- 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
Counter
Sale 1 -
https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198005689389#!/compare/1469318400/1469404800
http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/28356621 - b/o 220
Sold for a beams company man (215)
Mini on man:
https://backpack.tf/suggestion/57a336f486674771b036e202 - 215
Sale 2 -
https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198005689389#!/compare/1469491200/1471305600
Sold with ~18 for a demonflare company man
180 - 18 = 162
Mini for the Company Man -
http://backpack.tf/suggestion/57b37c228667470bfe63c751
180
Rounding 162 to 160 giving the hat a range of 160-215
demoflame company man was itself outdated imo .... its more rare then sunbeam
http://backpack.tf/classifieds?item=Company%20Man&quality=5&tradable=1&craftable=1&australium=-1&particle=17
seller @ 210 on the beams company. -
2 weeks unsold @ 210 - http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/28384760
this should be close enough so no real point in re-suggesting for such a small difference
Your mini on the DF Man is off. The suggester didn't post a mini on the smoking viewfinder, so both this and that are off a bit.
Um what...? 3 months is still considered as valid proof as long as it doesn't go into 4+ months. Again, how are you even black belt?
http://prntscr.com/c6yh40
Those pictures aren't updated everyday. Here's a quote from the unusual guide - http://forums.backpack.tf/index.php?/topic/6033-guide-for-unusual-price-suggestions/
"Hats with an outdated price (>3 months old) are not valid proof. Again, please include links for outdated hats in your suggestion as supplemental proof. Just don't rely on them to set your range."
Also, even if you don't agree, the suggester for the demonflame cap resuggested, so you'll have to resuggest as well
">3 months old", meaning all sales that occured later than 3 months ago. However not including 3 months, otherwise it would say ≥3 months, rather than just >3 months
He resuggested at the same value, and that value is okay, so it wont be an issue here :P