MCIS 3LP Prices—A discussion

[Honeymade Opiate]

As someone who bought over 30 copies of these when they came out, I have been rather surprised at the prices the 3LP sets have consistently been going for on Ebay. A couple of auctions I was tracking this week ended and I wanted to get some feedback from you all, on your thoughts.

Auction #1) Item #290300709483 (Ebay UK)

MCIS #120.

Yep. #120. Supposedly, the earliest number that has ever appeared on Ebay. In the description, the seller mentions the following, in regards to the condition:

\"The cover has a few minor scuffs around the edge (which can be seen in the picture) but otherwise in very good condition.

The vinyl has only been played once (to record it!) and I can’t see any scratches on it, but one of them has a slight dent (Huh?) at the very start of one side, not actually on the playable surface so playback is not affected. It’s one of those dents sometimes produced in the processing of the vinyl and is hardly noticable so I would say though that they are all in very good condition.\"

Final Price: 203.55 UK Pounds (equivalent to $283.16 in US Dollars)

____________________________________________________________________

Auction #2) Item #270354422512 (Ebay France)

MCIS #16013 (SEALED)

Yep, you read correctly. This one is still sealed and has never been played. I actually placed bids on this set (quite high), but was flying back home and missed the end of the auction.

Final Price: 167,81 Euros (equivalent to $215.63 in US Dollars)

_____________________________________________________________________

So which one do you think was more rare and/or collectible? The one with some minor flaws and the low number or the one that was sealed and never played?

In my opinion, the one that was sealed was more valuable than the low number one. The reason being that few were sealed and the fact that 14 years later it was still sealed meant something. How many people did open their copy to play it, look at the vinyl, read the booklet, etc.?

Plus, I’d have to wager that we’d see a low number on Ebay again versus a sealed copy. This was proven already, with #190 being sold recently with a buy-it-now price of $285.00 (Item #260373565892).

What do you think? Would you rather have a low number or sealed copy?

Shawn

[manillascissor]

I don’t believe a sealed copy means much at all. I bought mine from a record store in ’96 for $36 and it wasn’t sealed, but came in the vinyl slipcase that a lot of vinyls are stored in, and it was brand new, not used.

That French one came with a sticker as well, which is cool. That made me want to bid on it too, but I realized any store can make a sticker and slap it on there, which is what I believe is the case here.

I’m happy with my unsealed copy, cause I can look at it as much as I want. And I’m happy with the number, cause it’s on SPfreaks. A low number is cool and all, but just doesn’t mean that much to me at all. I’d give like $5 more for copy #00001. Who cares?

[Arthur]

And one of our members just bought #11622 for US$ 165 on eBay, item 330313064408. That’s even cheaper as the bootlegs, they sometimes went for US$ 200+ also. I’m not a vinyl collector (OK, I have a few vinyl singles for fun, and the Siamese Dream album, my most favourite Pumpkins album, on black vinyl) so I wouldn’t be able to tell what is a fair price… They tend to be between US$ 200 and 300 all the time I think. Did we ever see 1 going for US$ 400+? So when the market thinks that is the price, then that is the price.

I have more problems with prices like US$ 700 for 1 cd of the Mellon Collie acetate set, that happened a few years ago on eBay. It would mean that the complete set is, like, US$ 1750 – 2000? And what about Billy’s test pressings of it (which I own also )? Double those last prices again? I think that is fukken crazy… To me that is not the way to go, as a collector. I can understand the greediness a little, the urge to find something, but then in the end it should also have a fair price… Just my thoughts…

And when it comes to lower or higher numbers and sealed or not sealed, I’m with manillascissor. I don’t care so much either (not many cds are numbered anyway). And when a new Smashing Pumpkins cd arrives, and it’s sealed, then I leave it sealed most of the times, especially when it is on SPfreaks.com already. When I think it is worthwhile scanning anyway, I unwrap it without too many second thoughts…

[Danni]

I do not understand this. The seller wrote that this 3-lp MC&IS is numbered (he claims it to be #6272). However, looking at the cover it hasn’t even got the white number-box?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Smashing-Pumpkins-M … 7C294%3A50

Just curious about this…

[Cool As Ice Cream]

maybe the seller numbered this fake copy himself, on a different location. some people might fall for that.

or he really is selling a numbered copy, but used a picture from a different auction. that would be really stupid.

[Danni]

Yes indeed, it would be. However, $144.50 I think is pretty expensive for a unnumbered copy. Let’s say for a numbered one on the other hand, it is pretty cheap. I think he uses a different pic though.

[Sven]

As someone who bought over 30 copies of these when they came out, I have been rather surprised at the prices the 3LP sets have consistently been going for on Ebay. A couple of auctions I was tracking this week ended and I wanted to get some feedback from you all, on your thoughts.

Auction #1) Item #290300709483 (Ebay UK)

MCIS #120.

Yep. #120. Supposedly, the earliest number that has ever appeared on Ebay. In the description, the seller mentions the following, in regards to the condition:

"The cover has a few minor scuffs around the edge (which can be seen in the picture) but otherwise in very good condition.

The vinyl has only been played once (to record it!) and I can’t see any scratches on it, but one of them has a slight dent (Huh?) at the very start of one side, not actually on the playable surface so playback is not affected. It’s one of those dents sometimes produced in the processing of the vinyl and is hardly noticable so I would say though that they are all in very good condition."

Final Price: 203.55 UK Pounds (equivalent to $283.16 in US Dollars)

____________________________________________________________________

Auction #2) Item #270354422512 (Ebay France)

MCIS #16013 (SEALED)

Yep, you read correctly. This one is still sealed and has never been played. I actually placed bids on this set (quite high), but was flying back home and missed the end of the auction.

Final Price: 167,81 Euros (equivalent to $215.63 in US Dollars)

_____________________________________________________________________

So which one do you think was more rare and/or collectible? The one with some minor flaws and the low number or the one that was sealed and never played?

In my opinion, the one that was sealed was more valuable than the low number one. The reason being that few were sealed and the fact that 14 years later it was still sealed meant something. How many people did open their copy to play it, look at the vinyl, read the booklet, etc.?

Plus, I’d have to wager that we’d see a low number on Ebay again versus a sealed copy. This was proven already, with #190 being sold recently with a buy-it-now price of $285.00 (Item #260373565892).

What do you think? Would you rather have a low number or sealed copy?

Shawn[/quote:2rvv1tbe]

Shawn-

Standard collector’s knowledge (as you would know for sure!!!) tends to value lower numbers higher than higher numbers.
The most infamous example is the White Album by The Beatles….

This number IS low.
Very very very low.

OK- so the record is not mint…
Whatever- the number is low; that’s what you pay for.

The other copy is in pristine mint condition.
It does have a higher number.
Whatever- the condition is superb; that’s what you pay for.

All in all-
It’s a trade-off between number vs condition….

I have seen almost destroyed low number copies of the White Album fetch awesome amounts.
And perfect ones not too high up fetch next to nothing.

Plus: i’ve seen a totally soiled VU LP signed by the complete band + Warhol being sold before my eyes for a shit load of cash… it WAS a first press and a mono one and signed ok… but the vinyl looked like shit and the cover was soiled and all… so I guess all figures in to make a price…

Still: Shawn: this is no, totally NO news to you!!!!

[Danni]

—

[Author]

Posts