Comments on: Insider: Has Card Value Shifted from Playability to Collectability? https://www.quietspeculation.com/2018/06/insider-has-card-value-shifted-from-playability-to-collectability/ Play More, Win More, Pay Less Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:15:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: pi https://www.quietspeculation.com/2018/06/insider-has-card-value-shifted-from-playability-to-collectability/#comment-1965368 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:26:44 +0000 https://www.quietspeculation.com/?p=87922#comment-1965368 I think it’s very card dependent. I can certainly see how Alpha Web’s price is primarily based on collectibility, however, I would certainly not assume the Lion’s Eye Diamond price to have the same collectibility factor in it. It could very well be that the Alpha Web’s price is 99% collectibility while the Lion’s Eye Diamond’s price is 20% collectibility (and I feel I am putting that pretty high).

I can agree with the general concept of collectibility becoming a larger factor. In fact I’ve written about how the print runs of older sets compare to current player numbers (here) and it makes sense that more players correlates with more collectors. As such I can certainly see older cards being influenced more by collectibility. (Though I think that “pimping” may possibly be a bigger factor than actual collectors).

It’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy to recommend that people put their money in older cards as they are so incredibly rare relative to the player numbers that even if 1% of your readers follows that advice they’d make a significant dent in the supply. There is for example only an Alpha Web for 0.005% of all players if you assume the 20M number Wizards once shared is correct so even if your article leads to a single sale on the card that’s very significant. You can make similar calculations for many older cards.

Of course you’re not specifically recommending going out to buy this stuff, but that doesn’t mean people won’t.

]]>