Still i don't get it.

 

 

 

They where one of the first holidays easters and pumpkins.

 

 

 

And their lower than santa's and masks which where later then those food rares...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explane me that please master merchant...

 

 

 

I'm nowhere near as knowledgable as Duke in this field, but I would estimate that wearable rares are more valuable because you can actually show people you have them all the time (without trading).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Ian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. The fact that you can't show them off or "use" (read: wear) them is the main cause why they are substantially lower in price. Still, there are times that unwearables are a great investement. However, they are just more speculative. Unwearables tend to go sidewards in price for long periods of time, but when they go up, noone is "surprised" if they go up 50-100% in price in a matter of days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus, somehow it seems that there are more pumpkins and especially much more easters then there are phats, and roughly equal amounts to the amount of mask sets.

for all of those that have dreamed about getting a green h mask and shouted: "why... must... life... be... so... hard...", blame me for showing off and manipulating the prices in another way:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus, somehow it seems that there are more pumpkins and especially much more easters then there are phats, and roughly equal amounts to the amount of mask sets.

 

 

 

I don't see how that could be true, at least not with pumpkins. That was the first drop, people had no idea they would be worth anything, and half must have been eaten. Party hats on the other hand people collected on the drop, and were dropped after pumpkins. I see no reason why there would be more pumpkins than hats. Pumpkins probably circulate in the market in higher numbers than hats because people tend to hold on to party hats and pumpkins are traded more frequently because of their relatively cheap price, but I doubt there are more pumpkins than there are phats.

Hm, in fact I think pumpkins and easters were collected way more then phats at the time. Pumpkins and easters were actually useful as they healed a lot of hp, so people collected massive amounts of them, with the intention to use it as training food. Phats, on the other hand, didn't have any use other then the way they looked, so people didn't collect them as massively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we just compare the numbers and exclude the fact that you can't show off the small rares you'd say that they are greatly undervaluated. But the wearability is just a very important factor for their price, so we just can't reason like that.

I found out about the mask increase a day or 2 after they went up and I don't know how long it took for it to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But Duke I really must respond to you saying,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm. People are are comparing price manipulation too oftenly with predicted and expected natural rises these days. Nowadays it seems that every time a rare rises, people will say that it is caused by price manipulation...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not accusing this with no evidence. When it was happening there were people everywhere urging everyone to sell for certain high prices, and people did. Also many claiming they were buying santa's for these prices, yet not making trades. If I have not seen these I would not have made this topic. Be it poor manipulation, but if thats not price manipulation than I dont know what is. So please dont prejudge me like that.

I have no problem with the resent hike in Santa Prices being retired and having a santa in my bank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I might come back with them being 20 mill. That would be a great way to get my rs character "back on his feet" again. :D

I'm not accusing this with no evidence. When it was happening there were people everywhere urging everyone to sell for certain high prices, and people did. Also many claiming they were buying santa's for these prices, yet not making trades. If I have not seen these I would not have made this topic. Be it poor manipulation, but if thats not price manipulation than I dont know what is. So please dont prejudge me like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I'm not saying you didn't have any evidence to make this thread. In opposite, I know what's going on and I've seen the (excessive?) price manipulation at both the recent mask rises and the santa rises myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that people are focussing on it too much though. Price manipulation is an on-going event nowadays, and the price manipulators seem to have noticed (or it's just coincidence?) that it has even more effect when the prices are bound to go up because of natural reasons. So when prices go up you tend to see a ton of price manipulation as well. But that does not mean that the whole rise is based on bs though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I expected both the mask rises as well as the santa rises, as the prices stayed behind a lot, relatively to phats, in the last 3-4 months. They were bound to go up, and bound to do it soon and swiftly, as people would suddenly realise that masks and santa's were undervaluated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, I'm *not* saying people shouldn't watch out for the price manipulation.. Price manipulation could push the prices of masks and santa's too high which, as we all know, results in a smaller or bigger drop back, depending on the extremeness of the price manipulation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, what I'm wary of is that these kind of threads are giving a quite one sided, negative point of view on markets which are developping as expected and, despite the price manipulation going on, seem healthy. The thread title alone scares people. This can, unintentionally, cause price manipulation on it's own, downwards. Note I said unintentionally, as I have no doubts about your good intentions to inform the people, but either way, I do think the story is too one-sided and negative.