Posted By:
davidcyclebackRecord prices are often not reflective of the value, so I take them with a big grain of salt.
For example, after the first 1 or 2 get their cards for their registry, the sales
often drop dramatically. The 3rd, 4th and 5th sales may be more reflective of the
value. The 1997 SI For Kids Tiger Woods once sold for $100,000, and nobody considers
that a relation to the card's value. Even at the time, the $3 million paid
for the Mark McGwire 70 home run ball was considered looney money.
We all know about the bigger fool theory of selling ("A fool who paid too much only
has to find a bigger fool to pay more"). A record amount sometimes is the amount the
a biggest fool would pay.
A seller will realize that if the biggest fool needs only one card, once he buys it, the sales
prices for the card will drop. This is because the biggest fool is no longer buying.
I'm not suggesting record prices are not relevant information, just that I don't take
them take them as automatic statement of value. Almost by definition, records
in any area will by the home of aberations.
In figure skating, they average the judges' scores after throwing out the highest
and lowest scores. I like this approach towards analysing information: start by
tossing out the extremes at both ends.