12 thoughts on “Ladies and Gentlemen: the Data”

1. I’d be interested to see if story type (along the lines of “evidence” and “fossil” mentioned above) played any part in the outcomes of the auctions. I’m have no idea how you would measure this into a quantifiable figure, but it would be interesting to see if humorous stories did better than dramatic ones? Did stories featuring famous people bring in higher prices that ones that didn’t? What about stories told in 1st person vs. 3rd person?

2. It seems to me that the data sort of busts a lot of common myths – famous people didn’t always fare as well as “ordinary” folk, objects can’t necessarily be grouped by type, or even by the type of story. And that means it emphasizes the randomness that is publishing and reader taste, which is actually kind of cool.

3. I think it’s the ‘visual’ impact that drives the purchase. For example, we have the Pool ball lighter at #47 with only a 6 word story versus the last item, porcelean scooter at #100 that’s about a 200 word poem plus a song!! What drove either of those items value-the item or the story/song?
   I don’t know but to me, the pool ball was more interesting, standing on its own as an object.

4. Yes, Joe, I think we’ll add story type to one of our tables, fairly soon. Would also be interesting to rate the stories as either “happy” or “sad,” say. Or first- or third-person. For example.

   But what, if anything, can we learn from this first table? Something this table helps me realize: its starting price might seem to play an important role in determining an object’s final price. Only one of our 10 initially least expensive items — that is, the Fake Banana — made it onto the Top 10 list of final prices. However, when you look at our 10 initially most expensive items you find that four of them — Cape Cod Shoe, Russian Figure, Metal Boot, “Hawk” Ashtray — made it onto the Top 10 list of final prices, while a fifth item from the Top 10 list of final prices (the Fish Spoons) is tied for our 11th initially most expensive item.

5. Male vs. Female Authors in the Final Price Top Ten (actually Eleven, because of three-way tie for ninth place)? Six men, five women (hope R.K. doesn’t mind people knowing she’s a woman), which I’d call a dead heat. No apparent sex/gender advantage. However — in the next ten top final prices after that, we find nine men. What to make of this?

   And here’s another factor: we ended up recruiting slightly more men than women — I think it’s a 57/43 split. Dang — it would have made our analysis that much easier if we’d recruited 50/50 instead.

6. I’d like to see the sales plotted against time.

7. Very cool. I’d be interested in seeing how the sequence played into it — the site got exponentially more popular as it went on, and it seems as if almost everyone on the bottom half went up in the early stages on the site.

8. OK, your wish is our command. We’ve just created a table (though not a chart) that shows hos the sequence may have affected sales prices. We’ll unveil it tomorrow or the next day!

9. I agree with meothertwin…the visual nature (whose appeal is entirely subjective) is a factor. But I can see why he/she wanted the cue ball. It drips with hipster irony. I would display it too. But my whole street cred would be DESTROYED by some of the other objects. I am just not confident enough to own them! 🙂 (I won’t name them, for fear of sending their buyers into a depressive I-did-not-realize-my-S.O.-is-hurting-my-rep states.)

   You clearly need an expensive psychiatrist to analyze the data against contemporary visual iconography, cultural currency, fragile psyches, adult hipster peer pressure trends, etc.

   Separately (and seriously), I was also attracted to the objects with short or graphic stories because I would have displayed them together with the S.O. I wanted them to fit neatly in a small frame or shadow box.

   Alas I was a loser-Loser-LOSER in all my bids.

10. Just to let you know, Jonathan Lethem’s Missouri shot glass would have sold for more than $76 had I not made a mistake in my esnipe account. I had a max bid of $105.50, so it would have sold for more than $76 if I had not made that mistake. Sorry Jonathan!

    For me the value of the object would be about 15% the appeal of the object itself and 85% the impact of the writing. I bought two books as a result of this project, having learned about it only a week before it came to an end.

    Thanks for making a mug available! The mug would have no significance were it not for this project, and the writing it gave us.

11. Pingback: The Data: Week by Week | Significant Objects

12. A Significant Objects fan who does quantitative research emailed to say:

    “Just for grins, I ran a correlation on the buying/selling price. Nothing there – at 0.15, there’s virtually no correlation. So, it must be the stories!”

    Jules, these factors you mention — yes! Keep ’em coming.