Appraisals, value, the "Market" was Re: And $500 gets you...

toys. ... I don't need to have monetary value attached to artifacts I like to convince others they are worthwhile. Wow, even though you said "no offense", that's still a heck of an accusation. I wouldn't object if it was somehow grounded in evidence. I was simply doubting Sellam's definition of "the market" by reminding us all that we on classiccmp alone are hardly "the market" in question. I'm baffled how you translated that into "Evan and anyone else concerned about the value of their collections must be an insecure doofus." You must be hanging around Michael Sokolov again. :) -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jennings Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:05 PM Cc: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' Subject: RE: Appraisals, value, the "Market" was Re: And $500 gets you... On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Computer Collector Newsletter wrote: No offense meant Evan, or any other proponents of this thread, but I disagree that we need taxonomic analysis of what's essentially a hobby. To what end this finely dividing us into categories? While I recognize that the occasional artifact has intrinsic value, most artifacts do not, no matter how old, and people prop up insecurity with the alleged monetary value of their toys. I like and use old computers, but I don't fool myself that they all have any value to anyone but me and occasionally a tiny minority of fellow fans. I don't need to have monetary value attached to artifacts I like to convince others they are worthwhile. I fully engage and am comfortable with the need, and simple desire, to buy, sell and even profit from "fun" artifacts, but I intensely dislike the commodification of the culture itself and will do what I can to undermine that. Commodication of culture is a horrible capitalist tendency. I hope this stops here.