Do you think limited dolls should be rereleased/restocked by their companies?

Right. Well, even rereleased a limited run- it's still going to be limited. I think if people paid more for a limited run and then the company said, "Oy! Look now it's a standard edition for half the price", and stocked it regularly on the shelves then that would be pretty upsetting for a few people. There's no debate about that, I completely agree.


What fired people up recently was related to companies announcing a run of a Limited Edition doll and then turning around and offering it as a set again as a Limited Edition in a different sales district. (originally in Japan or at a specific event then, later, online to a larger, international audience.) It's still limited and the people who paid for their LE number will have a lower edition # on their dolls, theoretically. When you look at it, it's still likely to be a very limited doll, just not as limited in numbers as before.

Also well said Jescissa. I feel exactly the same way about my limited dolls too. ^^

 

Well, it actually is the fault of the buyer who spent the exorbitant amount of however much money to acquire the doll on the second hand market. The company did not set the price. No one held a gun to the buyer's head and forced them to purchase the doll at that price or die. The buyer made a decision to purchase the doll at that price. They had a number of options available to them and chose to go through with the purchase.

Unless one of these dolls actually comes with a binding contract stating the molds were to broken and never to be created again after X amount of dolls have been created, it's pretty safe the assume that doll is going to be released again some day. We've had over 10 years of precedent of this happening in this hobby. This is not new information. If someone wants to spend too much money on the second hand market when they are perfectly able to wait until prices are more reasonable or the doll is released again, then that is on them and them alone.

I've learned my lessons paying more than I really should for dolls. The smartest questions you can ask yourself whenever you go to buy a doll are "If I never, ever see this money again, am I ok with it?" and "If this doll were to suddenly be on sale next month for less than the price I am about to pay now, will that extra month of owning the doll be worth the additional cost?" If the answer to either of those questions is no then you really shouldn't buy the doll. I certainly won't anymore.

 

It does sting when a doll that one purchased on the second-hand market for a large sum is re-released by the company for much less. However, like Kim and others have mentioned, re-releases are nothing new anymore. This is not the very beginning of the hobby when we had no idea how the companies are going to handle limited dolls. These days, it's pretty safe to assume that any doll will be released again down the road. Heck, even if the company state that the mold will never be released again in any incarnation, I always assume that it will be.

The above is the reason why I never shop on the secondary market. It's just not worth it to me, no matter how pretty the doll is. Does that mean that there are dolls that I like, but will never have? Sure! But, I am perfectly fine with that, because, ultimately, paying a huge markup causes me more discomfort than not having the doll. It's all up to the buyer in the end.

My only issue with limiteds being re-released is if the company specifically states that the mold will never be released again in any shape or form. I believe that a re-release under those conditions would be an unethical and shady thing to do. However, since most of the companies do not make such claims, any re-release is fair game.

 

Okay, I gotta butt in. Bolded mine -- business is not about 'fair'. It is about money. Fairness -- or some people's concepts thereof -- have exactly nothing to do with anything. If the company is aware they are going to make money by re-releasing a limited sculpt/doll/whatever, then they might well do it, because that means money. They shouldn't consider secondhand owners of the previous edition and how their investment may or may not be lessened. They're concerned with the bottom line, as they should be.

This line of thought drives me buggy. It is completely the responsibility -- the fault, if you will -- of the buyer if they purchase a doll for an inflated price. While a re-release may annoy the owners of the previous edition, it's not the company's responsibility to protect anyone else's investment. Personal anecdata: I really, really, REALLY want a Shirou Tachibana, if I ever acquire the money. If I purchased him for X dollars and he was re-released a month later for less, I might grumble a little over my damn luck but -- as Kim mentioned -- it was my decision to purchase that doll for that amount of money. The decision to purchase for potentially inflated prices is entirely on the purchaser, and not on the company who originally sold the doll. I'm not being forced to pay that money, and the company isn't going to consider my widdle feelings in their decision to re-release (especially since the money I paid for the doll didn't go in their pockets anyway).

To quote The Princess Bride: "Who says life is fair? Where is that written?"

 

Because you like the doll and that's the only way to get it?

Yes, some people invest because of rarity, but viewing collectibles as a financial investment is an exercise in risk. That's just life!

 

My opinion on this subject is simply this - to me the hobby is about enjoying the dolls for the love of them, not the value. If I wanted to collect the dolls simply for monetary reasons, I'd be in another hobby. Do I get joy of taking my Sooms out in public with me and showing them off? Yes, but not because they are limited editions...because I love them to death and want other people to see them and hopefully share my love. I don't see a problem in the re-release of limited dolls for this reason...because ultimately the hobby to me is about love of the dolls, and not worrying about their value except the joy they bring me.

 

But regardless of financial worth, some collectors do acquire rare/limited things for their rarity-- whether or not they ever intend to resell them. A desire for exclusivity/rarity does not *automatically* equate to a desire for a high resale price or financial investment. Some people simply like the feeling of owning a rare item.

There are as many collecting-styles as there are collectors. Some like to collect all of one brand/series/line/etc.; some like to collect only things that aren't regular-edition-everyday; some like to collect with a view towards maximum future resale value; some like to collect anything & everything.

So, that is why I understand people who get upset that their limiteds have been re-released as second limiteds, or upset that their limiteds have been released as basic editions, whether or not I share their feelings about it when it happens to me.

OK, take some deep breaths, and give that exclamation-point key a rest. It's incorrect to say that a doll is "no longer rare", just because it has been released twice. It may be less-rare than it was before, but it is still rare. As long as that exact doll (body, head, resin, faceup, accessories) has not been turned into basic stock, then it's still a limited edition, and therefore it's still rare.

"Wasted" is also in the eye of the beholder. For collectors who are the early-adopter type, no money is ever wasted when it's gotten them what they want when they wanted it. Not everybody is into penny-pinching so hard that they'll pass up a doll they truly love, just in case it might be re-released in a few years. Early-adopters like the rush of the gamble.

But when you buy anything in life, it's always a gamble too. Someday, somewhere, you'll probably see that item for less than you spent on it. As others above me have said, unless you accept that risk, don't put your money down. If you get buyer's remorse, it simply isn't the company's fault-- you spent money that you weren't truly ready to say goodbye to.

Exactly. When I bought my own Version 1 Shiro Tachibana in 2005, it seemed like every secondhand Volks LE doll was going for around $2000 that summer. I couldn't predict how many years it'd take for Shiro's secondhand value to drop to what it is today... and I wasn't into waiting 7 years to find out. Today, I don't regret a single penny: I bought the exact doll I wanted, when I wanted him, at a fair market price, and I paid what it took to get him. That was what it took to get him at the time-- and Time only runs one way.

(When Version 2 Shiro came out, I didn't flip out either; I bought him too. One Shiro is love, two Shiros is better. )

 

See, I like this line of thinking. XD

 

I think the problem is inside the word "limited" : if a doll is limited, it should not be restocked. If a doll is not limited but it is a special sale, it should be restocked.
I don't see the point to write "limited" while it is not. Of course I know the companies label a doll "limited" to have more sales. It is all a matter of money. I would like to see more honesty about it but I well know when there is money involved honesty is only an option.

 

Exactly. I got all my Volks limiteds for inflated prices and I would pay that amount of money again if I had to. It was my responsitility, I thought they are worth the money and I haven't regretted it ever since.

For a few hundred bucks, I was given the security that I would own the doll and didn't have to wait for a re-release that might not come. I was also given the chance to enjoy the doll for months, or even years more than I would had I waited.

It's not about fairness, it's about taking responsibility.

 

Indeed they do! My comment on financial risk was aimed purely at Christie’s “Otherwise what’s the point?” (regarding scarcity and value) and not any overarching warning to collectors in general. I feel for the folks who were hoping for something more rare – whether for sentimental or financial purposes (or even just for the bragging rights!) - I think calling a rerelease “not fair” (as aeris76 described it) or “a betrayal” (as Nathicles suggested) is just needlessly injecting maliciousness into a basic business decision (and confusing the aftermarket consumer-to-consumer relationship with the producer-to-consumer one).

I have a number of limiteds myself (a couple of which went on to become standards) but I’m in the “I liked, I bought it”-camp. As long as I’m satisfied with the product I received, then I’ve been cared for as a customer – whatever the company does afterwards has nothing to do with me (except in so far as they keep tempting me to come back to them! ).

 

I can only speak to the way I feel. I have several limited/one of a kind, however, I wouldn't mind if the companies that made the dolls made more. I buy things that I like, and I think that others should be given the same chance if they want it.

 

I think that limited editions should stay limited. I like the consept of it.
But then again I don't mind the doll to be re-realised, but without the props and maybe even with another custom face up ?
I have one limited (almost two, but the second has been for sale a long time now and has no end period, only a warning it will be taken down some time) and I wouldnt be pissed if Soom re-realised the Alex mold without the props, thats what make the limited doll I think.
Yes, they are a new mold and look awesome, but the props gives the doll a personality already there, and I buy only limited whom I fall for, and whom have awesome props that fits the personality I would like for them ^^

 

Yes, I don't understand that maliciousness either! It's really nothing personal-- the company isn't deliberately out to wreck the resale value of anybody's particular collection, or ruin anybody's particular life. It's business. I too feel for collectors who really count on their edition-sizes, for whatever reason; but they have to realize that they're running a gamble by doing so, & accept the risk, because rereleases can happen at any time.

And if you think about it, the companies actually do take some of their customers' emotions into account, when they re-release something that was extremely popular & that a lot of people were asking for. They often catch a lot of flak for it, but this is because you cannot please everybody.


I guess some of us are "glass-is-half-full" collectors. When Iplehouse changed Akando Pierrot's edition size from 50 to 75, I did not look upon those 25 extra brethren & see Doom, as some people in his waiting-room thread did (I got attacked right in the throat by a couple of them for suggesting that they relax about it). I just looked at it as Akando now having 74 worldwide brothers instead of 49, which is still a pretty damn small family considering how big the world is. And considering how many SE & Basic Akandos were sold later on... Mr. Pierrot is still a teensy minority.

The word "limited" isn't ambiguous, though. It means what it means: it means "finite". It means this edition is not regular stock. It doesn't even apply to any future editions.

If you re-release the doll in a different edition that is also not-regular-stock, then that second edition is also limited. They're different editions, both limited.

If you re-release that doll in a different edition that IS regular-stock (basic), then that second edition is NOT limited, but the first edition IS still limited. The basic edition doesn't change the first edition's limitedness.

 

As I said in another thread involving the same sort of whining about LE's, the word limited does not actually mean "never to be sold again" It means there is a limit of some sort of the sale of that particular doll. That limit could be anything. They could be limited to only be sold to people willing to run through an obstacle course or only to people with red hair just as much as they can be limited to an edition of a certain number or only for sale at a certain time. It just means that you can't buy that particular doll whenever you want to like you can a standard edition.

Volks limited dolls that are re-released are still limited. It just means that the pool of dolls available increases in number. They do not suddenly become unlimited if there are a few more of them. Now, Volks has actually pulled THAT particular maneuver in the past when they have made LE dolls part of their standard and FCS lineup, but I suppose that's another debate and in the end the LE Ken and Mika probably cost the same as a standard Ken or Mika and the FCS route prob costs more.

 

I am absolutely all for limited dolls being re-released. I need a second Sard. In gray. And then a third one in light violet. LOL.

...Now on a more serious note: I don't see a problem in re-releases.

I don't think re-releases are unfair - if anything, they are MORE fair! When a Limited is re-released (and usually in a different version!), the money earned by the sales of a certain sculpt goes to the company which made it, and not to someone who was simply lucky enough to buy one of the few limiteds when they were available (expecially if it was only for the purpose of resale - why should they be worried about a re-release that much otherwise? I mean, if they simply like to own something rare... then they shouldn't be worried, the new version is not the same as the first one, so their doll is still rare).

And no, I am not saying that anybody who buys a Limited for the purpose of resale is evil or anything - they are not, in my opinion, if they buy a doll, they can do with it what they want - I just don't see any point in all the "unfair!"-calls. The same person who says a company is "unfair" for re-releasing a Limited because they'd rather resell theirs for the four times the price, will be called "unfair" themselves by those who don't like inflated second-hand prices. You see, it is all a question of the point of view.

 

As I mentioned above, I do agree that it's absolutely fair for companies to re-release limited dolls, and those who shop on the secondary market do so at their own risk.

However, I would like to point out that having a very healthy secondary market is something that is extremely beneficial for the company, even though no direct profit is being made during the secondary transactions.

To give a simplified example. Company A's limited doll consistently sell for a higher secondary market markup than Company B's limited dolls. When Bob Collector saves up enough cash to buy 1 doll and makes a decision between Company A and Company B's current offerings, both of which he desires equally, chances are that he'll go with Company A. In this scenario, Company B loses out on a sale simply because Company A's dolls have high secondary market value.

I can't count the number of times I've read on the BJD forums that while these dolls are expensive, at least they hold their value should you decide to leave the hobby. We all love our dolls, but resale value IS a consideration for many. Thus, companies DO benefit from the status of their dolls on the secondary market, albeit indirectly. For many, it's much easier to justify an expensive purchase if it can be sold easily on the secondary market, should the need arise.

Again, I am not at all saying that everyone would make a decision like Bob Collector did in my example. But, it cannot be denied that some people in the BJD hobby are collectors and there is a certain mentality associated with being one. Companies recognize this and release plenty of LEs to maintain the collecting aspect of the hobby.

 

Agreed! It could very well be that a company can profit from a healthy secondary market indirectly - in an even simpler way, namely its popularity being risen by it. In the "if other people want a doll by this company so much that they'd pay 4 grand for it, then I must have such a doll, too!"-way. And like I already mentioned, neither do I personally see resellers as evil, nor do I see anything evil in the fact of reselling for a higher price.

I simply tried to express that "fairness" is not a term that should be applied when talking about the consequences of re-releasing on resale value. And why?

While I - and many others - might be annoyed by the fact that I sometimes want and possibly cannot afford a Limited secondhand because of the price, I don't think that the rule of the market is necessarily unfair just because -I- cannot have this particular doll. I think that the true reason behind the "unfairness" of reselling is something else. It is a logical problem. Its essence is - luck.

In my opinion - and it is only an opinion, I am aware of it - you can either have luck, or you can have fairness. Luck is random, it is far from "fair". Fairness, on the contrary, is purposeful; something is done fairly by intent, it is something human beings negotiate.

Obtaining a Limited is quite often a consequence of luck (having the right amount of money saved just in time, having not bought another Limited at the same time which drained the funds, having a fast internet connection if there are only a few dolls and the quickness of buying decides etc.). Thus, being able to profit from an increasing resale value is also a consequence of luck, and not "fair", no matter if it is also indirectly profitable to the company or not. This way, it would be completely unlogical to judge a re-release of a doll as unfair only because it has a consequence on something that by its own nature is already unfair (which doesn't equal evil, period).

 

Cenarius
The word “Limited” is not a problem because it's being used correctly. They never said “never to be released again”. They said limited meaning limited number of dolls made and a limited window to purchase that doll. A limited doll that is rereleased is still limited because you can’t log into the site anytime and buy it like a standard model. Most dolls have maybe what? 2 releases? Seriously, is that so bad? Sure it devalues some dolls resale value but that is the risk you are taking when you buy something at an inflated cost.

At this point in time I really can’t understand what is so upsetting because everyone who has spent any time in this hobby knows by now what limited means to most companies. They have demonstrated over and over and over again that limited does not mean “never will this mold ever be released again”. It is standard practice and I see no dishonesty in it.

dollblue You took the words out of my mouth on almost every point. Thank you.

 

I think a company should be able to make what they want.
Image if you were a doll maker and you made a doll that was really sought after and always in demand, but lets say you only had the time, resources and energy to focus on one release at a time, you wouldn't want to be stifled and only make one thing forever you'd want to carry out other plans.

I think about Volks and if everything they made had be in stock at the customers demand, we'd miss out on new creations because all their time would be spent making the old items over and over.