I believe you’re right. I was trying, in the article, to look at the worst-case scenario. My being wrong on that end is even better for the “keep shocks” play, which is what I’m advocating.

Ultimately, I think that if you’re seeking to acquire a bunch of Shocks as you did Fetch Lands, these trends will help you. The psychological effect of a reprint on price is probably stronger than what Supply/Demand should dictate, so you probably will find people at some point shipping shocks worrying about significant drop in price, when in actuality the reprint may have a relatively effect on it.

I have 4 of something, the only 4 in existence. They are valued at $100 in total.

Suddenly another pops into existence. Given no extra demand, they as a whole are worth $100 still, and are each valued at $20 now that there are 5 in existence. They areot so rare any more and aren’t worth so much. They have gone from $25 to $20, .

So a 25% increase in supply results in a 20% drop in price. In your article you imply that it would be 25%.

Is the above commenter kinda saying tha same thing? Sorry if so.

@Timothy Good points.

As to the first, that would mean the new supply is even less %-wise than what I made it out to be, so the effect wouldn’t even be as pronounced as I predicted.

You’re absolutely right about the intricacies of supply and demand, and the gas comparison is a good one since both markets have speculators involved. In general, I would say that hype or perceived changes move the oil market a little more than the MTG market on something with such established demand as Shocks (although with other flash-in-the-pan cards it’s nearly exactly like oil markets in the overblown response).

Sure, it’s possible that the market becomes so saturated no one needs any more, but if that was true and Shocks hit $5, speculators and are going to step in and grab them all, so I can’t see them going lower than that at the max. And since all the things that made Shocks a good investment are still true, I’m still a huge fan of getting in at 6-8 in trade.

You’re right, I’ve talked about the card all over but missed it here. Good catch!

Second, is that the price is not as linearly dictated by supply and demand as you make it out to be. While you’re generally correct in how price moves in response, for a lot of complicated economic reasons such as marginal demand, it’s not always as simple as “demand doubled, supply stayed the same, so the price doubled.” As an example, gasoline over ten years or so went from $1 to $4 a gallon on steady supply, and increased demand, but not a 400% increase. Similarly, when it dropped to 2.50 for a bit at the end of the last decade, it was reduced demand, but not in the order of a 40% drop in worldwide demand.