Greg Davis
12-29-2000, 02:53 AM
In several threads of discussion the question repeatedly is debated about how we should assign a value to a given piece. Opinions vary along predictable lines.
Absolutists seem to believe that any given piece has a definable intrinsic value that can be determined if you have enough facts about condition, originality, rarity and desirability. It is almost like they have a formula into which they plug these variables and out comes a dollar amount. These are the folks who tend to think of their collections as an investment.
Relativists assert that the value is based upon market influences that cannot be absolutely ascertained, but can be deduced on the whole by averaging performance of the piece (or similar pieces) in the marketplace over time. These are the folks that utilize online auction results as a guidepost.
However, the thing to bear in mind is that there are many kinds of "value". Instrinsic value is, of course, a factor. Sentimental value is another factor. Market value is another. These are all fairly well known and understood... more or less.
There are other kinds of value that are less well known too. There is a sort of value that is conveyed indirectly by "the wealth effect". History shows that when economic times are good, collectibles (including coins, stamps and yes, timepieces) increase in value... sometimes at a disproportionate rate. Does this mean that these collectibles are really more valuable, or just that people are willing to spend more because they have more to spend? And are such distinctions really meaningful? And when economic times are bad, do the intrinsic or sentimental value of the collectibles really change. And are those disctinctions really meaningful?
Market influences are currently in a state of rapid change. Consider the real impact of the "global economy" on the value of our collectibles. In olden days, our ability to buy and sell collectibles was generally limited to our ability to find them. Now, through the advent of the Internet and online services, we can tap into much larger markets that are, on the whole, less influenced by the regional economic factors that previously affected values.
So, for example, if we are utterly unable to sell at watch at an NAWCC mart event at a given price point, it would not be unheard of to sell the watch at twice that price point on the Internet, because of the increased exposure. By the same token, it would not be unheard of to be able to obtain the same watch at one-tenth the price point asked at the mart. So which of those valuations is the TRUE value of the watch?
Well, as noted earlier, the problem is in the assumption that there IS any such thing as a true value.
Absolutists seem to believe that any given piece has a definable intrinsic value that can be determined if you have enough facts about condition, originality, rarity and desirability. It is almost like they have a formula into which they plug these variables and out comes a dollar amount. These are the folks who tend to think of their collections as an investment.
Relativists assert that the value is based upon market influences that cannot be absolutely ascertained, but can be deduced on the whole by averaging performance of the piece (or similar pieces) in the marketplace over time. These are the folks that utilize online auction results as a guidepost.
However, the thing to bear in mind is that there are many kinds of "value". Instrinsic value is, of course, a factor. Sentimental value is another factor. Market value is another. These are all fairly well known and understood... more or less.
There are other kinds of value that are less well known too. There is a sort of value that is conveyed indirectly by "the wealth effect". History shows that when economic times are good, collectibles (including coins, stamps and yes, timepieces) increase in value... sometimes at a disproportionate rate. Does this mean that these collectibles are really more valuable, or just that people are willing to spend more because they have more to spend? And are such distinctions really meaningful? And when economic times are bad, do the intrinsic or sentimental value of the collectibles really change. And are those disctinctions really meaningful?
Market influences are currently in a state of rapid change. Consider the real impact of the "global economy" on the value of our collectibles. In olden days, our ability to buy and sell collectibles was generally limited to our ability to find them. Now, through the advent of the Internet and online services, we can tap into much larger markets that are, on the whole, less influenced by the regional economic factors that previously affected values.
So, for example, if we are utterly unable to sell at watch at an NAWCC mart event at a given price point, it would not be unheard of to sell the watch at twice that price point on the Internet, because of the increased exposure. By the same token, it would not be unheard of to be able to obtain the same watch at one-tenth the price point asked at the mart. So which of those valuations is the TRUE value of the watch?
Well, as noted earlier, the problem is in the assumption that there IS any such thing as a true value.