TOPIC: My charms for your $$

Not exactly Mike. We have a case of an extremely motivated seller asking less than 1K per token, and we have absolutely no idea what the final deal was struck for. I would imagine we will never actually know either.

You yourself told the seller they could get much more for those tokens.

a token is worth only what someone will pay for it

useless or useful

I sold a useless 2010 GT. it went for more than a 2017 UR

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Not exactly Mike. We have a case of an extremely motivated seller asking less than 1K per token, and we have absolutely no idea what the final deal was struck for. I would imagine we will never actually know either.

You yourself told the seller they could get much more for those tokens.

I was basing that comment on the numerous comments on my thread, which appear to have been wrong. No matter how motivated the seller was, if these were truly worth what everyone was saying, the seller would have gotten higher offers. And I do have some insight on the deal that was struck.

If someone has an extra CoA, they would do as well to trade it for a BotFW as they would to take a similar sale price.

I almost don't want to get involved in this conversation, but I almost feel like I have to at this point.
There is a lot of blood in the water, and I get it, but it is unnecessary.

First : I was very skeptical. I sent the guy a message, got an .. odd .. reply. After a few messages I was pretty convinced he was trying to run a con, and posted a REALLY snarky response to this thread.

Then I looked at what I posted, and deleted it.

Afterwards, I asked myself WHY I felt the needs to be publicly .. crappy .. with my opinion. And the cold hard truth of it was that I got greedy. I saw a decent deal on some tokens, that I thought wasn't going to pan out, and my ego made me cop an attitude. I reassessed where I was mentally, and approached my conversation with Jay differently.

Clarification :

Jay is a real person. I know this, because I drove 90 minutes to meet him in a game store near his house.

His tokens were real. They were even orange and green backed.

He wasn't quite what I expected, but after a few false starts we came to an agreement that we were both comfortable with.

He said he has been playing a number of years but didn't get to go to GenCon consistently until the last few years; He didn't think he would be able to go for a few years after GenCon 50, which also weighed into his decision to sell.

He was able to list off the full stats for all his and his friends builds off the top of his head. He was able to (and did) list off every ebay purchase that he made, including the seller, and the price, off the top of his head.
He had an almost encyclopedia like knowledge of the rules. All of these things were a little impressive, and once I realized *why* he was able to do these things our conversation went much smoother.

He received a lot of offers. He got several in the hour or so we spent talking. He showed me several of them as negotiation points.

I'm going to assume the car accident was real too, as he asked me to drive him home afterwards.

I'm not going to go into the particular details of our deal publicly. Anyone who has traded with me before knows that, as a general rule, I don't usually publicly talk about trades. [In the art world, if you do that, you quickly discover your clients vanish.] In this case I'm making an exception, because I'm not convinced Jay might pick up on some of the .. expected .. social interaction around such deals.

I'll say that Jay knew the value of what he had, was a persistent negotiator, but was very motivated to sell. He got more than his initial asking price. If he wants to disclose what we agreed to .. I give him permission to do so.

What Jay didn't know, is that I had reached out to several folks down in his area that I know play, to ask if they, or anyone they knew, recently 'lost' some tokens. No one had.

And I don't think a check like that, to make sure I'm not purchasing stolen goods, is paranoid or suspicious. In Maryland knowingly buying stolen goods of that value is a felony. Buying them unknowingly means you are out the money/items you exchanged for them if the real owner can reclaim them.

I've had several opportunities to buy full collections from ex-players over the last few years, and I've done this same 'network check' every time. That is just due diligence to make sure no one is getting screwed. No different than verifying that someone who trades for a group if they have the authority to trade someone else's tokens.

Steve thanks for chiming in. Let me know if you are willing to resell one of the COA, I might be willing to take one off your hands.

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Not exactly Mike. We have a case of an extremely motivated seller asking less than 1K per token, and we have absolutely no idea what the final deal was struck for. I would imagine we will never actually know either.

You yourself told the seller they could get much more for those tokens.

I was basing that comment on the numerous comments on my thread, which appear to have been wrong. No matter how motivated the seller was, if these were truly worth what everyone was saying, the seller would have gotten higher offers. And I do have some insight on the deal that was struck.

If someone has an extra CoA, they would do as well to trade it for a BotFW as they would to take a similar sale price.

I think this all comes back to what someone posted earlier. Tokens are worth what someone else will pay for them and no more.

You seem to be correct in that in this deal, the parties have reached a deal that would put the value of these charms at about the listed value of a boots of the 4 winds.

That does not necessarily mean that the value of an individual's charm of avarice is the same as the value of boots of the 4 winds, or that trading one for a Boots would qualify as "doing as well."

I don't begrudge you asking if anyone wanted to trade a CoA for a Bot4W, and I hope I didn't give you that impression. If you and another person come to a deal, that's your deal. Whether it was "even" or not is truly up to the 2 parties involved.
Many people on here (myself included) don't think that would be an even deal, and wouldn't make it ourselves, but that isn't really our concern. The information on what tokens go for is definitely available with little digging.

Bottom line is that most think it's close, but slanted toward the party getting the CoA.

Most don't think the Chicage Bulls got enough from Minnesota for Jimmy Butler either.... (I couldn't think of a non-sports analogy very quickly).

Wade Schwendemann wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Wade Schwendemann wrote: Not exactly Mike. We have a case of an extremely motivated seller asking less than 1K per token, and we have absolutely no idea what the final deal was struck for. I would imagine we will never actually know either.

You yourself told the seller they could get much more for those tokens.

I was basing that comment on the numerous comments on my thread, which appear to have been wrong. No matter how motivated the seller was, if these were truly worth what everyone was saying, the seller would have gotten higher offers. And I do have some insight on the deal that was struck.

If someone has an extra CoA, they would do as well to trade it for a BotFW as they would to take a similar sale price.

I think this all comes back to what someone posted earlier. Tokens are worth what someone else will pay for them and no more.

You seem to be correct in that in this deal, the parties have reached a deal that would put the value of these charms at about the listed value of a boots of the 4 winds.

That does not necessarily mean that the value of an individual's charm of avarice is the same as the value of boots of the 4 winds, or that trading one for a Boots would qualify as "doing as well."

I don't begrudge you asking if anyone wanted to trade a CoA for a Bot4W, and I hope I didn't give you that impression. If you and another person come to a deal, that's your deal. Whether it was "even" or not is truly up to the 2 parties involved.
Many people on here (myself included) don't think that would be an even deal, and wouldn't make it ourselves, but that isn't really our concern. The information on what tokens go for is definitely available with little digging.

Bottom line is that most think it's close, but slanted toward the party getting the CoA.

Most don't think the Chicage Bulls got enough from Minnesota for Jimmy Butler either.... (I couldn't think of a non-sports analogy very quickly).

We didn't get enough. They screwed up the Butler trade big time.

Matthew Hayward wrote: I just wish we agreed that there is no reason to call into question someones motives when they are, apparently, suffering through something.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's very reasonable to be skeptical when you don't know someone, even if they claim to be suffering.

Your quoted statement immediately brought this scenario to mind. Some guy comes to the front door of your house. He looks disheveled and says he was in a car accident around the corner. He wants to come in to use your phone to call for help because his phone's battery is dead. Should you:

1. Invite him in to use your phone.
2. Keep the door closed and offer to call 911 for him.
3. Pass him your phone through the door's mail slot or crack open your door just enough to pass the phone through.
4. Tell him to go pound sand.

The correct answer is #2.

This is a stranger. You can't see the accident, but even if you could, it's not safe to invite a stranger into your home. You don't know if his alleged accident is real or if he's trying to get into your home to rob you. You don't know if he's just trying to steal your phone.

Obviously, Jason's story isn't nearly that dramatic, but I think the basic principle is still applicable. One can offer aid without compromising one's--in this case, financial--safety.

Druegar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I just wish we agreed that there is no reason to call into question someones motives when they are, apparently, suffering through something.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's very reasonable to be skeptical when you don't know someone, even if they claim to be suffering.

Your quoted statement immediately brought this scenario to mind. Some guy comes to the front door of your house. He looks disheveled and says he was in a car accident around the corner. He wants to come in to use your phone to call for help because his phone's battery is dead. Should you:

1. Invite him in to use your phone.
2. Keep the door closed and offer to call 911 for him.
3. Pass him your phone through the door's mail slot or crack open your door just enough to pass the phone through.
4. Tell him to go pound sand.

The correct answer is #2.

This is a stranger. You can't see the accident, but even if you could, it's not safe to invite a stranger into your home. You don't know if his alleged accident is real or if he's trying to get into your home to rob you. You don't know if he's just trying to steal your phone.

Obviously, Jason's story isn't nearly that dramatic, but I think the basic principle is still applicable. One can offer aid without compromising one's--in this case, financial--safety.

+1

Many good scams starts with someone apparently "suffering through something," otherwise nobody would fall for it. Greed, fear, or altruism are the necessary factors for an effective con.

A couple of years ago, walking out of ICC, a guy came up to us and said he had a flat tire, no money, needed to get out of parking, blah blah blah. Gave him $20, he said bless you, etc and then it struck me: this exact same scenario happened to me two years before. I'm getting old, and my remembery isn't what it used to be, but it was him. The first time I only gave him $10.

There's a woman who used to beg outside of Origins for money to make PBJ sandwiches for her kids. Every year. I've seen her in Indy, same story. I wonder how many other places she goes, year after year.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: I just wish we agreed that there is no reason to call into question someones motives when they are, apparently, suffering through something.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's very reasonable to be skeptical when you don't know someone, even if they claim to be suffering.

Your quoted statement immediately brought this scenario to mind. Some guy comes to the front door of your house. He looks disheveled and says he was in a car accident around the corner. He wants to come in to use your phone to call for help because his phone's battery is dead. Should you:

1. Invite him in to use your phone.
2. Keep the door closed and offer to call 911 for him.
3. Pass him your phone through the door's mail slot or crack open your door just enough to pass the phone through.
4. Tell him to go pound sand.

The correct answer is #2.

This is a stranger. You can't see the accident, but even if you could, it's not safe to invite a stranger into your home. You don't know if his alleged accident is real or if he's trying to get into your home to rob you. You don't know if he's just trying to steal your phone.

Obviously, Jason's story isn't nearly that dramatic, but I think the basic principle is still applicable. One can offer aid without compromising one's--in this case, financial--safety.

+1

Many good scams starts with someone apparently "suffering through something," otherwise nobody would fall for it. Greed, fear, or altruism are the necessary factors for an effective con.

A couple of years ago, walking out of ICC, a guy came up to us and said he had a flat tire, no money, needed to get out of parking, blah blah blah. Gave him $20, he said bless you, etc and then it struck me: this exact same scenario happened to me two years before. I'm getting old, and my remembery isn't what it used to be, but it was him. The first time I only gave him $10.

There's a woman who used to beg outside of Origins for money to make PBJ sandwiches for her kids. Every year. I've seen her in Indy, same story. I wonder how many other places she goes, year after year.

There are 'crews' that travel city to city for large events. We got hem for the Super Bowl here in Indy, we get them fro the Indy 500, and I would wager they are out there for Gen Con as well. Having played a lot of Ingress and Pokemon Go downtown over the last few years, I recognize a lot of the regulars and the 'travellers' stand out. Heck, there is one regular guy that has been using the same story for 20+ years. I gave him $5 in 1996 and told him he wasn't allowed to ask me again. He is still downtown, with the same story.

James J Krot wrote: Steve thanks for chiming in.

I first read this as 'Thanks for charming in.'
I was going to be seriously impressed. Meow.

Steve wrote:

James J Krot wrote: Steve thanks for chiming in.

I first read this as 'Thanks for charming in.'
I was going to be seriously impressed. Meow.

So burn then?