Nowhere does my post suggest I think membership fees are too high, therefore this assumption is inaccurate. If fees are raised it should be for a reason other than covering HL's cost in offering an option to purchase new releases to Society Members before making them available to the general public.



As the above quote from your original post indicates, it does not appear to advocate HL making this offering in order to "keep the edition sizes on the flag, edition numbers true, and these beautiful replicas from stagnating on the shelves..." but rather to insure my [your] reservation of a desirable piece.

I still maintain if HL offered options to buy without requiring any monetary commitment, few would turn this down. The allowance that one does not have to make a monetary commitment inherently incorporates the idea that one is allowed to change one's mind on any future purchase. This has nothing to do with "falsifying information on a customer survey" much less then more ludicrous suggestion that this is somehow akin to "vandalism".

Regardless of motive, such a survey would more likely yield a distorted view of potential sales - thats the hard reality.

HL makes lighthouse models for a profit - part of this results from the risk they take up front in determining what an edition size should be. This risk is built into their price. If someone wants to advocate HL should take on less risk by gaining some assurance of future sales then HL should return the fruits of this 'guarantee' through lower prices.

As for me, I think the system works fine the way it is. As Rod said "an HL Universal Guaranteed Collectors Society Insurance for new releases is not necessary and the wrong approach to the free market system."

Subsidy free at the FSB,
__
/im [Warhorses? Warhorses? If corraled into equinity, I'd prefer to be a Clydesdale ]


[This message has been edited by JTimothyA (edited 02-10-99).]