[griffindurlin]

a little confusion here, are we talking about setting them to

1) nrmt/mt

OR

2) nrmt/mt+

We have both of these options in the database so which one is it?

[ktcardshop]

The way it used to be:

Pre 1980 book price was at NrMt (7)
1981 thru 1989 book price was at NrMt-Mt (8)
1990 to the present book price was at Mint (9)

Things are all mixed up, Some of the 1990 to present are priced at NmMt (8) and some of them are priced at Mint (9).

When you download a set from the price guide into your Org. it sets the grade of all cards to a Mint (9). You then have to go back and reset the grade to NrMt-Mt (8), or NrMt (7) depending on the year.

The problem is that most people don't realize this and leave them all at Mint (9). Then the pricing for their cards is three time the book value for cards from before 1980 and twice the book value for cards from 1981 thru 1989.

The system worked just fine if you understood how to use it. It was fare and reflected a true attempt to assign a value to the cards.

When you go to the individual card pages you will see near the top a reverse line that says "Beckett Real Time Pricing" with a high/low price just below it, This is the Beckett book price that should be used.

Just below it is a box marked Conditional Pricing, and this gives you the Mint price with the options of changing the grade and displaying the value at that grade. This is how you determine what grade is used for the book value. Click on the Mint indicator and move down until the pricing matched the real time pricing, and this is the grade that the set is priced at.

Please note that there is no grade that matches Beckett Low prices. It is a percentage and you will have to figure it out for yourself.

Ray

[floydtown]

a little confusion here, are we talking about setting them to

1) nrmt/mt

OR

2) nrmt/mt+

We have both of these options in the database so which one is it?

Both of those grades come up with the same bv for me- can someone else verify this? If so it wouldnt matter which one.

---

The way it used to be:

Pre 1980 book price was at NrMt (7)
1981 thru 1989 book price was at NrMt-Mt (8)
1990 to the present book price was at Mint (9)

Things are all mixed up, Some of the 1990 to present are priced at NmMt (8) and some of them are priced at Mint (9).

When you download a set from the price guide into your Org. it sets the grade of all cards to a Mint (9). You then have to go back and reset the grade to NrMt-Mt (8), or NrMt (7) depending on the year.

The problem is that most people don't realize this and leave them all at Mint (9). Then the pricing for their cards is three time the book value for cards from before 1980 and twice the book value for cards from 1981 thru 1989.

The system worked just fine if you understood how to use it. It was fare and reflected a true attempt to assign a value to the cards.

When you go to the individual card pages you will see near the top a reverse line that says "Beckett Real Time Pricing" with a high/low price just below it, This is the Beckett book price that should be used.

Just below it is a box marked Conditional Pricing, and this gives you the Mint price with the options of changing the grade and displaying the value at that grade. This is how you determine what grade is used for the book value. Click on the Mint indicator and move down until the pricing matched the real time pricing, and this is the grade that the set is priced at.

Please note that there is no grade that matches Beckett Low prices. It is a percentage and you will have to figure it out for yourself.

Ray

I just uploaded and it defaulted to 8 not 9- unless its just me

[dbroockerd]

Can Beckett not make the system match the book? Can't they set it to automatically mark cards as follows: Pre 1980 book price was at NrMt (7), 1981 thru 1989 book price was at NrMt-Mt (8), 1990 to the present book price was at Mint (9)? Then all we have to do is adjust if its better or worse then the standard.

I think people should pay attention. If your trading you need to know the that cards in these years are not accurate if marked mint. I always ask on vintage if the card is truly mint or needs adjusted. Guys are generally honest. I think that all cards show mint after 1990 and most are not truly mint but they are priced the same on both sides so that generally works itself out for both sides. In my 450+ trades I have never had arguments over condition values screwing anyone.

[floydtown]

I agree on the trades part, any damage to a card should be stated when trading and thats like the unwritten rule.
They said the OPG was at mint but the mag was not so they adjusted it.

"In the past, it was defaulted to MINT = 100% bv and we adjusted that downward to reflect what was in our magazines and other parts of our software. So the new correct default is NRMT/MT = 100% bv for new cards."

[iujapander]

I vote for whichever way means I won't have to change the pre-existing cards in my org.

I don't even have the condition column in my org. I have scans of most of my trade cards and if there is an obvious flaw then I let the person know and send a scan.

I'm not a grader, nor do I pretend to be one so to ask me to decide if a card is near mint, mint, gem mint etc. is futile. Just keep it however it was doing it before and concentrate on the other broken things on the site like feedback and messages.

[mgruber2]

Im for the nm/mt as long as someone can't go and mark a card as mint when it hasn't been graded as such. If we are going to do this then people who have cards ft that are ACTUALLY GRADED MINT should be able to put them in org as such and the price should reflect that . Graded pricing should be included in org unless nm/mt is going to be the highest that one can list a card.

[Jakelovescards]

I leave mine as the default Beckett outs than at when I put them in my org. The only ones I change are the vintage ones and ones that have any wear or damage. Honestly I wish Beckett would fix the flaws, it is so frustrating to make a trade now, no comments, so I get tons of Pm s and now no feedback. As a new and responsible trader here I am really mad that my traders can't even leave me feedback. As far as the org and grading, it is just confusing. I don't change the grade, I have no idea how to grade a card. If it is damaged, I will lower the grade and put a comment. Just my opinion.

[floydtown]

comments and notifications was fixed today-working on feedback

[thebwd]

My vote would be to conduct polls BEFORE you decide to push out an update that has such far-reaching effects on org, OPG, and trading. Oh, and don't lie and say that the update is only for the Marketplace when it clearly was not limited to that.

It is inexcusable that a company whose entire reputation is staked on accurate pricing would release an update that changed prices for cards without so much as a simple notification of what was going on - no posts here from them, no email about the change, not even a heads up to the mods so that they could answer the ineveitable questions. I cannot begin to express my disgust for how this (and every other update) is handled. No communication, no forethought, no concern for users, no testing, and no apology for the repeated failures.

As for the question at hand, the issue is that not everyone will do it the same way. So now I have to waste time trying to determine what the prices really should be when trading with someone that chooses a different option. The biggest advantage of trading here is the tie in to the OPG/org, but now that is unreliable. What used to be a pleasant trading experience keeps getting harder and harder (wants not sorted to top, having to manually change page numbers, prices no longer accurate). I prefer the performance issues of the old site to the hoops I have to jump through with this one.