• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

BEST OF 2019: BUDGET EDITION - Results Posted!
3 3

197 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, The Voord said:

F**k it, let's hire a better accountant . . .  ;)

 

Hiring an accountant for this in the first place is like hiring a private doctor for a scrape on your knee.    Do your own fukkin math lol

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Varanis said:

Just an example of a scenario where extra costs could be considered part of the price of the piece. I'm sure there are more scenarios.

Everything I sell domestically is "free shipping", yes I do bake all my overhead into the number I list/accept for. If you buy from me...your purchase price is awfully, and unfairly (waaaah-waaaaah!) grossed up.

Likewise when I buy from anybody in a negotiated process, my offer is always "shipped" - one number, no bs. Guess I'm just hurting myself there, eh?

The most humorous aspect of this discussion, to me, is that we're discussing ad nauseum a relatively small fraction of the item's total value here....10-15%, maybe 20% at the outside, if we are absolutely inclusive (save convention expenses which could be padded up beyond 100% if you only bought one $500 piece but stayed overnight in the Presidential Suite to "get it" lol )

So that minor bump is what the fuss is all about, mostly from Gene...who I guess is totally c-blocked from entering for all the $495 pieces he's buying that get bumped up over $500 because....

Hey Gene, all those "on the margin" gems you're uncovering...just find one that's less than $400 (plus up to 25% in "extras"...) and...ta-daa! there's your 2020 entry ;)

Even so, you'll probably still lose to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vodou said:

So that minor bump is what the fuss is all about, mostly from Gene...who I guess is totally c-blocked from entering for all the $495 pieces he's buying that get bumped up over $500 because....

It's not that I have a bunch of $501 (incl. tax) pieces that I'm dying to enter.  I just can't stand to see this otherwise interesting & delightful contest/showcase sanction such obvious inequity and people acting like it's nothing.  I don't consider flawed thinking, even on a small scale, to be "nothing". :sumo: 

As my pal @G G ® noted about our football (soccer) tipping competition in the Water Cooler, what's worth doing is worth doing right, and rules should be both fair and respected. :rulez: 

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Everything I sell domestically is "free shipping", yes I do bake all my overhead into the number I list/accept for. If you buy from me...your purchase price is awfully, and unfairly (waaaah-waaaaah!) grossed up.

Yes, but the shipping cost applies to everyone, so, at least the playing field is not unequal. 

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Hey Gene, all those "on the margin" gems you're uncovering...just find one that's less than $400 (plus up to 25% in "extras"...) and...ta-daa! there's your 2020 entry ;)

Even so, you'll probably still lose to me.

:eek: 

giphy.gif

Edited by delekkerste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those for whom it matters, why don't we have a separate contest where we post art that we bought with added on expenses, including taxes, shipping, etc as less than $15? 

You can call it "Budget/Extras"

Edited by PhilipB2k17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Any interest next year in a separate category for $501-$5000? That way, entries don’t have to compete with the really heavy hitters.

Too many entries. I might go the other way... 6-figure only category! :flipbait:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

Too many entries. I might go the other way... 6-figure only category! :flipbait:

You could also cap the number of submissions per person to a lower number, like with the Emmy Awards allowing 1 episode for evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mister_not_so_nice said:

Who's entering this as a competition?  Who's competing?

 

If you don't have THE BEST OA collection on CAF in your eyes, you've already lost :(

I agree with this sentiment.  I didn't enter this as a competition, rather more as a venue to show off and get feedback for a piece which was in the price range.  

It's a small enough community that no reward is necessary other than likes and thumbs up emojis, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Best,, David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mister_not_so_nice said:

Who's entering this as a competition?  Who's competing?

 

If you don't have THE BEST OA collection on CAF in your eyes, you've already lost :(

 

44 minutes ago, aokartman said:

I agree with this sentiment.  I didn't enter this as a competition, rather more as a venue to show off and get feedback for a piece which was in the price range.  

It's a small enough community that no reward is necessary other than likes and thumbs up emojis, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Best,, David

Call it whatever you want or don't want, the fact remains that a piece's eligibility shouldn't hinge on whether the buyer had to pay additional costs like sales tax purely based on that person's jurisdiction and tax status.  It goes against the basic principle of fairness, and also goes against standard hobby/market conventions (e.g., when we cite comps, we use the price off a dealer website where something sold, or the hammer + BP cost at Heritage, neither of which includes sales tax, shipping, convention fees, insurance or any other extraneous charge that doesn't treat all potential buyers equally). 

While this little showcase or whatever you want to call it is all just a little bit of fun, what's worth doing is worth doing right.  And that means not overlooking unfair and inconsistent application of standard norms and practices:rulez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

 

Call it whatever you want or don't want, the fact remains that a piece's eligibility shouldn't hinge on whether the buyer had to pay additional costs like sales tax purely based on that person's jurisdiction and tax status.  It goes against the basic principle of fairness, and also goes against standard hobby/market conventions (e.g., when we cite comps, we use the price off a dealer website where something sold, or the hammer + BP cost at Heritage, neither of which includes sales tax, shipping, convention fees, insurance or any other extraneous charge that doesn't treat all potential buyers equally). 

While this little showcase or whatever you want to call it is all just a little bit of fun, what's worth doing is worth doing right.  And that means not overlooking unfair and inconsistent application of standard norms and practices:rulez:

I understand, but what's next, someone gets outed for a misdemeanor?  It's just for fun! 

When I buy the occasional piece, I'm not thinking about the "budget edition" threshold, please tell

me you are just buying what you like at the price point you are comfortable with rather than can i win next year's budget edition with this one?

My standing in the "budget edition" archive is not a 

marker in my career as a collector or buyer, seller, I mark it down as extracurricular.

David

 

Edited by aokartman
bold added, text added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, delekkerste said:

or any other extraneous charge that doesn't treat all potential buyers equally

Just to get into the weeds a teensy bit, because details DO matter (and also we encourage OCDs in my house!)... It's not about treating all potential buyers equally, it's about staying under a particular budget within your personal means or situation.

Also, you've mentioned in past threads (as have I) that factoring in sales tax has affected your bidding. So that's you staying under your budget.

Now, I could argue further that under a certain price point... say $500 where shipping could be up to 10% of the total, people factor that into their budget as well. Shipping for higher-priced pieces doesn't really factor much into the total cost. But we still leave off shipping from the entries here because.

But this is all just academic. The BEAB prefers a more wine-fueled intuitive approach to rules, so let's see what happens next year! Now go buy some cheap art!

Edited by BCarter27
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

Just to get into the weeds a teensy bit, because details DO matter (and also we encourage OCDs in my house!)... It's not about treating all potential buyers equally, it's about staying under a particular budget within your personal means or situation.

Also, you've mentioned in past threads (as have I) that factoring in sales tax has affected your bidding. So that's you staying under your budget.

Not surprisingly, I find the bolded statement above to be contradictory!  I agree that it's about "staying under a particular budget" ($500), but, I disagree that this should have anything to do with "your personal means or situation".  $500 should mean $500 and not depend on if you live in New Hampshire, New York or East Djibouti.  Otherwise, the rule is de facto "Post Your Art That You Can Buy For Less Than $500 If You Live in New Hampshire Or Less Than $459.24 If You Live in New York City" which Just. Makes. No. Sense. 

Forget about all the straw-man nonsense about whether this is a contest or who cares or whatnot...bottom line, including sales tax is a big deal to those of us who do not tolerate obviously flawed rules concocted during a wine binge!  And, really, what good objection would anyone have to leveling the playing field if it's "not a big deal" to them anyway?  After all, it's not a contest, right? ;)  Not to mention, theoretically, a buyer in a high-tax jurisdiction could easily find a sales tax work-around if they really wanted to (I believe one critic of my proposed change here has admitted publicly to using a re-mailing service in the past, while another has offered numerous times to provide re-mailing services), so, it's not like that piece bought in NYC for $544.38 couldn't have been $500 if the buyer had been willing to skirt the tax collectors!  

Edited by delekkerste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

"Post Your Art That You Can Buy For Less Than $500 If You Live in New Hampshire Or Less Than $459.24 If You Live in New York City"

Writing that down. That's a good one for next year.

26 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Not surprisingly

I should be offended by this, but I'm a teeming mass of contradictions so I'm gonna run with it.

28 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Just. Makes. No. Sense.

I applaud your ability to argue your side of this in a total vacuum without an entry this year or any personal stake. It speaks to your credibility.

29 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

is a big deal to those of us who do not tolerate obviously flawed rules concocted during a wine binge! 

Totes-

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/business/trump-tax-cuts-beat-gilti.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3