What are you talking about? 😂 I'd give my buyorder price for it anytime

You cannot reject something as a quicksale like that; you yourself even said that you did not know how long it took to sell.

The largest flaw in most of your points here is that everything is built around the assumption that 1000 is the right value (instead of the other way round, where everything points towards it being the right value), while in reality, the fact that we dont know if that is the case is why this does not work. For instance, you're fully basing the "quicksale" tag on the first sale on that it was flipped for more, but what if 1000 was just a lucky sale?

The same goes for the second argument - you assume that because it was flipped for 1000, 400 is too low, but it could just as well be that 1000 was just an extravagant collectors purchase, which are not uncommonly far above what anyone else would pay. Anything done in this regard is a guess, and you can't really make an objective decision with them.

The same goes for the last argument here. The tier comparison you present, where you say that "in reality" it is the 8th most expensive bonzo, puts this amidst the mid-high tier allclasses and some miscs, while its a mid-tier heavy only hat. That tier comparison does not at all say 1000 is the right value. In fact, your tier comparison would make this the most expensive heavy hat by a landslide, even surpassing any heavy misc (except for the sleeveless). Looking at the bonzos: All other heavy hats would actually imply 400 is a more appropriate value here, so if that would bear any weight here it would actually point towards 1000 as the outlier. Of course, on something as unpredictable as bonzo hats, this does not work for a plethora of reasons, but I find it odd it's listed here as an argument for 1000.

The first argument is not necessarily a wrong one, but the conclusions drawn are not justifiable. Rarity is definitely taken into consideration and the more are available, the less likely we are to resort to something as crazy as any of the examples you'll find, but actually that's primarily because these cases never occur in more common items.

For this, it does not really matter to us if an item is discontinued or not, save for maybe very new items (and even there we wait and see if we get more and if we dont we end up making a decision based on the current situation). We cant close a suggestion because 'there is a possibility that one gets unboxed to tip the scales'. Who is to say bonzo isn't re-released at some point? In your own words, that chance is >0.

In addition, I'm relatively sure that unusual nohs are also discontinued; even if unofficially - I dont think I've ever witnessed one being unboxed in the time I've worked for (or even have been using) this site. Besides, that's more of an argument against those cases rather than one for this case.

That leaves us with the crux of the arguments (the bonzo tier comparison notwithstanding). Aside from the fact that the math is severely off (in that 15% is a fully arbitrary number as it does not coincide with any of the potential values, and most definitely not with the suggested), this is exactly why such insanely ranging sales are so bothersome. Lets take the hypothetical case that 400 would have been the correct value, but it is suggested at 1000. In this case, 1000 is much further off the "real" value than 66 is. Say we take the insane range of 400-1000; it would represent such an insane margin of error (700+- 300, which we can't really represent in our values).

Of course you cant work with these numbers in a statistical manner because there are too few data points, and this is a problem in general with these huge ranges, which brings us back to the case I have based my arguments on in this particular scenario. I'm fine with larger ranges, especially on hats with multiple sales to go by, or new hats that have a bunch of sales, where it would be really hard to set a value if going by potential counter evidence, but I do think that there should be a limit somewhere. If this continues, eventually we'll reach the point where our sales are 200 and 2000. The question is then: where do we draw the line? and for me, even in the case of extreme exceptions, it has always been the point where the range becomes larger than the low end. The 99-200 case was one that was justifiable by rounding, but then eventually, people will start to see the extraordinary exceptions to already existing rule exceptions as the new standard, and when the next range is 98-200 they will say "but its almost the same".

Its also why Im not a fan of granting leniency regarding the 3 month cutoff for sale validity in most single sale cases even though that is an arbitrarily determined period of time. If its only one day, you could argue there's no harm, and then 2-4 days - who cares. But then its a week and people will say "thats only a few days more than this 4 day case, so its probably fine". Eventually there'll be a point where we say no, and people will feel mistreated and point to the exceptions saying "but why was this accepted then?".

I feel like the same in happening right now with this rule exception, and I dont like where this is heading. Thats why im currently discussing with the other moderators if we should incorporate an absolute maximum acceptable range, which I feel is needed right now, for cases just like this one.