RockMyAmadeus

Final Order Cutoff for ASM #797 was 2/12. So, unless you can convince your LCS to set aside a copy, you might be out of luck. However, FOC for #798 hasn't happened yet.

Hey, you know me! How long have we known each other? A decade, right? More? When did you join VF?

There's no need to hurl insults.

Good night, whoever you are!

That was fun, let's do it again sometime!

Are you Joe?

Are you Joe?

.

Who says that was towards you? Oh, are you not aware of how the quote function works...? My apologies, let me explain. When you posted this, you quoted me, here: See...? When you quote someone like that, it means you're replying to what they said. So, of course, obviously that was "to me." Glad to help clear up the confusion!

That is, of course, the usual response from those who have nothing more of value to say. Have a good night!

So you claim. I suspect other views may differ from yours. In fact, I would say the opposite, in this case, is true, both for my propositions and yours. I suspect you won't answer this, but out of sheer curiosity, A. why do you imagine "oh and welcome to 1993" was aimed at you, and B. what, exactly, is insulting about that? Perhaps, before one comes to a hostile conclusion, one might seek clarification first...? Wouldn't that be the rational, reasonable thing to do, rather than presume? And how is an "emoji" the same thing as "hurling insults"...? How could we possibly disagree about a subject..."artificial changes to supply and demand"...upon which the conversation hasn't even touched? But to touch on it now, there is no such thing as "artificial" changes to supply and demand. There is only supply and demand. Supply may be influenced by factors...it always is...but that doesn't mean changes to supply are "artificial." If a book has an announced print run of 100, and I buy and hold 99 of them, that doesn't mean the supply has been artificially changed. It only means the available supply is one. If I burn those 99 copies, the actual supply now becomes 1, but that doesn't mean the available supply of 1 was artificial. Demand may be based on bad information...but that doesn't make the demand any less real, as it stands at that point. I certainly agree, though perhaps not for quite the same reasons. Good. I think it's run it's course. Thank you for the opportunity.

Sorry, thought perhaps you didn't realize how the multiquote function works. Well...to be fair, I am the master of parsed, dissected, over-analyzed quotes, am I not? That was one of the very first things I learned how to do on the new board.

Few things: 1. "False pretense" is a redundancy. Nit pick, sure, but valid. 2. Again: just because the "auction ads" stated it was the "First appearance of Red Goblin" does not therefore mean you know the motives of the buyers. It is a presumption on your part. It may be a relatively accurate presumption...but it is a presumption nonethless. 3. You never answered many of my questions, like, for example, what were the insults you claimed I hurled...? 4. I never claimed you said retailers could not charge whatever price they think they can support. However, you did NOT say "the exact opposite." In fact, you said it was "unethical maybe" to do so. It is not. You also said "It's unethical because the price on the cover let's consumers know they are overpaying. It's price gouging plain and simple. It's not an agreed upon price between the vendor and the consumer. ", which is inaccurate, because that's not what "agreed upon price" means. I'm all for having a rational, reasonable discussion, but that's not really possible using phrases like "wrong again" and "once again you are incorrect" without actually proving how those things are so.

If you highlight nested posts -click and drag- you'll see a pop up that says 'quote this' and you can quote multiple posts. That is correct...which is how I had the nested response to kairos70 above...but kairos70, among many others, isn't using that feature, which made my nested response to him become garbled when the "nests" were taken out. The reply no longer makes any sense.

One of the major problems of this new board is the quote function. If you just hit "quote", the post before that one goes away, and if you responded to each point separately, that goes away too, so you have a "quote" that is mashed together, and makes no sense, because its context has been removed. Sigh.

So you say. That's not a narrative I would characterize the situation with. It is what...? Gouging? If so, who said it wasn't? Certainly not I. I am merely pointing out that using the term indicates an emotional, rather than a rational, response. Where was I incorrect the first time, much less again...? I didn't say anything about a "supply induced price increase." Let me say what I said again: "However, the supply has a direct effect on the selling price; that is, the price sellers are able to get for the item in the free market." That means that supply dictates price increases or decreases. Remember: it is supply AND demand, not supply OR demand. And, just as no one needs to know the actual supply of an item, just the supply relative to where they are at that time, so too does PRESUMED supply...or limitations therein...have an effect on demand. In the case of the pre-sales, those buyers PRESUMED that the book would be A. hard to come by, and B. worth the premium to not have to waste time searching for something they believed was going to be difficult to obtain. So yes, the supply...or PRESUMED supply...absolutely plays a part in the price people are willing to pay. There is much to be said for convenience. It is supply AND demand. That is a presumption on your part. You don't actually know the motivations of the people who paid $20 for a copy. I am not disputing that that likely played a large part in these decisions, but you don't know that...you merely presume it. The market may, indeed, be due for a correction. But that doesn't have anything to do with retailers being able to charge whatever price they think they can support.

By Christmas of 1992, about a month after it came out, Superman #75...with a $2.50 cover price...was selling for $100. It was an instant sellout all over the nation wherever it was released, within hours of stores opening that day. And it had a print run reportedly of about 4 million copies. If you were around, you probably remember the caterwauling that went on, especially among the die-hard Superman fans who had faithfully been buying the book for years.