Site Forum

We should have the freedom to do what we want to do with our cards...pricewise do what u want to do not what everybody else wants they are your cards

@everyone

It’s great to see so many great ideas and contributions, and surprisingly, I don’t think any of them are mutually exclusive. In other words, each idea could be implemented in unison without necessarily taking away from the effect of another.

@ Vonnegut37 / @spazmatastic:

I think ADMIN agrees with the limitation and testing of pricing rights on the site. The question is what system would be best.

I personally feel like building a whole separate points/rights system would be ideal. The person who is expert on cropping cards/building checklists/identifying player teams, may not be the same person who is expert on pricing models/calculations/market behaviors, and vice versa.

@switzr1 / PapaG321:

Let us hope a single person does not need to fix this problem! It may take 1 person 62 years, but it could also take 124 people 1 year (at only 4 hours/day). Also, I feel the solution does not need to include details for every single card and every single online purchase. The solution could not feasibly require either.

@randylaw:

I’m definitely supportive of the conditions-based pricing, but a problem I’ve identified is, aside from MINT and POOR, I really get lost in the subtle differences of grades in-between. How could we in good faith expect that each new member could be educated on grading to a uniform standard across the site. Further, most of the time I am pricing cards I’m only looking at a seller’s thumbnail photo from their completed online auction. Even if I was expert on grading to a standard, how can looking at a thumbnail compare to observing the card up-close with my own eyes outside of the protective case (front AND back).

Or, is a solution to just add every known price regardless of grade, and let the observer correlate the distinction (ex. a card sold for $3, $5, $5, $5, $7, $20)? Without seeing the card, knowing the condition, could a reviewer of these sales make inferences that are “useful enough”?

I’m really interested in your take on this, because I think making the distinction of pricing by grade could be critical to “real” prices.

@BOBSCARDZ:

Agree with all of that! …except maybe 6. I think we could right the plane mid-flight with some tweaks here and there. There is too much useful data already on the site just to throw it all away and start over.

@j_co_12:

To further extrapolate on your keen analysis, if the site would enable us to expand on the public prices associated with sets, i.e. hand-collated set price vs. sealed factory set prices, hobby box, vendor box, pack, wax pack, rack pack, jumbo pack (whatever packaging options are consistent with that set release), only one time EVER would a user (preferably with higher admin rights) need to put the data in for that set’s merchandising configuration to get it exactly right (i.e. wax pack = 12 cards; hobby box = 288 cards, retail box = 98 cards, etc.). By quantifying these “lots” and layering user pricing to these “lot” sales online, we could forego some of the issues with the individual common card prices. The site could intuitively price a “common” based on current lot acquisition prices:

If for instance we know a set has 100 cards (distributed evenly in packs of 10) and 99 of the cards are “common”, but card #100 is a superstar. And let’s say that superstar is individually priced at $50. If a pack of 10 x cards is selling online for $7. In each pack there is a 1:10 chance of pulling a card #100, so mathematically the “chance” to pull the superstar card from a pack has a break-even cost of $5. Further, if we assume 10 x packs (on average) makes a complete set, then (on average) building a set via packs costs $70. If card #100 accounts for $50 of the set price, $20 accounts for the other 99 (~$.20 per common). If the factory set itself sells for $60, then the common price if purchased in a set is ~$.10 per common. Seeing this broken out in the “Set Price” menu would enable a shopper to not only see which delivery method can get the better price for commons, but would also enable us/site to “price” commons in that set.

In any given set there will be numerous levels of stars with various prices, so I’m not sure of what prices to consider when calculating a one-size-fits-all strategy for pricing commons in a set. I think we all may agree the common price in the above example should not be $.70 ($7.00 per 10 x card pack), but how much the price of the “non-commons” determine the price of the commons will likely be too complicated to compute based on each sets unique insert odds, etc. So, total set prices (say against the remaining cards after the top-5 stars in a set) may be a jumping off point for further analysis and tweaking.

If a lot of 10 x Frank DiPino (or Doc Gooden) cards sells for $50, with multiple individual sales of $6, then we all may need to come to terms with the fact that a Frank DiPino card may be worth at least $5.

I'm not suggesting by shutting down the Pricing, we toss the data. What I am suggesting is temporarily closing it down so the new formatting could be integrated. That way only a few have their hands at work, keeping any updates amongst, let's say a committee. It would also keep too many members attempting to add prices and murky the work in progress. My opinion.

This is great. The ball is rolling uphill, but it's rolling! We have all thought of things and agreed on some that can work. Like a committee with watchdogs to make sure it's all good. Passing a Test. After reading about the guy uping the price then trying to sell it for his made up price. Shows us how bad things are. Putting a hold on pricing until things can be implemented, I think is a good move along a few other things that were said can make this work. We all agree it's a mess and things need to change.

Time for stage two? When does talking turn to action?

 So before the steam runs out. Do we get people to vote on what are the best thoughts that have come from this post and then submit them to admin? Is admin reading this? What is the next step in making things right for the pricing? If you know Please step forward and help make the website better. It would be a shame to let all this great brainstorming go to waste and become another forum that slowly fades into the past. 

We also must understand, that things will need to be tweaked. The first fix Will not be flawless. But we have to start somewhere.

YES, RJ you are absolutely correct, WORDS to ACTION, I  suggested a method, NOW we need those "PRICING ENTHUSIASTS" to jump in and ACT. 

K-Cards I elect you to start the ACTION BALL ROLLING !

No passing the buck here.

OK, I'll pick up the baton and see how far I can get it. But I don't know what the next step should be? That is why I asked for input. How do you talk to admin? The only thing I can think of is I can send a message to Vrooomed. I know he is up there somewhere in the ranks. I remember reading he is on vacation a few days ago. But a message be there for him when he gets back. Who else should we be talking to?

Where are the pricing guys? They have buggered off? I've not seen them write anything in some time on this forum. Makes me wonder about their intentions. 

If you don't want to write on this forum, then message me about thoughts on what to do next. It's going to take all of us who care to make changes and get it moving it's the right direction. We are a community and should act as such.

Here is what I wrote: 

I know you're up there in the ranks. So the only thing I can think of is talk to you first. I know you're on vacation right now. Hope you're having fun. 

it's about the pricing post. We have all seen the abuse of it. Marking up prices to sell to others and marking prices down to buy cheap from others here. Is just shameful and turning the pricing off because it can't be trusted is not helping the community. 

"A link to this post was places here,"

We want to make things better with it and have some really good ideas. But you can see in the post we have no clue on how to move it forward to do so. How do we get the info to the top dog and start a dialogue to make changes for the better?

RJ Smith

Pricing guys? K-Cards and I are probably considered pricing guys and he commented today and I commented yesterday. Not sure how often we can rehash the same stuff over and over. Until admin decides if any changes need to be made it’s a waste of time to keep the discussion going.  Before this goes further we need to determine if the pricing reflected here is to be used as a price guide or reflect the ever changing market. They are two totally different things so that needs to be determined before anything gets done.

I'm simply a Level 8 like the rest of the folks with 25,000 points or more. Nothing special here. I'm just the one with the idea of forcing condition to be a factor in the reporting of prices and the calculations.

As far as condition guides, there have been several publications (SCD, Beckett, Tuff Stuff) from the days of old that showed and described what constitutes what grade. PSA also has a detailed visual guide online as to how to determine grades. I believe that through "proper research" (meaning combining our info from MULTIPLE sources), and citing those sources, we can put together our own guidelines, and create the quiz that would "prove out" who gets the conditions and who doesn't. (The test would have to be "intelligent" enough to understand that my 6.5 is your 7 and is could be PSAs 6, Beckett's 7.5, etc. As long as we're close and not saying that a PR card is NM or EX.)

RJ, we'll talk.