I spent some time thinking through this comment, and similar ones from the last couple weeks. A comment from
@Ben8257 comes to mind, though I can't be bothered to find it. Suffice to say, it was a similar sentiment, around a single individual changing market dynamics.
By the way, this isn't a defense or retort, it's more of an examination, and as such, some thoughts as a new hobbyist / collector of how I see things and pricing from my side. I had some time over the last couple days, and was able to pull together some statistics for this examination. What the data tells is an interesting story that might surprise you.
Let's start with some real data. For the purposes of this exercise, I'll limit the data to average price per chip in full sets that I have bought, as opposed to individual racks of a denomination I may have acquired. The one exception to this will be an analysis of what happened with the Bourbon $5s, and why it caused such a tizzy.
Outside of the numbers below, I have lots of other individual and partial set purchases, some which are in line with "market pricing", and others, which are not. An example of the latter is my cost per chip on the BTP $20 cash, which is north of $24 a chip. On the other hand, my cost per chip on the High Sierra $1000 mint chips is less than $8 a chip. In general, I think individual racks of purchases don't really skew purchases that much, and have to be taken in context.
View attachment 607707
Notice a few anomalies. It is ONLY in the case of chips that are either rare, or extremely contained in terms of ownership, that I *chose* to pay a premium to acquire them. Those chips were simply not going to move unless a similar price was paid, period. Maybe they could have been traded after a while, maybe someone would take pity on your long years as a chipper and do you a solid, but for the most part, the anomalies in pricing are within PCF, not outside of it, from people who had to get a fantastic offer in order to feel like they could let go of them.
You'll also notice that even in this shortlist, a significant number of my chips were acquired off-forum, and the prices are almost always better that way. Oh -- and I didn't include any sets that were ONLY acquired off-forum (like the Doc's) because that has no relevance on this thread, the OP, or pricing on PCF.
Here's where this data and perception don't compute: I fail to see a plausible argument that purchasing certain rare items at a premium by an individual could affect the entire pricing landscape of PCF. The RVCLs were simply not available, so it can't be counted; I might argue the same for the Lakeshores and Nevada Lodges. A more plausible explanation is one or more of the following:
- The hobby has reached a "tipping point" and demand far outweighs supply;
- There is a socio-economic disruption in the makeup of the hobbyist, with wealthier people entering the hobby than before;
- We are transitioning from just "hobby" to "collectibles" -- where the context of purchase and use have different motivations.
A note on the Bourbon $5s -- an individual had placed a WTB ad, offering $900 per rack for the chips. I was completely unaware of this, when I made a deal to buy a chipset on PCF for about 40% more. I subsequently found 12 additional racks off-forum, but needed to pay a heavy premium to extricate it, which I was OK with. I think the subsequent noise that ensued was frustration that people were willing to a) sell at stepper prices and b) people (me) were willing to buy at higher prices. Ultimately, people will sell at whatever price someone is willing to pay. For CERTAIN chipsets, I have been (and will continue to be) willing to pay more.
Like I said, this isn't a defense, or explanation. I wanted to examine perception of my own role in market dynamics against real facts.
