Quote" What makes anyone think they should get a
cel for less than it's going rate? Why should
they be more entitled or deserving of it, so much
so that they get to pay less than someone else?
This is what supply and demand is all about, this
is basic economics."
True, but if the cels were indeed worth the price
the seller ultimately got for them through
shilling, why did the seller have to shill in the
first place?
As for competition, the reverse logic could be
used against the seller. If one person is willing
to pay $100 for something, but the second highest
bidder is only willing to pay $40 for it -- then
competition dictates the item is only worth $40
or so dollars, not $100.
When you shill I seriously doubt that you're
looking for the market value for an object. The
person is simply taking advantage of the fact
that some bidders make an inflated initial bid in
an attempt to ward of snippers. If the other
person competiting against you in an auction has
no intention of paying, how can this be
competition? Last summer a shiller inflated a
Noriko Death cel to close to $3000 dollars.
Market value? Hardly.
Note: collectors don't always get their money
back when they try and sell their collection.
Sometimes they get more, but rarely do they get
what the market rate is for their goods --
usually 50% - 40% of what they paid, more if the
item is rare. A book collector paid over two
million dollars for the first folio of
Shakespeare's work -- he got only a little over
half this amount when he had to auction it off
later. Even in the fine art market -- normally
prices in galleries are higher than similar items
sold in auctions. The reason for this is that
galleries can afford to wait for someone to match
their offer; whereas in auctions items have to be
sold within a set timeframe, therefore leaving
room for bargaining. When people spend money on
their collections, they should keep in mind that
they might not be able to get this money back --
caution in this regard isn't a bad thing. |
