Last Years Chicago Dinner (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

I think there will always be some items some people can't afford, each of us just have to find our budget level and work from there. I think it only becomes a problem if the desire to own items overules ones budget and you start buying stuff you know you cannot afford and debt begins to build. Much as I love this hobby,if I can't afford to pay it off it doesn't go on the card.

I remember once at the show in London. I was talking to a guy who seemed very worried and upset. When I asked him if he was ok he replied that both him and his wife were out of work and their house was about to be taken back by the mortgage company. I said I'm sorry to hear that, he replied no thats not the problem, I've just spent one thousand pounds here today and the wife is going to go beserk!. Now theres collecting and then there is the criminally insane!.

Rob

 

[Vezzolf]

I think there will always be some items some people can't afford, each of us just have to find our budget level and work from there. I think it only becomes a problem if the desire to own items overules ones budget and you start buying stuff you know you cannot afford and debt begins to build. Much as I love this hobby,if I can't afford to pay it off it doesn't go on the card.

I remember once at the show in London. I was talking to a guy who seemed very worried and upset. When I asked him if he was ok he replied that both him and his wife were out of work and their house was about to be taken back by the mortgage company. I said I'm sorry to hear that, he replied no thats not the problem, I've just spent one thousand pounds here today and the wife is going to go beserk!. Now theres collecting and then there is the criminally insane!.

Rob

Very Sad...Talk about being addicted...Very sad

 

[HistoryfortheAges]

That is terribly irresponsible!

I have slammed on the breaks in the last 2 years with new purchases because prices are just getting too high for me to personally justify the type of collecting I have done in the past. Now I'm just making strategic purchases to complement what I already have. Afterall, I still need a house to keep this stuff in!!! I feel sorry for that guy's wife... deeply sorry...

 

[Rob]

Yes it was pretty sad, the thought of doing that behind my wife's back, well I can't imagine doing that to her for anything, never mind a hobby. As you say, thats addiction.

Rob

 

[Njja]

Yes it was pretty sad, the thought of doing that behind my wife's back, well I can't imagine doing that to her for anything, never mind a hobby. As you say, thats addiction.

Rob

.....................................................................................................

Having collected a wide variety of items for the last 35 years I can say that quite a few collectors "over spend" on their hobbies! I find the toy soldier

collectors to be a rather unique group of people with a much different point of view then other collectors.

Most collectors reguardless of their financial position overextend themselves in one way or another.........just ask their wives!

Its best on occasion to just sit back, look at what you have......and decide if that next piece (which you can't live without) will even be visible when

it joins your collection!

My best advice is always only buy what you can afford! There is really no sense putting anything on a credit card at 15%-30% when the banks are

offering 1.5% on your savings.

 

[Capitolron]

Njja - I agree with you 100%

Although, I find myself the victim of buy quickly on the beautiful new stuff and impulse buying on Ebay !

I can't tell you how many times - I see something and think "WOW - THAT IS A GREAT PRICE" and but it - only to turn around afew months later and ask myself ... Why Did You Buy That ? - Especially with all the other things coming out !

Control is the key !

 

[uksubs]

I remember once at the show in London. I was talking to a guy who seemed very worried and upset. the problem, I've just spent one thousand pounds here today and the wife is going to go beserk!. N
Rob[/QUOTE]

Were you talking to Wayne Rooney
sorry Rob had to be done

 

[Gazza]

Paulzhere - I hear you - I wish things cost less too. However, since 2001 - King & Country was charging $21.00 USD Retail for an individual figure - today King & Country is charging $32.00 USD Retail - that is $11.00 USD increase over 10 years or about $1.10 USD per year - not bad in my opinion.

Tanks, Vehicles do cost more - however, the facts of doing business and production do have a serious toll on any company. The problem also you are faced with is what is a Toy Soldier Set really worth ? We don't what it takes to design, produce, package, ship and market a Toy Soldier in todays business world?

I know there are some who feel that Andy / K&C should be run like a socialist government - but, in reality - it is a business - in a free market and even more so - it is a business which produces a luxury item.

None of us really need these figures. It is not a requirement for life - like food, water and shelter. This is a luxury item - pure and simple.

I think Andy / K&C has worked really hard to keep the average cost down for the individual collector. King & Country deserves a pat on the back for the efforts they do make towards all of us.

When I started out in Toy Soldier Collecting - I was just starting my career and making money. I never for once thought about collecting Toy Soldiers - until I had the income to afford such a hobby. I even remembering barking at Tim Tyler over the fact a WWII Tank or Airplane cost $99.00 - LOL

It is hard to collect expensive things - it is even harder to collect everything that is expensive. Some people feel retailers should run their businesses as a communist government extention by rationing sales items - so they can have all the time in world to buy it at the dealers expense

I agree it would be nice for prices to be lower - heck, I would love a .25 cent candy bar again too - but, thats not the world we live in (sorry communists).
We live in a free market society which is open for all to participate - even with ridiculous state / federal taxes.

Personally I believe in one thing : "Work Hard, Make Money, Buy More Toy Soldiers"

Just remember when you spend money on a Toy Soldier - a luxury item - you have joined the Cabots and Lodges.

Again, buy what you can - enjoy your collection - don't worry about everyone else. Thats what I do and think is the best policy.

Ron

I agree with much of your posts on this thread. The exception would be that we are in a free market.

It is my understanding from reading on this forum (others please correct me if I am wrong) that KC fixes the prices at which dealers can sell the product. If this is the case then quite clearly this is not the free market and is more akin to a socialist goverment

Cheers

Gazza

 

[Rutledge]

Ron

I agree with much of your posts on this thread. The exception would be that we are in a free market.

It is my understanding from reading on this forum (others please correct me if I am wrong) that KC fixes the prices at which dealers can sell the product. If this is the case then quite clearly this is not the free market and is more akin to a socialist goverment

Cheers

Gazza

Socialist governments are abhorrent to me as well, Gazza. But I dont believe K&C qualifies as such for requiring dealers sell only at list prices. From a K&C perspective, they surely prefer having a multitude of dealers for a variety of reasons. These would include spreading out inventory and business risk, increasing sales competition and raising end user service levels. In addition, K&C must do what any well run company must do, which is protect their brand while helping protect their retail sales partners from becoming financially decimated by unsustainable price cuts.

Dealers could choose to violate K&C pricing policy. There are likely financial penalties for doing so, however, and certainly they would no longer be K&C dealers thereafter.

K&C dealers are, of course, free to compete with each other through other means than price - be it customer service, diorama services and/or other value add services such as free collector forums!

 

[Gazza]

Socialist governments are abhorrent to me as well, Gazza. But I dont believe K&C qualifies as such for requiring dealers sell only at list prices. From a K&C perspective, they surely prefer having a multitude of dealers for a variety of reasons. These would include spreading out inventory and business risk, increasing sales competition and raising end user service levels. In addition, K&C must do what any well run company must do, which is protect their brand while helping protect their retail sales partners from becoming financially decimated by unsustainable price cuts.

Dealers could choose to violate K&C pricing policy. There are likely financial penalties for doing so, however, and certainly they would no longer be K&C dealers thereafter.

K&C dealers are, of course, free to compete with each other through other means than price - be it customer service, diorama services and/or other value add services such as free collector forums!

Requiring dealers sell only at list price (if that is correct) is not the free market.

I would have thought that was price fixing.

If prices are fixed then that does not benefit the consumer

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Gazza

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

Its tragic but, maybe he just thought sod it and enjoy himself. Some people face challenges like that in different ways so, maybe this was his way of dealing with it.
Mitch

Yes it was pretty sad, the thought of doing that behind my wife's back, well I can't imagine doing that to her for anything, never mind a hobby. As you say, thats addiction.

Rob

 

[Rutledge]

Requiring dealers sell only at list price (if that is correct) is not the free market.

I would have thought that was price fixing.

If prices are fixed then that does not benefit the consumer

Just my thoughts

Cheers

Gazza

I dont think so. Price fixing would be if a group of compettiors secretly colluded in order to keep prices high, or some other illegal activity.

As you said, its a free market. Dealers are free to choose to ignore K&C's price listings. But then K&C must be free to drop them as dealers, right?

As I stated above, K&C surely has good reasons for wanting to maintain price levels in the marketplace. Much of it has to do with making sure they have a strong dealer network. That is in your/the consumers' benefit. In fact, Im sure if K&C thought it would lift overall sales, they would allow price discounting- why not, right? Clearly they have decided it makes more sense to go this route.

Coca Cola, Ford, Dell, Apple, they all place price limits on their resellers. Its how they protect their business partners.

Imagine if one dealer wanted to provide value add services to attract clients -- like this forum. Now, it cant charge any less than other dealers, but it can bring you to their site with such activities - which cost money. Now lets say another dealer was run out of somebody's garage and was all about low cost. People could partake of the value add services from the one dealer, and then buy all the product from the low cost dealer. It wouldnt be long before the value add dealer was out of business. This ultimately wouldnt help the consumer, and also would not expand the boundries of the hobby either.

Its still a free market. In the age of the internet, manufacturers need dealers who can do more than sell at low price. Anyone can do that, which not only wont expand the business, it would ultimately destroy it.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Contrary to some online sources, under the correct legal definition of price fixing: it doesn't matter whether it is secret or not and price fixing can include agreements where a wholesaler mandates the minimum or maximum price. Whether it is unlawful depends on the facts of the arrangement and the affected market and is evaluated under the "rule of reason" standard for US federal law. I don't know these specifics but I would bet though that K&C has reviewed the details of prohibited vertical price fixing with its counsel in designing its dealer arrangements.

 

[thebritfarmer]

Rob...

Its tragic but, maybe he just thought sod it and enjoy himself. Some people face challenges like that in different ways so, maybe this was his way of dealing with it.
Mitch

I think perhaps you are right, if they are losing everything anyway £1000 probably wouldn't make a hill of beans worth of difference anyway.

 

[Mitch]

Is it not better and fairer for dealers to be told that you sell at X and not below? I would think that it would cause all sorts of issues if dealers were allowed to sell at the price they wanted. I must state that all manufacturers act in this manner so, its not unique for K&C to be doing it.

Now, what would be naughty would be if all the manufacturers had got toghether and said this is how we will price the market. The first is acceptable the latter is not.
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

Is it not better and fairer for dealers to be told that you sell at X and not below? I would think that it would cause all sorts of issues if dealers were allowed to sell at the price they wanted. I must state that all manufacturers act in this manner so, its not unique for K&C to be doing it.

Now, what would be naughty would be if all the manufacturers had got toghether and said this is how we will price the market. The first is acceptable the latter is not.
Mitch

Actually either can be unacceptable, depending on the facts. Mostly that has to do with market power.

 

[thebritfarmer]

Is it not better and fairer for dealers to be told that you sell at X and not below? I would think that it would cause all sorts of issues if dealers were allowed to sell at the price they wanted. I must state that all manufacturers act in this manner so, its not unique for K&C to be doing it.

Now, what would be naughty would be if all the manufacturers had got toghether and said this is how we will price the market. The first is acceptable the latter is not.
Mitch

Either way though Mitch the customer doesn't get the best deal possible.

 

[Gazza]

Either way though Mitch the customer doesn't get the best deal possible.

That was my point about prices being fixed. By doing so, customers do not benefit. Comsumer is king is the free market is it not

I have no doubt that all companies behave ethically and do not undertake price fixing, as others have defined it

Cheers

Gazza

 

[Spitfrnd]

That was my point about prices being fixed. By doing so, customers do not benefit. Comsumer is king is the free market is it not

I have no doubt that all companies behave ethically and do not undertake price fixing, as others have defined it

Cheers

Gazza

No doubt you are right. Much of the confusion about vertical price fixing comes from the fact that the US Supreme Court once found minimum retail price (RPM) agreements per se unlawful under the Sherman Act, then later said they could be acceptable so long as unilaterally imposed by the manufacturer. The current rule here that minimum RPM agreements should be judged according to the "rule of reason" was set forth in June 2007 opinion involving Leegin Creative Leather Products called the the Leegin decision.

Congress is not too happy with the Leegin decision and has had bills to amend the Sherman Act to make RPM agreements again per se unlawful pending in the last two sessions. The current bill is supported by 35 state Attorney Generals and opposed by the Federal Trade Commission. In one of the most recent cases on the issue, the FTC determined Nine West's use of minimum RPM agreements did not "pose any potential competitive concerns" because of “among other things, ‘its modest market share'" and permitted their use subject to certain reporting requirements. So what is permitted here now may not be permitted in the future if most of our states have their way.

For those who want to consider the competing economic issues in RPM agreements, this ABA article may be of interest:
http://www.econgroup.com/pdf/resale_price_maintenance_for_aba.pdf

 

[tdubel]

No doubt you are right. Much of the confusion about vertical price fixing comes from the fact that the US Supreme Court once found minimum retail price (RPM) agreements per se unlawful under the Sherman Act, then later said they could be acceptable so long as unilaterally imposed by the manufacturer. The current rule here that minimum RPM agreements should be judged according to the "rule of reason" was set forth in June 2007 opinion involving Leegin Creative Leather Products called the the Leegin decision.

Congress is not too happy with the Leegin decision and has had bills to amend the Sherman Act to make RPM agreements again per se unlawful pending in the last two sessions. The current bill is supported by 35 state Attorney Generals and opposed by the Federal Trade Commission. In one of the most recent cases on the issue, the FTC determined Nine West's use of minimum RPM agreements did not "pose any potential competitive concerns" because of “among other things, ‘its modest market share'" and permitted their use subject to certain reporting requirements. So what is permitted here now may not be permitted in the future if most of our states have their way.

For those who want to consider the competing economic issues in RPM agreements, this ABA article may be of interest:
http://www.econgroup.com/pdf/resale_price_maintenance_for_aba.pdf

This covers also items like Mont Blanc pens, Waterford Crystal, etc. They now require all of there authorized retailers to sell at retail, no discounting unless approved for all or no longer a retailer. Lots of companies do this, Swiss ARmy knives, etc.

Tom