tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293404479643690316.post7308624680077766226..comments2024-03-28T03:13:16.079-04:00Comments on Fishing for History: The History of Fishing and Fishing Tackle: Breaking Down the Fishing Tackle on Pawn StarsTealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05227788765970706674noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293404479643690316.post-59205191609680011132011-01-25T11:13:14.497-05:002011-01-25T11:13:14.497-05:00Hi Todd.
Thanks for your taking a second look at ...Hi Todd.<br /><br />Thanks for your taking a second look at this and providing the video stills for others to do the same.<br /><br />I hope not to be the lone dissenter here, but a few things have bothered me since the show ran and still prevent me from coming up much more than half the value that they paid. Yes, Colby is right - you can't buy that kind of publicity for a grand, so that alone may have been worth it, and quite possibly much more than that. But for those of us without highly-rated cable shows and deep, deep pockets, I think that for us it would have been taking the proverbial leap of faith to lay that kind of money out for those baits.<br /><br />First, the condition of the three seeds keep them from bringing top dollar. The two 9630's are relatively common colors and $50 can get you the same bait in better condition with little effort. Even with the quick video passes over them, I can see enough wear on two of the baits to not merit placing the top value on them.<br /><br />Second, there may be a spattering of $10 baits at the lower end of the case, but I think it would take a lot of shows or ebay fees to move them. For just about every $10 bait I see, I see a bait which would be lucky to bring $5.<br /><br />Thirdly, that crackleback Torpedo may in fact be a great bait. Admittedly I don't know that bait from a hill of beans, but I can guarantee you that unless there was some serious investigating with an experienced collector prior to filming, either did he. That one was likely a fluke that slipped by him and not figured into his quick valuation.<br /><br />Finally, when lures are displayed in a collecting environment, they are almost always displayed with the better side exposed. I think that's just human nature. We have no reason to believe that this isn't true in this "case" as well. If that is indeed the case, whatever number anyone comes up with it could be reasonably assumed that it would have to be an absolute maximum for the value of the bait to be, and more than linkely inflated based on the one side that you do see.<br /><br />Of course there are a number of factors which figure into the values, and even the occasional exception to those (in my opinion, this being one), but in this new global marketplace many of those variations have been reduced or eliminated to the point that there are most definitely "going rates" for a specific bait. I just seem to think that the publicity behind that purchase far outweighs the value of the baits.<br /><br />Thanks again for your insight!<br />Randy TschetterUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01172353155889692163noreply@blogger.com