Sad State of the Hobby

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by ASF123

This is an interesting thread. For those arguing that the original buyer was “taking advantage” of the seller - how far does that argument go? Does a buyer have an affirmative duty to contact a seller and say “Hey, your price on this is way low - let me give you 2x” or whatever?

I've always noticed that there's a fairly stringent efficient market type of expectation here among many (that I never would've expected or rarely saw when I was dealing in high school during the junk wax era).

Well beyond what happened in the story here. Some seem very uncomfortable when an $850 card sells for either 700 or 1000, as if that was some sort of major screw job to either the buyer or seller.

During those dealing days, I had to find ways to make it worthwhile. One of them was raiding quarter and dollar boxes at the local shows right after the new monthly Beckett came out (and looking for cards that had just shot up). Was this taking advantage of the seller? Am I supposed to point out that he didn't bother to take a (now) $5 card out of the dollar box? Most of them would've looked at me annoyed and said something like "if it's there, that's what it costs"

And as some have mentioned, everyone has ample resources to figure out what something is worth nowadays. Unless it's something really egregious (or one party is purposely misdirecting info to the detriment of the other), this taking advantage concept about selling price gets taken too far sometimes.

As far as this spot, I think a $2000 deal to sell cards that were worth maybe twice that (we don't even know since they weren't graded) should have been honored by the seller. He was in the wrong for reneging to get 3200 elsewhere

[clydepepper]

Three Word Solution:


BST