Dateline: 01/14/98
This week I've decided to comment on the never-ending controversy of pricing in our hobby. If you are a follower of the discussion newsgroup rec.collecting.cards.discuss then you've probably seen the ongoing threads complaining about Prices too high, Prices too low, Beckett stinks, etc. I've always been of the opinion that a card is worth exactly what you're willing to pay for it. It's common for me to get mail from people looking for prices on sets and singles they've bought from a tv show (Shop at Home or QVC). They can't seem to find the price in their guide and I have to explain to them that the set may never be listed because of the way it was offered. I also remind them that it should be worth as much to them as they paid for it and it wouldn't make sense to sell it for one penny less.It's easy to take aim at our hobby price guides as their task is huge
in trying to maintain pricing information on the glut of products we see
in the stores each month. Still, the fact remains that most of us
pay a fair amount of money each month for this service and we expect it
to be as close to correct as possible. Since Beckett
has the most respected pricing they take more heat, but in recent months
I'm beginning to believe it's deserved. After opening my Beckett
Basketball Monthly (February 1998 Issue #91) I decided to let my thoughts
be known with this open letter to Beckett.
| Dear Beckett,
I've been using your price guides almost since Beckett Baseball #1 and
I've never found it necessary to complain until now. In the past
I've felt you made some poor decisions on prices, but I wondered if it
wasn't just me hoping my cards would be worth more. Usually over
the course of a few months prices stabilize and I'd be satisfied.
These past few months your guides have changed for the worse.
The design of your magazines has also changed and while I'm more interested in the prices I just wanted to give you my quick "no" vote for the new, youthful design. I've spoken to many of these youth you're trying to reach and they're not impressed. Today's young collector is much smarter than you might think. They don't really want to know what happens when you drop a watermelon on a box of cards, they want to know what their new Brett Favre card is worth. In my opinion these problems are minor compared to the one that prompted the writing of this letter. Today I bought Beckett Basketball Monthly #91 and reading the new prices for the NBA rookies has my head spinning. Whether I agree or disagree with your prices, the one thing I want to count on your magazine for is consistency. This is where things have slid the fastest in recent months. To illustrate the problem I've decided to look at your new prices on
97-98 Finest Basketball
and 97-98 Ultra Basketball.
Nothing is tougher for a collector than trying to gauge the prices on NBA
rookies. Unfortunately you haven't helped the matter with the following
examples:
I've listed the cards in order by their Finest prices. It would seem consistent and make at least some sense that the Ultra prices should follow the same trend, but they don't. I don't know what the correct prices should be. I'm not even complaining about any specific price. I just want to be able to rely on your magazine for consistent prices from brand to brand (barring any production number differences within a set). I hope you are listening to your customer's concerns and look forward to your guide getting back to the quality we all knew and loved. Sincerely, Andy in Connecticut |
I still believe in Beckett. I buy each of their price guides and use their prices when working out deals online. I just want my old Beckett back. I'd probably be satisfied with just prices and no articles. I prefer to read Tuff Stuff's articles. What's your opinion? You can write me to let me know or feel free to post your thoughts on our bulletin board. In the meantime I've got to go sort some cards, but I'll be back next week.
CHAT