- Forums
-
Pricing
- Community Pricing
- Pricegrid
- Spreadsheet
- Browse Suggestions
- Latest Changes
- Unusual Pricelist
- Browse by Item
- Browse by Effect
- Steam Community Market
- Market Pricelist
-
Trading
- Classifieds
- Classified Listings
- Utilities
- Calculator
- Premium Search
- Statistics
Hey!
Try number 2!
I was just looking to see if I could price the hat i just baught :)
I baught this hat for a strange festive knife, strange robro 3000 and an antarctic parka
proof: http://s1370.photobucket.com/user/Monkeyviper64/media/Capture_zps010cb8e9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Maths time: 17 (knife) + 10 (robroo) + 1 (parka) = 28/16.5 = 1.69 (Hue) Which you round upto 1.7 but with item overpay it is 1.7*0.9 = 1.53
So 1.5 buds is a suitible price range
Thank you :)
Exception 2: Rare Hats
Any hat can be priced based on a single sale if ALL these criteria are met:
- There are no other recent sales in the last 3 months
- The effect is not a summer 2013 effect. (robo, 2013 halloween effects can be used as they are often rarely traded and rarely unboxed)
- The hat went to a collector or person who intends to keep the hat. A collector can be identified by looking at the person's trade history, item history of similar unusuals in the backpack OR if the owner has not resold the hat 1 month after the sale occurred.
I oversaw this suggestion, don't downvote because he owns one, or because it's only one sale.
The criteria for a one sale suggestion are met, and the proof is solid. Contents is confirmed and overpay is applied.
READ before blindly downvoting.
This doesn't need to wait a month to fulfill the third criteria?
Item history of similar unusuals OR not resold for 1 month.
He a collector of sorts, he's got a TF Logo Caribbean that's been unmarketed for three months. I think it's safe to say this isn't going anywhere :3
Well there's another on the market, though asking for an absurd amount...and this sale only happened today.
I think I'm correct in saying the current OP owner has had it for five months? Whatever he bought it for is invalid as proof.