I have no idea why you think we use only the last valuation. We use all Price Points, with more recent ones carrying more weight. I also do not follow why other collectors would think that prices that are 2 and 4 days older are not as relevant than one that is a mere 4 or 2 days newer. You can clearly see on the page that there are many more recent transactions (you can check all of them by clicking on the “More” links to see each transaction).

31 Harry Potter on Broom Shared: Current Evaluation: $30 (July 22, 2024)
– July 18, 2024: $30
– July 14, 2024: $55
– July 12, 2024: $40

So instead of averaging the three most recent, $42, the evaluation is only considering the lowest sale that has occurred. I am sure all of these drops site wide are completely accurate though. I am also sure that collectors would agree that the July 18th sales is 100% more relevant than the other two transactions occurring within a week of it….

Valuation isn’t rocket science.

There is no misinterpretation of your message and there is no bad data here. That was a valid sale and is part of a wider trend of Funko POPs in mid-range (between $30 and $150 losing value over the last few months). There have been more sales and this item is now on a lower value projection (here is the link – https://www.hobbydb.com/marketplaces/hobbydb/catalog_items/harry-potter-on-broom). We are not here to keep prices high but to reflect changes in the marketplace.

Again, there seems to be a lot of misinterpretation of my message. In an effort to avoid further confusion, I’ll speak more plainly.

Any assessment is only as good as the data used to calculate the end result. Bad data leads to bad results. You have captured a lot of bad data. Your policies will result in the continued collection of bad data.

You do not have to “interpret the intentions of the sellers”, you only to observe and evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding a sale.

Here is an example: 31 Harry Potter on Broom Summer Convention Variant
– Most recent price point: $15; buy it now listing; June 23, 2024
– Average of preceding 35 price points: $64
– Average of preceding 5 price points: $52
– June 27, 2024 Evaluation: $70
– Current Evaluation: $38

Prior to the addition of this $15 sale, your evaluations from June 2020 through June 2024 (four years and dozens of price points) supported a consumer tolerance range of $50 – $80 ($65 midpoint, as supported by your price point graph).

In the context of evaluating how much buyers are willing to pay for an item, this $15 price point is an example of bad data.

As illustrated above, at the time of this sale PPG was $70. This was not a listing for which a buyer could show their willingness to pay $70 – it was a buy it now listing for $15. It could only sell for $15. This price point was 80% below your assessment at the time it occurred. A very clear discount.

It would have been very easy to omit this buy it now price point set by the seller at only 20% of your evaluation at the time of sale from consideration. However, your policies result in this sale being considered the most relevant in the items history as a result of it being the most current.

If this $15 price point was never added, the average of your most recent five price points ($52) would have provided a much fairer representation of what a collector is willing to pay. The most recent sale of this item on eBay as of this message was $55 (July 14th – buy it now).

Thanks for the further explanations.

The suggestions sound like we will have to interpret the intentions of the sellers (which is impossible) or not use Price Points that are under our current Estimated Value (which in turn would mean EVs would never go down). Your assumption that an item has to sell multiple times above the current EV and no time below it to increase in value is not correct, in general the items decreases and increases in the same way.

I already addressed your Mercari point. We are aware of the buyer fees and are monitoring this to see if we have to react – the same we monitor traditional auction houses (basically when we add a very large number of Mercari price points).

We love to hear your suggestions (here or per email) and will consider them as we do with everything that our Members propose (and much of it has made it into changes on the site).

I believe you’ve missed my main point – my comment was not meant to suggest that price points in the market should be ignored entirely. You’re correct, they are the only statistics available to us.

My point is that not all price points are created equal or even carry any degree of relevance.

A seller with 500+ feedback on eBay is able to achieve better prices than a brand new seller (eBay promotes their listings higher in searches). The transactions they conduct are not equally relevant.

Professional sellers have overhead to cover and bills to pay in order to run their business. Their needs are completely different than my own when I decide to list an item. Their sales need to approximate value in order for their businesses to succeed. But a collector who picked up an item on release for $15 that is now worth $200 will often be perfectly content with a $100 profit on a quick sale.

I believe this to be my most important point – if a seller elects to list an item for 50% off in their buy it now, that is simply their decision. The transaction can not exceed the listed price. It will sell for 50% value. It is not meant to be a sale that has anything to do with estimations of value – it is meant to be a deal, intentionally lower than value.

Presently, you’ll upload that 50% off price point all the same and the item will stand to lose upwards of 40% of its value instantly as a result. We’ve all seen it happen on this site time and time again. Subsequently, sellers that rely on your figures will then list based on this updated evaluation and further the pattern of depreciation.

In short – intentionally discounted sales have absolutely nothing to do with the value a buyer is ultimately willing to pay for an item in an open market.

Your existing system makes it incredibly hard for any pop to increase in value. In order to do so, it has to sell above value multiple times without selling below value a single time. In a secondary market filled with Hobby sellers – the under value transaction is always the most frequently occurring transaction.

Re: Mercari: This really is a massive failure. The vast majority of price points on this app will be lower than in every other market. This is by design. Price points added from Mercari will stand to only pull values down – never up.

There are a number of reasons that I did not suggest alternative approaches in my last comment – chief of which is the fact that I’ve already tried. In early 2023, I interacted with your executive management directly in the hopes of helping to improve the accuracy of end evaluations.

I’d be happy to do so once again – however – it is simply a waste of my time if this organization believes that more of the same is the answer to its existing problems.

Thanks for your opinions. We love value discussions. That being said we totally disagree with you. The ONLY way to measure value is to look at transactions. Kelley Blue Book does it. Zillow does it. The New York Stock Exchange does it. Everybody does it. That is probably also the reason why you are not suggesting an alternative approach (we are always open to new ideas).

The point re Mercari and their change in fee structure is a fair point and similar to shipping hard to control for. We have contemplated adding fees and some other strategies but have discarded that for now. As and when Mercari becomes a bigger force we might allow for some add-back as part of our Estimated Value calculation.