I've had several e-mail correspondences expressing interest in part 1 of HL Factoid #11. Folks just getting their feet wet, folks soaked up to their knees, and Novice Wackos, recognizing their situation and getting fitted for the fins and goggles.

If you're just coming into this and haven't read part 1 , I encourage your to do so and study the data provided before proceeding. In a nutshell, it offers an analysis describing in numeric terms why certain HL models are more desirable (valuable) than others. It also has pretensions of predictive power, suggesting the same formula can be used to determine which pieces will become more desirable in the future. A caution previously noted is this sort of analysis is only quantitative and has considerable limitations. There are also lots of "subjective" reasons why demand is higher for some models than others.

With that caveat in mind, the analysis does do a pretty good job of identifying the most and least desirable pieces based on data about when each model is released and retired. What validity there is in this approach can be seen by correlating the ranking of models (based soley on the formula ) with their current market price. Without even looking at price, judge for yourself the relative desirability of a piece, both to you personally and based on your own impression of the current market.

Here in part 2, we look at data for all the retired models that are not covered in the first message. ( see next msg. below) For the most part, these models have not been retired for as long as those in part 1. What this means is their price points relative to one another are not as well fixed. Relative pricing for those pieces that have been retired the longest is more entrenched. For pieces recently retired (say in the last 6-24 months) the market is still figuring out where these pieces belong. Here in lies opportunity.

I don't want to make this sound pompous and scientific. Its really pretty simple. I looked for a numeric way to express the theory that: those pieces that retire quickly and have been retired longer tend to be more valuable. Not exactly rocket science when you think about it. Since there does seem to be a pretty good basis in reality (ie., price) for thinking this theory is fundamentally correct, you can also use it to gauge which pieces will become increasingly more expensive the farther they move from their retirement date. Use that information as one more data point among many to help guide your purchases.

Think of it this way. You're presented with an opportunity to buy a Yaquina Head for $80 (it was the 10th model ever released by HL) or you can buy Fire Island for $70 - it was released just a few months before Yaquina Head retired. What's the smartest move at this point in time. Or put differently, which is more likely to be relatively more expensive in the future than the other? What are the chances that one will cost $20 more in 8 months and the other still be available at today's price? Here's where the info in this Factoid can give some ideas.

No promises, no guarantees - just more information to consider. You are the best judge of how best to implement your own acquisitions plans. (You do have a plan, don't you?)

In the following message is a table that covers retired pieces; all of these have a positive number coming out of the equation: Age in Days at Retirement minus Days Since Retirement. While in part 1 I spoke of 'a good negative' (any model showing up in the chart in part 1 is pretty much a no brainer) here, we'll look for 'low positives'. The lower the number, the more likely the piece is to be more valuable, either today or in the future, than others on the same chart.

Yes - there are exceptions. Like good old Ptolemy, I need to add a few epicycles to clean things up. At some point we can come up with an 'aesthetic factor' which, when retrofitted into the equation, will give us Newtonian Certainty. (yeah right - but like Ptolemy, we'll just keep fiddling till our formula matches our data or until we stumble upon the Harbour Lights equivalent of the Copernican Revolution.) But I digress .

In part 3 of this Factoid (whenever I get around to it) we'll look at some data on all those non-retired pieces that may give a clue about their future in the market. And in part 4 maybe I can draw JC in to give a re-cap on his ideas about the role played by non-quantitative factors, along with some of his thoughts on 'what to buy' - goodness knows we've had this discussion enough times.

And for anyone who's read this far - what do you think? Well, if you think you should buy what you like (mombo's lament) then cool - do that - akuna matata - but while perfectly wonderful, its just not very interesting. So spare this thread. But if you're wacky enough to collect them all or many of them, or a bunch of 'em, then I'm very interested in hearing if anyone thinks this makes sense. If you gotta do it over time (years) like most of us, I think its helpful to have as much information about the market as you can get.

And any vets - certified card carriers - you know who you are - please toss in your two cents worth. What is/was your approach to making purchases?

Rgds,
__
/im

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