Some great discussion in here. I'm not surprised to see varying opinions on this topic, as even internally at Wata we have different stances that arise through debate. Which I think is great! The parallels have been drawn before between comics, but pedigrees and noting collections in certification is not unique to comics. In fact, Coins were the first matured hobby to use pedigrees, and the way they are defined and applied in certification are vastly different from how they are treated in comics. What's appropriate for video games and the future of this hobby is certainly up for debate (as this thread exemplifies); however, Wata has a method to our madness and we even have our own definitions of "Pedigree" versus "Collection," for example. I want to shed a little light on our position and keep the discussion going to hear all your thoughts, given some new (hopefully) information.
To add to the blog post and address some of the points in this topic:
1) We at Wata do not benefit from assigning landmark status to a collection and noting it on our label. If, at our discretion we decide to do so, we are doing so because we believe part of our duty is to accurately preserve history. I bolded "at our discretion" because this means that the decisions are technically subjective and may be up for debate. However, much discussion and thought goes into each decision and as objective a view as possible is taken from the perspective of asking whether or not the collections' provenance is something that should be preserved and noted. Most of the factors that go into this are summarized in the blog post.
2) Noting significant collections, whether they fit your definition of "pedigree" or not, are not unique to any one collectible. Whether it's the Nic Cage collection in comics or the Wayne Gretzky collection in cards, these collections are noted for their significance due to who owned them. Many people want a book from Nic Cage's collection simply because it used to be his. Whether this deserves a premium or not is a completely unrelated point, and is addressed below. Is Dain a celebrity? No. However, some collectors may want something from the long-time veteran who changed many of our lives -- if it weren't for Dain, I may not even be collecting the way I am today. Again, maybe we at Wata are biased, but the same principles apply as to why CGC and PSA, respectively, gave those collections landmark status. There is consensus that if Shigeru Miyamoto had a game collection he wanted to certify, we would certainly note that. But where does one draw the line? Again, this is a topic with many gray areas, and where we draw the line would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
3) The question of whether or not Dain's collection is significant enough to be noted is certainly the largest point of contention here. Wata determined that Dain's contributions to the hobby and the collection he amassed, while not all amazing pieces, had some of the most significant NES titles in it (including but not limited to the only known sealed copy of Mega Man 1 Dr. Wright, Chubby Cherub sealed, many sealed Black Box titles, extremely high-grade NES sealed library, one-off or unique foreign titles, etc). And for those of you who may not recall or be aware, Dain is responsible for elevating NES collecting to where it is today, which is the forefront of video game collecting. Seeing his collection in its entirety is undeniably one of the top NES sets that will ever be amassed as far as breadth and condition. More importantly, regarding his ownership, there are many collectors who voiced both privately and publicly (see the GoCollect announcement threads) that they would love to own a piece of Dain's collection, no matter how significant the item is. Outside of NA does this desire to own something from The Carolina Collection apply? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is for certain, and that's that whether you agree or not, none of us would even be here and having this discourse if it weren't for Dain.
4) Should people pay more for "The Carolina Collection?" Who cares? We certainly don't. The designation is simply there for the sake of tracking the known and proven provenance of what Wata determined was a significant enough collection/owner to note on the label. If people want to pay more -- OR LESS -- that is their prerogative. If people want to auction these items off and market them as being from this collection to create more hype and buzz, that is also their prerogative. Whether we at Wata agree with those decisions or not is completely irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant whether someone actually pays more or not at the end of the day for that item.
Collections like Dain's came to be as a function of time and dedication. It's going to be very hard to find collections like these that are both intact, sent in for certification, and possess qualities that will qualify it as a landmark collection or a collection with Pedigree. As more collections are uncovered, discovered, and/or preserved, we'll post them on our blog as "Named Collections," which can include Pedigrees like the Indiana Collection, or significant collections like The Carolina Collection.
I honestly think people hate the name "Carolina Collection" more than anything. I imagine most people don't have a problem with a notation that an item is from Dain's collection. Worth more/less whatever, all that is subjective for the reasons you listed. The flaw in your explanation is why is it called "Carolina", why does it get to take precedence over not only one but two entire states? Nothing about "Carolina Collection" calls out Dain or NA, who cares where he lives? Is Nic Cage's stuff called the "Hollywood Collection" or the "California Collection"? Is Gretzky's stuff called "The North America Collection" because he played in Canada and the US?
I reckon there would be far fewer people holding their noses if Dain's stuff would have been given a more appropriate name designation.
Agreed re: naming. Carolina Collection to me means nothing. Anderson Collection at the least I think makes more sense. It's even right there in the post - Nic Cage Collection, Wayne Gretsky Collection.
The person is the important piece, not where he happened to live at the time he sold it all.
If it's not something like the Miyamoto Collection, why would anyone care? Then again, I think grading games is stupid so am clearly not the market they want to lure.
If it's not something like the Miyamoto Collection, why would anyone care? Then again, I think grading games is stupid so am clearly not the market they want to lure.
We should have some kind of standards to consistently evaluate authenticity and condition. How to do that is a matter of debate.
Did anyone follow the end price of those listings? Did the P E D I G R E E help their prices?
Yes. They are all listed in another post as well. There would be zero way to answer your question unless you spoke with the buyers.
It seems fairly easy - did they go for more than other graded items of similar condition, on average?
Also, where is this post?
We are just starting to understand the data for sold listings for Wata games on Heritage and CLINK. Here is the post. Scroll up in the post. I put all the games and completed auctions prices in Bold.
At the end of the day I don't feel pedigree or collection naming impacts the prices whatsoever. Grades/key titles/rarity/etc is what impacts the buyers decisions. And of course sticker sealed black box. Bitches
be crazy for the sticker seals. There is some good disucssion about prices in the thread after the auctions closed.
Comments
Hi Everyone,
Some great discussion in here. I'm not surprised to see varying opinions on this topic, as even internally at Wata we have different stances that arise through debate. Which I think is great! The parallels have been drawn before between comics, but pedigrees and noting collections in certification is not unique to comics. In fact, Coins were the first matured hobby to use pedigrees, and the way they are defined and applied in certification are vastly different from how they are treated in comics. What's appropriate for video games and the future of this hobby is certainly up for debate (as this thread exemplifies); however, Wata has a method to our madness and we even have our own definitions of "Pedigree" versus "Collection," for example. I want to shed a little light on our position and keep the discussion going to hear all your thoughts, given some new (hopefully) information.
First, we have written a clarifying post on our blog. Please read this first to hear our high-level stance on the topic. https://www.watagames.com/learn/blog/post/named-collections-...
To add to the blog post and address some of the points in this topic:
1) We at Wata do not benefit from assigning landmark status to a collection and noting it on our label. If, at our discretion we decide to do so, we are doing so because we believe part of our duty is to accurately preserve history. I bolded "at our discretion" because this means that the decisions are technically subjective and may be up for debate. However, much discussion and thought goes into each decision and as objective a view as possible is taken from the perspective of asking whether or not the collections' provenance is something that should be preserved and noted. Most of the factors that go into this are summarized in the blog post.
2) Noting significant collections, whether they fit your definition of "pedigree" or not, are not unique to any one collectible. Whether it's the Nic Cage collection in comics or the Wayne Gretzky collection in cards, these collections are noted for their significance due to who owned them. Many people want a book from Nic Cage's collection simply because it used to be his. Whether this deserves a premium or not is a completely unrelated point, and is addressed below. Is Dain a celebrity? No. However, some collectors may want something from the long-time veteran who changed many of our lives -- if it weren't for Dain, I may not even be collecting the way I am today. Again, maybe we at Wata are biased, but the same principles apply as to why CGC and PSA, respectively, gave those collections landmark status. There is consensus that if Shigeru Miyamoto had a game collection he wanted to certify, we would certainly note that. But where does one draw the line? Again, this is a topic with many gray areas, and where we draw the line would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
3) The question of whether or not Dain's collection is significant enough to be noted is certainly the largest point of contention here. Wata determined that Dain's contributions to the hobby and the collection he amassed, while not all amazing pieces, had some of the most significant NES titles in it (including but not limited to the only known sealed copy of Mega Man 1 Dr. Wright, Chubby Cherub sealed, many sealed Black Box titles, extremely high-grade NES sealed library, one-off or unique foreign titles, etc). And for those of you who may not recall or be aware, Dain is responsible for elevating NES collecting to where it is today, which is the forefront of video game collecting. Seeing his collection in its entirety is undeniably one of the top NES sets that will ever be amassed as far as breadth and condition. More importantly, regarding his ownership, there are many collectors who voiced both privately and publicly (see the GoCollect announcement threads) that they would love to own a piece of Dain's collection, no matter how significant the item is. Outside of NA does this desire to own something from The Carolina Collection apply? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is for certain, and that's that whether you agree or not, none of us would even be here and having this discourse if it weren't for Dain.
4) Should people pay more for "The Carolina Collection?" Who cares? We certainly don't. The designation is simply there for the sake of tracking the known and proven provenance of what Wata determined was a significant enough collection/owner to note on the label. If people want to pay more -- OR LESS -- that is their prerogative. If people want to auction these items off and market them as being from this collection to create more hype and buzz, that is also their prerogative. Whether we at Wata agree with those decisions or not is completely irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant whether someone actually pays more or not at the end of the day for that item.
Collections like Dain's came to be as a function of time and dedication. It's going to be very hard to find collections like these that are both intact, sent in for certification, and possess qualities that will qualify it as a landmark collection or a collection with Pedigree. As more collections are uncovered, discovered, and/or preserved, we'll post them on our blog as "Named Collections," which can include Pedigrees like the Indiana Collection, or significant collections like The Carolina Collection.
I honestly think people hate the name "Carolina Collection" more than anything. I imagine most people don't have a problem with a notation that an item is from Dain's collection. Worth more/less whatever, all that is subjective for the reasons you listed. The flaw in your explanation is why is it called "Carolina", why does it get to take precedence over not only one but two entire states? Nothing about "Carolina Collection" calls out Dain or NA, who cares where he lives? Is Nic Cage's stuff called the "Hollywood Collection" or the "California Collection"? Is Gretzky's stuff called "The North America Collection" because he played in Canada and the US?
I reckon there would be far fewer people holding their noses if Dain's stuff would have been given a more appropriate name designation.
Agreed re: naming. Carolina Collection to me means nothing. Anderson Collection at the least I think makes more sense. It's even right there in the post - Nic Cage Collection, Wayne Gretsky Collection.
The person is the important piece, not where he happened to live at the time he sold it all.
Hi Everyone,
Hi,
yes but why not call it something unique/cool/personnalized as opposed to bland boring generic « carolina »?
Heck « evil overlord collection » would’ve been amazing and sure to spur a lot of conversations.
If it's not something like the Miyamoto Collection, why would anyone care? Then again, I think grading games is stupid so am clearly not the market they want to lure.
We should have some kind of standards to consistently evaluate authenticity and condition. How to do that is a matter of debate.
Did anyone follow the end price of those listings? Did the P E D I G R E E help their prices?
Yes. They are all listed in another post as well. There would be zero way to answer your question unless you spoke with the buyers.
Did anyone follow the end price of those listings? Did the P E D I G R E E help their prices?
Yes. They are all listed in another post as well. There would be zero way to answer your question unless you spoke with the buyers.
It seems fairly easy - did they go for more than other graded items of similar condition, on average?
Also, where is this post?
Did anyone follow the end price of those listings? Did the P E D I G R E E help their prices?
Yes. They are all listed in another post as well. There would be zero way to answer your question unless you spoke with the buyers.
It seems fairly easy - did they go for more than other graded items of similar condition, on average?
Also, where is this post?
We are just starting to understand the data for sold listings for Wata games on Heritage and CLINK. Here is the post. Scroll up in the post. I put all the games and completed auctions prices in Bold.
At the end of the day I don't feel pedigree or collection naming impacts the prices whatsoever. Grades/key titles/rarity/etc is what impacts the buyers decisions. And of course sticker sealed black box. Bitches
be crazy for the sticker seals. There is some good disucssion about prices in the thread after the auctions closed.
http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=187489&StartRow=101#bottom