[Below is in reference to 'Post-Lockout' era Hockey Cards]
At one point, I entered my cards as NrMnt/Mint even though I didn't see any visible issues, just as a 'safety net' in case the person I was trading with was a little pickier than I am. At the time, the cards were the same price as the Mint ones in trades so it didn't matter trade wise. But if the person saw some miniscule paint chip on the edge that I possibly missed, havng marked the card as Nr/Mint sort of 'covered me' [and vice-versa]. The cards listed as BV so it was OK. Now when I trade with people who marked their cards as 'Mint' [although likely in the same condition as mine]. Now my cards always come up at a lower value in the trades and even when I go in and change them to Mint [which they are] the new value isn't reflected in the trade unless the card is removed and re-added [which can be quite time consuming for trades involving A LOT of cards. Otherwise I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick when my cards came right out of packs like the ones I am trading for. I've always thought the BV reflected a card in Mint condition and anything less than mint should have something deducted from the price, however I don't beleive [ungraded] cards should go for a 'premium' for being in Mint [Out-Of-Pack] condition.
I'm very confused by the whole thing, not just from a trade perspective but from a pricing perspective. I help my dad price cards for his store and [putting aside some of the QA issues certain manufacturers seem to have] cards 'out of pack' with no visible issues were considered 'Mint' and thus were priced at BV. Minor imperfections [for cards that actually have any value] had a % taken off BV. [Lower priced newer cards with little or no value go in the trash]. Now Beckett is basically saying I've underpriced all of the cards I've been pricing as the BV is no longer reflective of cards in Mint value.
For example: Last week, I priced a card in Mint Condition [No visible imperfections, right from a pack] at $120 which was the BV. [It still is the BV] Now with the 'changes', there is an implication that this card is worth $150 [that's the price it shows as in a trade when I re-added it]. The condition of the card didn't change [Mint last week was $120] The BV of the card didn't change [It still shows as $120 for High BV] but somehow the card is suddenly worth $150?
If Beckett is now stating that their high BV pricing now reflects card values in NrMint/Mint and not in Mint value, they need to lower all of their pricing across the board by that percentage such that the value of a card in Mint condition last week [or whenever the change was made] has the same value as a card in Mint condition this week. If u put aside their 'trade' software, this issue impacts the entire industry from a hobby store owner perspective as now all of my 'MINT' cards need to re-priced, as Beckett has now declared that their pricing structure is for cards in NrMint/Mint condition and not Mint condition. Now I am supposed to expect customers to pay OVER book value for cards in a store because they are in the condition that new cards should be expected to be in?
How is the hobby industry being informed about Beckett's new pricing sturcture no longer being applicable to 'MINT' cards and that these cards now go for a premium? Ths creates a serious problem in the hobby card industry for Beckett to change the standard condition on which their cards are priced. The high BV should reflect a card in Mint condition and anything less than Mint condition should be reflected in a lower price. If this is how the new standard is going to be reflected, Beckett should LOWER the high BV of every card stating that they now have chosen to price cards based on 'NrMint/Mint as the industry standard'. Otherwise the implication is that Beckett artifically inflated the price of every Mint card in the industry by 20%. Or, Raise the price of every card in the database by 20% and go back to a standard where Mint cards are reflected by the high BV.
I can not understand how the same Mint card that I had in a store several weeks ago is suddenly worth 20% more when the condition didn't change and the BV didn't change. I do not understand how I am supposed to explain to customers that we need to charge over BV for cards that came right out of packs because Beckett decided overnight that these cards now sell at a 20% premium. And I can't find in the printed guide where it explains [clearly] that there was a significant change to the price of cards in Mint condition to even show customers this.
From a trade perspective on Beckett, the pricing structure was a guideline and I assumed [with reflection to newer cards anyway] that Mint and NrMint/Mint are basically the same thing, just one person being more careful about someone being pickier than someone else. I throw out [new] cards that have bent corners or any visible damage. If for some reason the card has a very high price and it has visible damage, other than mailing the card off to be graded [which makes no sense if I know there is visible damage] there is no standard for grading the card and I'd take a picture and explain the damage and see what it was worth to the person I was trading it with [thus it wouldn't be listed for trade in Beckett]. There are enough cards on the market that I don't need to buy cards less than Mint [or NrMint/Mint for those who are more hesitant to say their cards are Mint] and I assume with newer cards no one else does either. [For cards with low production runs or 1/1 there is no pricing anyway so the % to remove based on any damage is a moot point].
Changing the standard of condition used for the high BV pricng overnight with no explanation or corresponding printed guidelines for NrMint/Mint vs Mint [with respect to brand new out of pack cards] seems to be a means of artifically inflating the prices of cards that are received out of packs [Mint] which is completely unwaarrented. If the price of 'new, out of pack' cards suddenly did increase by 20%, this should have been expressed in the high BV of the cards to avoid confusion in the industry and creating an artifical premium for cards which did not have one the previous month.
Despite the issues it may cause software-wise and impact to the current users of the Beckett trade site, Beckett needs to go back to a standard where high BV reflects cards in Minto condition to avoid introducing issues into the industry as a whole by having artifical inflated the price of every single card overnight. While this may cause issues for users of Beckett's trade system [myself included], the problem they have introduced to the industry as a whole is significantly worse and needs to be corrected.
The ability to sell/buy cards online has actually cheapened the industry as a whole, making cards available for pennies on the BV dollar, so much so that the only purpose of BV from an online perspective was to provide some sort of standard to understand which cards should have more value than other cards. With limited exception, BV today does not acurately reflect ACTUAL selling prices [even on Beckett's own Marketplace] yet most people have come to accept this fact. The implication that the BV is actually for NrMint/Mint cards and Mint cards are selling at a 'Premium' [in reference to recent cards, not older cards] is ridiculous. Considering most of the cards selling online at pennies on the BV dollar [at certain auction sites that shall remain nameless] list their cards as 'Mint' regardless of the condition they're actually in, even 'Mint' cards do not sell [online] for BV let alone a premium.
I am very curious to understand Beckett's plans for communicating their recent change in condition standard used for pricing [recent] cards is being clearly communicated through the industry via Beckett's printed guide. As a retail hobby store [that does not sell individual cards online... only through a local physical presence] that sells the printed Beckett Magazine, my father [who is not computer literate thus previously unaware of this change] will be contacting the Beckett this week having heard about the unpublished change in pricing standard.
--Jersey
Note:
Describing cards as 'out-of-pack' is not meant to imply that all cards received in packs are 'Mint' condition. I am fully aware of the poor QA used [for one major manufacturer in particulr] in packaging the cards to day and have often received damaged cards in packs [which I usually toss as I do not consider them to be 'Mint'. ] I used the phrase 'out-of-pack' to express that those cards which I do consider to be 'Mint' came from a pack and went into a protective holder. The phase is used to emphasize that these are not cards which had a cute goalie which I put in my purse or backpack to carry around and show all my friends. At which point [even if the cards somehow managed to avoid any visible damage] I don't consider the cards to be 'Mint' as it is not 'out-of-pack']
At one point, I entered my cards as NrMnt/Mint even though I didn't see any visible issues, just as a 'safety net' in case the person I was trading with was a little pickier than I am. At the time, the cards were the same price as the Mint ones in trades so it didn't matter trade wise. But if the person saw some miniscule paint chip on the edge that I possibly missed, havng marked the card as Nr/Mint sort of 'covered me' [and vice-versa]. The cards listed as BV so it was OK. Now when I trade with people who marked their cards as 'Mint' [although likely in the same condition as mine]. Now my cards always come up at a lower value in the trades and even when I go in and change them to Mint [which they are] the new value isn't reflected in the trade unless the card is removed and re-added [which can be quite time consuming for trades involving A LOT of cards. Otherwise I feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick when my cards came right out of packs like the ones I am trading for. I've always thought the BV reflected a card in Mint condition and anything less than mint should have something deducted from the price, however I don't beleive [ungraded] cards should go for a 'premium' for being in Mint [Out-Of-Pack] condition.
I'm very confused by the whole thing, not just from a trade perspective but from a pricing perspective. I help my dad price cards for his store and [putting aside some of the QA issues certain manufacturers seem to have] cards 'out of pack' with no visible issues were considered 'Mint' and thus were priced at BV. Minor imperfections [for cards that actually have any value] had a % taken off BV. [Lower priced newer cards with little or no value go in the trash]. Now Beckett is basically saying I've underpriced all of the cards I've been pricing as the BV is no longer reflective of cards in Mint value.
For example: Last week, I priced a card in Mint Condition [No visible imperfections, right from a pack] at $120 which was the BV. [It still is the BV] Now with the 'changes', there is an implication that this card is worth $150 [that's the price it shows as in a trade when I re-added it]. The condition of the card didn't change [Mint last week was $120] The BV of the card didn't change [It still shows as $120 for High BV] but somehow the card is suddenly worth $150?
If Beckett is now stating that their high BV pricing now reflects card values in NrMint/Mint and not in Mint value, they need to lower all of their pricing across the board by that percentage such that the value of a card in Mint condition last week [or whenever the change was made] has the same value as a card in Mint condition this week. If u put aside their 'trade' software, this issue impacts the entire industry from a hobby store owner perspective as now all of my 'MINT' cards need to re-priced, as Beckett has now declared that their pricing structure is for cards in NrMint/Mint condition and not Mint condition. Now I am supposed to expect customers to pay OVER book value for cards in a store because they are in the condition that new cards should be expected to be in?
How is the hobby industry being informed about Beckett's new pricing sturcture no longer being applicable to 'MINT' cards and that these cards now go for a premium? Ths creates a serious problem in the hobby card industry for Beckett to change the standard condition on which their cards are priced. The high BV should reflect a card in Mint condition and anything less than Mint condition should be reflected in a lower price. If this is how the new standard is going to be reflected, Beckett should LOWER the high BV of every card stating that they now have chosen to price cards based on 'NrMint/Mint as the industry standard'. Otherwise the implication is that Beckett artifically inflated the price of every Mint card in the industry by 20%. Or, Raise the price of every card in the database by 20% and go back to a standard where Mint cards are reflected by the high BV.
I can not understand how the same Mint card that I had in a store several weeks ago is suddenly worth 20% more when the condition didn't change and the BV didn't change. I do not understand how I am supposed to explain to customers that we need to charge over BV for cards that came right out of packs because Beckett decided overnight that these cards now sell at a 20% premium. And I can't find in the printed guide where it explains [clearly] that there was a significant change to the price of cards in Mint condition to even show customers this.
From a trade perspective on Beckett, the pricing structure was a guideline and I assumed [with reflection to newer cards anyway] that Mint and NrMint/Mint are basically the same thing, just one person being more careful about someone being pickier than someone else. I throw out [new] cards that have bent corners or any visible damage. If for some reason the card has a very high price and it has visible damage, other than mailing the card off to be graded [which makes no sense if I know there is visible damage] there is no standard for grading the card and I'd take a picture and explain the damage and see what it was worth to the person I was trading it with [thus it wouldn't be listed for trade in Beckett]. There are enough cards on the market that I don't need to buy cards less than Mint [or NrMint/Mint for those who are more hesitant to say their cards are Mint] and I assume with newer cards no one else does either. [For cards with low production runs or 1/1 there is no pricing anyway so the % to remove based on any damage is a moot point].
Changing the standard of condition used for the high BV pricng overnight with no explanation or corresponding printed guidelines for NrMint/Mint vs Mint [with respect to brand new out of pack cards] seems to be a means of artifically inflating the prices of cards that are received out of packs [Mint] which is completely unwaarrented. If the price of 'new, out of pack' cards suddenly did increase by 20%, this should have been expressed in the high BV of the cards to avoid confusion in the industry and creating an artifical premium for cards which did not have one the previous month.
Despite the issues it may cause software-wise and impact to the current users of the Beckett trade site, Beckett needs to go back to a standard where high BV reflects cards in Minto condition to avoid introducing issues into the industry as a whole by having artifical inflated the price of every single card overnight. While this may cause issues for users of Beckett's trade system [myself included], the problem they have introduced to the industry as a whole is significantly worse and needs to be corrected.
The ability to sell/buy cards online has actually cheapened the industry as a whole, making cards available for pennies on the BV dollar, so much so that the only purpose of BV from an online perspective was to provide some sort of standard to understand which cards should have more value than other cards. With limited exception, BV today does not acurately reflect ACTUAL selling prices [even on Beckett's own Marketplace] yet most people have come to accept this fact. The implication that the BV is actually for NrMint/Mint cards and Mint cards are selling at a 'Premium' [in reference to recent cards, not older cards] is ridiculous. Considering most of the cards selling online at pennies on the BV dollar [at certain auction sites that shall remain nameless] list their cards as 'Mint' regardless of the condition they're actually in, even 'Mint' cards do not sell [online] for BV let alone a premium.
I am very curious to understand Beckett's plans for communicating their recent change in condition standard used for pricing [recent] cards is being clearly communicated through the industry via Beckett's printed guide. As a retail hobby store [that does not sell individual cards online... only through a local physical presence] that sells the printed Beckett Magazine, my father [who is not computer literate thus previously unaware of this change] will be contacting the Beckett this week having heard about the unpublished change in pricing standard.
--Jersey
Note:
Describing cards as 'out-of-pack' is not meant to imply that all cards received in packs are 'Mint' condition. I am fully aware of the poor QA used [for one major manufacturer in particulr] in packaging the cards to day and have often received damaged cards in packs [which I usually toss as I do not consider them to be 'Mint'. ] I used the phrase 'out-of-pack' to express that those cards which I do consider to be 'Mint' came from a pack and went into a protective holder. The phase is used to emphasize that these are not cards which had a cute goalie which I put in my purse or backpack to carry around and show all my friends. At which point [even if the cards somehow managed to avoid any visible damage] I don't consider the cards to be 'Mint' as it is not 'out-of-pack']
![[Image: p75322209-11.jpg]](http://www.stuffabouthockey.com/img/s12/v180/p75322209-11.jpg)
![[Image: florida-gators.gif]](https://i.ibb.co/52HLL0W/florida-gators.gif)
![[Image: Signature.jpg]](http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd72/oNoxXxRegretsO/Signature.jpg)