Fair enough…but basic economic theory states that price is a reflection on demand. That’s why I could throw up Nivmagus Elementals on TCG player @ $1000 each and not sell any at all…because there isn’t enough demand to allow for that price…SCG sometimes forgets this and tries to create artificial demand by raising the price and hoping people are still willing to buy at that price..sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

Thanks for the praise, Corbin :-). Did you see my shout-out to your Zendikar Basics? Envious I didn’t have the experience of speculating back then to go deeper on Zendikar Basics. If only I knew then what I know now…

Thank you very much for the comment, Danny! I loosely organize all of my investments this way. My buy and hold stuff is literally under the guest bed. My mid-term stuff is usually in a certain area within my binder. Quick flip stuff is also in my binder, but it usually doesn’t last long there.

If you can’t envision a scenario where you profit from a purchase, don’t make it! 🙂

Ahhhh, thanks for clarification. But I think really the word we disagree on is “price”. If the “price” is the amount a seller is asking for on a card, then $99 is the peak price. If “price” is the most anyone in the world is willing to pay for the card, then $99 would not be the peak price if no one bought at that number. I’d wager SCG sold at least 1 Force of Will while at $99.99 however. They probably pulled that off at least briefly.

Sorry for the confusion. My disagreement was in regards to “peak price”. SCG may have put the price to $99, but if nobody bought them at that, then it is not in fact the “peak price”. My definition of peak price is the maximum price people are willing to pay for it at that specific time..thus…SCG is currently selling AT the peak price, not under it.

Thanks for the compliment, Matthew! I like your build. Typically if I buy something with a given thesis and I find myself changing the thesis, it’s likely because my purchase went sour. Normally I try to sell for a small loss before getting to that point. Nivmagus Elemental was another example – I bought these on hype that fateful weekend but by the time they arrived, it was obvious the deck wasn’t good enough. Rather than holding and thinking long term I could profit I still listed them for a small loss while the hype died down. I kept one set, and these are about bulk now.

With respect to SCG, I think they do a lot of things with the secondary market. They are correctly proactive sometimes, other times they are slow to react. And sometimes they try some price adjustments that don’t stick. One thing I do know is that SCG is very aware of the ever-changing MTG Finance market and they are a valuable resource in predicting/analyzing trends.

Great article! Knowing your outs is important and a great poker analogy. In particular, I find that if my outs are changing over time, ie, my motivation for a spec is different than when I made the original analysis and purchase, then things have probably gone very wrong for that spec.

I think the idea of SCG as a price maker really needs to be put to bed. To suggest this is to say that they are a monopolist. But clearly they are not a monopolist with many other retailers out there. Suggesting a pricing conspiracy or a rigged market is a little ridiculous in my opinion. It’s possible they are a trend setter, but I really believe they just respond prudently to market conditions.

So true. What’s the next Scalding Tarn I wonder? I just can’t wait for SCG to decide Shock Lands need to all retail for $20. 🙂

legacy growth is minimal @best and with Wizards supporting Modern as a cheap alternative you can expect SCG to get on board with more Scalding Tarn like shenanigans.

Thanks for the comment, David! I’m not sure I understand which part of my statement you disagree with? I suppose you feel I am implying that Legacy is losing steam based on SCG’s price movement? This is not the message I meant to convey. I was more trying to state that SCG tried to force these higher, and failed because they couldn’t generate higher demand. This is still telling – SCG has found the price that no one is willing to pay. They’ve had to adjust accordingly. I can’t use this data to argue Legacy is dying (because it isn’t, yet). But I do think this suggests that there is a limit on Legacy’s growth and SCG’s influence.