Price Suggestion
~139 keys
burning
Unusual Triboniophorus Tyrannus Burning Flames
74 votes up
5 votes down
Advertisement
Related Suggestions

This suggestion was accepted by polar.

Comments can no longer be left on this suggestion.

Comments

    Pretty sure your first(and only clean) sale is going to be unuseable, as it involves a scammer fence.

    Here's a sale that we can think over, there's no way of knowing for sure but apparently it sold for a Scorching Gym Rat + 30 Keys?

    https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198086070401#!/compare/1497225600/1497830400


    I'd wait until the previous owner goes public and see where we go from there, this'd stay up for more sales regardless.

      I thought SCM sales were exempt from those sorts of rules because it's impossible to tell who you're trading with? I'd swear I'd read that.

      Moreover, the guy's not even properly banned on steamrep, and a BUNCH of notable people from here have him on their friends list.

      I wouldn't use him for item trades, but this is SCM we're talking about. He wasn't even fencing the Tyrannus, he'd had it for months.

        It exempts you from being banned for trading with a scammer(which what you mentioned is the reason the exception is there), however it doesn't really make the sale anymore valid than it is right now.

          ..whhhhy doesn't it, sorry? I fail to see how, if there are no repercussions for trading in that manner, and that particular item wasn't acquired from a scammer, AND the trader isn't even banned on steamrep, that it should be less valid?

            It surprises me he is not marked; we treat trading with him as trading with a scammer, since the user is obviously actively laundering (see ban reason).


            Regardless of that, it can still be an indication that the sale is low because of that. Scammers or fences do typically sell lower, which - along with the fact that the sale is lower than that most duped sales - may point towards this being too low.


            As an aside, the two other hats depending on this take a hit as well, which - of course to a lesser, potentially even negligible extent - also supports that it may be on the low side. If there is nothing else on either hat, it may be worth waiting to get more data points here on any of these three hats

              "Regardless of that but because of that." Yeah okay... you see why I'm confused lol :P


              You haven't actually addressed the main part of my concern: yes fences TYPICALLY sell lower, but that's because they're typically selling items previously owned by scammers. That isn't the case at all here and that logic doesn't follow.


              The Ushanka's price is 3 years old, and the DF Crasher was originally priced at 77 keys before it's rise *more* recently. I don't really consider either of them to be taking a hit. And as you correctly point out, it isn't strictly relevant anyway.

                My sentence structure was poor I guess. Points made in order are "as opposed to what was indicated before, he IS treated as a scammer and trading with him will have consequences."


                "Because he is banned everywhere its harder to sell shit; such sales are often low outliers"


                "..because they typically sell items previously owned by scammers"

                Not just that; it's tricky for people banished away from communities to find buyers, especially if there are consequences involved in trading with them. It means they have limited audience, and that they are almost forced to undersell even with items legitimately obtained, because no one is going to risk their necks for an average deal.


                "And that is not the case here"

                I'm not so sure about that actually. The slug was in fact not owned by him for a long time; he only had it for a few days, and there's a huge gap in its history that could be explained by a scammer missing in there.


                I backspaced a lot here so my comments are probably repetitive

                  first and third points hold water, sure.

                  Your second, which I feel is the crux of the argument to a degree (that trading with him would have consequences thus driving the value down, the other points don't really address value) doesn't apply because it was a SCM sale, which we don't give consequences for.

      https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198086070401#!/compare/1497225600/1497830400 - clean sale at 70 here. 75 (and maybe even 67 pure) is not an outlier any more.