Forums
Christmas tree hats
Quick find code: 17-18-14-66167707
[Reply 1/2]
Dr Goldfire said :
I love these fundamental speculations. Yet at the end of the day, it's more about numbers. My opinion is that changes in active market circulations have done bigger part of the job, than appearance.
Edit: Plus while we are talking about look, as for my preferences, Halloween masks are much uglier than any other rares.
'Speculation' deinition:
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
So, here are my sources (evidence) for my statements:
Agree with this, especially considering Hallowe'en Masks were dropped equally, and collected almost equally (we can assumed some weren't picked up).
Screenshot of Hallowe'en masks being dropped in RuneScape Classic:
As you can see, there is one of each colour on the floor - suggesting they were dropped in equal amounts. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, that's fine, but this is partly what I'm basing my statements on.
Blue Mask was most expensive in RuneScape Classic, because it looked nicer with Rune armour (Best In Slot). Then, when Dragon armour was released (Best In Slot, looked really nice for its time), Red Mask soon took over.
Green is just being carried along for the ride.
Source: https://runescape.wiki/w/Hallowe%27en_mask
Obviously the numbers have changed over the years when people have quit or lost their accounts with 2 Red Masks, 1 Blue Mask, 0 Green Mask, but historically the price differences have been based on their looks.
Source: logic, I guess? It's almost impossible that an exact number of each colour mask have been removed from the game over the years. And my above statements have already established it's historically nothing to do with the numbers.
_____
We can then apply the above to the fact that CTH looks absolutely awful and therefore the demand will be from fewer people, regardless of their numbers.
Dr Goldfire said :
I love these fundamental speculations. Yet at the end of the day, it's more about numbers. My opinion is that changes in active market circulations have done bigger part of the job, than appearance.
Edit: Plus while we are talking about look, as for my preferences, Halloween masks are much uglier than any other rares.
'Speculation' deinition:
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
So, here are my sources (evidence) for my statements:
Agree with this, especially considering Hallowe'en Masks were dropped equally, and collected almost equally (we can assumed some weren't picked up).
Screenshot of Hallowe'en masks being dropped in RuneScape Classic:
As you can see, there is one of each colour on the floor - suggesting they were dropped in equal amounts. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, that's fine, but this is partly what I'm basing my statements on.
Blue Mask was most expensive in RuneScape Classic, because it looked nicer with Rune armour (Best In Slot). Then, when Dragon armour was released (Best In Slot, looked really nice for its time), Red Mask soon took over.
Green is just being carried along for the ride.
Source: https://runescape.wiki/w/Hallowe%27en_mask
Obviously the numbers have changed over the years when people have quit or lost their accounts with 2 Red Masks, 1 Blue Mask, 0 Green Mask, but historically the price differences have been based on their looks.
Source: logic, I guess? It's almost impossible that an exact number of each colour mask have been removed from the game over the years. And my above statements have already established it's historically nothing to do with the numbers.
_____
We can then apply the above to the fact that CTH looks absolutely awful and therefore the demand will be from fewer people, regardless of their numbers.
11-Jul-2020 15:47:28
[Reply 2/2]
Dr Goldfire said :
I love these fundamental speculations. Yet at the end of the day, it's more about numbers. My opinion is that changes in active market circulations have done bigger part of the job, than appearance.
Edit: Plus while we are talking about look, as for my preferences, Halloween masks are much uglier than any other rares.
If it's more about numbers, then Pumpkin should have skyrocketed a long time ago, as there will be far fewer in the game in comparison to Hallowe'en masks/Partyhats.
Not only can Pumpkins be eaten (accidentally or otherwise), they were released into the game 1 year before Hallowe'en masks. The player-base grew exponentially in the first few years of RuneScape (Source in case I'm accused of speculating again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RNK0YBdwko). This suggests there was a much larger player-base when Hallowe'en masks were released, and therefore more masks would have been collected.
Pumpkins were also released 55 days before Partyhats, but because you can't see them not as many people have been interested over the years and their price has stayed relatively low. It's not even a case of 'looking bad' - you just can't see them at all.
Back to CTH.... unfortunately, you can see a CTH. Regardless of their numbers, there just isn't the general demand for them because no one actually wants to wear one.
Hoarders/merchers will keep the prices high by consistently flipping them at higher prices, but when they give up or move onto something else, the price should drop again.
A bit like Fish Masks during Jan-Aug 2016, and Jun-Dec 2017. I'm not saying the two items are comparable in any way shape or form, I'm just talking about their price vs. what they 'should' actually be worth. They were flipped/merched/whatever up to around 4x their value and then dropped back down again. That's not because anyone actually wanted one for their looks or rarity, and same can be said for CTH...
Dr Goldfire said :
I love these fundamental speculations. Yet at the end of the day, it's more about numbers. My opinion is that changes in active market circulations have done bigger part of the job, than appearance.
Edit: Plus while we are talking about look, as for my preferences, Halloween masks are much uglier than any other rares.
If it's more about numbers, then Pumpkin should have skyrocketed a long time ago, as there will be far fewer in the game in comparison to Hallowe'en masks/Partyhats.
Not only can Pumpkins be eaten (accidentally or otherwise), they were released into the game 1 year before Hallowe'en masks. The player-base grew exponentially in the first few years of RuneScape (Source in case I'm accused of speculating again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RNK0YBdwko). This suggests there was a much larger player-base when Hallowe'en masks were released, and therefore more masks would have been collected.
Pumpkins were also released 55 days before Partyhats, but because you can't see them not as many people have been interested over the years and their price has stayed relatively low. It's not even a case of 'looking bad' - you just can't see them at all.
Back to CTH.... unfortunately, you can see a CTH. Regardless of their numbers, there just isn't the general demand for them because no one actually wants to wear one.
Hoarders/merchers will keep the prices high by consistently flipping them at higher prices, but when they give up or move onto something else, the price should drop again.
A bit like Fish Masks during Jan-Aug 2016, and Jun-Dec 2017. I'm not saying the two items are comparable in any way shape or form, I'm just talking about their price vs. what they 'should' actually be worth. They were flipped/merched/whatever up to around 4x their value and then dropped back down again. That's not because anyone actually wanted one for their looks or rarity, and same can be said for CTH...
11-Jul-2020 15:47:35
@Dr Golfdfire
Thanks for some clarification. I've been struggling to keep up because I'll give a lot of information and then you'll add something else very short without much explanation on your opinion. I'm still not sure what your opinion is on CTH.
Along with everything else that you've said which I've tried to address, you've now said that the BSH is 1 year older than Holly Wreath, but nothing else alongside the statement. Are you suggesting that's why BSH is more expensive than Holly Wreath?
- BSH was released 1 year before Holly Wreaths
- There are more BSH in the game than Holly Wreaths
- BSH is much more expensive
~ Assume: BSH has more of a fundamental value than Holly Wreath
Apply this to CTH and consider your previous analysis (BSH < CTH < RSH):
- CTH was released 1 year before BSH
- There are more CTH in the game than BSH
- BSH is much more espensive
~ Assume: BSH has more of a fundamental value than CTH
Fundamental value is controlling their prices.
As for time latency - CTH has been in GE for 1 year longer than BSH. BSH 1 year longer than Holly Wreath, but their technical analysis doesn't match the fundamental analysis. They're completely opposite.
Consider all 'original' discontinued rares, we can see why fundamental analysis is much more weighted against technical analysis.
Consider the rares you can't wear, vs. Partyhats:
Release order:
1. Pumpkin
2. Partyhats
3. Easter Eggs
Technically, the earlier a discontinued item was released into the game - the fewer their will be in the game. This is due to the player count whilst RuneScape was growing massively in the early years. So, the technical price order should follow the release order (volume):
Partyhat prices can't even be compared against Pumpkin/Easter Egg due to their Fundamental Value. This can also be applied to any of the discontinued items. Masks - same volume, different price.
Fundamental value mostly controls the price difference in RS, more-so than technical value
Thanks for some clarification. I've been struggling to keep up because I'll give a lot of information and then you'll add something else very short without much explanation on your opinion. I'm still not sure what your opinion is on CTH.
Along with everything else that you've said which I've tried to address, you've now said that the BSH is 1 year older than Holly Wreath, but nothing else alongside the statement. Are you suggesting that's why BSH is more expensive than Holly Wreath?
- BSH was released 1 year before Holly Wreaths
- There are more BSH in the game than Holly Wreaths
- BSH is much more expensive
~ Assume: BSH has more of a fundamental value than Holly Wreath
Apply this to CTH and consider your previous analysis (BSH < CTH < RSH):
- CTH was released 1 year before BSH
- There are more CTH in the game than BSH
- BSH is much more espensive
~ Assume: BSH has more of a fundamental value than CTH
Fundamental value is controlling their prices.
As for time latency - CTH has been in GE for 1 year longer than BSH. BSH 1 year longer than Holly Wreath, but their technical analysis doesn't match the fundamental analysis. They're completely opposite.
Consider all 'original' discontinued rares, we can see why fundamental analysis is much more weighted against technical analysis.
Consider the rares you can't wear, vs. Partyhats:
Release order:
1. Pumpkin
2. Partyhats
3. Easter Eggs
Technically, the earlier a discontinued item was released into the game - the fewer their will be in the game. This is due to the player count whilst RuneScape was growing massively in the early years. So, the technical price order should follow the release order (volume):
Partyhat prices can't even be compared against Pumpkin/Easter Egg due to their Fundamental Value. This can also be applied to any of the discontinued items. Masks - same volume, different price.
Fundamental value mostly controls the price difference in RS, more-so than technical value
12-Jul-2020 10:37:06
Quick find code: 17-18-14-66167707 Back to Top