C.E. Forman boldly stated:
>
>> Q: Why isn't "Rare" on the grading scale?
>> A: "Rare" isn't an indication of condition; it's an indication of value.
>
>This is nit-picking, but I would like to point out that rare does not
>necessarily
>equal valuable, it merely equals hard-to-find. Example: Awhile back I
>bought
>a small stack of "Beatle Quest" games from the author for a low-low price.
>The game was only released in the UK, only for Commodore 64, only on
>cassette, the author's personal stock is now depleted, and I have less than
>10 copies left. That's rare. But it's not valuable, because I still *have*
>those copies left -- nobody seems to want the damn thing, and the most
>I've ever gotten for one was $15. Quite a contrast from the Starcross
>saucer, of which far more were produced, but which consistently fetch
>$500+ at auction. It seems more to be the combination of scarcity and
>the number of collectors who want it that add up to a valuable game.
This is absolutely true. That's why the Digital Press Guide for video
games gives all games both a scarcity rating and a dollar value. I
realize this isn't what the MobyScale is intended for, though.
--
Lee K. Seitz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/
Wanted: | Visit the Classic Video Games Nexus
Vintage Pac-M*n necktie | for all your classic link & news needs!
Lib*rator T-shirt | http://start.at/cvgnexus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
