jlmoriarty

I'm with Ric, butt if you rolled it around a bit it might help to crack the case, so to speak. ~John

Awesome work, Rich.

sizes?

SWEET!

That was my first thought — Master.

p-a speaks to the concept that markets be "open" but within that concept is another concept which he correctly alludes to and that is the cost of entry. The cost to stand "on the floor" (SORRY, LOL) where he has stood has real dollar costs associated with it. The cost of entry to an on-line auction or an auction house is essentially zip (excepting the cost of your computer and your monthly internet access fee.) It could be argued that the cost of entry to a marble show is considerably more than zip, prohibitively so to many. How many of you would go to Las Vegas if your transportation and meals were paid for by say, Galen? (I know he's a generous guy.) The cost to watch an auction on ebay is pretty cheap by comparison. The drive to Morphys is easy for you to calculate but probably more than turning on your computer and seeing what is being offered. I'm not saying any of this to be argumentative, but rather precisely *because* of the inefficiencies which have been pointed out in this thread how hard it is to put a value on any given marble at any given time. And the fact that the seller has now thrown in the towel and revealed his bottom line price is fascinating on many levels. Well, to me at least... Having said that however I would be happy to give my Christmas list to anyone who is interested. Feel free to email me privately. John

Kevin ~~ "isn't this just part of the market?" Yes. What you are getting at are the inefficiencies in the market. The more fragmented the market the less likely a "true" market value can be determined. It is fair to say (which I think is what you are getting at) that the marble market has inefficiencies, actually it has many inefficiencies, BUT the initial question was whether or not ebay represents a true market place and if so does it therefore answer the question of the value of (in this particular case) a certain box of marbles. "p.s. there were only 9 bidders not 50. and these 9 bidders don't represent the entire community (thousands) of marble collectors" True. However what would be a more helpful to know is how many eyeballs where watching, not how many were bidding. The question being asked is: was it published (yes), was it open (yes), was it accessible (yes), was there a common currency (yes)... you get the idea. If you apply the same criteria to an auction at say Morphys, ie, only 9 (marble) bidders show up and place about fifty bids, the implication is that the concluded sale is not an indication of value. Those 9 bidders are the equivalent of the people who stand in the pit of the NYSE. I hope that makes sense. John

Mon ~~ "It was stated that the reserve was $10,000 in this tread. If someone wanted to show an exaggerated excitement in this auction by bidding it to the edge of the reserve, would this really set a true value?" No. "Some bid an auction with a reserve up just to find out what is then, retract their bid." A revelation of the reserve price is not a consummated sale and hence no indication of value. The fact that a sale was not consummated speaks to the mechanism not whether the site (live or on-line) is a viable and fair auction. Ebay as well as a live auction house both meet all the criteria for a "market", in the technical sense.

And while I'm blathering on, thank you Steph for that reference pic. A thing of beauty, huh? John

Galen ~~ all that freakin' education must be worth something. LOL How are you old man?

Kevin ~~ one important aspect of "value" which I omitted and you rightly touched on is "the free flow of information". Using your example of a show situation it is reasonable to assume that the nature of the marble market is such that the fragmentation of information is to the disadvantage of the parties trying to establish a fair price at any given time. It is the exact opposite of my NYSE example where the information is immediate, concise and up-to-date. In this case almost 50 people were willing to place viable bids. Based on that I think it is fair to assume that an ebay auction meets the definition of a public auction, common currency, blah, blah, blah...

Kevin ~ with respect, if something is exposed to "the market", ie, given wide public exposure, the currency is common, there is a willing buyer and seller, by definition a "value" for that given day is established. If five more boxes in perfect condition, completely intact, are found tomorrow and there is a public auction and the price changes (presumably downward) then *that* is the value on November 16, 2011. If, on the other hand you and I decide to barter over a particular marble and no one else knows about the transaction, then the value *to me* is what I paid for it. A good example of this was some crazy trading that when on a couple of years ago on a particular type of marble (MM Sunbursts? I think I'm mis-remembering that) were driven up because someone in England was willing to pay significantly above the going rate. This variation in currency exchange briefly changed the *value*. On that day (those days) the value was what it was and it was significantly higher than anyone else was willing to pay. In short, one can't claim that the box in question is "priceless" if no one is willing to pay above a certain amount, in this case $9,900. Part of the definition of value is "public exposure". If a series of transactions take place without being exposed to public scrutiny the value on that day is only what it is worth to that individual buyer and seller. It is the difference between a stock listed on the New York Stock Exchange (public exposure, common currency, willing/buyer seller and a few other criteria which I've forgotten) and you buying a marble from me (without anyone else seeing it) at a marble show. John

Alan ~ I was just trying to count the dissimilar marbles as you were posting. If the two boxes were the same to begin with then there are quite a few substitutes. It's hard to determine in a column of 3/2 which are the originals and which are the substitutes but it is something in excess of twenty(?) So, yeah, 40%± of the box isn't original which would certainly impact the value. Interesting auction.

Well, bidding has ended at $9,900 without the reserve being met. So the answer to the question of value is, as of today, that it is worth $9,900 to a (presumably knowledgable) buyer. However, by definition, without a willing buyer *and* willing seller the value remains undetermined, but it can be said to be less than reserve. Bert didn't respond to my query regarding the reserve price.

p-a and Ron~~ Since you both have direct knowledge of this box I'm curious about the following: p-a: "Speculation is that Lawrence E and Fisher were friends and that is how it originally got to Vitro. The speculation continues the Fisher liked the box and the idea and tried putting some Vitros in the box....and there it sat until rediscovered at Anacordes. also, "The box was found in an old Vitro desk when that stuff arrived at Anacordes. It is the box pictured and IDed as Vitro in the Vitro book. It was part of the "big Anacordes buy." It was sold and now Bert is selling it." Q: How do you know this to be true? Ron ~~ "The case listed is a rare item and lots of value. Some of the marbles needed to fill it correctly,i have never been able to locate so far. It may be possible to fill it correct but not a easy task or done in a short time. I was and still definately interested in this case and what happens to it." Q: How many of the marbles shown are not, in your opinion, original to the case? thanks, guys John

Great tutorial Alan. That is a post that is real archival material. Thanks for the effort. Any idea how many "types" you are missing? John

Kevin Nail: fumed laticino swirl ~~ John

Sue ~~ Do you suppose we can keep this thread open for a month or so? I may be busy for a while. ROFL John

A friend just got some killer Kevin Nail marbles. I'm going to try and see if I can get a pic that does them justice. Just don't wait up. John

Steph ~~ Could you post a link to the LOM 'tiger eye' thread that you reference. Thanks, John

Steph in addition to Alan's comment it is probably worth noting that the word 'vaseline' was more common when the glass was so named. Back then the answer to your question would have been more obvious. John

Sue and Steph ~~ thanks for the compliments on the pics. What you are seeing is the burden of being an unrepentant perfectionist. LOL John

Link works for me Steph.

one more Raz work: this time a bead ~~ John

Al ~~ if you ever have any extra MM/MG bags that you'd like to sell I'd be interested in talking. Thanks for the photos. John