[mintacular]

inflated due to bad #'s ginned up by hobby guides (basically I'm talking about Beckett) OR a misinterpretation of those values by those who do not accurately factor in condition with the "Hi" value listed in these publications....

Not interested in bashing Beckett or discounting the "low book" (which nobody uses) but want to really get at if Beckett is more at fault for false valuation OR if people are just not accurately making the adjustments for lower than NM values. Technically, Beckett technically adds a table which in truth brings the NM value down to market evel if you do the math as one should. For example, an "Ex" card for cards 60-70s should really only be 20-40% of NM bK example a $80 NM card (ex: 1970 Mays) should be "worth" $!6-34 which is what they tend to sell for.

OMG I accidentally just defended Beckett's B.S. price guide!