criterionforum.org

Florinaldo wrote:Is MoC sending the numbered box sets in strict numerical order according to when the order was placed or is it random?...I find it surprising that they would already have sold nearly 500 copies.

I ordered within 5 minutes of them going on sale and ended up with #51. (There, you got it out of me.) Also, they've not only sold 500 copies, but supposedly almost the entire run of 2,000.

A. For what earthly reason would they bother shipping these out in numerical sequence?
B. For those of you who are serious about these numbers, why do you think that a lower number of a limited edition is more significant than any other number?

Ishmael wrote:B. For those of you who are serious about these numbers, why do you think that a lower number of a limited edition is more significant than any other number?

Because collectors be collectors and people be insanely optimistic.

And I confess: I'm Ringo.

zedz wrote:Because collectors be collectors and people be insanely optimistic.

And I confess: I'm Ringo.

I clicked on that link. My head exploded.

At this point, an unnumbered set might be the true collector's item (I forgot to check which number I got and the box set it at home at present).

Don't the numbers just peel off anyway?

REAL collectors would try to obtain a full set of all 2000 numbers!

I seem to remember Kevin from Eureka saying *somewhere* that they'd received their allocation -all lowest numbers - on a pallet but with no order to the numbering and that they'd sent them out just in the order they came off the pallet. (Bet they looked out for number 1 though! )

I received mine yesterday (US East coast) and got #0003. I placed my direct order to Eureka mid-October, so it definitely does not correspond to order placement.

Arrived in perfect nick here in Kentucky. Number 19[/peerpressure]

effigy105 wrote:Arrived in perfect nick here in Kentucky. Number 19[/peerpressure]

Well that confirms something about how randomly the numbers were assigned. Picked up mine today, in Australia, and it's number 20!
(oh, and I didn't get the corrugated cardboard - I got a box inside a box, with enough masking tape over every join and corner that it took a good five minutes to finally get it out) And I preordered a couple of days AFTER the 'we're going to sell out' tweet.

It's odd that so many people here are getting numbers in the double digits

The set I'm returning to amazon was in the 700s.

Cine Outsider review.

rwaits wrote:Arrived in Atlanta. I am floored by how gorgeous this set looks. Very well done MoC.

Damn, that's not encouraging. Still nothing here as of Saturday's delivery and I'm in Atlanta as well (ordered October 15).

I received my copy from Base.com today.
I am pleased to announce it is #1902.
Naturally, the only reason why we all post the number of our beloved set is that we don't want to end up with a fake.
Imagine someone claiming to have a set boasting the exact same number as yours ! What a nightmare, what a tragedy !

David Locke wrote:I received my copy from Base.com today.
I am pleased to announce it is #1902.
Naturally, the only reason why we all post the number of our beloved set is that we don't want to end up with a fake.
Imagine someone claiming to have a set boasting the exact same number as yours ! What a nightmare, what a tragedy !

Actually, I've read someone saying his set had no number at all. So, you know...

In further proof that life isn't fair, I was one of the last people to order before they actually started shipping out and my package arrived today in Baltimore with the low low number #0014

Contrary to popular belief, the higher numbers are really better than the low ones. (It's no more self-evident one way than the other.)

Numbers divisible by seven are luckiest, though, that much is certain

I'm mostly just jealous that domino somehow got mail today.

It was delivered by a veteran who thanked me for my service

#664 from Amazon in a crap packing job. Only two away from the only one I was secretly hoping for.

Prime numbers are best.

I thought irrational ones were.

knives wrote:I thought irrational ones were.

But MOC didn't hand out any with such numbers. They leave irrationality to us. ;~}