I've never seen a $3000 Yak, but I have seen it at $1500 in an
Actually one of the few pieces I have seen sell *was* a Yak and for
It was at the San Mateo show early this winter! The guy was negotiating
All I can say is never in my collecting life have I been so shocked! It
> Whether you or I think it is worth it is irrelevant if others are willing to
After a fashion.
Michael Mierzwa
Mike B
Am I the only person here that doesn't get turned on by protos? They
Mike
Michael Mierzwa
Gus Lopez wrote:
I'd say it is a correct "opinion", but opinions are not representations
The moon is made of cheese. "No it is not, here is a silly moon rock."
It is a slow process, but it has the advantage of at least promoting a
> In other words, if some morons believe Steve Sansweet doesn't attend toy
See, I would say it is. Not a long discussion, but IMHO the counter
The original statement isn't moronic, it just shows a lack of
> I'm not sure what it is I am projecting...
Curiousity for one. You seem a bit more interested in feeling out where
I am *very* interested in the collecting issues, but from a theorectical
> It is a fallacy to think that people who collect rare stuff do so with
I'd agree with that. But I would be in error to not expect a fraction
> I don't care about Joe. There is no doubt that some in this thread have
But Joe is like I said in another post, a hypothetical or imaginary
For the record, its seems insane to me for a group of people to have an
> >> Doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous to buy into "lessons" and "conclusions"
> >No, not at all. I think you've missed the point of *my* post. :(
> Was that your point or Joe's? :^)
An interesting question. ;) I've purposely did not state my viewpoint,
I know that doesn't answer your question, but see below ...
> People have the "right" to make assumptions, but that doesn't necessarily
Is there right or wrong assumptions. The word assumption basically
Example, if I was to ask people to pick a number between 1 - 100, few
However if they had a bit of additional information ... like the year of
> I didn't say you were scapegoating...this is in reference to that same
:) I was hoping it was a reference to the thread or pattern of ideas.
Yes, it is an ongoing issue. I've not figured out a perfect solution to
And I also agree that there are larger issues that can take hidden
> >I've been a long time advocate on this and other RASS.* groups about the
> I still have no idea where you stand on this. sorry. :^)
Part of the point is you *aren't* supposed to know what my personal
Basically I'm trying to not cast myself or anybody else by name into any
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
John Wooten wrote:
Argh! John I would have thought you might know me a bit better. I hate
But there are collectors of rare antiquities that like them because they
> people like the hunt, they like the work involved in finding
Judgemental makes perfect sense ... well not exactly, but it is
Asking a human not to make a judgement is like saying, "please sit and
> I guess I would think that people would think as I do when
The thing about their collections is they actually share a slice of them
So where you think, "cool I don't see this everyday", I think, "Wow, now
To me this boils down to "A matter of perspective." It is possible that
> >I've seen of Eric's posts, I think he might. And there isn't anything
> >wrong with that. Afterall, I have to accept that Eric's judgements are
> or possibly his incessant need to whine about the "haves" this isn't new, you
Which Eric are we talking about? Megatron or Eric S.? :/
> >I don't think anybody in this thread has suggested that. Of course
> Read Eric's post, as well as one or two of MegatronForever's
Eric D. *is* Megatron? Right??? :/ I thought his handle was Megatron
> >As for it being impossible for everybody to have every unique item ...
> I've seen some people's stuff who are damn close :^)
:) I still think these guys need to make a public display some day!
> eric? Eric S isn't a scalper, that I think I can say with certainty. I think
I have, but that is because I thought Megatron is also named Eric "D".
Michael Mierzwa
Michael Mierzwa
John Wooten wrote:
If you think that danger is present, then have you considered doing
Asking more questions, than providing answers might help steer people
Michael Mierzwa
Click here for part 6 of this thread.
> collector and only sees prototypes, "Joe" will likely make some
> assumptions ("Joe" has every right to do so and will hopefully update
> these assumptions if he gets new information).
> collector's display is *only* prototype. "Joe" might think that the
> collector doesn't like the common things, and gets pleasure from having
> that which few others have. The display doesn't necessarily mean
room! ;)
Looking at someone's collection of protos wouldn't make *me* think he is
an "elitist".
pretty friggin' hard to acquire what he has. I would respect all the
sacrifices, research, and connections he had to make in order to build
such a collection.
the people who complain about "elitists" simply can't relate to how
difficult it is to find some of the high-end stuff.
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> This is no knock on you Michael M. but I frankly believe that most of
> the people who complain about "elitists" simply can't relate to how
> difficult it is to find some of the high-end stuff.
about outward appearances of his/her possessions and the assumptions
that "Joe" might make, then he/she can change or modify that appearance.
the SW only version of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny,
and R2-D2 ... he gets anywhere he wants. ;)
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Some people just like to collect rare things. This analysis doesn't
> consider that.
that possibility as being slim.
what I find there (and no, I don't make a habit of nosing around other
peoples stuff ... at least not opening things) will tell me something
(right or wrong) about her. Obviously, I'm going to judge her based on
my "vision" of the universe. Or perspective or what ever.
me, then I'd guess she was a smoker.
prototypes, then I'm going to make some assumptions (right or wrong).
While it is possible that I've run into *just* the prototype display ...
and while it is possible this person just likes them because they are
cool or because this person likes developmental stuff ... I still might
wonder if this person likes having stuff just because other people
can't. NOTE: I'm not saying that *I* would assume this, but from what
I've seen of Eric's posts, I think he might. And there isn't anything
wrong with that. Afterall, I have to accept that Eric's judgements are
based on his collection of experiences, and he might have good reason to
associate rarity collecting with one reason over another.
> says more about Joe than about the collector Joe is judging.
people see the world through their own eyes and prior experiences! :)
just your average person off the street. If people take offense to what
"Joe" might see or think, then they always have the option to try and
change their image!
lurking in this group, because frankly I have little to offer on
subjects like prototypes, rare figures, publications, and the like. I
think you might be projecting here a bit. ;)
> to collect rare items for the novelty and the challenge. It is impossible
> for *anyone* to own every rare Star Wars item.
"joe" might think of that ... and honestly that thought didn't occur to
me. :)
of course, math alone would argue that. :) Mass balance, mutual
exclusivity, etc. etc. But that isn't the point.
> about people who collect rare items that are promoted by people who don't
> have any experience with rarities?
assumptions about other people. The only two things people can do if
somebody makes incorrect assumption is either let it be or work to
correct the assumption. It is IMHO a good idea to also get the the root
of the assumption and considering taking measure to prevent that image."
develop a repuation for being very easy to talk to and also very easy to
work homework answers out of. While some people consider this good and
others consider this bad, I'll take a guess that there are times when a
TA will *not* want to help people ... such as when he/she has his/her
own test not hours away. It is only natural for the students to ask for
help if they've gotten it just about everytime they've asked in the
past, right? So then the TA shouldn't get too upset if and when he/she
is bombarded with questions while trying to sort out his/her own work.
;)
"Studying for test, please come back latter." That is information that
the students above didn't have before and hopefully will cause them to
make a different decision!
> no one is "better" than anyone else because of what they choose to
> collect.
diversity of backgrouns and motivations of SW fans and collectors! I
honestly think that many people are only seeing what they want to see.
:( While I personally trust Eric about as far as I can throw him, due
to this scalping issue ... I still see the merit of some of his posts,
and was trying to point that out. I am *not* pointing any flippers,
fingers, claws, or paws at anybody based on their collections! But I
will remind people that if they are worried about their images there are
*tons* of things they can do the modify them. :)
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> i think the competition is good. i think rarity is good. it's like that
> with any kind of collecting. if there were no prizes then the interest
> wouldn't be as high because the game wouldn't be as interesting.
productive in others. Rarity is the same. And prizes can sometimes get
out of hand. Don't worry, I don't see any problems in the vintage
market right now.
isn't interesting, then I change it. Yes, I'm not exactly the best sort
of person to play "Diplomacy" or "Civilization" against, because my
goals aren't necessarily the same each time, nor are they exactly
predictable. Of course, some people I've played against have similar
floating goals, and this actually makes for some very interesting
games. ;)
actually fun when bidding in auctions. "Will I be out bid?", "How low
can I bid, but still encourage 'competitors' to look elsewhere", "Do I
really want this $X bad?". There are all sorts of things that make SW
collecting fun ... and I see some competitive aspects to be interesting.
and always has been "what is it to you?" ;)
> items that aren't in everyone's collection and widely available. i've
> seen so much sw stuff in my time that i generally don't get exctited
> unless i see something that i've never seen before. that keeps it all
> fresh.
Shuttle is cool, not because it is new to me, but instead because it is
big and I don't have it. In this case, rarity is only a factor in
price. :( Which of course is why I don't have one *yet*!
one! :) And it is still cool.
think what it would be like to own one.
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Demand sets these prices.
or ROTJ figures.
> auction. People get that much because others are willing to pay for it.
$3000!!!
a better deal on some Proof cards and told the dealer that he thought
spending $3 Gs on the Yak in the case should allow from some deal to
work his way ... and it sounded like the dealer was going to cutting
some off his asking price, but not much! :/
was great watching people haggle over not $1-$5 but literally hundreds
of dollars! :)
> go higher.
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
just don't attract my interest.
Production pieces remind me about the good old days the most.. (and only
loose ones at that). I'm not knocking anybody here as I can see a SW
collector eventually getting everything possible and then turning to
protos because they love SW and still have the need to collect. SW
collecting is fun, and that really is the bottom line, isn't it?
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Michael Mierzwa
> Right, we all base our judgments on past experiences and views on the
> world--we know this. That doesn't mean every opinion is valid or
> relevant. I can conclude that all POTF2 collectors are lame-ass losers
> who need to move out of their mom's basement and claim that this
> conclusion is supported by examples and the information supplied to me is
> consistent with this hypothesis. That doesn't make this opinion valid or
> correct or even deserving of an open debate.
of the truth or rarely even good representations of a sample of such.
But the best way to alter opinions is to confront them and provide
better and additional information.
OK, the moon is made of cheese and covered with rocks. "Argh!"
two way exchange along the lines of, "That is your view, but will you at
least listen to what I have to say." This is how people learn ... or
through mistakes ...
> shows because he "already has everything", is that topic even worthy of
> discussion? I think not.
arguement is pretty simple: "Steve writes about SW items and is
interested in the market. In order to know the current state of the
market, it is in Steve's interest to attend shows."
imagination. While that can be a crime, under the circumstances I think
the quick replies to the statement were handled nicely. Much better
than if nobody said a thing or replied with, "What do you know you
Nerfherder!"
individuals stand on issues, than as you say below where hypothetical
creatures might stand. I'd say you're more concerned with the practical
and the example than the theorectial. (This is neither good nor bad
too!)
angle.
> malicious intent to deprive their fellow collectors of such items.
of people to think this. And I would be in error again if I did not at
least accept the fact that they might have reasons beyond their own
"personal" interests to motivate them as such.
> attributed maliciousness to collecting rare Star Wars items.
creation. Joe allows the issues to be examined without any personal
attachments. For example, in statistics examples people always count
widgets, urns, marbles, and gum drops. Why? Well, they are small
countible things, but also simple enough to allow the statistic to
dominate the examples, and not the ... well example. :)
agenda to control the global SW toy market ... well except maybe for GL
and co who have a very geniune interest in SW merchandising (yes, I
think the creators deserve the money their hard work has created). I
rarely see conspiracies. :) Although ironically from time to time I'm
told by some people with creative imaginations that I am a pawn of some
great game in my home state. Long story, made short: I find
conspiracies to be funny in a sit-com kind of way. :)
> >> about people who collect rare items that are promoted by people who don't
> >> have any experience with rarities?
because I'm more interested in the issue as a whole. It was "Joe's"
example, if I took a stance then people might tend to ignore other
points made. :(
> make those assumptions valid or even worthy of discussion.
means to make an uninformed decision or guess. It goes without say that
uninformed decisions can be both right or wrong, but the process of
making one isn't always bad.
people could guess my lucky number. They would in their minds either
pick their own favorite number or make a pure random guess.
the car I drive, then their uninformed guess might be better choosen.
Of course they can still get it wrong. But no matter what they do, we
have to respect the decision, I can't easily say, "Are you really sure
you want to guess 12, because you might not be happy guessing 12?" ;)
OK, maybe I can do that, but doing so I would be giving out information
and skewing the guess. :)
> thread that has persisted on these groups for years in various shapes and
> forms and contexts whether it's about repros, "museum pieces", or Paul
> Levesque's dealing habits... Sometimes on a thread you need to look at
> the agenda behind it rather than giving credence to the "issue" raised by
> the disgruntled.
:)
this and I'm not sure if there should be one.
meanings in threads. The only problem with judging based on the hidden
meanings (which interestingly enough falls in line with the perspective
issue), is that if you don't give credit to smaller ideals or ideas, how
can the larger ones exist. Or in other words, you could literally go
mad if you always second guess motives. NOTE: since few people are mad
around here, I'll guess that people don't "always" second guess motives
behind threads. ;)
> >diversity of backgrouns and motivations of SW fans and collectors! I
> >honestly think that many people are only seeing what they want to see.
> >:( While I personally trust Eric about as far as I can throw him, due
> >to this scalping issue ... I still see the merit of some of his posts,
> >and was trying to point that out. I am *not* pointing any flippers,
> >fingers, claws, or paws at anybody based on their collections! But I
> >will remind people that if they are worried about their images there are
> >*tons* of things they can do the modify them. :)
feelings are, because my opinion should not be dictating any
behavior!!! Does that clear things up? If you or anybody else is
interested I *can* share my personal feelings (I would be happy to do
so), but I think the larger issue of divorcing the individual from the
collecting concept is good to see from time to time. ;)
bins. Bins are for toys and numbers.
and I can make it short too! >:)
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> In article <3532CB1E.7...@ix.netcom.com>, mmier...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Can you please explain to me how this alone could be or is pleasurable?
> What's the fun in having something no one else has? There's a *lot* more to
> it than this.
simplifing things. ;) Of course there are tons of things to it.
are one of a kind. Shoot, part of the reason I like my custom droids is
not just because I made them, but because there are so few and when
somebody sees them they might remember my collection because it has
something just a bit different. In short, I feel like the droids at to
the collecting community (a little bit at least) because they are
something unique ... well almost, I've made many and spread them
around. :)
> stuff, or maybe, just maybe, they think it's really cool, or they have the
> regular stuff and are interested in the history. Better yet, why are people
> judgemental? It makes no sense.
something that most people do every day. Is that car really going to
stop at the stop sign? Do I need to count my change right now? Is this
person a good person to trade or deal with?
do nothing ... nothing at all."
> they see Gus's, Chris's, Steve D's or anyone elses rare stuff...WOW...without
> judgement and just full appreciation for the sheer coolness of something you
> just don't see every day.
with us, via the web! :) What surprises me is that few people remind
others of this when the issue comes up, as it would seem to me that they
do collect for reasons beyond what Eric was thinking. I would guess
that part of the reason they collect is to perserve stuff so that people
in the future might get to see it ... hence the Collector's Archieve.
there are some people who are working to record a bit of history and
share it", and Eric thinks (he has been clear on this), "There are some
collections that people make in order to impress people."
the Collector's Archieve is nothing what I thought, and that I'm off
base on the recording history stuff. But I totally think I've some good
reasons to make this assumption.
> gee, ya think? :^)
> >based on his collection of experiences, and he might have good reason to
> know....of course, he hasn't said anything in a long time like this...I had
> thought maybe he grew out of his little vendetta...
and his name Eric. Megatron always strikes me as an evil Decepticon and
out to promote chaos ... but also a bit clever (from the Transformers).
He, our Megatron, is an active poster, but I didn't think he has an
agenda ... shoot I think I've called him a vanhead for scalping twice in
the past year and he totally ignores me (which of course makes me wonder
if he was trolling or not). But thus far he has been civil to me.
> >of course, math alone would argue that. :) Mass balance, mutual
> >exclusivity, etc. etc. But that isn't the point.
> you've mixed up him and megatronforever.
If I was talking about Eric S., I'd call him Eric S. There is no doubt
in my mind that Eric S is *not* a scalper!!! In fact, Eric is very good
about getting good information out to people so they don't have to find
stuff through scalpers! :) And I do appreciate the interest Eric S.
places in the hobby!
April 13 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> sadly, certain people in this thread refuse to acknowledge such statements...i
> mean, several people have been saying this for a week now and some people
> still don't get it. I imagine within 5-6 posts, it'll be just another whining
> thread from those who feel oppressed.
something to prevent it?
stuck in a rut to move on or discover their own answers. At least I've
found I respond great to when people ask for me to think through my own
logic. ;)
Back
to 1998 Main Menu