Ticket Proof
Stephen,
Please don’t take this as a poke in the eye, but I think you are missing the point of what I took the time to lay out. My apologies if I was confusing. Assuming for the sake of argument, the only two examples out there are yours and the Heritage example. If this were a fact (which I am not saying it is), it does not change or effect the likely perceived market value or likely demand for the item in question as suggested above. Rarity, whether it be numeric or condition based, does not always translate into enhanced value over comparative items for any number of reasons. That is what I had hope was the “take away” from my previous post.
Is there a way to change this dynamic? There could be, but this requires that demand be created for the artifact/item in question. This can come though educational efforts (convincing collectors/the industry that the item is undervalued in a way that makes objective sense to them). In short, growing the number of collectors who would want what you are selling. In this case, numeric or condition based rarity might not be enough.
Offering comparative pricing data may not be enough since it appears (only an observation), that demand for the whole sheet may not be as strong as for the eaches. The dynamic might also change though the application of industry wide pressure. By this I mean the demand for grading/encapsulation of odd size product like this. I don’t think this will likely happen since this would require a market strong enough to justify the additional cost of creating new holders. For the most part, grading/encapsulation is based a volume business model. As such, there is little incentive to invest money in developing a supporting infrastructure for low density items.
I really don’t have anyone more thoughts or information on this particular topic. Maybe others do.
Dave Grob
|