prices are subjective

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw 

Just another example of how a card is worth what two people will pay and sell it for: I purchased a 1971 Topps PSA 7 #752 Dick Drago for $5.50. This is the last card in the set, a hi #. Nobody wanted it, I guess, besides me. Remember, it's all subjective.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

The hobby market is inefficient, and the dealer makes his/her living on this inefficiency (disparity betwen sell prices of the same item). In fact, a side effect of a good dealer is that he helps make the market more effiecient and consumer friendly. This is exemplified by the dealer who buys bulk, then it into singles for the normal collector who only wants one or two, and couldn't afford the original bulk lot must less want it.

If one were to say to a profitable dealer, "Man, the prices are all over the board on this type of stuff," the dealer might respond, "I know. That's how I make my living."

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I add that the biggest source of the ineficiency is not so much due to the hobby's economic system, as due to the buying public.

For example: I once had a 13-card uncut panel of those super tiny 1943 bubblegum cards (Don't have my SCD with me so don't know the number. Something like M321 or such). The panel had a variety of nice players, featuring highest Joe DiMaggio and Babe Ruth. I tried selling the panel twice in a sale for ~$70 and both times it didn't sell. I put it on eBay with min of $60-- didn't sell. Finally, I took apart the panel into singles (perforated edges) and put the singles on eBay, just a few days after the first auction ended. Ruth sold for ~$95, the DiMaggio for ~$145, and the rest of the cards for around $60 total.

As I said, the buying public is the major source of ineficiency, not the system.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I correct myself by pointing out that the buying public is a part of, not seperate from, the hobby's economic system.