Per Professor Aucremann's request, we'll use the Fog Signal Building to discuss his theories on the ins and outs of HL pricing over time. To jump to his latest edition, you can use this link:

http://www.lighthousekeepers.com/forums/Forum16/HTML/000009.html

Professor A's latest Factoid will take some time to digest and process. My first reaction is to recall a long-time theory of mine which is hard to enumerate:

The Tourist and Dispersion Factors Affecting Long Term Growth in Values of Lighthouse Collectibles by Harbour Lights (C) (R) 1996-98 etc.

The good professor suggests collectors stand back a bit from the various lighthouses in consideration for purchase and add a dash of 'beauty' to the equation. For example, Jupiter FL has a certain desireability because it is RED. Cape Blanco has less appeal because it is simple and, frankly, not as well sculpted.

Jupiter also has the advantage of being located in a more populated area than Cape Blanco and so more LOCALS will be available to purchase their copy of it for the mantlepiece or as a gift to others in their family than will Cape Blanco area residents.

And since more tourists flock to Florida than visit the Oregon coast by several multiples, more toursts are likely to snap up a Jupiter as a memento of their vacation.

(And just another diversion: A lighthouse model of Jupiter is a more appropriate memento of a trip to the coast of Florida than is a Boston Harbor lighthouse model a memento of your vacation to Boston. You need to go out of your way to see Boston Harbor light and Boston's appeal isn't so much tied to lighthouses. Oh, and Boston has a bunch of tall buildings that catch your eye before the areas lighthouses.)

Now then, some of the edition will end up in the hands of LOCALS, some in the hands of TOURISTS and some in the hands of two kinds of collectors: The basic collector and the speculating collector who buys one or more "extras". Those extras may be bought because they expect the piece to go dramatically up in value over some (unstated) period of time OR because they want to use it to leverage some other piece from another speculating collector.

And so we have "Chidester's Corollary" to "Aucremann's Theorem":

"The more dispersed an edition is among individual collectors, the faster it will rise in value."

Makes sense. If 5,350 collectors, for hypothetical example, hold the 5,500 Boston Harbors, then locating one to buy is more difficult and will be more expensive. ("You want me to WHAT? Break up my collection and sell you the ONLY Boston Harbor I have? You're gonna PAY BIG for that one!") Assuming none are broken or lost, then the "float" is 150 pieces.

Whereas, in the case of Thomas Points, the 9,500 may be held by 6,000 collectors, the "float" is 3,500. It's not hard to locate one to buy and for not much more than original retail.

Not enough time this morning to add more, other than saying, how will this affect future values?

Cape Blanco - took a LONG LONG LONG time to retire. Not a tourist area (comparatively), not as many LOCALS to buy one, probabaly not a lot of 'extras' in the hands of collectors, so sometime in the future, it will have a significant price rise?

We've seen a recent example in Ocracoke. One of the Southern Belles. Probably the one of the seven least visited by tourists, not many LOCALS, not much speculative buying of this one (as compared with St. Augustine, St. Simons, etc.) Pretty widely dispersed among collectors, so not many extras. Now selling in the $400 range and VERY hard to find at that price even. (And, although we can't predict this, it seems unlikley that there will be a GLOW Ocracoke.)

As its price rises, the number of collectors who can (or are willing to) buy it decreases. And as the price rises, the more likely a collector might be willing to forgo having one in their collection in exchange for $500. But that's a discussion for another time.

Chidester GA (Graduate Assistant)


[This message has been edited by JChidester (edited 01-03-99).]

As a later comer to HL collecting in Dec. '97, I had no illusions about acquiring them all short of depleting the kids' college funds. I needed direction and found it in JC's earlier Trends piece. Tim's thread continues this useful analysis. I'm glad JC is chiming in. This discussion is useful and interesting for newbies and wackos alike.

The quantitative analysis is very useful. The qualitative analysis (aesthetics, tourist factor, motivations of buyers, assumed dispersion of pieces sold) is harder to get a handle on, but loads of fun to speculate upon.

Wackos in search of a Ph.D. (pile it higher and deeper) dissertation can do a multiple regression analysis with controlled variables to enhance the predictability of HL futures (vbg). The rest of us should do well with Tim and John's insights.

Cape Blanco is easy to understand, but Point Arena is a puzzlement. John's idea on limited disbursement is the best guess, in which case recent secondary sales should correct the lower than expected value. Or, are total surviving numbers higher than previously assumed?

Thanks, guys.



[This message has been edited by Rich Boyes (edited 01-03-99).]

Thanks Rich, for you kind comments.

Re: Point Arena CA.

The published figure is about 5,500+, but my best informed guess is it's something less than 2,000 that survived to be sold.

About a year and a half ago, I'd ask different collectors on line if they had a Point Arena; then I'd ask how many they had.

95 times out of 100, if a collector had one, they had more than one. I estimated then that perhaps 500 collectors held these 2,000. The fact that there were 500 sellers out to sell Point Arenas for a profit.

It's price has gone up a bit since then, but it's still "undervalued" - it's scarcity alone should have it selling for much more now. IMHO, that makes it a bargain at anything under $200.

However, it's "mystique" hasn't yet materialized.

In the most recent version of Jim Rutherford's 'Nautical Exchange' (Fall '98 - arrived a few days ago) there's 28 Point Arena's offered for sale, running between $150-$360. I didn't check every entry, but I don't think anywhere near as many of any other piece up for sale.

As of 12/27/98 www.LighthouseKeepers.Com has 13 Point Arena's for sale at $190.

I agree with JC - based on its edition size its undervalued and not well disbursed. Its got 'a good negative'; 9th best in fact - falling between Portland Head and Ponce de Leon. (see Factoid #11 pt 1).

Like Pt.Arena, HL cut off production of Burrows Island (wasn't selling well) and it has a larger edition size of 2563. 6th best rating in Factoid #11 yet it can still be had for near the same price as 2-3 years ago.

Of course both these anomolies rate well because of their early retirement (and perhaps deserve an asterisk next to their entries). We can only speculate how long retirement would have taken had HL allowed both editions to run their course. Neither has the appeal or tourist pull of the Belles or certain Northern Lights.

My conclusion? There is not a sufficiently rapid increase in the number of collectors who need these pieces in their collections to cause them to appreciate in value. (stagnate demand=stagnate price)

A disturbing conclusion, if you ask me. Why? I'll postulate the percentage of Wackos is a constant - and the fact that our numbers aren't going up indicates a similar lack of increase in general HL collectordom. This time I'll suggest someone else answer "Why?".

Rgds,
__
/im

My hypothesis: HL Wackos are an endangered species because they spend all available time feeding their addiction and do not spend enough time reproducing.

But seriously, folks.

Interesting algorithm, Tim, but I'm inclined to lean more toward John's touchy-feely method than a mathematical model. There are just too many "exceptions" for me to accept the algorithm. Look also at Old Point Loma, Highlands, and Minot's Ledge. Algorithm results in the middle of the pack, but percentage increases in price are high, especially when taken as a daily percent increase since retirement. The correlation coefficient is a stinky 0.21. In laymen's terms, there is no discernable relationship between the algorithm prediction and the rate of value increase.

Earlier pieces took more time to retire despite lower edition sizes because it took a while to establish a collector base. So some allowance must be made for when a piece was introduced. That might enhance the algorithm somewhat, but probably not enough to be a useful predictor. Also, values do not necessarily increase in a straight line, and too many external forces impinge upon an individual piece's trajectory to predict it.

On a gut level, there may be something to your hypothesis in a very general sense, but I would not use the formula to decide my next purchase. What may be true macroeconomically can be blown to smithereens in the context of an individual piece.

As already stated, the value of a retired piece will not usually go up in a straight line. It may get off to a slow start or a quick jump, but they all seem to plateau after a while, so my advice to a new collector (advice that I follow myself, FWIW) is to focus first on the recent retires that you really, really like and must have (while keeping up with the new issues that you also must have). After that, assess what highly-appreciated pieces you want and buy those. Along the way if you wish to speculate or need a tie breaker, use a corollary to John's Tourist and Dispersion Factors Theory and buy HLs from resort areas or areas with high local populations, and by all means, buy the red ones. But first and foremost, buy what you like.

I do agree that the surest way to increase the value of these little gems is to increase the size of the collector base. A rising tide lifts all lighthouses. So go forth and procreate!

Ahh, It's good to be back home!
-Art

Just a few more thoughts on Point Arena, I also contend that there are more Point Arena's out there than the 2,000 or so John believes there are. I know that HL will replace a piece and give it the same number when a broken piece is returned and can be destroyed (during the production run of that piece) and I think this may be the case with Point Arena - pieces were being returned and new ones replacing them while production was still going on. I think that the amount of actual pieces made was higher than the 5,428 stated, some the later pieces were replacing other broken pieces as production continued. Here's what I base my theory on,(evidence item "a") I have a Alcatraz (the first one O.E. turned L.E.) with the number in the 2,0xx neighborhood. It was numbered with out the "A" prefix like a O.E. should have had and it had the product munber 177 on the label not the 417 ( I have seen other Alcatraz O.E. turned L.E. in the 4,000's) so how could a number like that be inserted into the old numbers ? by replacing the piece with a new piece. (evidence item"b") I called HL once and asked them about the possibily of getting a replacement for a broken piece and the person told me that would only be possible during production and not after retirement due to the mold being broken. A ridiculous theory ? Maybe, but its my theory.
Mark

John estimates there were approximately 2,000 Point Arenas to be sold. Given its notoriety for breakage during original shipments, you have to wonder how many have broken since during successive sales, resales, thereby further reducing the available inventory (statisticians call this cohort survival modelling). The current number would be smaller still.

How do we account for the available resale numbers? (Tim's point). The answer may be to question the original premise (John's assumption - also shared by Jim Rutherford) which is what Mark has done.

I do know that I own an HL177 Alcatraz #505. So, like Mark, I have to wonder if HL did some backfilling during production as broken pieces were reported. Did closer to 4,000 to 5,000 make it to dealers? Would HL shed light on this, John?

My conclusion on the 2,000 unbroken Point Arenas is based on a conversation with Kim at the 98 Long Beach show.

I was postulating about why this piece had not gone up in value lately and suggested that my guess was there were about 2,000 of them that safely made it to dealers. Kim said "You think there were 2,000?" in such a way that it was clear she didn't think so.

I personally know of 3 that were broken in shipments to buyers so, yes, they continue to decline in numbers.

I think the apparent oversupply of them on the secondary market is a result of early speculators who wanted to get back their pocket money and sold them one-at-a-time or in bunches to secondary dealers.

It's a very nice piece, for those who haven't seen one in person and it will be more valuable one day. Will it be worth what Coquille sells for now? Maybe - who really thought 2 years ago that Coquille would have such a high price tag?

Just my thinking - TIFWIW

John

I'm in agreement with John about Point Arena being a great HL and definitely will increase in value in the near future. I'm one of the fortunate people who was lucky enough to get one thanks to a friend who had two and only needed one.

Will it ever be worth as much as a Coquille? That's up to the collectors who desire to own this piece. These things are only worth what someone is willing to give you for them. If it can be proven that there are less Point Arenas in this world than there are Coquilles we might see a rapid rise of Point Arena on the secondary market.

That's the word from the East Coast!

Thanks, John, for the reply. If your assumption bears out over time, my Point Arena, acquired at retail in August, will be my smallest edition piece. I think the second wave of dispersals is taking place now judging by the reported listings and sales on e-bay and other sources. I, too, think it's a great piece and a keeper. We'll have to see if there are fewer offered at resale over the next year or so.

I don't know how to work the 'quote' function here, but page up to the top and read JC's theories on disbursement and the effect on value.

Back already? Okay, here's another thought on the geographic location issue, as it relates to Okracoke and Cape Blanco.

Okracoke and Cape Blanco compare well to each other in John's theory. Look a little deeper even. It's possible that one thing driving the value of Okracoke, that Cape Blanco can never have, is it's North Carolina address. As one of the NC lights, Okracoke is a member of a more exclusive 'club' of desirable HL's than is Cape Blanco. It may be nothing more than the luck of production scheduling, but until Tillamook and Gray's Harbor were released last year, the Oregon and Washington lights were among the least attractive and sought after in the catalog.

Fwiw, thats exactly what the formula does. And thats why looking only at Age at Retirement or only at Days since Retirement won't work.



In laymen's terms, the algorithm itself doesn't make any predictions. As we acknowledge (and as I've repeatedly attempted to point out) there are many factors involved in determining a model's value. The charts in Factoid #11 parts 1 & 2 represent the application of a formula to the availability and retirement dates for each retired model. However the information it yields coupled with a few basic tenets such as "the future will resemble the past" present us with confirmation of the thesis it represents. Namely "those pieces that retire quickly and have been retired longer generally tend to be more valuable". This is obvious (at least to me) simply by a comparison of the entries in part 1's chart versus those in part 2's chart.

It explains the past pretty well and good science suggests we continue to test it. After three years of testing, its still more accurate than not. The longer it holds up the more reason to believe the future will indeed resemble the past.

There is no logic of induction and market forces are complex. Applying a little bit of critical method one might ask 'what conditions must obtain for a model to be considered "perfect"'? I imagine such a model would show an exact progression of price differences in lock step with the results from the formula. Of course this isn't the case and we have no perfect model. Serial ordination is non-natural; we apply order (through mathematics and other concepts) to the world in an attempt to explain and understand it better.

I will speculate that in the end, 10 years after the final HL model has retired, the general ordering of pieces by value according to the formula is far more likely than not.

No formula will help you answer the question 'should I buy this piece'. BUT if you ask 'should I buy Yaquina Head or Fire Island' the formula will give you information that may be useful to your purchasing decision. Of course this all depends on your goals.

The model is most useful to folks who desire to acquire all or many of the LE models but must do this over a period of time. Such a person might reasonably ask the question: "is there a method I can follow in my collecting that can help me pay less over time rather than more?" This is in contrast to the touchy-feely approach that in effect says "this question is nonsense because there's no possibility of such a method, there are too many variables. Therefore I should buy randomly (aka 'buy what I like')". Now if *all* you want to do is 'buy what you like' then the formula is not particularly applicable to your goal.

If one's goal is to acquire many pieces or an entire collection, I must demur to your suggested approach, at least if I have concerns about my total cost. The formula won't do it alone, but it, coupled with an understanding of some of the other factors at play, can help you save money.

I disagree with the suggested approach of buying recent retirees and keeping up with new releases. Its not the way to go. Certain new releases, yes - but with today's edition size of 10000 you'll have more than enough time. While these remain at retail, retired pieces continue appreciating. And certain recent retirees - yes but many of these can still be had at retail long after retirement. You do want to pay attention to the 'hot' new releases such as Cape Florida.

After seven years we have enough data to be much more refined and need not operate on a gross "macroeconomic" level.

What are some of the other factors? Down the road I plan to present further analyses that show there are factors not wholly subjective. For example, among the items I track in my spreadsheets are both the state and the region for each model. I've broken regions along the same lines HL does (Northeast, Great Lakes, West Coast, etc.) Correlating between region and price for retired models reveals lights from the Northeast and Southeast tend to be more valuable than models from other regions. And retired pieces from these regions tend to have more "good negatives" and "low positives" than lights from other regions. As Rick's post notes - pay attention to geography.

Here's a couple tips for anyone that's read this far:
1) buy models of New Jersey lighthouses. If HL comes out with an NJ LE, put it on your list.
2) pay close watch to how quickly a piece retires - this is a critical factor. With a ret. date of 10/12/98, Cape Florida retired in just 246 days - only 10 models retired quicker. The farther we go from its retirement date, the lower its formula result will get, the higher its value will go. Although today its got a rating of 163, it will move up over time. In just a year after its retirement it will have a rating of -119, moving it off chart 2 onto chart 1. I use Cape Florida only as an example.

These tips are common sense. But their validity is born out in the Factoid #11 charts.

Lastly, Art, I don't think its an either/or choice between my quantitative analysis and JC's corollaries. He and I are in pretty close agreement that you need to consider both. (Correct me if you disagree, John). If we had hard data on relative disbursement the model could be refined further.

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your willingness to question my little theories and welcome the opportunity to refine them further.

Rgds,
__
/im

P.S. the answer is: Fire Island :-)

[This message has been edited by JTimothyA (edited 01-04-99).]

To me too!

I appologize, Tim. I misunderstood your intent. I am in total agreement with all that you have stated here in your latest post. (Scary, huh? Maybe there can be an enduring peace in the Middle East, too!) Particularly that Taking your prior posts out of context, that is the very principle that I presumed you were debasing by proffering your algorithm. I better understand where you're coming from now.

To clarify my own position:

* I do not see a dichotomy between the quantitative analysis and JC's corollaries either.

* I did not intend to say that one should buy *all* new releases as they are released, just make sure that you get the ones you really, really like at retail. As you mention, we have a long time to do so with few exceptions. We just need to be sensitive to those exceptions by staying in tune with recent retirements.

I'm still not convinced that the older pieces are properly weighted in the equation, though. I need to give this a bit more thought once I've cleared the vacation cobwebs from my cranium.

-Art

A couple quick notes on JC's comments about the Belles and Ocracoke.

For a long time Ocracoke and Tybee were the step sisters among the 7 Belles. Their value was pulled along by the value of St.Auggie, Hilton Head, and Ponce. Even Key West lagged behind what was at the time 'the Big 3' (St.Auggie, Hilton Head, & Ponce). Only in the last few years has the set of 7 gained in popularity as a set. This phenomenon really exploded in the Summer of '97 when we saw St.Auggie jump $100 in price in just a few months. With careful shopping Tybee, Ocracoke and even Key West could be had for less than $100 as late as March of '97.

Interesting to see the relative value of Ponce has slipped just a tad. It regularly used to lead well ahead of both St. Simons and Key West. It will be interesting to see if the pieces eventually do settle into a steady order amongst themselves.

An absolutely wonderful set of lighthouses. If you've got the Beautiful Belles, you've got what some consider the heart of the HL collection.

Rgds,
__
/im (...say, that gives me an idea)

I meant the qualitative factors such as "tourist & locals buying" and "relative beauty" etc. to be as factors which will impact a lighthouse. Perhaps some enterprising collector could suggest a value for each factor with regard to each lighthouse:

1. Located in a populous area - 1 to 5 (Boston Harbor 5, St. Augustine 3?)

2. A symbol of an area - 1 to 5 (St. Augustine 5, Boston Harbor 0)

3. Beauty of the actual lighthouse (St. Augustine 5, Boston Harbor 2.5)

4. Execution quality of the Harbour Lights (St. Augustine 3.5, Boston Harbor 2)

5. Existence of a GLOW version (And execution of GLOW)(St. Augustine 3, Boston Harbor 3)

6. Importance of the real lighthouse in American History (St. Augustine 3, Boston Harbor 5)

(These suggested values are just top-of-the-head ones; more thought needs to go into them.)

Tim suggests we need to quantify the dispersion. Being a market researcher, this has been a desire of mine since I started collecting. Perhaps someday we'll design a collectors' questionnaire that will reveal 1) which ones they own 2) which ones they have in their 'stash' 3) which ones they desire and don't have, etc.

Another factor I longed for in the past was knowing just HOW available a retired piece was at retail. And we have the tool - we're just not using it. Retired@Retail tells us which ones can still be found and which ones have dropped off the list recently. By factoring in this days-from-retirement date to days-since-no-longer-R@R, we can better project the potential value rise.

I never intended my post to be a choice between Tim's algorithisms and my beauty/location factors. I agree with Tim's calculations and, in fact, had independently fiddled with the same kind of math -- calculating days to retire and days since retirement. I just never added the two figures which was a brilliant step the Professor took. (It's what separates the Professor from the G.A.)

However the reader should be reminded that "introduction date" and "retirement date" may NOT be accurate and if we are to use them in the calculations Tim suggests, it would be much better if we could get better dates.

For example, in the original 17, none shipped until June 1991. And in the case of some fast retirements, production may have taken 6 months to actually complete making the piece after retirement.

In the various catalog pages at HL-dot-com, I'm trying to include both an introductory date and a first shipped date and a retirement date and a last shipped date. However, many of these first shipped and last shipped dates were either not kept in the early days or are buried in the archives of HL.

For 1997 and 1998, we have pretty good numbers on actual first and last shipped dates, but using those refined dates for 1997-98 pieces and not using them for 1991-96 pieces throws off the comparisons between early and late pieces.

A quesiton to Professor A. Would you be willing to provide a copy of the basic spreadsheet with dates and days-to and days-since that collectors could download as 'class notes'?

Chidester, G.A.

Thanks for the excellent comments, John.

Your notion of identifying the aesthetic, popularity and other factors then giving them a weighting system is the best way I can think of to introduce these into a formula. The application of the weights (eg., 'does St.Auggie get a 3 or 4') is the subjective part, but perhaps some permanent polling forum where folks can 'vote' could help get gauge this. And it'll take some finnagling to see how best to apply the weighted categories within a formula, but that can be tested against the price charts.

And there are some entries like Point Arena or Burrows Island which don't match up exactly because their retirement didn't come from the marketplace, but from HL. (Actually it kinda did for Burrows - because it wasn't selling - but it was The Hand of Bill and not the true market that retired it.) There are other models that are exceptions for which there are other explanations. I'm not sure how to adjust for this sort of thing, something to think about.

And I agree, the dates we have aren't the best dates. However, at the time I started it was *all* we had. If there is a way to get more refinement in a given date (actual shipping release versus announced release, etc.) for all models, then this can be valuable. But like you say, it just may not be available for the older ones.

Regarding the R@R data, if we start capturing the date each piece goes on the list and off the list at least we'll have this data for future use. Having this now will permit the calculation of how long a piece is on the list as well as how long on the list since retirement. 'Course some pieces may go off then come back on as they are purchased and another is discovered, but recording the dates is a start.



Yes. Of course. Actually I wanted to have this information on diskette at the Reunion to give to people, but was so occupied with my 'real life' just before we left (daughter's wedding) that I couldn't get it together. A download would be an even better way. Give me some time to spruce up a version, then we can get this going.

And enough of the 'graduate assistant' hoo-haa. It was your insight into the market place and our discussions (along with Sean, Rick, Fred, Paul, FoxDoc, Sara & many others) on these topics a few years back on AOL that helped me reach whatever understanding we share of HL collectibles and the collectible market. Its a collective effort (no pun intended); the ideas and debates brought by all the folks participating here only add to that understanding (and add to the fun).

Basking in the GLOW of tenure at Fog Signal U.,
__
/im

Somehow in your calculations Professor Aucremann, an allowance for the "Class of '96s speculative buying phenomenon" should be worked in.

We all know that correctly or incorrectly many collectors from the '96 and '97 class bought up a tremendous amount of Middle Bays, Drum Points, Red Legacys, etc. hoping to make a killing from future sales. Sanibel, Point Arena, Point Fermin, and others fall partly into this category also.

Tying in with John and other's comments on the Point Arena values, this phenomenon does have an impact on the charts for some of the pieces. There maybe needs to be an "asterik" comment next to the applicable pieces with a brief explanation for the effect of
"Speculative Purchasing Among Many" aka: "SPAM"

---

-RodW
[This message has been edited by Rod Watson (edited 01-06-99).]

I'm enjoying this thread as we attempt to construct a model that will identify HL "values" with some degree of validity and reliability. So, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I'll maintain the serious face and offer some more statistical "sense" to mull over.

Tim's basic model, when assisted with even more accurate retirement data offers a useful plan for guiding purchases and tracking the potential value of a collection over time. I like the idea of correlating with or otherwise factoring in the R@R availability info. I kept my eye on both the red and blue lists in determining purchase priorities. R@R is a great indicator.

We risk losing this value if we overburden the model with additional factored variables (i.e. subjective rankings of certain qualities suggested by John and determined by polls). We already have a number of anomolies such as curtailed production to account for. IMHO, sampled subjective values would have little validity and reliability because we wouldn't collect enough data and polled data are apt to be skewed (i.e., website users may not be representative of the larger collector base).

Subjective impressions make for great debate which many of us enjoy. Fwiw, I'd suggest we leave these factors out of the model and in the Fog Signal discussion center.

Simpler is better. Keep up the good work.

In establishing prices, I don't think we should overlook e-bay. We can check actual transactions that have taken place, not mere asking prices, which are only half of the equation. Of course, e-bay isn't a pure market either, with side deals, etc. But I think on average over a few months period it would give a better indication of a piece's current value than a secondary dealer's price sheet. Maybe average e-bay price isn't the only one to use, but could somehow be factored in.

E-bay may also give us some idea of availability through the number of pieces of each type selling at or below retail. Again, not a replacement for R@R or other data source, but I don't think it's value as at least a supplement should be ignored. IMO, internet transactions make for a more efficient marketplace (or at least have the potential to do so) than traditional methods of commerce, and because of this, they are the future of the marketplace. The system always finds the most efficient way, eventually.

-Art

[This message has been edited by Art (edited 01-06-99).]

Rich - was it something I did? Sure, side with the prof and throw the GA's ideas out with the bathwater!

As for e-bay as an indicator, Art, I'm against it. E-bay reflects a wildly fluctuating situation with many no sales, too high opening bids, unknown reserves and only shows prices from on-line collectors (WACKOs for one.)

The Collectible Exchange has been around for a lot longer and shows ASKING prices from collectors. While you can't track sales with it, you can get a relative idea of how many are out there for sale piece-by-piece. If you keep checking the list weekly, you could, with some diligence, see that some pieces dropped off the list and others were added. That an item is dropped from the list may not mean it was sold (it could have been withdrawn by the seller).

www.colexch.com

The pricing information from Collectors Information Bureau (CIB) reflects ACTUAL sales -- but only those by secondary market dealers and doesn't include individual transactions from one collector to another. And the data is up to 6 months old when it's published.

With the number of readers of this forum reasonably high, we could do a survey and probably 'shop' 1000 dealers among us, armed with a list of retired HLs and see how many dealers had Sanibels, Drum Points, Cape Henrys etc. (Kind of like the Audubon Christmas Bird Count?). Any interest in pursing that?

I'd be interested in participating. Count me in.

I'll be glad to help out also.

John, your credibility and HL acumen remain above reproach. In the hallowed halls of HL University, you are certainly not a lowly graduate assistant. You may be Professor Emeritus in the Department of HL Communications, History and/or Marketing (your choice). As for HLU's Department of Statistical Prognostication, I'll await Professor Tim's pronouncement on how many variables his model can safely accommodate in predicting HL futures based on HL histories. Besides, you helped to teach this guy, right? (Trends piece, a seminal work, sadly out of print).



[This message has been edited by Rich Boyes (edited 01-06-99).]

John, you can do a search of e-bay closed auctions and eliminate the no-sales. The high opening bids and unknown reserves are mitigated by the fact that there was a willing buyer and a willing seller at that price. Averaged over many sales, nothing will come closer to a fair market price, IMHO. I agree that the representativeness of the sample is limited by the medium.

As for Collectibles Exchange, there is no sale. Further, many of the CE prices are way out of whack, IMO, with reality (i.e., e-bay and retailers). I've picked up pieces at retail that are listed at 150 - 200% of retail or in one case even more on the CE. And these were not flukes -- I have seen several of the same pieces, all at retail, in different stores in the same week.

I like your idea of mass-sampling of many retailers to establish a price, but I only have one retailer near me, and they only sell at retail, so I won't be able to help much, except on trips. This idea would probably work best on recent retires; not too many retailers still have the really expensive items.

-Art

Art - I meant for the "bird survey" to track retired pieces, not current ones.

And the Collectible Exchange idea I should have tempered a bit also. When I look at that list, I automatically throw out the lowest and the highest price ones. I figure the lowest is gone and the highest is someone who wants that piece to be their 'ship' that comes in. "If someone really BUYS that NPL for $2,000, we'll have a great week in the Bahamas, Grannie!"

It could also just be that someone needs to convince a collector that buying a NPL for $1,200 is a bargain (because unbeknownst to the buyer, it was THIS seller who listed the high price.

So, lots of caveats, but it does give you a sense of the availability and range of prices buyers are asking.

I do understand on ebay you can select sales ets. I was thinking that within a week in December, a Coquille River sold for $2450 and another one for $1500 (can't recall the exact prices, but near those.)

I also think that with the Collectible Exchange, when looking over their list that recent retirements (within the past year) and other current pieces should be excluded as wishfull thinking (generaly speaking). Also you should take into account that pieces that seem over priced may be pieces that carry a higher value such as green water, lightning rod, a low number etc. I have called them in the past to ask those very questions and most of the time they knew the edition numbers of the pieces listed and other key information that may have caused the price to be higher, sometimes it was just wishfull thinking on the sellers part. And certainly a new collector would want to look at many sources of prices to gauge the market on a piece or pieces before buying. And as John points out with e-bay being online only the CE has just gone online in the past year or so and is likely getting sellers from their print ads as well as online sellers. And lastly - when looking at ads online does the seller seem uninformed ? like he's realy not a collector ? just some guy trying to make a quick buck ? when you see an ad like this "Naversink, signed by Bob Younger" proceed with caution.

worth hangin' on to...

I agree Tim.. Thanks to Art for posting a link to this interesting interplay of ideas.

It hurt my brain to review it in two ways. One I don't think that 19 months later my brain can function at that level of January '99 and two, it hurt to read it all.

The hair gets grayer and thiner and the brain cells get dimmer and dimmer.

Shucks JC, as I tell Uncle Fred, take two thumbnails and call me in the morning. :-)

One interesting thing about this thread is that 19 months later its still interesting and the basic conclusions arrived at still hold water.

Awhile back I started a thread here in the FSB (warm fuzzy sanctuary that it is - rofl) entitled Death of a Wacko . The yip-yap in this thread is of value to those hardy souls - the true 'Wackos' in the original sense of the term - who are totally smitten by these little limited edition lighthouse models and must have one of each. Many of those who have trod that path for years now have much to share with new and future Wackos. The flame continues to burn bright!

Data and formulas discussed in this thread are available for all to view in the Excel spreadsheet downloadable for free in the By The Numbers forum.

Rgds,
Saint Emeritus Wackologicus
[This message has been edited by JTimothyA (edited 11-02-2000).]

Still interesting and applicable after 32 months.

Surfaced for the benefit of those who have joined the Collector Forum in the recent months.

Well another 5 months have passed, 37 since this thread began and it still seems like one of the heady times here on the CF.

We miss a few of the old regulars who were contributors to this stream of consciousness.

I note I argued against including ebay in some consideration for how prices were going -- and was I ever wrong. It was the reason for the crash in values.