The second card!

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

In niche set collecting there are several milestones, but to me the only card which beats the second one which you acquire is the last one!

Now I haven't yet gotten many last ones. But those that I have are a joy to sit back and look at. The first card, by comparison, is simply a place holder identifying the existence of an anticipated effort. But the second card is the start of that comittment!

You look at the two cards and visualize how more additions would appear. Then you gradually are overcome with a consuming desire to make progress.

For me, after a while of making progress, I opt for other first and second cards. And put the quest for completion of the started sets on the back burner.

That way, when additions come along, I grab them when I can, but I do not have the same intensity as I do in the beginning. But with each acquisition, I revisit the grouping and enjoy what I have assembled. Often I do that without a new acquisition.

So I wind up continuously seeking various cards with a high level of urgency. This results in me frequently paying top dollar for every card. In a continuously up market, this approach is partially justifiable. But I wonder how others view the price of cards. For example, the last card I won on eBay required a bid 20% higher than the Vintage Card Prices/Card Pricer program's price histories indicated.

To me +20% in this market is acceptable. How about you? Is any +% acceptable?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I don't limit myself to a +/- because if I did I might never get some cards I need. I think I am willing, and do, pay a little more for a card because it fits a need. I've realized that by trying to focus on Detroit players I end up narrowing my options and that drives my own, individual price up regardless of market.

Examples:

I BIN'd a T204 Ramly PSA 1 Charlie O'Leary for $125 off ebay. I think that is high for a PSA 1, even though as PSA 1's go this was not in bad shape at all. But I don't see too many Ramlys of any kind. Plus it was a Detroit player. Plus it wasn't some HOF'er that would drive the price up. Plus it was in a lower condition that I could afford. So a Ramly PSA 1 might not be worth $125 in general. But a Ramly of a non-HOF Detroit player in lower grade, affordable condition? It was worth $125 to me because I don't know when I will see another.

I also bought an E98 from a board member that I probably went a little high on. But Mullin is the only non-HOF Detroint player in that set, so in reality there was only one card that would fill my collection for E98 Detroit player.

So the short distillation of this long answer is ... I get a little fidgety when I know I've overpaid by a lot, but I also know that you have to grab the infrequent chances to fill some slots even if the price is a little high. I really don't worry about percent difference.

Because of this exact thing, I'm starting to just shift my collecting focus a tiny bit to include some non-Detroit players in sets I like (T205 NL'ers, some E cards and Obaks for example) just so I can pick up some nice looking cards at closer to market.

Joann