Site Forum

I have 1 card listed at COMC - I had the lowest price at $6.75. It did not sell. Many others started going lower than me. I'm now down to $5.50 to be the lowest again. (I just updated it this morning, so to say it hasn't sold would be premature.) But I had that price tag ($6.75) for 2 months. Obviously, not the price. Just because it CAN be sold at that price doesn't mean it's the price.

I have a 1/1 Jake Thompson Pro Debut printing plate. My price is $10,000. I will definitely sell at that price. Heck, who am I kidding, I'll take $8,000. Does that mean that's the price? No. Not sure I can even get what I paid for it (and that was probably less than $10).

This is why even the "self-proclaimed Book Value Gurus" system is flawed.

Quite simply your version of "the price" is different from my version of "the price" on the same exact card. And by "you", I'm referring to everyone, not just budler. And "my" is everyone else.

It seems like there are  too many factors to determine "true" value. The members are either in favor or not but with very little in the solution bag. I thought maybe the "Real Time" could be the answer but there are gliches in that method. After 100s of posts, I believe we will be no further along in changing the pricing on TCDB.

Then what,

#1 - The pricing remains as is. Just maybe a small tweek.

#2 - All members turn it on, or turn it off. Depends if you use it or not.

#3 - Those members really into the pricing mechanism stay with it, update as usual. Try and make our pricing as "real value" as possible.

Solution:

We should follow a Beckett-type approach

Prices logged are for specific conditions. Cards after 1990 should never be logged for anything other than mint condition. There's no excuse for a card newer than that to be anything but mint.

Cards for certain year ranges should be expected to be for certain conditions. As an example, 1957 should always be for EX-NM. This should be the "normal" price. A mint 1957 card would be worth a percentage higher than the EX-NM one (as an example, it's 150% the EX-NM price. Poor cards are 10%, Fair is 15% and Good 20%. VG would be around 40%. So if someone reports a 1957 sale of a VG card, that's 40% of the "value". If that card sold for $40, then we should extrapolate that to be a $100 EX-NM card and the $150 Mint card (continuing my example percentages).

Is this system perfect - NO.

Is this system closer to reality than what's currently in place - YES.

I'd love this site's pricing to work and for members to be happy with it. Like I've said all along, no price guide pricing reporting tool is flawless. Heck, even the old adage of check ebay for prices is flawed. Brand new cards - the first one always sells higher. This has been true for the past 21 years I've been on ebay. Then as more and more pop on, the prices drop. If those first 5 prices are reported (and are the only ones used), you'd think the card is worth about 5 to 10 times what it truly sells at.

This plan I propose would probably require a re-write of the code that handles the pricing now. It would also rely on the members to have an accurate grading standard. This was already discussed too - my poor is your mint, and vice versa. And we can't say "Use the seller's description" because I've seen several who won't list a grade, will under grade, and will over grade. I think any member that wishes to enter prices should have to take a little quiz to ensure they understand what the site is calling NM, VG, G, etc. That way, even if we (TCDB) have missed the mark on what is what, at least we're all being consistent in our reporting.

Additionally, we need to determine what the true price is on a $1 + $3 (S&H) card versus the $4 (free S&H) card. I don't believe that you can call the one $1 and the other $4. This should be solidified as well. I have ideas about that as well.

(Edits are to fix typos)

After reading some of this thread, I looked at the month-by-month history of the value of my baseball collection on the site.  I notice its value fell nearly 10% in June 2019, which is the biggest such drop ever.  Is that likely the result of what someone on this thread has been doing with prices?  Just curious, really.

Did your interest in your collection drop 10%? 

It took me a couple years but I am finally at peace with the pricing. If I have time I still go in and update prices as I feel I am contributing some value to the site but I have also concluded that there is little value in the pricing here. I am OK with that. I go with the theory don't worry about trying to fix something that is out of your control. 

I was asked by someone i live near if the price of shipping is included or just the sale price. I always just go by sale price. There are so many different methods of shippiung to be accurate

Ha, ha.  I knew my comment would be misunderstood, although not so immediately!  Like I said, I'm "just curious" what's going on with the prices on the site.

Here's how I like to use the pricing on the site.  I go to Collections | Stats | Top By Price | More and I see the 100 most valuable cards in my collection, per the site.  Guess what, it's probably pretty accurate. Does it mean I will get precisely $129 for my 1960 Mickey Mantle, no.  Is it a casually intersting list of the most valuable cards in my collection?  Definitely, Yes.

I can agree prices change a lot, but it does make to make a visual number as to its value.

Alex Matthew, I understood what you alluded to as I've used it, too. It seemed like you didn't take offense at my question as I was simply making a point that as a hobbyist I find value in what I have because I have it, not because someone else maneuvers its value for me.

If I had pricing turned on it would probably show the 1990-91 Hoops Mark Jackson card up there with my PSA 8 Kobe Bryant RC. I'm sure you'd chuckle as I do when encountering such data.