04-30-2014, 11:57 AM
|
 |
pete ullman
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: saint paul, mn
Posts: 11,501
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by the 'stache
I'm going to have to disagree with you and Matt here, Pete. Respectfully so, of course. No, I do not feel this card deserves it, and I'll tell you why.
No extraordinary comment about the quality of the card in question has been made by me, the potential bidder, or anybody else really. I said it was a "pretty nice" card. I certainly do not see anything aesthetically superior about this card compared to similarly-graded cards. In fact, based on a comparison of the two scans provided, I think the PSA 3.5 being sold by PWCC has slightly better eye appeal, and of the two cards, that would be the one deserving of a premium, in my opinion. Therefore, to my thinking anyway, the bid history we are seeing with this card is not at all merit based. It is not realizing a more robust price because of how it looks. This is simply schill bidding for shill bidding's sake. The seller wants to ensure that their card sells for a certain amount, not because they feel there is something intrinsically special about the card, but because they want more green in their pocket.
I would have no problem whatsoever paying more for a card if it had superior eye appeal to those of an identical grade. I have examined the price history for this particular card on card target. I could certainly do the same on VCP, paying for a 24 hour membership. And if after establishing a baseline I saw a card that exceeded my expectations for the grade, I'd have no problem paying a premium. Eye appeal is very important to me. But I just don't see anything extraordinary about this card. I have seen fours with sharp corners and edges that present better than this card.
|
Bill...I was being facetious...I think the concept of "being happy for a card" is kinda ridiculous!!!!
|
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
