Unpopular opinion on VCP an other "comp apps"

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Comps are stupid and unrealistic. These are collectibles and there is dedicated material cost or exact number. What someone bought and sold a card for yesterday is irrelevant to what I may buy and sell my card for.

How do you determine what a fair price is when you're buying or selling?

I think the term "comps" has a bad reputation. If you walk around a card show and decide to buy a card from the dealer who offers the best price on that card, you've used "comps".

If you have bought 10 T206 commons all in a similar condition over the past month for between $70-80 and you decline to buy another similar T206 today for $120 because you feel it's too much, you're using "comps".

If what you bought a card for influences what you try to sell that card for, you're using a "comp".

[Kidnapped18]

VCP is a tool. It is one of many tools to use at your disposal if you choose to and is not worthless. When valuing and evaluating what price to pay for cards you must use many different tools and factors not just one. Comps and previous prices for same/similar grade are a useful guide but nothing is set in stone until buyer and seller agree on final price.

[Exhibitman]

The utility of any tool depends on the purpose of the user.

Objectively rare cards do not transact enough for comps on them to be meaningful. I recently offered a card for sale that had not sold anywhere in any format in several years.

Mainstream postwar cards are common enough that comps are a reference point but eye appeal is more important. A fugly 7 is not worth as much as a blazing 6.

Modern cards are so commoditized that comps are ubiquitous because there are a ton of them and they all basically look the same.

[Baseballcrazy62]

Big VCP fan. It’s a great tool and I’m on it every day!

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by markf31

How do you determine what a fair price is when you're buying or selling?

.

I rarely sell any of my cards but buying is easy - I determine what the value is to me. I’m not concerned with what someone else valued a similar card at yesterday.

Value of a specific collectible is determined by a buyer and seller at that moment. If I buy a 52 Topps Mantle at a garage sale for 50 cents, the value of that exact card is 50 cents because that’s what I paid in cash for it. If I sell that same card for 1 million dollars, then the value of that specific card is now 1 million dollars because someone paid me that amount in cash.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

I rarely sell any of my cards but buying is easy - I determine what the value is to me. I’m not concerned with what someone else valued a similar card at yesterday.

Value of a specific collectible is determined by a buyer and seller at that moment. If I buy a 52 Topps Mantle at a garage sale for 50 cents, the value of that exact card is 50 cents because that’s what I paid in cash for it. If I sell that same card for 1 million dollars, then the value of that specific card is now 1 million dollars because someone paid me that amount in cash.

throwing ethics out the window, you of course are 'allowed' to operate this way as an individual (because our legal system doesn't punish economic exploitation as long as it conforms to a few very basic marketplace regulations) but this isn't how market dynamics work. in accordance with that, you waive your right to be disappointed when your expectations fail to conform with reality in most cases -- which means a failure to get what you want, whether its money for your card, or a card for your money.

this logic model collapses quickly and consistently in a collective marketplace where you are forced to contend with real world factors such as objectively constituted, framed and reframed market valuation as a shifting valuation at a global level over time. it has nothing to do with what you think anything is worth. you are a node in that global market; your behavior is either an outlier (which is buying a mantle for 50 cents, or selling it for 500m$ -- both of which would be taking advantage of someone else's market ignorance), or you conform to the market at large by offering fair going rates and standards for your products and services: again, in conformity to the global market. markets determine value as an ecosystem; market valuation is a reality. just because you are able to buy, lets say, a 30k card for 5 cents at a garage sale from an unaware seller -- or sell it for 1m to an unaware buyer, this is a predatory approach -- created on a case by case basis by a buyer or seller who is dictating terms in a pseudo-vacuum to an unaware buyer or seller. i don't think it needs much explaining why it is predatory to buy a '52 mantle from an elderly woman for 50 cents at a garage sale then turn around and sell it for whatever amount.

you are, in both circumstances, willfully taking advantage of unaware buyers and sellers under the guise of 'the card is worth what its worth to me'. this is why being educated in economics is important in the current climate, because good faith isn't enough. this is why i advise that buyers and sellers of any good or service become educated in the going rates in their respective industries to avoid being taken advantage of. unfortunately, this kind of behavior is and can be quite common.

^^ this post is not meant to be offensive, but to speak directly from a deep economical foundation. i hope none is taken; cheers!

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

throwing ethics out the window, you of course are 'allowed' to operate this way as an individual (because our legal system doesn't punish economic exploitation as long as it conforms to a few very basic marketplace regulations) but this isn't how market dynamics work. in accordance with that, you waive your right to be disappointed when your expectations fail to conform with reality in most cases -- which means a failure to get what you want, whether its money for your card, or a card for your money.

this logic model collapses quickly and consistently in a collective marketplace where you are forced to contend with real world factors such as objectively constituted, framed and reframed market valuation as a shifting valuation at a global level over time. it has nothing to do with what you think anything is worth. you are a node in that global market; your behavior is either an outlier (which is buying a mantle for 50 cents, or selling it for 500m$ -- both of which would be taking advantage of someone else's market ignorance), or you conform to the market at large by offering fair going rates and standards for your products and services: again, in conformity to the global market. markets determine value as an ecosystem; market valuation is a reality. just because you are able to buy, lets say, a 30k card for 5 cents at a garage sale from an unaware seller -- or sell it for 1m to an unaware buyer, this is a predatory approach -- created on a case by case basis by a buyer or seller who is dictating terms in a pseudo-vacuum to an unaware buyer or seller. i don't think it needs much explaining why it is predatory to buy a '52 mantle from an elderly woman for 50 cents at a garage sale then turn around and sell it for whatever amount.

you are, in both circumstances, willfully taking advantage of unaware buyers and sellers under the guise of 'the card is worth what its worth to me'. this is why being educated in economics is important in the current climate, because good faith isn't enough. this is why i advise that buyers and sellers of any good or service become educated in the going rates in their respective industries to avoid being taken advantage of. unfortunately, this kind of behavior is and can be quite common.

^^ this post is not meant to be offensive, but to speak directly from a deep economical foundation. i hope none is taken; cheers!

This reads like an economics textbook.

If I find a 52 Mantle at a garage sale and the seller wants 50 cents, how am I taking advantage of them? I gave them their asking price. I also collect vintage Pyrex and depression glass. If I buy a Pyrex dish for $1 at a yard sale and I value it at $30, am I taking advantage of anyone? Nope.

If the “fair market value” of a card is $10 and two buyers get into a frenzy and the winner pays $500, is that the FMV now for that card? No, it’s what the winning buyer felt that the value of THAT card was TO HIM at THAT MOMENT in time, otherwise he wouldn’t have paid that amount.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

This reads like an economics textbook.

If I find a 52 Mantle at a garage sale and the seller wants 50 cents, how am I taking advantage of them? I gave them their asking price. I also collect vintage Pyrex and depression glass. If I buy a Pyrex dish for $1 at a yard sale and I value it at $30, am I taking advantage of anyone? Nope.

If the “fair market value” of a card is $10 and two buyers get into a frenzy and the winner pays $500, is that the FMV now for that card? No, it’s what the winning buyer felt that the value of THAT card was TO HIM at THAT MOMENT in time, otherwise he wouldn’t have paid that amount.

we can agree to disagree! my point is about ethics and economic theory at a macro/global scale. each individual entity within said system is allowed to do whatever they want within that context, but it doesn't change that context at large. you may make an impact within that context based on your individual/personal decisions, but by and large one person rarely if ever disturbs the market with outlier behavior.

it becomes a larger question about ethics and conduct within marketplaces + conscious awareness of how your behavior impacts others. markets collapse because of increasing lack of context, macroeconomic awareness, and consciousness of how individual decisions impact the global whole. its well precedented historically; ties, fascinatingly enough, into the history of the rise and fall of global empires. furthermore -- some people place ethics in a religious context, others in an intrapersonal context about good faith. your behavior and your decisions are always your own, i'm just providing the macroeconomic background to the microeconomic stage you're setting with your stance and decision making.

i have a ton of economics background, so i'm not surprised it sounds like something you might read in a textbook or a academic article or published document! hopefully it was helpful, even if you choose not to take any of it with you and proceed as you were. it is ultimately of no consequence to me, as i have no claim to nor desire to control human behavior, perhaps only create the possibility of influencing it for the collective human good!

cheers!
david

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by dbussell12

we can agree to disagree! my point is about ethics and economic theory at a macro/global scale. each individual entity within said system is allowed to do whatever they want within that context, but it doesn't change that context at large. you may make an impact within that context based on your individual/personal decisions, but by and large one person rarely if ever disturbs the market with outlier behavior.

it becomes a larger question about ethics and conduct within marketplaces + conscious awareness of how your behavior impacts others. markets collapse because of increasing lack of context, macroeconomic awareness, and consciousness of how individual decisions impact the global whole. its well precedented historically; ties, fascinatingly enough, into the history of the rise and fall of global empires. furthermore -- some people place ethics in a religious context, others in an intrapersonal context about good faith. your behavior and your decisions are always your own, i'm just providing the macroeconomic background to the microeconomic stage you're setting with your stance and decision making.

i have a ton of economics background, so i'm not surprised it sounds like something you might read in a textbook or a academic article or published document! hopefully it was helpful, even if you choose not to take any of it with you and proceed as you were. it is ultimately of no consequence to me, as i have no claim to nor desire to control human behavior, perhaps only create the possibility of influencing it for the collective human good!

cheers!
david

David,

You’ve mentioned ethics a few times now, and that troubles me. What is unethical about giving someone their asking price of 50 cents? Caveat venditor applies as equally as caveat emptor.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just buy and sell collectibles at what we felt they were worth instead of what everyone else felt that they were worth or what they read out of a price guide?

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

David,

You’ve mentioned ethics a few times now, and that troubles me. What is unethical about giving someone their asking price of 50 cents? Caveat venditor applies as equally as caveat emptor.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just buy and sell collectible’s at what we felt they were worth instead of what everyone else felt that they were worth or what they read out of a price guide?

you raise a good point; i'm here for it. i think the primary thing we keep bumping up against here is the reality of market value. its something that neither you nor i have any significant influence over. your mantle example is a good point. if i feel that a mickey mantle 52 topps in VG/EX condition is worth 50 cents, and the old woman who is hosting the yard sale also feels the same, we have a theoretical match right?

this is where ethics comes into play. both you and i know that that 52 topps mantle is worth far more than 50 cents. the woman who is hosting the yard sale is 'market unaware', or, in street terms, 'prepared to be taken for a ride'. we both objectively know the real value of a mantle; the reason we know it to be thus is because we live in a market ecosystem of transactions which verify said value.

this is a really interesting point, because it gets us to what constitutes value. i can buy a de kooning right now for hundreds of millions of dollars. insane, right? because objectively to me de kooning paints like absolute shit. but everyone has their opinion. knowing, and having context for this market reality, i can demand my real price that its worth to me, $5. and i may actually in a wild subjective context get that, like a 50 cent 52 mantle at a garage sale.

however -- here's where philosophy of ethics and economics collide -- i am acting in patently bad faith pretending like that de kooning is worth only $5, just as i am pretending that that mantle '52 is only worth 50 cents. it may be worth 50 cents to you because you hate mantle or don't care about baseball cards, but the market does not value it the same way. so you have to ask yourself, in a deep philosophical way, why am i buying this card if its worthless to me?

perhaps, like a rare few, you are simply buying a piece of junk to play with it for awhile then toss it. but if you know that mantle is worth five or even six figures and you buy it from an old woman at a garage sale for 50 cents, you have to ask yourself if you are really standing in good faith. each person is entitled their individual action in a marketplace, including, as we well observe, theft and exploitation which goes unpunished by legal systems around the world. markets survive and thrive because of regular good faith transactions, even among patently exploitative ones, like destroying an ecosystem to prop up a national economy. markets collapse because of regular bad faith transactions -- they erode trust and destroy the concept of collective value -- which philosophically is tied directly to meaning. here, you get to the root of the problem. market value, like meaning in nations and communities -- is collectively constructed. it is a composite of individual beliefs of value. the whole thing, as your question reveals; as i sometimes wish i wasn't so aware of, is constructed entirely of a tapestry of belief -- perceived meaning en masse.

philosophy of ethics and economics -- as above, are intimate bedfellows. to act in 'good faith', here, is to pay the old woman what her mantle is worth -- knowing what we know about the market value of the object itself: even if she doesn't know it; even if we think its only worth 50 cents. otherwise, we're leveraging market knowledge over someone else who is unsuspecting and doesn't know any better. you could call this hoodwinking, exploitation of lack of awareness, et cetera. but it is ultimately the fact that you know the true collectively constructed market value that creates duality here -- this duality being 'good faith' or 'bad faith' transaction. ethics is human conduct with and towards one another. markets are human transactions of goods, services, materials, and knowledge with one another. the two are absolutely, utterly, profoundly inseparable.

i admire your question and willingness to inquire further here. what your question really reveals is the difference between subjective value and objective valuation. its part of why, personally, i enjoy baseball cards so much. that tip top bread 1910 common that everyone passes by is something easily obtainable for me -- because it holds a hotbed of deep historical and philosophical meaning that the market doesn't yet understand or is not yet aware of. is this exploitative? perhaps. and that begs a deeper question about what real value is and how markets understand it and attempt to contextualize it. van gogh sold only a couple paintings in his lifetime; for pennies considering what his work is worth on the global market now. was he swindled out of those paintings (looking back)? definitely. but in and at the time he sold it? they were the bare few paintings he could sell! ethically, without a doubt, all of those transactions would be constituted as in 'good faith'... in fact, they even helped a desperate painter! he lived in a world that thought his paintings were worthless at the time... so much that they couldn't be sold, really, for any amount. if only he could see the way that the collective imagination changed; reconstituted that market value. if i were to buy what i knew to be a van gogh for pennies from an unsuspecting inheritor of one of those paintings he sold in his lifetime... we're in a very different world ethically!

is my 1910 tip top bread common worth more than what the market values it at? i think so -- but this is the depth of questioning into philosophy, ethics, and economics that makes this conversation so provocative and thought-provoking. (i even have to ask myself -- am i imagining that this 1910 tip top bread 1910 common is worth anything at all!!

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

David,

You’ve mentioned ethics a few times now, and that troubles me. What is unethical about giving someone their asking price of 50 cents? Caveat venditor applies as equally as caveat emptor.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just buy and sell collectibles at what we felt they were worth instead of what everyone else felt that they were worth or what they read out of a price guide?

You're certainly welcome to buy and sell at what you think something is worth. The problem is you have to find someone else who agrees with your desired price, which, if you're wildly different from what other similar cards have recently sold for, will probably be difficult to do.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

Value of a specific collectible is determined by a buyer and seller at that moment. If I buy a 52 Topps Mantle at a garage sale for 50 cents, the value of that exact card is 50 cents because that’s what I paid in cash for it. If I sell that same card for 1 million dollars, then the value of that specific card is now 1 million dollars because someone paid me that amount in cash.

If I buy a 1990 Fleer Jose Uribe for $30,000 that doesn't mean it's worth $30,000, and if I buy a 1952 Mantle for 50 cents that doesn't mean it's worth 50 cents. The value of a specific collectible is its market price - the equilibrium price at which buyers are willing to buy it and sellers are willing to sell it in general.

That's a basic explanation which obviously doesn't work well for rare cards - but for cards like a 1952 Mantle, the market is what determines the price of a card - the general trend of sales, not a single sale.

[dbussell12]

Originally Posted by John1941

If I buy a 1990 Fleer Jose Uribe for $30,000 that doesn't mean it's worth $30,000, and if I buy a 1952 Mantle for 50 cents that doesn't mean it's worth 50 cents. The value of a specific collectible is its market price - the equilibrium price at which buyers are willing to buy it and sellers are willing to sell it in general.

That's a basic explanation which obviously doesn't work well for rare cards - but for cards like a 1952 Mantle, the market is what determines the price of a card - the general trend of sales, not a single sale.

well said; a 52 mantle is a great example of market determination precisely because it is a prominent, (relatively) widely available [compared to many other very, very scarce cards] and well documented good

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by John1941

If I buy a 1990 Fleer Jose Uribe for $30,000 that doesn't mean it's worth $30,000, and if I buy a 1952 Mantle for 50 cents that doesn't mean it's worth 50 cents. The value of a specific collectible is its market price - the equilibrium price at which buyers are willing to buy it and sellers are willing to sell it in general.

That's a basic explanation which obviously doesn't work well for rare cards - but for cards like a 1952 Mantle, the market is what determines the price of a card - the general trend of sales, not a single sale.

If you buy a 1990 Jose Uribe for $30,000, then the value of that specific card (the one in your hands) to you is $30,000 because that’s what you paid for it in cash. That doesn’t mean that every 1990 Uribe is worth $30,000…just the one you chose to drop 30K on.

[campyfan39]

This is how I feel.
When I started this thread, I never imagined a VCP rep or owner (IDK)would be on here. Net 54 is awesome!

This board is great, but my original point still stands, especially for raw cards. They cannot track most sales that occur.
I only collect pure (raw) and have cracked out hundreds. I cracked out a 1952 Mathews two days ago for my permanent collection. That skews all of their data IMO, especially if I ever sell it.

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

I rarely sell any of my cards but buying is easy - I determine what the value is to me. I’m not concerned with what someone else valued a similar card at yesterday.

Value of a specific collectible is determined by a buyer and seller at that moment. If I buy a 52 Topps Mantle at a garage sale for 50 cents, the value of that exact card is 50 cents because that’s what I paid in cash for it. If I sell that same card for 1 million dollars, then the value of that specific card is now 1 million dollars because someone paid me that amount in cash.