Are new traits no longer very valuable?

[dakillakm Resident]

(02-28-2013 02:19 PM)Bea Shamrock Wrote:  oh yes! definitely. Dominant = ewwwwwwww!!!!!!!!

Sadly that's what I feel a large part of the community is feeling.

While I know you are right that there are breeders out there who shy away from anything dominant, I know there are lots of breeders like myself plodding along with our beloved aby lilacs, ody sorbets, or plush whiskers, etc. I think the THEORY behind higher prices for more recessive would be the fact that they would be harder to discover, harder to breed out, and useful for breeding more dominant traits as well. This doesn't actually happen in reality when fairly dominant furs, like aby blues which I lurvvvvv, seem certainly more RARE even if they aren't the most recessive. I guess the point I was making is that a few thousand lindens for a new middle of the chart trait seems reasonable if you like it and want it. Part of the reason, I would guess, people pay much more for more recessive new traits is that they won't be everywhere within a month. I'm thinking of recent examples like Foxie Auburn and Foxie Salt and Pepper. Auburns were fairly high priced but pretty quickly the priced drop because they were EVERYWHERE, doesn't mean they were any less cute but you're not going to pay a top dollar exclusive price for something that's readily available. Salt and Pepper, so far, hasn't popped up very much even though it's been nearly 3 months since its discovery.

But, you're definitely right Bea that this doesn't really account for why more recessive things are more pricey once they are well integrated into the market. I wonder if it's just because more recessive = more pricey or if there is more logic to it?

Hopefully this wasn't too rambling