I find this statement confusing.... I know we can't really go into longterm price comparisons as this is still a young market, but I seem to think about this in a different way than most .... Of course this may only make sense to me, but here goes.

I think co-doms will hold their value better than recessives in the long-run. For an example I will compare pastels to albinos.

Albino male (aa): $2k
Albino Het male (aN): $100

Now a fair comparison to the pastel morph on genetics would be.

Super Pastel male (pp): $8k
Pastel male: $400

The albino takes as much work to hatch out as a super pastel when you consider genetics, and a regular pastel takes as much work as a het albino. If you compare those prices, the pastel morph is still about 4 times as expensive as the albino. One thing co-doms have going for them is that their "hets" are visible. A better way to talk about it for comparing to albinos would be to say that a pastel is really a het super pastel. Because it is a visible het, there are less issues with being "uncertain" or having to "prove out" the morph.

I don't see a super pastel becoming cheaper than an Albino anytime soon, so it appears that even this co-dom morph is still holding its value well...

The only way that recessives may hold their value better longterm, is if people don't get involved in them as much because of the "blind" aspect when dealing with hets. This ends up requiring a lot more work to prove out possible hets, and requires keeping more snakes around... a homozgyous albino , it becomes easy to ascertain the genetics involved in the project as you switch to producing only 100% hets.

I see recessives getting an edge in fewer people taking them on, but losing the edge because of how easy co-doms are to work with and identify. There is always the "wow" factor of a recessive, but in the end, there is more pay-off when working with co-doms as you can produce more visibles, and still have a "wow" factor super form.

Did any of that make sense?