Philosophical Trading Question

[Exhibitman]

Fred:

Nope, no raw nerves here. I just find your analysis to be disingenuous. Your core argument is that there is something wrong with a collector who will not trade you a card you want on your terms. Sorry, but I don't buy that. I'd never tell a fellow collector what he should want or should be willing to take in trade for one of his cards. They're his cards, not mine, and his reasons for not wanting to make a trade are as valid as my reasons for wanting to make a trade. In my view, it is presumptuous to suggest otherwise.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Fred:

Nope, no raw nerves here. I just find your analysis to be disingenuous. Your core argument is that there is something wrong with a collector who will not trade you a card you want on your terms. Sorry, but I don't buy that. I'd never tell a fellow collector what he should want or should be willing to take in trade for one of his cards. They're his cards, not mine, and his reasons for not wanting to make a trade are as valid as my reasons for wanting to make a trade. In my view, it is presumptuous to suggest otherwise.

The OP never tried to "out" the other collector and he simply was stating what happened and ASKED everyone for their opinion on the matter, not to judge him. And if he did try to "out" the other collector, he never said his name, so why would he care for that matter. For some odd reason a few people here on the board look way too far into these discussions and feel like there are more to it than there actually is. The OP seems like a good guy and isn't looking for anyone to bash this other board member, but would like some advice and insight.

He never said something was wrong with the collector just because he wouldn't sell to him on his terms. You really need to go back and reread his original post. Seems like you interpreted it the way you wanted to and not what it was actually meant for.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

He never said something was wrong with the collector just because he wouldn't sell to him on his terms.

Actually, he did make that assertion, repeatedly:

"if someone is working on a set that you have only one card from, that is a common, would you help out the other guy and trade the card? Forget the HOFer vs common, just the basic idea. Was I expecting too much? I have always tried to help other collectors in sinmilar situations where I could and this seemed like a slam dunk for a quick one for one trade."

--In other words, if the collector is willing to make the trade he is helpful to other collectors. If not, he isn't.

"If someone has just ONE card in the set ( and assuming Hank Sauer is not his boyhood hero, growing up in Chicago etc. as Frank mentioned, which I do not think is the case here) , and the other person is working on the set, isn't it common collector courtesy to trade the card if values and condition are equal? Why try to extract the proverbial pound of flesh?"

--So for not making a trade the other collector is characterized as discourteous and compared to Shylock.

"I have since traded with two other "nice" collectors one for one from my dupes."

--If the other collectors are "nice" for making the trades, the necessary implication is that the other collector is not nice for refusing the trade.

[thekingofclout]

Very good points Adam.

[freakhappy]

Exhibitman, I'm not trying to say that what you are saying is way out of line, but you are stretching a bit here. In your last post, you quoted everything he said and interpreted it in your own way...simply not what the OP was trying to convey.

You're looking way too much into this. Just take it for what it is and move on. I believe we could all look in between the lines on every discussion and make it seem like the way we want it to.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Fred:

Nope, no raw nerves here. I just find your analysis to be disingenuous. Your core argument is that there is something wrong with a collector who will not trade you a card you want on your terms. Sorry, but I don't buy that. I'd never tell a fellow collector what he should want or should be willing to take in trade for one of his cards. They're his cards, not mine, and his reasons for not wanting to make a trade are as valid as my reasons for wanting to make a trade. In my view, it is presumptuous to suggest otherwise.

-1

I completely disagree with this statement. The original poster was looking to find out if what he was asking was so out of line? The large majority, and myself, don't think so.

[David R]

Originally Posted by Leon

-1

I completely disagree with this statement. The original poster was looking to find out if what he was asking was so out of line? The large majority, and myself, don't think so.

- 2

[alanu]

IMHO, when trading, you have to have thick skin. Everyone tends to naturally overvalue their own cards and the first to make an offer is usually at a disadvantage as with most negotiations.

The key is to always keep it civil and respectively decline if not satisfied with the offer and basically agree to disagree.

[sportscardpete]

Originally Posted by alanu

IMHO, when trading, you have to have thick skin. Everyone tends to naturally overvalue their own cards and the first to make an offer is usually at a disadvantage as with most negotiations.

The key is to always keep it civil and respectively decline if not satisfied with the offer and basically agree to disagree.

There is a natural arbitrage in life where you overvalue your own cards and undervalue the other person's card.

Everyone here has a very valid point. I think we should also be proud of ourselves for actually having a mature debate!