I would like to thank everyone for their reply to my initial post, and encourage others who normally do not respond often to toss in their 2 cents here and also take the unofficial poll from Mark's posting. We're all friends here...just like bantering siblings.
In light of John's breaking news, I would have to agree with Tim (by the way, welcome back to the Forums Tim...we missed the fog horn lately!) If Bill's statement was actually made AND in seriousness (a very important AND), then the debate should end....no GLOW. I am very much biased FOR the production of the GLOW, but sticking to a promise would definately have to take precedent.
My bit of confusion is in the way it was suddenly "remembered" by the select group. We all know how quick rumour mills can spread any breaking news very rapidly, why would this important statement be an exception? When the founder of such a prominant collectible line makes a statement that in essence for the FIRST TIME EVER, one particular lighthouse will NEVER be made again....that is one heck of a breaking story! I can't believe a prospering company would promise to NOT make a product that would sell fairly briskly, make a profit, and please a majority (assumed) of collectors, especially a lighthouse like Coquille which I know many people have asked about and debated over whether it was going to be made for quite some time. HL has always tried to stay "above" the interaction of the secondary market, but I don't know why else the statement would have been made in the first place other than to protect the secondary value. Doesn't quite make sense, and that is why I would question the seriousness of such a statement, if actually made.
When the statement of "...no more than 10,000" was made, it spread through the rumour mill like a wildfire on the bulletin boards, chats, and publications. The news was practically instantaneous. No one can keep a secret long, next year's society piece is a great example. It took a whopping week to be posted to the forums!
I have personally "asked the elusive question" to Bill in 1997 and again in 1998 at signings. Both times I just received a chuckle and the typical "Jovial Bill changes the subject" response. That always sounded to me like the question was a frequent one, and he did not want to let out of the bag the production schedule or details of it. I am quite surprised that if he made the statement in seriousness before, why HL would be in the middle of production and kind of "let the cat out of the bag" in front of 735 very serious collectors at the reunion. That would not have been the smartest move if they thought in any way that it should not have been produced. I think he would have remembered making the comment in light of other past history statements. ie: no GLOWs before limiteds, early retirement of Burrows, no more than 10,000 made, etc. He knows by now the importance and finality that his statements have.
All in all though, if the statement WAS made in seriousness, than the GLOW should not be made. I just hope they think and "remember" through this one thoroughly before deciding. At least once again they are taking collectors' feedback seriously. Kudos to the attempt.
-RodW
[This message has been edited by Rod Watson (edited 12-02-98).]
