- Joined
- Jul 1, 2000
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction score
- 0
There's been a lot of discussion about scalpers lately, and I'm not sure I understand the defensiveness about calling some vintage dealers "scalpers." If you object to the term in general, on the grounds that its origins date to prejudices against American Indians, I could understand. But why this insistence that a vintage dealer cannot be a "scalper"? A scalper, according to the OED, is
a) one who buys and sells unused portions of railroad tickets at LESS than face value.
b) one who sells stock at LOWER than official prices.
c) a speculator who obtains tickets for a popular entertainment and sells them for MORE than their face price.
I assume that when we say "scalper" in reference to any collectible dealer, we mean a corrupted version of c). (Since we are already corrupt, we should, perhaps, not be so anxious to chastise others for their choices when applying the term). In this case, all dealers are scalpers because all are selling at higher than face value. If you consider "face value" in 2001 to mean current "market value," then many dealers are still selling at far higher than current market value and are, therefore, scalpers. However, I think both of these definitions miss the central point about scalping. To scalp in the sense that we have been using it is American slang, not English, so let's look at Webster's:
3b: to resell at greatly increased prices.
Now I ask you, are some of these dealers, buying so that they can resell at greatly increased prices? Absolutely. In my opinion, this definition reaches the heart of the matter. When we talk about someone "scalping," tickets or toys or anything else, we generally mean someone who buys low and sells extremely high, betting that because of high demand and ignorance, people will pay their exorbitant prices. In this case, many vintage dealers are, sadly, scalpers.
This brings me back to my original point. The word itself has an ugly origin. So perhaps we should refer to these dealers, vintage and new, simply as "rip-off-artists," or "scum-bags," or...well... you get the idea.
Please note that I am in no way singling out Brians Toys. I think he's much better (at least on the vintage stuff) than most.
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: flarida ]
a) one who buys and sells unused portions of railroad tickets at LESS than face value.
b) one who sells stock at LOWER than official prices.
c) a speculator who obtains tickets for a popular entertainment and sells them for MORE than their face price.
I assume that when we say "scalper" in reference to any collectible dealer, we mean a corrupted version of c). (Since we are already corrupt, we should, perhaps, not be so anxious to chastise others for their choices when applying the term). In this case, all dealers are scalpers because all are selling at higher than face value. If you consider "face value" in 2001 to mean current "market value," then many dealers are still selling at far higher than current market value and are, therefore, scalpers. However, I think both of these definitions miss the central point about scalping. To scalp in the sense that we have been using it is American slang, not English, so let's look at Webster's:
3b: to resell at greatly increased prices.
Now I ask you, are some of these dealers, buying so that they can resell at greatly increased prices? Absolutely. In my opinion, this definition reaches the heart of the matter. When we talk about someone "scalping," tickets or toys or anything else, we generally mean someone who buys low and sells extremely high, betting that because of high demand and ignorance, people will pay their exorbitant prices. In this case, many vintage dealers are, sadly, scalpers.
This brings me back to my original point. The word itself has an ugly origin. So perhaps we should refer to these dealers, vintage and new, simply as "rip-off-artists," or "scum-bags," or...well... you get the idea.
Please note that I am in no way singling out Brians Toys. I think he's much better (at least on the vintage stuff) than most.
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: flarida ]