Dynadot

GreatDomains auction "full" results (July 2009)

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Sameh

NameMarket.comTop Member
Impact
356
I watched GreatDomains (July 2009) auction and here are the full results :




---------------
reserve met
---------------

libel.com $9,999
5b.com $9,999
pinkdiamond.com $7,999
echannel.com $7,000
vru.com $7,000
09.net $5,000
zwm.com $3,556
sends.com $3,400
copycenter.com $3,203
beddings.com $3,105
rebounds.com $2,800
rockfm.com $2,601
washroom.com $2,277 (1,600 EUR)
transporting.com $2,134 (1,500 EUR)
attending.com $1,750
rise.net $1,550
final.net $1,450
bombing.com $1,450
massaged.com $1,201
result.net $1,051
evidence.net $1,050
uve.net $1,050
robbed.com $888
propose.net $875
routed.com $800
routine.net $509
bladed.com $509
moderate.net $499
mbq.net $449
imageguide.com $115


---------------
reserve not met
---------------

Domain | Highest Bid | (Reserve Price Range)

neptune.com $9,900 (100,000 - 249,999 $US)
izt.com $3,801 (1,000 - 4,999 $US)
mzw.com $3,779 (1,000 - 4,999 $US)
extraincome.com $3,600 (10,000 - 24,999 $US)
row.net $2,064 (1,000 - 4,999 $US)
paydaymoney.com $500 (5,000 - 9,999 $US)
seventy.net $141 (1 - 499 $US)
rupie.net no bids (1 - 499 $US)
tortes.net no bids (no reserve)




I hope you find it useful! :)
 
1
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
0
•••
Thanks for posting. Prices appear to be meeting expectations. A fairly clear picture of prices in the lower end of LLL.com is emerging.
 
0
•••
0
•••
0
•••
Pity Neptune.com didn't get sold, nice name!
 
0
•••
Attending.com was a nice buy! Perfect for an Event site!

I like Robbed.com as well.

Thanks for the results.
 
0
•••
the prices are pretty low across the board, especially for the .net names
 
0
•••
tortes.net no bids (no reserve)
....
looks strange... nobody offered even a dime
 
0
•••
beddings.com sold for $3,105?!? oh my goodness! i've been eyeing for that domain for some time. i should've made a bid when it was still priced below $300...

poke! poke! poke!
 
0
•••
errr.. is beddings with that "s" behind grammatically correct ?
 
0
•••
Agreed about the grammatical issues surrounding beddings.net.

Then again, grammar has nothing to do with business, right?

Shocked by the low LLL.net pricing. Excellent opportunity for buyers all around with all the current desperate selling given the economic times. Sure am glad we have held on to our portfolio through the last 36 months!

Rob
 
0
•••
Shocked by the low LLL.net pricing. Excellent opportunity for buyers all around with all the current desperate selling given the economic times.

The sales look in line with other lll.net sales to me.


Sure am glad we have held on to our portfolio through the last 36 months!

Rob

Why? The market peaked 2 years ago (and probably more like one year ago for lll), surely that was the time to sell?
 
0
•••
The sales look in line with other lll.net sales to me.

In the macro window (last 3 years yes)

Why? The market peaked 2 years ago (and probably more like one year ago for lll), surely that was the time to sell?

My point exactly. To me, 24 months is short term. We have investments that we have held for not very long (5-8 years) and others that we we have held a bit longer... and we do have a 15-20 year domain strategy :)

Of course, if it's about flipping, sure - there are also arguments to analyse market trends in the very short term (i.e 30 days, for example, flipping domains for 500% in 5 days or weeks, etc)... but my observations were more in terms of long term investors à la Schilling.

We have domains / active properties in pour portfolio that we wouldn't sell today, or in the next 5 years regardless of price...

:) Rob
 
0
•••
My point exactly. To me, 24 months is short term. We have investments that we have held for not very long (5-8 years) and others that we we have held a bit longer... and we do have a 15-20 year domain strategy :)

Of course, if it's about flipping, sure - there are also arguments to analyse market trends in the very short term (i.e 30 days, for example, flipping domains for 500% in 5 days or weeks, etc)... but my observations were more in terms of long term investors à la Schilling.

We have domains / active properties in pour portfolio that we wouldn't sell today, or in the next 5 years regardless of price...

:) Rob

Regardless of the length of your stretegy clearly the best time to sell was 1-2 years ago so I don't follow why you be glad you didn't sell when the market has obviously tanked since.
 
0
•••
How do you know when the best time to sell was? There are so many factors to consider.

Was it better to sell 1-2 years ago than now? Probably, if your buying base is the domainer market.

Is 1-2 years ago better than 5 years from now? It depends what type of domains you own and the future market for it.

The same business model will not fit for everyone, but there are plenty of ways to make money with different models.

Brad

Regardless of the length of your stretegy clearly the best time to sell was 1-2 years ago so I don't follow why you be glad you didn't sell when the market has obviously tanked since.
 
0
•••
How do you know when the best time to sell was? There are so many factors to consider.

The best time to sell was the end of 2007 for most names, and later into 2008 for lll. I'm not sure I see the point in being in denial of that despite what strategy you have.

Obviously those who did sell at that time did better than those who held. My post isn't about chrystal balls, I just don't see the point in saying you are glad you didn't sell at a time when the market was obviously considerably higher than today. It is a bit like saying you are glad you didn't sell your Google stock at $700 or that you are glad you held on to your art collection....sorry it isn't worth more today.
 
0
•••
sends.com $3,400

OMG!!

What a steal for that name *note to self don't use GreatDomains for selling good quality names*
 
0
•••
I won a few on there :) Dunno how I missed sends.com, that was a steal. :red:
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back