Rick, I think you make a very interesting point that leads me to consider this issue from some angles I hadn't thought about previously.

Since we're talking about collectibles any alternative must ultimately relate back to supply and demand.

As I understand it, your suggestion to increase the number of collectors is effectively suggesting an increase in demand. If this happens then concerns about valuation are mitigated because demand continues ahead of supply.

I've been advocating what is essentially a defensive position, namely, maintain relative value (demand) by not doing something that might dilute it.

Increasing demand is definitely an effective approach if it can be made to happen. Your theory, and what I understand RonF to be saying, is "a good way to increase demand is by offering different versions of lights previously done." (Let me know if I'm off base in understanding you.)

This is an interesting notion, and one that can be proven true or not only by attempting it. Before committing to go down this road we might want to ask ourselves the following questions:

1. How big of an edition size (of for example a snowy Portland Head) will be needed to allow for the possibility of bringing in new collectors? I would be skeptical if it was less than, say, 7,000. You've got to have enough to satisfy much of the current collecting base and maintain availability over a span of time sufficient to draw in new collectors.

Would the issuing of a new Hatteras or Portland Head by itself cause a quick jump in the number of collectors? I don't know, but I kinda doubt it. Having such LE's available for folks to purchase when they visit the light would be important. Once an initial purchase is made, hopefully more will follow. But I think this will take time. In other words, supply has got to exceed initial demand by enough for the piece to be assured a shelf life during which it can do its job.

One key is your notion that "maybe these editions could be re-issued themselves
periodically". That would almost be a necessity.

So I'd ask - how many should be made? I think this is the critical question. And - we've got to fix the edition size before release so we need to determine that up front. Which leads us to...

2. Is it realistic to believe there is limit to the collectible lighthouse model market? And a corollary question - is it realistic to believe there is a limit on the number of versions of a piece most collectors will buy?

Or to put them both differently, at what point will collector's stop buying reissues, and at what point will there no longer be enough new collectors coming on board to absorb them. How many different versions of Hatteras or Portland are most folks willing to own?

This is another place where the edition size question comes into play. Once you can no longer sell well into the current collecting base, will these re-issues turn into barkers? Well.... not a problem as long demand continues to grow in the form of new collectors.

SO - while we're here, we might ask ourselves has the market limit already been reached? At present I believe it has maxed out - at least roughly. (JC is absolutely correct with his notion that what we'd really like to know is average days to retirement, not in terms of purchase by dealers, but in terms of broad distribution to collectors.)

With a few exceptions, much of the 9500/10000 edition size pieces are taking almost 2 years to retire. And again with some exceptions, very few of these are appreciating faster than 10%-15% a year. What this suggests to me is the market is somewhere close to saturation.

Of course your theory proposes this can all change by re-introducing popular pieces that are no longer available. Can it work? I dunno. I do think its a gamble. If it doesn't work, then we'll have a much larger number of the re-issues on hand and the number of new collectors will not have grown enough to maintain an increasing valuation curve in the face of an increasing supply. I think this will cause either a devaluation of the original models or a real slowing of appreciation, a la the GLOW effect.

The alternative, which I believe Rod and I are considering from two different perspectives, is based on hanging on to the current collector base (demand) by a) maintaining value and appreciation (me), and b) maintaining variety and appeal sufficient to keep current collectors making purchases (Rod).

Is it possible to increase the number of new collectors? Is it a gamble worth taking? Maybe. Maybe not. But I think you do make a very interesting point - one worth further consideration. Thanks for an interesting post.

One final note, if HL does adopt an approach of continual re-issues of the same popular LE models (with variation), then there is definitely no longer a need for GLOWs. (Sean's point - one with which I definitely agree.) If HL does this, would they be willing to have faith in their own bet and kill off the GLOW line?

Life is grand at the FSB,
__
/im

[This message has been edited by JTimothyA (edited 12-15-98).]