That's the spirit, C.E.!
I think we could at least start a running list and watch it grow over time. It has to start somewhere. I'll host it on GOTCHA unless somebody has a better suggestion. I can start with about 100 games I've searched for regularly on Ebay over the years. I have a pretty good feel for them in terms of availability.
You guys could then go through and make comments where you think they're wrong. "I've seen 50 of those on eBay in the last year...that's not rare." You can also grow the list with your own personal searches and experience.
I'd like to base the CURIOUS Scale solely on a game's availability on on-line auctions. This represents the general availability to the buying public and is as good an indicator as I can think of. It would work like this:
In the last 2 years, a complete (VG/VG or better) version of this game has appeared on an on-line auction approximately:
20 times or less = Rare
21 - 80 times = Uncommon
More than 80 = Common
Imaginary, Unique and Oddity would have to be determined by the group.
Obviously this is based on complete speculation, but who would be better to speculate on it than us? Honestly, I think auction availability is a better indicator of availability than just about anything else (including production runs). Since it is an indicator of how many are for sale on the open market. Sure there may be a box of Drash's in a warehouse somewhere, but how many of us will ever have a chance to buy them? We won't...unless they show up on eBay.
So, to summarize, the CURIOUS Scale is an availability scale and not a rarity scale. This is a subtle difference, but availability is what is really important to a collector.
One other note, I would limit the scope of this list to the same scope as my site. Computer games published before 1994. After that, I'd think 95% of games are common anyway. There are exceptions of course.
Hugh
-----Original Message-----
From: "C.E. Forman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Jan 28, 2004 7:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
From: "C.E. Forman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Jan 28, 2004 7:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SWCollect] Rarity Scale
> I love the idea. While a clever acronym I'm not sure what is more
> rare than 'unique', let alone what word starts with 's' that embodies
> that. I'd suggest just letting 's' stand for 'scale'. Of course then
> you run into usage like "ATM Machine" (where if you expand the acronym
> the sentence sounds silly).
> rare than 'unique', let alone what word starts with 's' that embodies
> that. I'd suggest just letting 's' stand for 'scale'. Of course then
> you run into usage like "ATM Machine" (where if you expand the acronym
> the sentence sounds silly).
Someone (another collector I think) once told me the term for this is a "neoplasm". Which to me always sounded like something that oozes out of Keanu Reaves in The Matrix. B-) Personally it doesn't bother me, but we could always use the word "standard" instead of "scale". Or "scarcity", etc.
> As for rarity assessment wouldn't production numbers be needed? I mean
> there are loads of worthless games out there that you never see on ebay
> because no one would buy them, not that they are uncommon. Also the
> effect of one game selling well tends to 'scare' other copies up for
> auction. Someone commented that its hard to find "Black Magic", but I
> found it in the first 30 days of looking. But its possible that if one
> or two of these sold that others may follow.
> there are loads of worthless games out there that you never see on ebay
> because no one would buy them, not that they are uncommon. Also the
> effect of one game selling well tends to 'scare' other copies up for
> auction. Someone commented that its hard to find "Black Magic", but I
> found it in the first 30 days of looking. But its possible that if one
> or two of these sold that others may follow.
I'm sure we could talk to some of our authors and get estimates on production numbers. Though in some cases, a lot of unsold copies were probably destroyed, especially around 1983-84. We'd also have to take into account the ease of keeping the box all this time: The inner materials from the Starcross saucer turn up more than the outer packaging because a lot of players tossed it.
> Still, I don't think that stops us from taking a swing at it. Start
> with a list, and amend it over time. Its bound to be a little off until
> it gets some feedback into it.
> with a list, and amend it over time. Its bound to be a little off until
> it gets some feedback into it.
Yeah, it'd definitely be a continuous project. If somebody found a whole pallet of something once considered uncommon, it'd crash-dive the scarcity and probably the value too. I like the idea of a bunch of us contributing our own personal observations and averaging them out.
> I'd humbly suggest the original Akalabeth and Mt. Drash would be
> "Oddity". Stuff like Starcross and Suspended would probably be
> "Imaginary".
> "Oddity". Stuff like Starcross and Suspended would probably be
> "Imaginary".
Hmm, I was thinking Imaginary could be reserved for rumor-mill items, things that were either unreleased or exist only in prototype form (Activision's "Leather Goddesses 3", the unreleased Electronic Novels "House of Changes" and "Deadly Summer" from Br0derbund, etc.) Or things that were believed to possibly exist but hadn't been discovered yet, i.e. Drash for 10+ years.
So, from most common to least, would the ratings go: Common, Uncommon, Oddity, Rare, Unique, Imaginary? Or would they be in the order of the letters in the word?
> What'd be *incredibly* cool would be to get the grading scale and the
> rarity scale integrated into ebay :) They have drop-downs for lots of
> other things, why not this?
> rarity scale integrated into ebay :) They have drop-downs for lots of
> other things, why not this?
eBay would never go for it, it makes too much sense. B-) What might be good is an online repository that could be easily queried from a scripting language; that'd let a bunch of people's websites easily integrate it, while only having to update at one point.
