John Wooten
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>"cheap". What I was getting at was that just because a collector can afford
>to, it doesn't mean that he should collect vintage SW.
I have *yet* to see anyone say this. I think everyone here agrees with you!
People should collect whatever makes them happy. People should collect
whatever makes them happy. I say it twice because apparently some folks in
this group and elsewhere (not necessarily you) seem to believe their
"impressions" more than the words coming out of a lot of our mouths.
>But as for elitists, there are enough posts of people hacking the new toys
>or potf2 collectors that it sounds to me that a few people feel they are
>better than the potf2 collectors. The truth is that potf2 has lead more people
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?
>buying and selling, and when you really really think about it both hobbies are
>equally silly. I bet most of us have better toys than we did as a kid! and
>that is what I find truly amazing and so damn funny.
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.
John
Gus Lopez
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Kirsten Schaulin wrote:
>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.
But the point is that there's a misconception that I would spend $2k+ at
the drop of a hat when rather it's an anomoly when I do spend that much.
>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.
I'd rather spend $2k on travel than on any collectible actually, but I
only have so much vacation time to travel these days. Travel is very much
like collecting--people get the misconception that you need to spend lots
of money to be able to partake in it. Much like collecting, travel can be
more enjoyable on a tight budget when you know what you're doing rather
than splurging at every opportunity.
>You buy a boxed Brazillian TIE, I
>spend a week in London. It makes no difference. However, my *point*
Actually, I'll be in London on Saturday. :^)
>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.
I biased--Steve mentioned I might get a comp copy since I let them use
some photos of my stuff for the book. Now, that's a price I can't
complain about... :^)
Seriously, I think the price is too high. But as much as I'm not thrilled
about the price, I'm more excited that this book is coming out in the
first place!
Gus
Mike B
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
OK, this post is directed at everyone that added to John Wooten's troll
comment above (is that better?). I did say "Hey John" or "Hey Stuntboy"
at the beginning of my posts. And the other ones (stroke this) were for
everyone, as sometimes I just can't contain my laughter from some of the
posts here.. Pure entertainment you know?
-Mike (the WebTV person; you know those little boxes that don't cost
squat, and allow you to surf the net without having to dump 2K on a
machine that has to be constantly upgraded.. granted I have limitations,
but I don't care about running programs or downloading. It's all about
information, at a laughable price, with lightning fast speed, 100%
mobility- I take it to all over the place, and superior graphics on my
27" Sony Trinitron TV..)
I love being a WebTV person, because I have no attachments to anything,
I consider it disposable networking. But yes, I can't paste segments of
previous posts, so please accept my apologies.
DrEvezan
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>Actually, I'll be in London on Saturday. :^)
Good for you =)
>Seriously, I think the price is too high. But as much as I'm not thrilled
>about the price, I'm more excited that this book is coming out in the
>first place!
Why can't everyone think like this? You know, people complane about a
hardcover limited edition book that has the newest prices for figures AND
protos (wich we'll probably never see again), but I didn't hear ANYONE
complane about the "Star Wars Chronicals" book for $150. What's the
difference? Oh, by the way, I did get to flip through a copy of it yesterday. I
found out one thing I didn't know: What's Grand Moff Tarkins first name (don't
say "Grand" )?
Also, if you, for some reason, don't like the book and thimk it's
too expensive and would never spend that much on a book, good for you! But
must you go on and on and on about it? Just my $ .02.
John
rlcox
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Wow that makes another low-end collector! :)
Blah, blah, blah. High end, low end. Who cares? Just collect. It's been
said so many times that that aspect of this thread should have ended days ago.
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. ;^)
And what's a low end collector, while I'm at it?
Richard
Chris Fawcett
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> I suppose you are right but one of the main arguments of vintage vs potf2
> is the price and while some collectors spend enough to make a nice vintage
> collection not all want to spend $20 on the dull ROTJ that compose the
> "cheap". What I was getting at was that just because a collector can afford
> to, it doesn't mean that he should collect vintage SW.
I agree totally. Collect what they like. I just hate to see people not
collecting vintage for the *sole* reason that they think it's too
expensive. That's simply not true (see my other post in this thread).
So, I try to dispell that misconception when I can.
> But as for elitists, there are enough posts of people hacking the new toys
> or potf2 collectors that it sounds to me that a few people feel they are
> better than the potf2 collectors. The truth is that potf2 has lead more people
> into vintage collecting than anything else, the SE only created a frenzy of
> buying and selling, and when you really really think about it both hobbies are
> equally silly. I bet most of us have better toys than we did as a kid! and
> that is what I find truly amazing and so damn funny.
Well, most of the people I know and communicate with on this ng and
through email don't ever "hack the new toys". I'm sure there are some
people out there that do that. And I think sometimes people project
that image on to others that aren't really doing it. The ol' one bad
grape in the bunch makes us (vintage colelctors) all look bad. :)
Cj
Chris Fawcett
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
John Wooten wrote:
> 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.
Amen!!! Something we can all agree on!! :)
Cj
Chris Fawcett
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> And is incredibly good. I think high end collectors are the most
> visible. I imagine there are only about 10-15 people tops here who
> actually remember (saying nothing about believing me) that my a bit time
> low-end collector. You said no loose collectors argue in this thread
> .... well we do! We just always get forgotten.
Well maybe I phrased that wrong. I was asking more of *why* high-end
collectors always get attacked, not why *don't* loose (etc.) collectors
get attacked.
Cj
Chris Fawcett
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> First let me ask my own question: Why should people who collect
> *anything* have to continually defend themselves to the world????
> Answer they shouldn't! But they will have to expect that people will
> still judge them. Shoot my kid sister still nags me about having toys
> on display! My counter arguement is, "Do you listen to me when I tell
> you dyeing your hair is silly?" That almost always shuts her up. And
> if it doesn't work, I pull an MTV Real World ... "What did the Real
> World teach you ... isn't it wrong to judge people and tell them what do
> to."
You're missing the point. Pam is asking why high-end collectors always
end up defending themselves while other types of collectors never seem
to have to. It'd be one thing if *all* groups got attacked every now
and then, but it always seems to be the high-end people that get it the
most. Why?
Cj
Gus Lopez
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>> 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.
>Amen!!! Something we can all agree on!! :)
I don't know...I think I'd rather have even a lousy beer than that
rocket-firing R5-D4.... ;^)
Gus
Michael Mierzwa
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Chris Fawcett wrote:
> Well maybe I phrased that wrong. I was asking more of *why* high-end
> collectors always get attacked, not why *don't* loose (etc.) collectors
> get attacked.
Well I'd bet at least a loose custom R2-X2 that loose collectors are in
most people's minds less memorable. Easily overlook or forgotten. Oh,
I'm sure there are other reasons, some of which go back to that whole
split discussion over a year ago. :(
Why do people remember the actors who paid Han, Leia, and Luke, but have
a hard time remembering the actors who played Tarkin, Motti, Tagge, Mon
Mothma? Less exposure is my guess ... loose collectors get less
exposure.
And then people might assume if somebody like me is vocal that I'm
either something other than mostly a collector of loose stuff and/or
that I have some other motive for posting ... not really, I post because
I like SW stuff, and that is what this is really all about!
Michael Mierzwa
-exposure
bswain1
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> You're missing the point. Pam is asking why high-end collectors always
> end up defending themselves while other types of collectors never seem
> to have to. It'd be one thing if *all* groups got attacked every now
> and then, but it always seems to be the high-end people that get it the
> most. Why?
I think it really all boils down to jealousy. It isn't necessarily always
conscious. I don't think that most people set out with an agenda saying "I'm
gonna put down those elitist "high end" collectors (although some may)...but
jealousy is the attitude that seems to lie behind all of these "potf2 vs.
vintage,"
"high-end vs. low-end," "loose vs. carded," etc. threads. Some try to
justify their position as a "low-end" collector by saying that it is
stupid to spend so much on toys (or something similar), or call
"high-end" collectors "elitists." Although some say they'd never spend $3000
for a carded VC jawa, if those same people had the money, I'm sure they'd love
to own one. It is the same attitude that many have when they see a
Mercedes or BMW driving down the street and immediately come to the conclusion
that it is a stuck-up snob driving the car. It's human nature to want what
other's have...that is why the 10th commandment is "Thou shalt not covet,"
because we have a tendency to do so.
Low-end collectors don't have to justify themselves because high-end
collectors aren't jealous and don't point fingers saying "I can't believe that
someone would spend $8 on a loose, complete weequay." It really does amaze me
how much justifying a lot of the high-end collectors have to do on this
newsgroup. It shouldn't be necessary!!! So the answer to your question,
Chris, is *jealousy* (in my analysis of the situation)...but I have a feeling
you already new that :^) I would like to see an answer to this question from
some of the parties that always seem to be on the "down with the elitist,
capitalistic, 'high end' collectors" side of these threads. (hmmmm...am i
insinuating that some collectors may operate from a communist/marxist point of
view...asking such questions as why would you want to own rare items?? why
would you want something that no one else has?? all collections should look
the same.) Some food for thought.
Brennan
salfamily
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Kirsten Schaulin wrote:
> 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
Why are we talking about how much Gus spends again? I know you're trying to
make a point about the price of this book, Kirsten, but I don't see where
this is at all relevant.
> 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
How much does the "cash for a proto" amount to? I've bought pre-production
items cheap in alot of instances. There seems to have been this imaginary
division set up between "elitist," money-dropping "prototype" collectors, and
the rest of collecting populace who have stuck to carded figures and such. I
don't know why that is, though I suppose it could stem from the facts that 1.
the stuff is featured in the Archive, most of it under the names of a limited
group of people, and 2. most people never get a chance to buy it and, thus,
think it is unattainable. In reality, just about anyone (particularly those
who live near Cincinatti) can find prototypes at decent prices (comparable to
nicer production items) if they do some hunting, make the right connections
and educate themselves. To broadly define this person as "someone who can buy
prototypes," and another as some type of oppressed sub-group not only falsely
assumes some form of animosity on the part of the "proto collectors" towards
everyone else, but immediately classifies the "regular" collectors as somehow
disenfranchised.
When someone imagines such a division, they really place *themselves* in the
lower position, while elevating the "proto" collectors to unmatchable
positions in the hobby. Gus, chris, et al., have *never* equated the
proto/production division with a parrellel good/bad distinction. The "proto"
collectors then become endowed with these super-collector traits...Gus gets
things for free, he doesn't have to really try to get anything, Sansweet
gives him Gargan hardcopies for Christmas, he has Ft. Knox-like stores of
wealth at his disposal with which to buy stuff....and some people begin to
invent past scenarios in which the "proto collectors" talk down to everyone
"beneath" them...its all alot of malarkey. There's nothing between a
"prototype" collector and someone who collects higher-end production toys
other than a difference of interests.
> 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
at the outset of this monster thread I stated that I thought the price of the
book and the way in which it was being marketed were a gouge, but that I
thought there were factors in its production process which might help account
for some of the price. Gus recently stated that the excitement he felt at the
book's being published overshadowed the negative aspect of the price. I agree
what that %100. If someone had copies of all those file photos that she had
made from negatives that were still laying around, I'd probably think it a
deal to get them all for $100. Personally, when I think about it, I'm not
happy at all at having to pay so much to get it....but I'll do it.
I think the ease at which a thread about the price of a book explodes into
this "have" and "have nots" kind of sh**storm really speaks volumes about the
senselessness of the topic as a whole. Some people want the book, think its
worth $100, and will buy it; others don't. Why is it any more complicated
than that? I can see being angry at Tomart for the route they've taken in
offering it, but that has absolutely nothing to do with ***sigh*** how much
Gus spends on toys.
> 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.
I have absolutely no affiliation with either Sansweet or Tumbusch in a
business sense, nor did I have an iota of input into the publication of the
book.
ron
stuntboy
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> My question is why???? Why do people forget us low-end critters even
> when we are RIGHT in everybody's faces?
ok, time to exercise godwin's law and put an end to this thread. mike, you
are a nazi. :^)
but to add a bit to the conversation (ugh), i think you need to see that
collecting isn't a level field no matter how friendly and utopian everyone
wants to make it. a strictly potf2 collector could label you an elitist
because you are working on a set of loose vintage action figures. a potf2
collector could look down on a trading card collector because cards are far
from "popular" action figures that magazines hype up. a vintage carded
collector could look down on loose vintage figure collector and so forth.
we can find examples and counter-examples right here in this newsgroup, but we
can't put an end to the "debate". there is no end, it's not a level playing
field and this isn't a utopian society.
this doesn't mean the everyone can't have their focuses and their interests
and love for collecting. we are spending too much time here dwelling on
things we cannot change. we need to get back to discussing issues about
collecting not about collectors.
as long as people are psyched about their hobby then they're ok with me. i
don't have to love or even like their collections for whatever reason i
choose, but if the person is dedicated then i have to commend them for
sticking with things. i think you'll find some of these "look down on"
attitudes coming from people who have been around long enough to see the
revolving door in action. it's just too bad that the "elitists" usually
happen to be the veterans in which case their actions are misinterpreted
(based on items, not actions).
stereotypes abound. i see many potf2 collectors jumping in and out of the
hobby with no dedication to anything. yes, there are opposite examples, but
the stereotype is certainly valid. i can read the rants in afn and think that
all of those bozos will be out of the hobby in a year because they are
dwelling on insignificance. of course there are those that will not. i can
look to many of my veteran vintage collectors and see guys that put lots of
time and effort into their collections and into the advancement of the hobby.
conversely i have seen old-timers selling off their stockpile because they
were just into buying everything with no focus or real interest. i can look
down on people buying up vintage toys at shows for ridiculous prices because
they don't care enough to guide their actions with proper research.
people should collect what they want to collect, but if they aren't 100%
serious about it then they shouldn't be the ones pointing fingers at the
folks who are. the bottom line is that if collectors want to be taken
seriously, then they need to act seriously.
-chris
THE TOYMAN
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> I don't know...I think I'd rather have even a lousy beer than that
> rocket-firing R5-D4.... ;^)
I think I agree with Gus on that one...........
Kirsten Schaulin
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Why are we talking about how much Gus spends again? I know you're trying to
> make a point about the price of this book, Kirsten, but I don't see where
> this is at all relevant.
*deep breath*
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, I'm only going to say this once.
I HAVE NO DESIRE TO OWN ANY PROTOS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY COST.
I've said this to many people on several occaisions, and I've passed up
many opportunities to buy them (because yes, I live in Cincinnati). I'd
much rather have something goofy like a bar of soap that looks like Leia
than a proto. ok? I don't consider proto collectors "elitists," I
don't feel I am any less of a collector than anyone else, etc etc etc.
My collection of the goofy and strange is much more valuable to me than
Gus' whole collection would be. I'll take a Stormtrooper lawn ornament
over a Rocket Firing Boba Fett anyday.
Did you guys ever stop to think that you're just a *little* paranoid?
Sorry Ron, but I really don't enjoy having my words twisted. For
instance, where did this come from?
>When someone imagines such a division, they really place *themselves*
>in the lower position, while elevating the "proto" collectors to unmatchable positions
> in the hobby.
I can see nothing in my post that would warrant this. If you weren't
directing your response to my post at me, I apologize, but if you
were... HUH?
-Kirsten
rlcox
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Kirsten Schaulin wrote:
> 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, I'm only going to say this once.
> I HAVE NO DESIRE TO OWN ANY PROTOS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY COST.
Aren't proof cards protos? Yeah, I know everything thinks of the figural
stuff (plastic, etc), but I feel that I should speak out for my fellow proof
collectors. ;^)
> Gus' whole collection would be. I'll take a Stormtrooper lawn ornament
> over a Rocket Firing Boba Fett anyday.
Hmmm. A stormtrooper lawn *sprinkler* would be much cooler.
> Did you guys ever stop to think that you're just a *little* paranoid?
> Sorry Ron, but I really don't enjoy having my words twisted. For
> instance, where did this come from?
Geez, this thread has gotten *way* out of hand. Let's everyone go to their
seperate corners, cuddle our little plastic men/cardboard, and give it a rest.
> I can see nothing in my post that would warrant this. If you weren't
> directing your response to my post at me, I apologize, but if you
> were... HUH?
I was not directing my post specifically at you. :^)
Richard
Michael Mierzwa
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Hmmm. A stormtrooper lawn *sprinkler* would be much cooler.
Actually I would rather have an Ackbar law sprinkler! Imagine a 1 foot
tall fish spitting water on your yard! :)
Although I guess I can make the CS12 Ackbar hold a hose. Ditto for any
stormtrooper.
Michael Mierzwa
JSBX420
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
>Actually I would rather have an Ackbar law sprinkler! Imagine a 1 foot
>tall fish spitting water on your yard! :)
>Although I guess I can make the CS12 Ackbar hold a hose. Ditto for any
>stormtrooper.
Ok, now this thread has lost all sanity. Let's all relax and go home.
Kirsten Schaulin
April 16 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Aren't proof cards protos? Yeah, I know everything thinks of the figural
> stuff (plastic, etc), but I feel that I should speak out for my fellow proof
> collectors. ;^)
No. I refuse to let them be. :P
> Hmmm. A stormtrooper lawn *sprinkler* would be much cooler.
Ohhhhh...you're so right! Maybe I should go down to Mexico and see if
they have any down there. Hey, that's where I got the lawn ornament.
You never know!
> Geez, this thread has gotten *way* out of hand. Let's everyone go to their
> seperate corners, cuddle our little plastic men/cardboard, and give it a rest.
I don't cuddle. :P Really, I just don't like being lumped into that
"anti-elite" group. It's insulting!
> I was not directing my post specifically at you. :^)
heh...
And just think Richard, you're going to have to deal with me in NC in a
couple months. ;)
woods01
April 17 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> this is what several people have been saying for days. is your news filter
> screwed up?!? I must be the only one reading these.
I had been ignoring this thread for a few days, but now I've jumped
into the fire and the experience is uglier than a dignitary with a
nose rub.
-John
Kirsten Schaulin
April 17 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
Michael Mierzwa wrote:
> Although I guess I can make the CS12 Ackbar hold a hose. Ditto for any
> stormtrooper.
Yeah, but Michael...I really *do* have a Stormtrooper lawn ornament. ;)
salfamily
April 17 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Didn't I ask everyone to please not take my post out of the context it
> was written in?
of course, but its so much more fun giving you a hard time :^P
> 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.
I've been following the discussion and I see the point you're making, and I
don't disagree with you. But your posts, while making a valid point, seem to
to me to imply some type of division between those who can afford to "thrown
away" money, and those who have to skimp and save to pay their way through
collecting. Some of us no doubt have more to spend then others, but I think
the majority of us involved in this discussion can afford this book if we
really want it, and that's the real issue--do you think its worth the money
and will you go and buy it? That said, I still its weird how this whole issue
came up in a thread about a book. Like I said, most of us can afford this
book, its just a question of whether or not we think its worth it. It seems
to me to have little to do with someone spending $2k on a Rocketfett.
> Now, I'm only going to say this once.
> I HAVE NO DESIRE TO OWN ANY PROTOS, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY COST.
> I've said this to many people on several occaisions, and I've passed up
> many opportunities to buy them (because yes, I live in Cincinnati). I'd
> much rather have something goofy like a bar of soap that looks like Leia
> than a proto. ok? I don't consider proto collectors "elitists," I
> don't feel I am any less of a collector than anyone else, etc etc etc.
I never meant to imply either that you feel that way or that you should like
anything other than what you do like to collect.
> My collection of the goofy and strange is much more valuable to me than
> Gus' whole collection would be. I'll take a Stormtrooper lawn ornament
> over a Rocket Firing Boba Fett anyday.
weirdo :^)
> Did you guys ever stop to think that you're just a *little* paranoid?
> Sorry Ron, but I really don't enjoy having my words twisted. For
> instance, where did this come from?
> I can see nothing in my post that would warrant this. If you weren't
> directing your response to my post at me, I apologize, but if you
> were... HUH?
>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.
Well, that's what set it off, but I wasn't so much responding to you as I was
just blabbing my head off about something I've noticed in general on this
newsgroup and in other places over the last couple of years, and I apologize
for not making that clear. Do you see what I mean, though? You're setting up
n imaginary division here that's completely arbitrary. Exactly how much are
we talking about when we say "cash for a proto?" Why, because something is a
"prototype," is it automatically placed in the realm of the super-expensive,
beyond the grasp of the average collector? And, whether people intend it or
not, alot of this type of talk carries a strong flavor of animosity, which is
why these discussion always seem to get blown into arguments that last boring
weeks on end. >br>
I'm gonna go back to my lemonaide stand now and try to make enough money to
buy this new book :^) ron
Michael Mierzwa
April 17 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> Yeah, but Michael...I really *do* have a Stormtrooper lawn ornament. ;)
Foiled again. Grrhhhh!
I've got it, how about an Ackbar robot to fetch the morning paper?
Michael Mierzwa
Kirsten Schaulin
April 18 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.vintage
> of course, but its so much more fun giving you a hard time :^P
You're such a jerk, Ron. :P
> I've been following the discussion and I see the point you're making, and I
> don't disagree with you. But your posts, while making a valid point, seem to
> to me to imply some type of division between those who can afford to "thrown
> away" money, and those who have to skimp and save to pay their way through
> collecting. Some of us no doubt have more to spend then others, but I think
> the majority of us involved in this discussion can afford this book if we
> really want it, and that's the real issue--do you think its worth the money
> and will you go and buy it?
Ok, to answer your last question first, no, I don't think it's worth the
money, because the quality of the book does not correlate with the
price. Do I think it's a worthwhile book to own? Absolutely, however,
if I bought this book I'd feel like I was being ripped off. That's my
big problem, and that's my whole issue.
As for the division, I suppose I was dividing us into serious
collectors, and minor hobby collectors. SW is a minor hobby for me. I
spend maybe $30-$40 a month on it tops, except on the rare (twice or
three times a year maybe) occaision that I get a nice vintage piece. I
have a corner of my room that holds my favorite pieces, and that's it.
I have many many other hobbies and collections (movie memorabilia, esp
original double sided British Quad posters, gargoyles, female action
figures, books, my reef tank, travel, etc) that consume much more of my
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.
Regardless, there *is* a division, but I don't think that's a bad
thing. On the contrary. If everyone collected the same things, this
hobby would be awfully boring.
>That said, I still its weird how this whole issue
> came up in a thread about a book. Like I said, most of us can afford this
> book, its just a question of whether or not we think its worth it. It seems
> to me to have little to do with someone spending $2k on a Rocketfett.
Ok, I still don't think my point was made very well so I'll try to
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
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?
> weirdo :^)
Hey now, you're one to talk. You love that stuff as much as I do. :P
> And, whether people intend it or
> not, alot of this type of talk carries a strong flavor of animosity, which is
> why these discussion always seem to get blown into arguments that last boring
> weeks on end.
Hey, why do you think I have a lion in my sig? ;) Animosity it is not
however. (btw, what does animosity taste like?) I do feel that
constructive arguing is positive. I've seen some good come out of this
massive thread that I haven't seen in others.
> I'm gonna go back to my lemonaide stand now and try to make enough money to
> buy this new book :^) ron
heh
Click here for the last part of this thread.
Back
to 1998 Main Menu