09-29-2010, 11:51 PM
It's all very relative, and I think it depends on how much disposable income each person has. What can be deemed "a reasonable limit for the price of a doll" can only ever be based on one's individual circumstances, and not any truly objective standard. Such a thing can't be generalized. After all, even what some here have mentioned as the limit they think a doll should ever be worth, might like to consider that in some parts of the world even the average of $90-$100 for a regular release Pullip sounds laughably insane to people who barely eke out a living or make enough to eat or clothe themselves (sadly this is true of a very large number of the world's population).
I think the only real measure of how much each person should spring for a doll they really like depends on whether they will be inconvenienced in any way by that purchase. If you're scrimping and saving and borrowing, then even the price of a regular release and still widely available Pullip is too much. But if you're the Maharani of India, well, you get my drift
Also, what's the difference between spending $1000 on ten dolls or $1000 on one doll, if that's what someone prefers? It's still the same amount of money going into this lovely yet rather frivolous hobby. What makes one better than the other? Is having many cheap items better than having one e
ensive one? Is the person with a lot of cheaper dolls somehow better or more clever than a person who buys one really eensive doll? And is the person who can afford to do both somehow silly or bad or something? :/
Basically to be against the idea of uber-eensive dolls is to be against the idea of sports cars, haute couture, designer jewelry, 6-star hotels etc. etc. It's a kind of reverse-superiority complex that looks down on luxury in general. It really doesn't make sense.
Unless you're the bare-bones essentials kind of person who believes in only buying what one needs to survive and donating all the rest to charity. But I don't think that really applies to any of us doll lovers here on DM
... Unless you'd like to argue that dolls are a living-essential. In that case I'd be very interested in hearing that argument... It might come in useful when I try to justify my eenses to my family 
I think the only real measure of how much each person should spring for a doll they really like depends on whether they will be inconvenienced in any way by that purchase. If you're scrimping and saving and borrowing, then even the price of a regular release and still widely available Pullip is too much. But if you're the Maharani of India, well, you get my drift
Also, what's the difference between spending $1000 on ten dolls or $1000 on one doll, if that's what someone prefers? It's still the same amount of money going into this lovely yet rather frivolous hobby. What makes one better than the other? Is having many cheap items better than having one e
ensive one? Is the person with a lot of cheaper dolls somehow better or more clever than a person who buys one really eensive doll? And is the person who can afford to do both somehow silly or bad or something? :/Basically to be against the idea of uber-e
ensive dolls is to be against the idea of sports cars, haute couture, designer jewelry, 6-star hotels etc. etc. It's a kind of reverse-superiority complex that looks down on luxury in general. It really doesn't make sense.Unless you're the bare-bones essentials kind of person who believes in only buying what one needs to survive and donating all the rest to charity. But I don't think that really applies to any of us doll lovers here on DM
... Unless you'd like to argue that dolls are a living-essential. In that case I'd be very interested in hearing that argument... It might come in useful when I try to justify my eenses to my family