{"id":68638,"date":"2007-04-19T15:31:59","date_gmt":"2007-04-19T15:31:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wordpress-305716-980974.cloudwaysapps.com\/2007\/04\/food_for_though.html"},"modified":"2007-04-19T15:31:59","modified_gmt":"2007-04-19T15:31:59","slug":"food_for_though","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.vinylpulse.com\/2007\/04\/food_for_though.html","title":{"rendered":"Food For Thought: Do Boxes Matter?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[ed: Clay C. <\/strong>sent us this piece on a subject I’m sure we’ve all thought about and have varying opinions on — the importance of keeping toy boxes.  Give it a read and please let us know what you think.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I’m wondering, as I look over the pile of toy boxes …  <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Five times the volume of the toys they once contained …<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Do Boxes Matter?<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Obviously, some boxes are intrinsically cool works of art.  Whether or
\nnot to keep those boxes is purely a matter of enjoyment.  Some
\npeople seem to prefer the look of displays in boxes (or if not prefer
\nit, tolerate it in order to preserve the boxes), and we can see from diorama
\ninteriors and the like becoming more common that manufacturers are
\naware of this trend.  <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Some people’s toys will pass to their heirs, and then to further heirs, and
\nit will never matter whether there’s a box<\/span> or its condition, because they’ll
\nnever be sold.  But the rest, the other 90% of these toys, will
\neventually be sold — to someone, sometime.  I’m not referring to flippers
\nhere – people’s tastes change, they focus or specialize their collections, they
\nneed cash – there are lots of good reasons things get sold.  And, we’d all
\nrather make a little than lose a little, when we sell.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
As a general matter in antique toys, the boxes matter very much.  But,
\nthe reason for that is primarily scarcity.  When toys were only for
\nchildren to play with, very few toys survived in even good condition and vastly
\nfewer survived with their box<\/span> likewise.  If there are 500 surviving
\nextant 1900 Tin Fezzelwippits, and only a dozen of those are mint with mint
\nboxes, then the box<\/span> is often worth far more than the toy itself.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

However, it can never be the same when there are, for example, 500
\nextant Black KAWS Dissecteds, and 478 of them still have their boxes, and 211 of
\nthose are still mint\/mint.  10 years from now, assuming that any of these
\ntoys will then be worth even their original retail price (a massive assumption,
\nbut bear with me), is the presence or condition of a box<\/span> going to matter
\nmuch?  At all?  When the ‘standard’ condition is MIMB, a toy with no
\nbox<\/span> might take a relatively small hit in the future, but it seems unlikely that
\nwe’ll ever see a situation remotely like the current antique toy market,
\nwhere a box<\/span> can geometrically increase value.  There is another possibility
\nof course, that art toys and boxes could go the route of baseball cards, with
\nelaborate grading systems for nearly invisible flaws.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
I’m just thinking … already, common items do not lose much value without
\na box<\/span>, and that trend seems likely to continue.  If the absence of a box<\/span>,
\nin a market where the vast majority have boxes, means that the price only takes
\na 10 or 15% hit, I could see deciding that the hassle of keeping and storing and
\nmoving all of the empty boxes indefinitely is just … not worth it.  It
\nmay be that a lot of our labor in maintaining all of the boxes is now
\nnothing more than a hangover, a misplaced vestige of an act that once made
\nfinancial sense in other circumstances.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
I am guessing that something near 90% of all art toys out there still have
\ntheir original boxes safely stowed away.  (Excepting small platforms and
\nother toys where the boxes are fungible – though even there it’s probably
\n60%.)  If that number is even approaching right, boxes may not matter very
\nmuch at all to prices down the road.  This logic could also apply to
\ntoys sold with a bag and header card, although storage of those is rarely a
\nproblem.  Even there, I’d bet that a quarter or more of bagged toys are
\nstill living and even displayed in their original sealed bag, so not even those
\nwill ever be truly scarce.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n

<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

I intend no denigration to the artistic efforts that go into the boxes –
\nmuch of it is great.  But, most package design out in the rest of the
\ncommercial world is intended to create shelf appeal, to inspire someone to buy
\nthe product in the first place.  I believe that most art toys are sold to
\nbuyers who are already aware of what’s inside the box<\/span> – they have seen it on the
\nWeb or at a friend’s house, and the package design plays little or no part in
\ntheir buying decision.  If indeed we were all to collectively decide that
\nboxes do not matter for the most part, that boxes were intended solely to
\ngenerate shelf interest and to safely transport the products, it could be that
\nthe toy world would divide.  These are artists, so it is hard to imagine
\nthem selling in ‘plain brown wrappers,’ but that is certainly how one buys a
\nlimited edition print or fine-art sculpture.  If boxes were acknowledged as
\nnot contributing substantially to the long-term value of the toy, likely some
\nmanufacturers would make simpler packaging.  We do see more ‘kaiju’
\npackaging with bags and headers, which is nice for both the use of resources and
\nstorage at home.  In Japan, packaging is revered in many circumstances
\n(some bento boxes are ten times more beautifully wrapped than any Christmas
\npresent from Saks)  It may be that some manufacturers and artists would
\nfeel that beautiful packaging is an important part of the experience of buying
\nand opening the item, and continue to make elaborate packaging even if it were
\nnot considered the norm to retain it.<\/p>\n

-Clay C.\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[ed: Clay C. sent us this piece on a subject I’m sure we’ve all thought about and have varying opinions on — the importance of keeping toy boxes.  Give it a read and please let us know what you think. I’m wondering, as I look over the pile of toy boxes …    Five times … <\/p>\n