Post #719517 by TikiTacky on Sat, Jun 7, 2014 2:55 PM

On 2014-06-07 14:42, Zinctiki wrote:
I'm amazed at how non-tiki people refer to O-M for pricing their mugs. It's the #1 resource out there.

I live in Colorado, where tiki mugs are pretty uncommon. I can attest that most of the time when I've found a tiki mug in thrift stores, they're almost always identified using the same name as on Ooga-Mooga and they're priced about 10-20% higher than the "average price" listing. It's very apparent that this totally inaccurate number is being used as a guide for junkers and thrifters who are selling things they picked up at estate sales and what not.

I'm really conflicted on the price guide. On the one hand, I feel it's helpful for collectors to be able to get a value on their collections. At the same time, I really worry that it's ultimately bad for collectors. I know a number of users who said they never list when they get a bargain on a mug because it drives down the "value" of it. At the same time, they're more than happy to list a high price that they've seen for an item already in their collection because it could benefit them financially. In other words, it's driving the prices of mugs higher and higher.

I agree that the tool is useful, but I really feel it's detrimental to the collector market in its current design. Maybe the price guide should only be available for paid users? I'm definitely curious to hear what others think about this.

That being said, I still believe that ebay purchased items should include the shipping in the value of the mug. If you pay $5 for a mug and $15 for shipping, then you paid $20 for the mug!

I also feel that when users enter a value for a mug in their collection, that it should invisibly be included in the "average price paid." This would make the numbers much more accurate. We don't need to see publicly what someone paid, but those numbers should be aggregated into the whole.