What's it Worth

[murphusa]

Never understood why anyone would pay a premium on an item all because it was owned by another collector.
A case in mind is the Big Six Boxed Game. All because it was owned by Mark means it should cost more?
Over the years I sold Mark a couple of games at shows in the Philly area and I don’t remember ever thinking, “Here comes Mark, I should charge more for this game”
Just a though but find it interesting that someone would do so because a certain collector once owned it

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by murphusa

Never understood why anyone would pay a premium on an item all because it was owned by another collector.
A case in mind is the Big Six Boxed Game. All because it was owned by Mark means it should cost more?
Over the years I sold Mark a couple of games at shows in the Philly area and I don’t remember ever thinking, “Here comes Mark, I should charge more for this game”
Just a though but find it interesting that someone would do so because a certain collector once owned it

You're assumption of where the premium comes from is off.

Some "famous" (for lack of a better word) collectors are known to have high quality items with solid providence and are usually one or two owner pieces. You pay the premium for that.

[murphusa]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

You're assumption of where the premium comes from is off.

Some "famous" (for lack of a better word) collectors are known to have high quality items with solid providence and are usually one or two owner pieces. You pay the premium for that.

how many paid a premium for Halper stuff only to find out it was junk.

I have experienced this a few times in more than 30 years in this business when people offer an item for sale and tell me that so and so owned the item.

never made sense to me

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by murphusa

how many paid a premium for Halper stuff only to find out it was junk.

I have experienced this a few times in more than 30 years in this business when people offer an item for sale and tell me that so and so owned the item.

never made sense to me

Again they were paying a premium for precisely what I just described, it just didn't turn out so good.

There is no premium associated with "[insert name] touched this item" there was a premium associated with "This item came from a collection of the highest caliber".

[gnaz01]

Jim,

I will chime in here since it is me you are referring to. I could care less that Mark owned it, but the fact that the condition it was in was impeccable is why I paid the premium. Having known Mark for a long time, I know that this Big Six game was the best condition one known, and I wanted it for my collection, being a Matty fan.

Hope this is what you were referring to.

Greg

[murphusa]

Greg,

Not picking on you at all just using as an example as that was written in your initial post. Over the years I have been offered items that come with the Tag that so and so owned this item, and it never made much difference to me who owned it before.

but the seller always thought a premium should be paid, because someone special owned it

so I was just curious as to what others thought.

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by murphusa

Never understood why anyone would pay a premium on an item all because it was owned by another collector.
A case in mind is the Big Six Boxed Game. All because it was owned by Mark means it should cost more?
Over the years I sold Mark a couple of games at shows in the Philly area and I don’t remember ever thinking, “Here comes Mark, I should charge more for this game”
Just a though but find it interesting that someone would do so because a certain collector once owned it

It's his business what he pays...it doesn't matter if you don't understand or not. It's really that simple.

Albert

[murphusa]

Never understood why some dealers considered themselves celebrities either

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by murphusa

Never understood why some dealers considered themselves celebrities either

Whoa! Mr. Mint is a celebrity (in his own mind)...

[drcy]

A collector doesn't have to apply a premium to provenance if he doesn't want to, and provenance in and of itself doesn't prove authenticity.

But the history that a a Salvador Dali painting belonged to Albert Field, the world renowned Dali expert who know Dali personally will impress most potential buyers as it should. And that a game belonged came from the collection of a respected old time collector is not entirely irrelevant.

Besides, old items are historical artifacts, their history should be of interest to the collect. I would seriously wonder about a collector of historical artifacts who had no even passing interest in where they come from or who (famous or not) owned them. Why wouldn't it be of interest and premium in value that a hair brush belonged to Greta Garbo. But if you have no interest in an old brush or movie star provenance, that is fine. Autograph collecting comes across as rather stupid to me when I think about it. Thousands of dollars for an ink squiggle an old piece of paper. But to each his own and who am I to judge. And, besides, there are autographs I'd think it would be neat to own.

Next time a non-collector says "I don't understand baseball card collectors? How can they financially value and pay money for a piece of cardboard?," point out that a $100 bill is a piece of paper.

[sporteq]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Whoa! Mr. Mint is a celebrity (in his own mind)...

Mr. Mint the Richard Simmons of sports cards.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by sporteq

Mr. Mint the Richard Simmons of sports cards.

Perfect!!