eBay sniping

From: Mail List <mail.list_at_analog-and-digital-solutions.com>
Date: Fri Apr 25 15:25:00 2003

> some significant amount over $10 that is arrived at by averaging in the
$500 sale?

You probably should use more advanced statistical analysis tools than just
a simple
average. Been a long time, but the terms that come to mind are mean, and

At 12:14 PM 4/25/03 -0700, you wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Doc Shipley wrote:
> > There will never be any true or even consistent determination of a
> > thing's "objective value". It's a null phrase, an impossibility.
>Perhaps. But there has to be at least some generally acceptable standard
>by which people can use to trade fairly. We do not really have that right
> > "Value", by its very definition, is purely subjective. Any attempt to
> > assign an immutable quantity will fail. Even the criteria you've used
> > as constants are variable, and subject to personal interpretation.
>I can concur with that.
> > "True" scarcity? You intend to verify each unit produced, and verify
> > the destruction of each unit not known to still exist? It's not
> > possible.
>Ok, perhaps "true" was too strong an adjective. But it is not impossible
>to give an educated estimate (based on good research) as to how many units
>are out there. I've just learned of possibly four more Apple-1's that I
>was not aware of before, which will take the total of known units in my
>personal registry to 32 (I still have to verify there is not overlap from
>what I already know).
>With significant machines produced in low numbers, such as the Apple-1 and
>PDP-8, it may not be all that impossible to estimate within a margin of
>error of +/-15% the total number of units out there. Once that number can
>be ascertained, a reliable "value" based on demand could be established,
>and trading can then be conducted on that basis of knowledge.
>Of course, there is still variation based on condition and accessories
>(peripherals, documentation, software, etc.) and that can also be
>objectively valued with more research.
> > Regional and *perceived* scarcity are much more relevant factors to
> > real current value than some assigned global scarcity. A good example
> > is the plight of the DEC collectors in Australia and New Zealand, who
> > would commit unnnatural acts for a working VAX. Meanwhile, I have a
> > stack of them in storage, besides the several I use at home. I would
> > drive across town to rescue another VS3100, but I doubt that I'd pay
> > cash for one.
>Wasn't someone just arguing in a message a short while ago that eBay has
>now opened up a global market and therefore increased demand to the same
>finite supply? Of course, this depends on whether or not you use eBay to
>market your wares. And then there's the issue of shipping charges, which
>adds to the overall "value" that a person will assign to something. If it
>can be had for $1 but costs $99 to ship, it could be considered to be
>worth just as much as someone who could pick it up locally and would be
>willing to pay $100. This assumes that the buyer is taking shipping into
>consideration when they put down their bid.
>But regional scarcity implies ignorance on the part of the buyer. You
>cannot always rely on this. And in a global market like collectable
>computers, you cannot completely rely on this anymore.
> > Understand that I'm not nit-picking. I'm trying to demonstrate that
> > the "artificial" influences on eBay, realtime auctions, the feeding
> > frenzies I've seen at swap meets -- they are _valid_ factors in the
> > value of any product, and doubly so with collectibles.
>I can't entirely agree. I'll pull up an old example. If people are
>regularly paying $10 for Apple //e's and then some uninformed buyer one
>day pays $500, are all Apple //e's suddenly worth $500? or some
>significant amount over $10 that is arrived at by averaging in the $500
>I say no, it's still only worth $10.
> > My PDP-11/53's "true" "objective" value would have to be nil. There's
> > nothing it can do that can't be done more efficiently by a later
> > PDP-11, and nothing *I* do with it that I couldn't do in SIMH, much
> > faster and at a much lower real expense. Its value is *entirely*
> > emotional, and entirely subjective.
>Then what was it worth when it was new? Wasn't the "value" then also
>entirely emotional and subjective?
>Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
>International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
> * Old computing resources for business and academia at
> www.VintageTech.com *
Received on Fri Apr 25 2003 - 15:25:00 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:35:45 BST