1 ABU JA'FAR 2 2 ALADDIN 2 3 ALADDIN'S LAMP 2 4 ALADDIN'S RING 2 5 ALI BABA 2 6 ALI FROM CAIRO 6 7 ARMY OF ALLAH 1 8 BAZAAR OF BAGHDAD 8 9 BIRD MAIDEN 1 10 BOTTLE OF SULEIMAN 2 11 BRASS MAN 1 12 CAMEL 1 13 CITY IN A BOTTLE 2 14 CITY OF BRASS 5 15 CUOMBAJJ WITCHES 1 16 CYCLONE 2 17 DANCING SCIMITAR 2 18 DANDAN 1 19 DESERT 1 20 DESERT NOMADS 1 21 DESERT TWISTER 2 22 DIAMOND VALLEY 6 23 DROP OF HONEY 3 24 EBONY HORSE 2 25 EL-HAJJAJ 2 26 ELEPHANT GRAVEYARD 3 27 ERG RAIDERS 1 28 ERHNAM DJINN 3 29 EYE FOR AN EYE 2 30 FISHLIVER OIL 1 31 FLYING CARPET 2 32 FLYING MEN 1 33 GHAZBAN OGRE 1 34 GIANT TORTOISE 1 35 GUARDIAN BEAST 6 36 HASRAN OGRESS 1 37 HURR JACKAL 1 38 IFH-BIFF EFREET 4 39 ISLAND FISH JASCONIUS 2 40 ISLAND OF WAK-WAK 3 41 JANDOR'S RING 2 42 JANDOR'S SADDLEBAGS 2 43 JEWELED BIRD 2 44 JIHAD 4 45 JUNUN EFREET 2 46 JUZAM DJINN 7 47 KHABAL GHOUL 4 48 KING SULEIMAN 3 49 KIRD APE 1 50 LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA 10 51 MAGNETIC MOUNTAIN 2 52 MERCHANT SHIP 2 53 METAMORPHOSIS 1 54 MIJAE DJINN 2 55 MOORISH CAVALRY 1 56 MOUNTAIN 2 57 NAFS ASP 1 58 OASIS 1 59 OLD MAN OF THE SEA 4 60 OUBLIETTE 1 61 PIETY 1 62 PYRAMIDS 2 63 REPENTANT BLACKSMITH 2 64 RING OF MA'RUF 2 65 RUKH EGG 2 (nice common and lot played so maby 2 for this one) 66 SANDALS OF ABDALLAH 2 67 SANDSTORM 1 68 SERENDIB DJINN 2 69 SERENDIB EFREET 3 70 SHAHRAZAD 4 71 SINDBAD 2 72 SINGING TREE 2 73 SORCERESS QUEEN 3 74 STONE-THROWING DEVILS 1 75 UNSTABLE MUTATION 1 76 WAR ELEPHANT 1 77 WYLULI WOLF 1 78 YDWEN EFREET 2
It s a first though ... I made this fast and didn t think too much on it. Let me know what you think. Steven can compare to his data and let me know. Thanks, Bastien
Not bad - although I might knock the Khabal and King down 1 each
Any chance we might get PSA to add back in the basic land varieties to A/B/U? Do people want them to? Just asking - for the record I would like it, unless Steven is going to try and get the mountain weighted as 8 again
Take it easy, Jared
"You consider me the young apprentice, Caught between the Scylla and Charibdes, Hypnotized by you if I should linger, Staring at the ring around your finger" - Sting
Ray Thiel (1964-2007) - the man who showed me more wonderful games & gaming sessions than I ever dreamed possible... you ran out of hit points too young, my friend.
I am also in favour of having the different flavours of land.
But I wonder if this likely to happen in practice? e.g. What does it mean for the land cards that have already been graded? It seems like once a set has been 'set' and cards have been graded by that set, it's hard to retrospectively change that.
Yes, that is a good point Michael. I wondered about that myself. This has happened recently with the addition of the different flavours of Mishra's Factories in Antiquities. Do any of you have any of those that are now mis-labeled? I think there were only a few on the pop report. Do you think that PSA would argue against it because of this problem or try to fix it?
I have one of those mislabeled Mishra's - it is now a "Fall" in my registry, even though in reality it is a "Spring". Not a big deal - I will send it in with my next submission as a "mechanical error" since the flip doesn't match the card and they will fix it for free (I only need to pay postage to get it there). PSA is very good about things like that - I've done it many times and never had a problem
Take it easy, Jared
"You consider me the young apprentice, Caught between the Scylla and Charibdes, Hypnotized by you if I should linger, Staring at the ring around your finger" - Sting
Ray Thiel (1964-2007) - the man who showed me more wonderful games & gaming sessions than I ever dreamed possible... you ran out of hit points too young, my friend.
I think the trick to weighting is to keep the divisor small. The divisor on bastions is way too large. Look at this:
Card No. Item Name Grade Weight 1 ABU JA'FAR 1 2 ALADDIN 1 3 ALADDIN'S LAMP 1 4 ALADDIN'S RING 1 5 ALI BABA 1 6 ALI FROM CAIRO 3 7 ARMY OF ALLAH 1 8 BAZAAR OF BAGHDAD 4 9 BIRD MAIDEN 1 10 BOTTLE OF SULEIMAN 1 11 BRASS MAN 1 12 CAMEL 1 13 CITY IN A BOTTLE 1 14 CITY OF BRASS 2 15 CUOMBAJJ WITCHES 1 16 CYCLONE 1 17 DANCING SCIMITAR 1 18 DANDAN 1 19 DESERT 1 20 DESERT NOMADS 1 21 DESERT TWISTER 1 22 DIAMOND VALLEY 3 23 DROP OF HONEY 2 24 EBONY HORSE 1 25 EL-HAJJAJ 1 26 ELEPHANT GRAVEYARD 1 27 ERG RAIDERS 1 28 ERHNAM DJINN 1 29 EYE FOR AN EYE 1 30 FISHLIVER OIL 1 31 FLYING CARPET 1 32 FLYING MEN 1 33 GHAZBAN OGRE 1 34 GIANT TORTOISE 1 35 GUARDIAN BEAST 2 36 HASRAN OGRESS 1 37 HURR JACKAL 1 38 IFH-BIFF EFREET 1 39 ISLAND FISH JASCONIUS 1 40 ISLAND OF WAK-WAK 1 41 JANDOR'S RING 1 42 JANDOR'S SADDLEBAGS 1 43 JEWELED BIRD 1 44 JIHAD 2 45 JUNUN EFREET 1 46 JUZAM DJINN 4 47 KHABAL GHOUL 1 48 KING SULEIMAN 1 49 KIRD APE 1 50 LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA 5 51 MAGNETIC MOUNTAIN 1 52 MERCHANT SHIP 1 53 METAMORPHOSIS 1 54 MIJAE DJINN 1 55 MOORISH CAVALRY 1 56 MOUNTAIN 1 57 NAFS ASP 1 58 OASIS 1 59 OLD MAN OF THE SEA 2 60 OUBLIETTE 1 61 PIETY 1 62 PYRAMIDS 1 63 REPENTANT BLACKSMITH 1 64 RING OF MA'RUF 1 65 RUKH EGG 1 66 SANDALS OF ABDALLAH 1 67 SANDSTORM 1 68 SERENDIB DJINN 1 69 SERENDIB EFREET 2 70 SHAHRAZAD 2 71 SINDBAD 1 72 SINGING TREE 2 73 SORCERESS QUEEN 1 74 STONE-THROWING DEVILS 1 75 UNSTABLE MUTATION 1 76 WAR ELEPHANT 1 77 WYLULI WOLF 1 78 YDWEN EFREET 1
divisor 100
If you look at the A/B/U sets we went from an unrated set rating of 290 to 390 ( approximately a 35% increase of the total weight. For congruency this proportion is more closely maintaied with a 78/100 ( approximately a 24% increase in total weights). Face it there are fewer power cards that are dramatically better than their peers in this set. I feel the Library is tops (weight 5) followed by the Juzam and Bazaar at the same level(weight 4). Then the next tier is Ali snd the diamond valley ( weight 3). (weight 2) would be big uncommons, guardian beast, shaharazad, old man etc. Finally, weight 1 are all the other average commons and commons.
Jared can attest that back in the day of 20% set compltions, the alpha and beta lands were separate on the registry. Simply listed as forest 1, forest 2. forest 3. The problem was that the graders did not diffrentiate between the three land types. When the certification number for a card was linked and added to the registry, they could not tell which lands were which ( land 1,2, or 3). This was when the were only a few graded lands. Once people actually started to grade lands, they realized their delima and made them all count as the same land card. The set went from 302 cards down to 292 cards due to the loss of 10 land slots.
Personally, I have graded lands in all three variations. Only the highest graded one actually counts on the registry. A complete set includes all 15 lands, however, there is no way to distinguish the variations at this point. So trying to get them added at this time is kinda moot. PSA decided this issue a year and a half ago.
Steve hit the nail on the head. With A/B/U, you have HUGE price swings of excess of $1000 between rares that account for the higher differential on the weighting. With Arabian/Antiquities and Legends, the prices, though different, are not nearly as large of a spread. In addition, you are dealing with 20,000 or more of any Rare or U1/U2 from the prior sets as opposed to only 1100 or 3300 of an Alpha or Beta Rare. Under Bastions suggestion, a Rukh Egg was valued in the set at more than an Alpha Shivan Dragon and that is justs not right.
You can t compare cards between set like A/B/U and arabian or legend or antiquities. I doesn t mean anything. If Rukh Egg weight 2 in Arabian, it doesn t weight anything in the A/B/U. Beside Rukh Egg could weight 1 ... It s not the main problem. The problem i think is to weight most of the uncommon 2 arabian like the FISHLIVER OIL or the desert. Also i think it s realy unfair the any rare alpha weight as much as a common ... Shivan alpha PSA 9 is 300 + USD and Lighting bolt PSA 10 alpha is 80 USD (and it s the best common) compare to not the best rare ... It s much more easy to get a common PSA 8 + than any rare and lot cheaper too. Also the guardian beast should be 3 in steven s set i think. if SERENDIB EFREET is 2 then IFH-BIFF EFREET should be 2 too. Bastien
I calculate the impact of a common in my set if rukh egg is 1 all common are 1 and the impact is 1/180 for a common. In Steven s weight a common weight more : 1/100. It weight alsmost like if all the common in my weight system was 2. So if you compare shivan weight in the A/B/U to the weight of an arabian common in my set, my weighting system is much more fair. But once again i think we can t compare the weight of a cards between set ... A/B/U is so different from arabian and antiquities ... Maby more close to legends by the number of cates but still it s very very different. We need to compare cards in a set I think. I think the weight of Steven is good too but i think the serendib should be 1 and guardian 3 like ali and diamond valley. So we keep it as 100 total weight. I think the main difference between the 2 weighting system is the weight of the common ... Do we want common to weight more or less ? Bastien
Bastien actually has a good point when you think about it.
It doesn't matter if you rank things 1-5 or 1-10 if you have the same distribution of rankings.
i.e. If you have 5 cards, each card ends up having the same weight in the set if you weight them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as if you weight them 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 because it's the card's overally weight in the set that counts rather than the actual weight assigned.
My view (which counts for close to zero since I'm not collecting AN) is that each set should be ranked independently. (i.e the relative weight of a AN card to an A/B/U card should be ignored). Otherwise you'd end up rating every Revised card as 1. (OK maybe they are in general terms, but not within that set.)
I think the weighting system works best if you have a card at weight 10, as otherwise all you're doing is calibrating the 1-10 weighting to a small number of weights, without actually having an impact on the relative weights of the cards. You just end up with a large subdivision unit than 1.
Continuing on Michael's view, the only difference you get between using a 1-5 vs a 1-10 scale is the latter one has more inbetween grades. When I first attempted to understand weights on the PSA registry, their website would suggest a 1-5 scale for most sets. And 1-10 for more complicated sets. As Steve has preached KISS. I'm in favor of that.
I was looking at the weights for A/B/U and noticed that the P9s get very high values while the rest gets from 1-4. Are there no (or few) cards that are worthy of the mid grades? -- Joe
I think that all boils down to a value question Joe. Alpha Power was never reprinted and most of the time sells for close to $1000 (or more). No cards in the set with the same rarity bring even 1/3 of that amount so a modifier of 3 or 4 (out of 10) seems about right.
In the later sets, I think the 1-5 scale is most representative as you are dealing with only a few cards per set that have a pronounced premium over the rest of the cards on the same press sheet.
In AQ for example, you have the Workshop (5), Candelabra (3), Summer, Autumn and Winter Factories, Archaeologist and Coffin (2). The rest of this set should rate no more than 1 for weighting in my opnion.
In AN you have the big 3, Juzam, Library and Bazaar that all should be 4-5 then you have a steep value drop to second tier cards like Ali, Beast, Diamond Valley, City, Old Man and Sharazad. After those 6, there are about 10 cards that I would rate a 2 and all the rest would be 1's. Yes, cards like Rukh Egg are more valuable than the rest of the commons but there is still 50,000 of them out there and they have been reprinted. It is no harder to acquire a Rukh Egg, it just costs a little more but not nearly on the same level as trying to acquire an Alpha Shivan as opposed to say an Alpha Purelace.
Good dialogue. I have been reading along and think Len's last post sums up my feelings best as to how the ratings should be used. Way back I made ratings for Antiquities and Legends and I seem to remember my highest # was a 6 or 7, nothing higher. Eventually you'll all come up with a rating system we all can agree on
Myself personally, at this point, I'm leaning towards this version of KISS: Rare = 9 Uncommon = 3 Common/Land = 1
How simple is that?
Take it easy, Jared
"You consider me the young apprentice, Caught between the Scylla and Charibdes, Hypnotized by you if I should linger, Staring at the ring around your finger" - Sting
Ray Thiel (1964-2007) - the man who showed me more wonderful games & gaming sessions than I ever dreamed possible... you ran out of hit points too young, my friend.
Nice to see that I stirred a few hornets up. I want to interjest a few basic ideas that I have in regards to weighting as a whole.
1) Basically most cards should be a 1. Rating something as a 2 just because its a less common rarity doesnt float. We can all agree that a common sinkhole is better and more desirable than a rare deathlace. Cards rated above 1, frankly should be much superior than the 1's in playability, rarity, value, etc. Whether it should be a 2-10 is a matter of guaging how superior th card is.
2) With reguards to the arabian set, a minimum of 4 out of 5 cards should be a 1. I've tried to give higher weights only to the cards that are truely desired. By in large there are very few of the cards rated 1, that any of us would trade straight up for cards rated 2 or higher. I cannot stress how important I feel that we keep the overall set divisor as low. The higher the set divisor goes, the lower the impact of the weights become. (to have the same effect of a 3 weight with a 100 set divisor, the same card needs to be rated a 6 in a set with a 200 divisor). The higher divisor dilutes the affect of the weights.
3) Specific Arabian Nights cards were weighted based on this rational.
Library of Alexandria - #1 card in the set, should be the highest weighted card ... i.e weight 5
Bazaar & Juzam - By far superior to anything but the library, relatively equal to each other. weight 4
Ali from Cairo, Diamond valley - These two cards are scrying about $75.00, whereas the weight 2 cards are $40-50. Additionally, they are also very playable cards with big impacts when they are put into play. I feel they are just 1 weight factor better than the next group. therefore, weight 3
Drop of Honey, old man, serendib efreet, jihad, etc. - these are the remainin really desirable, plable, valuable uncommons, that are just plain better than the 1's (i wonder if the ring of ma'ruf should be here also???). Lets face it a Jihad is just better than an ali baba. I dont get excited cracking an alladin, but I do if it's a a drop of honey. weoight -2
Everything Else, weight -1
**** In regards to Bastien's wanting the Guardian to be rated a 3 rather than a 2, I struggled with this also. It's monetary value is almost as high as Ali and the Diamond Valley, however, I just didn't think it was there. Also I found its playabilty to be lesser and erred on the cautious side and made it a 2. If it's weighted as a 3, I feel that would be acceptable aslo. The Sreendib Efreet should definately be a 2 not a 1. It is a valuable card $35-$40 scrye value, but most importantly it is highly playable. It is probably one of the better creatures in the set. Additionally, when I have listed them on ebay, they always sell with good bids. It should definately be a 2 ****
4) When looking at the mathematics of a weighting system, people tend to apply the numbers rther linearly. I submit that weight should be more of a logrithmic scale. Maybe not a base 10 logrithm, but rater one close the the natural log scale. Perhaps a base 3 log. For example: weight 1 = 1, weight 2 = 3 times value, weight 3 = 9 times value, weight 4 = 27 times value, weight 5 = 81 times value. While this is not perfect, it does illustrate the general idea of how weighting should be. While I feel it is not important to base weights on specific cards and prices and forcing them to fit within this scale, I feel it is im portant to understand the concept of logrithmic weighting. When viewed this way, the 1-5 weights I proposed for the AN set appear to have a nice consistency.
5) Fianlly, I do agree that the sets should be weighted individually without trying to tie the weights or ratios to other sets. The A/B/U sets are the only sets where ther is a cards worth 1000 times the least valuable card. Thats why the P9 weight 7-10 and everything else is 3 or less. Only these sets have this elite group of cards that are hands down superior as judged by eveyone. Because of this, I have kept the AN weights 1-5. However, I didn't consider any A/B/U weights when designing AN weights.
Finally, should the Guardian Beast be a 3 or a 2????
Remember when weighting, think logrithmically, not linearly.
Oh yeah... the SHIVAN and other top rares in A/B/U should definately be 2's not 1's. How is a Wrath of God not more weighty than a circle of protection. I'll post a revision for A/B/U for discussion if people are interested. Anyone interested???
Yes i think we should put some big creature like vesuvan, shivan, mahamoti with a weight of 2 in the A/B/U maby royal too. For me guardian beast is > to the diamond valley. Guardian beast is not played in all the deck but diamond valley can be usefull in all deck that s why it s more played. But in black deck with artifact the guardian is so powefull ... If you compare it to the other cards weighted 2 ... there is no match every body will pick the guardian ... I paid 250 USD the guardian but i did bought the diamond valley for 200 USD.
For serendib, ok, it s good card but it s been reedited. Beside that the card is good but not awesome ... it almost never make you win a game fast even if you get it at begin. I am sure the ifh-biff will go for the same $$ at the same grade. Now there is more poeple playing bleu so i think ungraded serendib will sell better for player but not very much more. If you play green ifh-biff is very nice (i suspect Steven to play bleu and not green :-) ). If time walk and ancestral and twister was green ifh-biff would be >> to serendib for sure.
I talk to my ifh-biff and he agreed ... Serendib can t talk, he is at PSA at the moment :-)
Don't have too much time to chat this week, got a major exam happening next week.
Glad you guys are looking at weighing the MTG sets. We had some great discussions at the start of Oct. Steven emphasized KISS and either Tony/Jared mentioned about Scrye prices being an encapsulation of multiple factors to arrive at the price. If Scrye is saying a Guardian is price near par with an Ali, I can only assume that to mean there are others out there believing that both are worthy of that value. My view would lean towards keeping the 2 cards at the same ranking. For several of us to say one card is more superior than another here is more of personal feel which may or may not capture the essence of the general market.
Would it make sense to apply the same approach across the board for every set? The scale itself may differ (the value that separates different weights) but the approach remain consistant (that is, if a log approach is applied, it should apply to evey set, whether the log base stays the same across sets can be debated).
I alluded to the use of a log scale back on Oct 1 (with a log base more like 1.8). Seeing that Steve is also a proponent for a log scale, plus applying KISS and using the vast research put into Scrye prices, I'd be more incline to suggest using a log scale on the Scrye prices to set the weights. (The differing aspect would be each set may have a different log base to better capture the spread for each set.)
Ok, I'm done ranting now. Feel free to incorporate any (or none) of my suggestions into the weights. You all have my blessing to nail them down. It's sooooo much fun watching the set ranking changes. Have fun!!!!!
I'll be back mid-week to catch up on the thread. Cheers. -- Joe
I have been enjoying reading everyone's thoughts on this thread...
Being relatively new to the concept of weighting, I don't have yet have a strong opinion and the excellent discussion points by some of you have been good reading for me.
One question that jumps to mind for me as I look at the lists centers around the concept that most cards should be weighted as a 1. It doesn't quite sit with me that most commons and rares have the same weights. So I look at the example of one set having 50 commons and another having 50 rares with the same grades and the sets being weighted equal.
The example of the deathlace (sorry to all you "lace" fanatics out there) I do agree with. But it seems to me that the average rare should weight higher than the average uncommon which should weight higher than the average common. These differences are also reflected in their prices. I could be off, so I'd enjoy reading further thoughts on this.
At the very least, I absolutely agree that some of the rares currently weighted 1 are really being shown no respect! Wrath of God, Shivan, Wheel of Fortune, Royal Assassin, etc.
I'm also new to registery sets and weights but I agree with a couple people here that the rares should be higher than 1 and that the more expensive, more played rares should be higher weight than the general rares. Stuff like Shivan, Wheel of Furtune, Assassin, WoG, Serra Angel should be more than 1s and even more than general rares, Dual Lands were always played and valuable and should be more than 2s, Sinkhole could be a 2 even if it is a common as it was played a lot and costs more than many rares in the set. My thinking is someone who registers 50 commons shouldn't have the same set weight as someone who registers all 10 dual lands and 30 assorted rares.
Yes i agree it sound strange that a guy that buy 10 beta common PSA 10 get a set better than a guy than own a Lotus beta PSA 10 ... you buy 5 land PSA 10 for 100 USD and 6 common for 25 each (like earth bind and other crap) you get a set PSA 10 that weight 11 for 225 USD and the other guy with the lotus got a set PSA 10 that weight 10 for 10 000 USD ... So this don t reflect the value of a set. How ever i think PSA grade 1-10 because there is no such difference in the sets for sports cards ? Maby a rare from a set is maximum worth 10 time worth an other rare card from the same years ? I know nothing about sport cards but i think the fact that MTG is a game and there is huge difference of power between cards with same rarity make the weight between cards look insane. However it s better if the library weight 5 than 1 like a desert LoL ! So what ever you chose to weight the cards it fine with me since after all i don t realy care if the ifh-biff is weighted half of a serendib :-) Damn now ifh-biff is making hurrican in its box !!! i d better stop saying this Bastien
I tend to agree with you with regard to the Ifh-Biff Efreet, Bastien. And not just because I also played green.
There is that group of Arabians that has always been a step above the rest, though maybe not top tier. Other cards that have been on par with the Old Man and Serendib Efreet might include Ifh-Biff Efreet, Serendib Djinn, and Khabal Ghoul. I think Guardian Beast is a step above these, and probably close enough to be on par with Ali and Diamond Valley.
Borst, I agree with your view that dual-lands should be higher than 2 based upon their values and power in the game/set.
I wasn't a math major, so I might not be fully understanding those with the logarithmic view. Joe, is your major exam for a calculus class?
No, my exam is for a comprehensive MBA exam. Basically being tested on everything. Uckkk. But I tend to think logically and enjoy dabbling with algorithms & processes. Math is my strongest subject in high school. -- Joe
Tromagic - I know you're just trying to get more people to look at your auctions but it is against Ebays policy to spam keywords in your auction titles (you put Alpha and Beta in all your auction titles) I almost reported your auction to Ebay and noticed it was yours so I didn't (didn't want to to someone I know and buy from and going to probably bid on one of his auctions running now )
It just gets frustrating when you search for something and get a ton of results but most of them are not what you want because the seller spams keywords like PSA, Alpha, Beta, or whatever in the titles, not that Ebay ever does anything about 99.99% of the time but once in a while they do close auctions or warn the sellers of the violation.
I don t agree with you on this. Because most poeple that collect beta collect also alpha ... If the deal is good they will get it. Poeple that put keyword think they can get poeple looking something else that could be interesting on there items. For expemple : I didn t put corvette in my auction ... I know the a guy looking for a corvette won t be interesting in my cards ... But there is for me more chance that a guy that collect an alpha cards graded will like to buy an arabian graded. It s easy to see what the auction is about anyway i put what i sell in big letter. And first thing i say in the auction is the exact item i sell. There is no lie or things hidden. For exemple, i use to type PSA as key word to look on ebay ... Some seller that sell Becket cards don t put PSA in the title ... I never see there auction and miss lot deal ... That bad for them and for me... It s a big mistake not to put PSA in a becket item sold on ebay. For exemple, someone selling sausage can put ham in is title ... It s likely that the guy that look for sausage will look for ham too. That said, if you sell candle and put beta in title of course you are dumb and this could piss off lot people Like the guy that said he was selling stuff that has nothing to do with cards in this chat 1 month ago ... But i anderstand the guy that was telling us he was selling some cards against communisme one week ago ... It totaly different ... In the first case 99.99 % of the poeple won t be interessed in the stuff he sell so it s a big wast of time, in the second case at least 30 % will have a look at the cards he sell ... Well i was happy to see those cards even if i didn t won any... happy bidding on my auction Bastien
I agree that price is the most important individual factor in determining weights. When I was considering the weights for Arabians, I tended to rank cards in price groupings. All the factors that have been talked about do eventually contibute to establishing a market clearing price. I have a scrye right on my desk and frequently look at the pricing for these older sets. One thing we can all agree on is that prices for PSA graded cards on ebay and the internet have definately affected the scrye values of the "bigger" cards over the last 18-24 months. I've probably run more ebay actions for psa graded cards than anyone here, and I have sure seen a decrease in price multiples for the higher psa grades as the scrye value (especiall High scrye) have increased and populations swell. Therefore, when I consider pricing and weights, I think the the degree of correlation between ungraded scrye values and psa graded values contuinue to increase. In time if populations become large enough over time the correlation may approach 1:1.
In the end, I consider alot of factors when pricing a card for sale on ebay. The very same factors that I consider in determing relative weights. So I again agree, that Price is a very good distillation of all the various factors that affect desirability for any specific card. Therefore, I do use it as a primary benchmark for considering relative card weights.
I'm an idiot. I responded to a comment to the thread Jared made a long time ago... Doh!
Anyway, Bastien, thanks for gettin the arabians weighted.
Borst,
I agree with Bastien. He is doing nothing with his auction titles that is an ebay violation. In fact, I'd argue that ebay actions actually validate his right to list his auctions this way. The fact is that ebay encourages cross promotion. Every time you list an auction, ebay solicits you to list the very same item in another catagory, there by doubling the listing fees. They want to drive a larger segment of buyers and searchers to that auction. For instance, say I place an liting for a beta card in the mtg: beta singles catagory, ebay actully wants me to also list it in another related catagory. So lets say I also list it in the alpha catagory too. Why would they want this? Why, because they want people looking into the alpha catagory to also see auctions listed in other related catagories. Therefore, I should put both alpha and beta in my auction listing in this case, to catch both searches in alph and beta catagories. Thats fair right?
So even though Bastien didnt list cards in two catagories, his auctions titles are very well within acceptable if not encouraged boundries. Again, ebay encourages cross promotion. Personally, I dislike that tactic when overused and tend to not bid on auctions from people who over use such stratagies. However, I admit I do it myself. Here's how. many times when selling a ungraded quality card, I'll put " PSA or PSA Ready" in the auction title. This is to get my action in on searches of people looking for PSA graded cards. Bastien's listing do basically the same thing.
Like yourself I like to do searches like: mtg beta psa OR mtg alpha psa, etc. I hate it wen I am specifically looking for an alpha card and a but load of similar cards from other editions come up. It's really annoying. Afterall, I want just those cards specific to my search to come up. While I hate those listings, they are not unallowable.
Still they annoy me. Right bastien? Does that make sense Borst?
I agree with Bastien. He is doing nothing with his auction titles that is an ebay violation. In fact, I'd argue that ebay actions actually validate his right to list his auctions this way. >>
I do agree that his are not that bad compared to people who put PSA GAI or some grading company in the title when the card isn't even graded at all (noticed you said you do that ) but it is a violation of Ebay policy (not saying they hardly ever enforce it, mostly because they would be closing probably 10% of thier auctions but it might cut down on number of people getting scammed).
The cross promotion that Ebay has is if you sell an item that could really fit well in 2 different categories, not to get people to look at your other auctions by putting keywords in the title.
You also got to remember when it comes to Ebay and Paypal you really have no rights
Maby i am a bit annoying with my auction but at least i don t miss no potential bider and i realy need not to miss a bidder i am very low on money after this unlimited set i won last week... Graded beta sell so low price on ebay now They sell 1/2 of unlimited price LoL ! Bastien
Comments
I did it with this e-mail to see if it worked...
(If the file is attached, you need to rename it .txt to read it).
Michael
edit: Seemed to work!
- Michael
who needs one
buncha weirdos
Currently 95 Alpha 10's so far...
8 x Alpha PSA 10 Hypnotic Spector
3 x Alpha PSA 10 Icy Manipulator
2 x Alpha PSA 10 Demonic Tutor
1 x Alpha PSA 10 TimeWalk
0 x Alpha PSA 10 Black Lotus
1 ABU JA'FAR 2
2 ALADDIN 2
3 ALADDIN'S LAMP 2
4 ALADDIN'S RING 2
5 ALI BABA 2
6 ALI FROM CAIRO 6
7 ARMY OF ALLAH 1
8 BAZAAR OF BAGHDAD 8
9 BIRD MAIDEN 1
10 BOTTLE OF SULEIMAN 2
11 BRASS MAN 1
12 CAMEL 1
13 CITY IN A BOTTLE 2
14 CITY OF BRASS 5
15 CUOMBAJJ WITCHES 1
16 CYCLONE 2
17 DANCING SCIMITAR 2
18 DANDAN 1
19 DESERT 1
20 DESERT NOMADS 1
21 DESERT TWISTER 2
22 DIAMOND VALLEY 6
23 DROP OF HONEY 3
24 EBONY HORSE 2
25 EL-HAJJAJ 2
26 ELEPHANT GRAVEYARD 3
27 ERG RAIDERS 1
28 ERHNAM DJINN 3
29 EYE FOR AN EYE 2
30 FISHLIVER OIL 1
31 FLYING CARPET 2
32 FLYING MEN 1
33 GHAZBAN OGRE 1
34 GIANT TORTOISE 1
35 GUARDIAN BEAST 6
36 HASRAN OGRESS 1
37 HURR JACKAL 1
38 IFH-BIFF EFREET 4
39 ISLAND FISH JASCONIUS 2
40 ISLAND OF WAK-WAK 3
41 JANDOR'S RING 2
42 JANDOR'S SADDLEBAGS 2
43 JEWELED BIRD 2
44 JIHAD 4
45 JUNUN EFREET 2
46 JUZAM DJINN 7
47 KHABAL GHOUL 4
48 KING SULEIMAN 3
49 KIRD APE 1
50 LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA 10
51 MAGNETIC MOUNTAIN 2
52 MERCHANT SHIP 2
53 METAMORPHOSIS 1
54 MIJAE DJINN 2
55 MOORISH CAVALRY 1
56 MOUNTAIN 2
57 NAFS ASP 1
58 OASIS 1
59 OLD MAN OF THE SEA 4
60 OUBLIETTE 1
61 PIETY 1
62 PYRAMIDS 2
63 REPENTANT BLACKSMITH 2
64 RING OF MA'RUF 2
65 RUKH EGG 2 (nice common and lot played so maby 2 for this one)
66 SANDALS OF ABDALLAH 2
67 SANDSTORM 1
68 SERENDIB DJINN 2
69 SERENDIB EFREET 3
70 SHAHRAZAD 4
71 SINDBAD 2
72 SINGING TREE 2
73 SORCERESS QUEEN 3
74 STONE-THROWING DEVILS 1
75 UNSTABLE MUTATION 1
76 WAR ELEPHANT 1
77 WYLULI WOLF 1
78 YDWEN EFREET 2
It s a first though ... I made this fast and didn t think too much on it. Let me know what you think. Steven can compare to his data and let me know.
Thanks,
Bastien
Not bad - although I might knock the Khabal and King down 1 each
Any chance we might get PSA to add back in the basic land varieties to A/B/U? Do people want them to? Just asking - for the record I would like it, unless Steven is going to try and get the mountain weighted as 8 again
Take it easy,
Jared
Caught between the Scylla and Charibdes,
Hypnotized by you if I should linger,
Staring at the ring around your finger" - Sting
Ray Thiel (1964-2007) - the man who showed me more wonderful games & gaming sessions than I ever dreamed possible... you ran out of hit points too young, my friend.
Tromagic
But I wonder if this likely to happen in practice? e.g. What does it mean for the land cards that have already been graded? It seems like once a set has been 'set' and cards have been graded by that set, it's hard to retrospectively change that.
Michael
edit: typo
I have one of those mislabeled Mishra's - it is now a "Fall" in my registry, even though in reality it is a "Spring". Not a big deal - I will send it in with my next submission as a "mechanical error" since the flip doesn't match the card and they will fix it for free (I only need to pay postage to get it there). PSA is very good about things like that - I've done it many times and never had a problem
Take it easy,
Jared
Caught between the Scylla and Charibdes,
Hypnotized by you if I should linger,
Staring at the ring around your finger" - Sting
Ray Thiel (1964-2007) - the man who showed me more wonderful games & gaming sessions than I ever dreamed possible... you ran out of hit points too young, my friend.
Card No. Item Name Grade
Weight
1 ABU JA'FAR 1
2 ALADDIN 1
3 ALADDIN'S LAMP 1
4 ALADDIN'S RING 1
5 ALI BABA 1
6 ALI FROM CAIRO 3
7 ARMY OF ALLAH 1
8 BAZAAR OF BAGHDAD 4
9 BIRD MAIDEN 1
10 BOTTLE OF SULEIMAN 1
11 BRASS MAN 1
12 CAMEL 1
13 CITY IN A BOTTLE 1
14 CITY OF BRASS 2
15 CUOMBAJJ WITCHES 1
16 CYCLONE 1
17 DANCING SCIMITAR 1
18 DANDAN 1
19 DESERT 1
20 DESERT NOMADS 1
21 DESERT TWISTER 1
22 DIAMOND VALLEY 3
23 DROP OF HONEY 2
24 EBONY HORSE 1
25 EL-HAJJAJ 1
26 ELEPHANT GRAVEYARD 1
27 ERG RAIDERS 1
28 ERHNAM DJINN 1
29 EYE FOR AN EYE 1
30 FISHLIVER OIL 1
31 FLYING CARPET 1
32 FLYING MEN 1
33 GHAZBAN OGRE 1
34 GIANT TORTOISE 1
35 GUARDIAN BEAST 2
36 HASRAN OGRESS 1
37 HURR JACKAL 1
38 IFH-BIFF EFREET 1
39 ISLAND FISH JASCONIUS 1
40 ISLAND OF WAK-WAK 1
41 JANDOR'S RING 1
42 JANDOR'S SADDLEBAGS 1
43 JEWELED BIRD 1
44 JIHAD 2
45 JUNUN EFREET 1
46 JUZAM DJINN 4
47 KHABAL GHOUL 1
48 KING SULEIMAN 1
49 KIRD APE 1
50 LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA 5
51 MAGNETIC MOUNTAIN 1
52 MERCHANT SHIP 1
53 METAMORPHOSIS 1
54 MIJAE DJINN 1
55 MOORISH CAVALRY 1
56 MOUNTAIN 1
57 NAFS ASP 1
58 OASIS 1
59 OLD MAN OF THE SEA 2
60 OUBLIETTE 1
61 PIETY 1
62 PYRAMIDS 1
63 REPENTANT BLACKSMITH 1
64 RING OF MA'RUF 1
65 RUKH EGG 1
66 SANDALS OF ABDALLAH 1
67 SANDSTORM 1
68 SERENDIB DJINN 1
69 SERENDIB EFREET 2
70 SHAHRAZAD 2
71 SINDBAD 1
72 SINGING TREE 2
73 SORCERESS QUEEN 1
74 STONE-THROWING DEVILS 1
75 UNSTABLE MUTATION 1
76 WAR ELEPHANT 1
77 WYLULI WOLF 1
78 YDWEN EFREET 1
divisor 100
If you look at the A/B/U sets we went from an unrated set rating of 290 to 390 ( approximately a 35% increase of the total weight. For congruency this proportion is more closely maintaied with a 78/100 ( approximately a 24% increase in total weights). Face it there are fewer power cards that are dramatically better than their peers in this set. I feel the Library is tops (weight 5) followed by the Juzam and Bazaar at the same level(weight 4). Then the next tier is Ali snd the diamond valley ( weight 3). (weight 2) would be big uncommons, guardian beast, shaharazad, old man etc. Finally, weight 1 are all the other average commons and commons.
KISS - I feel keeping it simpler is better
Steven
"spacebaby" on ebay
Personally, I have graded lands in all three variations. Only the highest graded one actually counts on the registry. A complete set includes all 15 lands, however, there is no way to distinguish the variations at this point. So trying to get them added at this time is kinda moot. PSA decided this issue a year and a half ago.
"spacebaby" on ebay
KISS!
Len
Tap4Black
Also i think it s realy unfair the any rare alpha weight as much as a common ... Shivan alpha PSA 9 is 300 + USD and Lighting bolt PSA 10 alpha is 80 USD (and it s the best common) compare to not the best rare ...
It s much more easy to get a common PSA 8 + than any rare and lot cheaper too.
Also the guardian beast should be 3 in steven s set i think. if SERENDIB EFREET is 2 then IFH-BIFF EFREET should be 2 too.
Bastien
I think the weight of Steven is good too but i think the serendib should be 1 and guardian 3 like ali and diamond valley.
So we keep it as 100 total weight.
I think the main difference between the 2 weighting system is the weight of the common ...
Do we want common to weight more or less ?
Bastien
It doesn't matter if you rank things 1-5 or 1-10 if you have the same distribution of rankings.
i.e. If you have 5 cards, each card ends up having the same weight in the set if you weight them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as if you weight them 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 because it's the card's overally weight in the set that counts rather than the actual weight assigned.
My view (which counts for close to zero since I'm not collecting AN) is that each set should be ranked independently. (i.e the relative weight of a AN card to an A/B/U card should be ignored). Otherwise you'd end up rating every Revised card as 1. (OK maybe they are in general terms, but not within that set.)
I think the weighting system works best if you have a card at weight 10, as otherwise all you're doing is calibrating the 1-10 weighting to a small number of weights, without actually having an impact on the relative weights of the cards. You just end up with a large subdivision unit than 1.
Thank you, and goodnight!
I was looking at the weights for A/B/U and noticed that the P9s get very high values while the rest gets from 1-4. Are there no (or few) cards that are worthy of the mid grades?
-- Joe
In the later sets, I think the 1-5 scale is most representative as you are dealing with only a few cards per set that have a pronounced premium over the rest of the cards on the same press sheet.
In AQ for example, you have the Workshop (5), Candelabra (3), Summer, Autumn and Winter Factories, Archaeologist and Coffin (2). The rest of this set should rate no more than 1 for weighting in my opnion.
In AN you have the big 3, Juzam, Library and Bazaar that all should be 4-5 then you have a steep value drop to second tier cards like Ali, Beast, Diamond Valley, City, Old Man and Sharazad. After those 6, there are about 10 cards that I would rate a 2 and all the rest would be 1's. Yes, cards like Rukh Egg are more valuable than the rest of the commons but there is still 50,000 of them out there and they have been reprinted. It is no harder to acquire a Rukh Egg, it just costs a little more but not nearly on the same level as trying to acquire an Alpha Shivan as opposed to say an Alpha Purelace.
Len
Tap4Black
Good dialogue. I have been reading along and think Len's last post sums up my feelings best as to how the ratings should be used. Way back I made ratings for Antiquities and Legends and I seem to remember my highest # was a 6 or 7, nothing higher. Eventually you'll all come up with a rating system we all can agree on
Myself personally, at this point, I'm leaning towards this version of KISS:
Rare = 9
Uncommon = 3
Common/Land = 1
How simple is that?
Take it easy,
Jared
Caught between the Scylla and Charibdes,
Hypnotized by you if I should linger,
Staring at the ring around your finger" - Sting
Ray Thiel (1964-2007) - the man who showed me more wonderful games & gaming sessions than I ever dreamed possible... you ran out of hit points too young, my friend.
Every body ok with this ?
Bastien
Unopened 1975 material
UL Magic the Gathering
1) Basically most cards should be a 1. Rating something as a 2 just because its a less common rarity doesnt float. We can all agree that a common sinkhole is better and more desirable than a rare deathlace. Cards rated above 1, frankly should be much superior than the 1's in playability, rarity, value, etc. Whether it should be a 2-10 is a matter of guaging how superior th card is.
2) With reguards to the arabian set, a minimum of 4 out of 5 cards should be a 1. I've tried to give higher weights only to the cards that are truely desired. By in large there are very few of the cards rated 1, that any of us would trade straight up for cards rated 2 or higher. I cannot stress how important I feel that we keep the overall set divisor as low. The higher the set divisor goes, the lower the impact of the weights become. (to have the same effect of a 3 weight with a 100 set divisor, the same card needs to be rated a 6 in a set with a 200 divisor). The higher divisor dilutes the affect of the weights.
3) Specific Arabian Nights cards were weighted based on this rational.
Library of Alexandria - #1 card in the set, should be the highest weighted card ... i.e weight 5
Bazaar & Juzam - By far superior to anything but the library, relatively equal to each other. weight 4
Ali from Cairo, Diamond valley - These two cards are scrying about $75.00, whereas the weight 2 cards are $40-50. Additionally, they are also very playable cards with big impacts when they are put into play. I feel they are just 1 weight factor better than the next group. therefore, weight 3
Drop of Honey, old man, serendib efreet, jihad, etc. - these are the remainin really desirable, plable, valuable uncommons, that are just plain better than the 1's (i wonder if the ring of ma'ruf should be here also???). Lets face it a Jihad is just better than an ali baba. I dont get excited cracking an alladin, but I do if it's a a drop of honey. weoight -2
Everything Else, weight -1
**** In regards to Bastien's wanting the Guardian to be rated a 3 rather than a 2, I struggled with this also. It's monetary value is almost as high as Ali and the Diamond Valley, however, I just didn't think it was there. Also I found its playabilty to be lesser and erred on the cautious side and made it a 2. If it's weighted as a 3, I feel that would be acceptable aslo. The Sreendib Efreet should definately be a 2 not a 1. It is a valuable card $35-$40 scrye value, but most importantly it is highly playable. It is probably one of the better creatures in the set. Additionally, when I have listed them on ebay, they always sell with good bids. It should definately be a 2 ****
4) When looking at the mathematics of a weighting system, people tend to apply the numbers rther linearly. I submit that weight should be more of a logrithmic scale. Maybe not a base 10 logrithm, but rater one close the the natural log scale. Perhaps a base 3 log. For example: weight 1 = 1, weight 2 = 3 times value, weight 3 = 9 times value, weight 4 = 27 times value, weight 5 = 81 times value. While this is not perfect, it does illustrate the general idea of how weighting should be. While I feel it is not important to base weights on specific cards and prices and forcing them to fit within this scale, I feel it is im portant to understand the concept of logrithmic weighting. When viewed this way, the 1-5 weights I proposed for the AN set appear to have a nice consistency.
5) Fianlly, I do agree that the sets should be weighted individually without trying to tie the weights or ratios to other sets. The A/B/U sets are the only sets where ther is a cards worth 1000 times the least valuable card. Thats why the P9 weight 7-10 and everything else is 3 or less. Only these sets have this elite group of cards that are hands down superior as judged by eveyone. Because of this, I have kept the AN weights 1-5. However, I didn't consider any A/B/U weights when designing AN weights.
Finally, should the Guardian Beast be a 3 or a 2????
Remember when weighting, think logrithmically, not linearly.
steven
"spacebaby" on ebay
"spacebaby" on ebay
For me guardian beast is > to the diamond valley. Guardian beast is not played in all the deck but diamond valley can be usefull in all deck that s why it s more played. But in black deck with artifact the guardian is so powefull ... If you compare it to the other cards weighted 2 ... there is no match every body will pick the guardian ...
I paid 250 USD the guardian but i did bought the diamond valley for 200 USD.
For serendib, ok, it s good card but it s been reedited. Beside that the card is good but not awesome ... it almost never make you win a game fast even if you get it at begin. I am sure the ifh-biff will go for the same $$ at the same grade. Now there is more poeple playing bleu so i think ungraded serendib will sell better for player but not very much more.
If you play green ifh-biff is very nice (i suspect Steven to play bleu and not green :-) ). If time walk and ancestral and twister was green ifh-biff would be >> to serendib for sure.
I talk to my ifh-biff and he agreed ... Serendib can t talk, he is at PSA at the moment :-)
Bastien
Don't have too much time to chat this week, got a major exam happening next week.
Glad you guys are looking at weighing the MTG sets. We had some great discussions at the start of Oct. Steven emphasized KISS and either Tony/Jared mentioned about Scrye prices being an encapsulation of multiple factors to arrive at the price. If Scrye is saying a Guardian is price near par with an Ali, I can only assume that to mean there are others out there believing that both are worthy of that value. My view would lean towards keeping the 2 cards at the same ranking. For several of us to say one card is more superior than another here is more of personal feel which may or may not capture the essence of the general market.
Would it make sense to apply the same approach across the board for every set? The scale itself may differ (the value that separates different weights) but the approach remain consistant (that is, if a log approach is applied, it should apply to evey set, whether the log base stays the same across sets can be debated).
I alluded to the use of a log scale back on Oct 1 (with a log base more like 1.8). Seeing that Steve is also a proponent for a log scale, plus applying KISS and using the vast research put into Scrye prices, I'd be more incline to suggest using a log scale on the Scrye prices to set the weights. (The differing aspect would be each set may have a different log base to better capture the spread for each set.)
Ok, I'm done ranting now.
I'll be back mid-week to catch up on the thread. Cheers.
-- Joe
I have been enjoying reading everyone's thoughts on this thread...
Being relatively new to the concept of weighting, I don't have yet have a strong opinion and the excellent discussion points by some of you have been good reading for me.
One question that jumps to mind for me as I look at the lists centers around the concept that most cards should be weighted as a 1. It doesn't quite sit with me that most commons and rares have the same weights. So I look at the example of one set having 50 commons and another having 50 rares with the same grades and the sets being weighted equal.
The example of the deathlace (sorry to all you "lace" fanatics out there) I do agree with. But it seems to me that the average rare should weight higher than the average uncommon which should weight higher than the average common. These differences are also reflected in their prices. I could be off, so I'd enjoy reading further thoughts on this.
At the very least, I absolutely agree that some of the rares currently weighted 1 are really being shown no respect! Wrath of God, Shivan, Wheel of Fortune, Royal Assassin, etc.
-Tony
So this don t reflect the value of a set.
How ever i think PSA grade 1-10 because there is no such difference in the sets for sports cards ? Maby a rare from a set is maximum worth 10 time worth an other rare card from the same years ?
I know nothing about sport cards but i think the fact that MTG is a game and there is huge difference of power between cards with same rarity make the weight between cards look insane.
However it s better if the library weight 5 than 1 like a desert LoL !
So what ever you chose to weight the cards it fine with me since after all i don t realy care if the ifh-biff is weighted half of a serendib :-)
Damn now ifh-biff is making hurrican in its box !!! i d better stop saying this
Bastien
There is that group of Arabians that has always been a step above the rest, though maybe not top tier. Other cards that have been on par with the Old Man and Serendib Efreet might include Ifh-Biff Efreet, Serendib Djinn, and Khabal Ghoul. I think Guardian Beast is a step above these, and probably close enough to be on par with Ali and Diamond Valley.
Borst, I agree with your view that dual-lands should be higher than 2 based upon their values and power in the game/set.
I wasn't a math major, so I might not be fully understanding those with the logarithmic view. Joe, is your major exam for a calculus class?
-Tony
-- Joe
The Gusardian Beast should be a 3 with ali and the diamond valley
The Ifh-biff and serendib should be 2's
Yes I understand the ifh-biff is as powerful or more so than the serendib efreet.
Any other changes????
"spacebaby" on ebay
Bastien
Bastien
Bastien
It just gets frustrating when you search for something and get a ton of results but most of them are not what you want because the seller spams keywords like PSA, Alpha, Beta, or whatever in the titles, not that Ebay ever does anything about 99.99% of the time but once in a while they do close auctions or warn the sellers of the violation.
For exemple, someone selling sausage can put ham in is title ... It s likely that the guy that look for sausage will look for ham too.
That said, if you sell candle and put beta in title of course you are dumb and this could piss off lot people
Like the guy that said he was selling stuff that has nothing to do with cards in this chat 1 month ago ... But i anderstand the guy that was telling us he was selling some cards against communisme one week ago ... It totaly different ... In the first case 99.99 % of the poeple won t be interessed in the stuff he sell so it s a big wast of time, in the second case at least 30 % will have a look at the cards he sell ... Well i was happy to see those cards even if i didn t won any...
happy bidding on my auction
Bastien
I agree that price is the most important individual factor in determining weights. When I was considering the weights for Arabians, I tended to rank cards in price groupings. All the factors that have been talked about do eventually contibute to establishing a market clearing price. I have a scrye right on my desk and frequently look at the pricing for these older sets. One thing we can all agree on is that prices for PSA graded cards on ebay and the internet have definately affected the scrye values of the "bigger" cards over the last 18-24 months. I've probably run more ebay actions for psa graded cards than anyone here, and I have sure seen a decrease in price multiples for the higher psa grades as the scrye value (especiall High scrye) have increased and populations swell. Therefore, when I consider pricing and weights, I think the the degree of correlation between ungraded scrye values and psa graded values contuinue to increase. In time if populations become large enough over time the correlation may approach 1:1.
In the end, I consider alot of factors when pricing a card for sale on ebay. The very same factors that I consider in determing relative weights. So I again agree, that Price is a very good distillation of all the various factors that affect desirability for any specific card. Therefore, I do use it as a primary benchmark for considering relative card weights.
"spacebaby" on ebay
I'm an idiot. I responded to a comment to the thread Jared made a long time ago... Doh!
Anyway, Bastien, thanks for gettin the arabians weighted.
Borst,
I agree with Bastien. He is doing nothing with his auction titles that is an ebay violation. In fact, I'd argue that ebay actions actually validate his right to list his auctions this way. The fact is that ebay encourages cross promotion. Every time you list an auction, ebay solicits you to list the very same item in another catagory, there by doubling the listing fees. They want to drive a larger segment of buyers and searchers to that auction. For instance, say I place an liting for a beta card in the mtg: beta singles catagory, ebay actully wants me to also list it in another related catagory. So lets say I also list it in the alpha catagory too. Why would they want this? Why, because they want people looking into the alpha catagory to also see auctions listed in other related catagories. Therefore, I should put both alpha and beta in my auction listing in this case, to catch both searches in alph and beta catagories. Thats fair right?
So even though Bastien didnt list cards in two catagories, his auctions titles are very well within acceptable if not encouraged boundries. Again, ebay encourages cross promotion. Personally, I dislike that tactic when overused and tend to not bid on auctions from people who over use such stratagies. However, I admit I do it myself. Here's how. many times when selling a ungraded quality card, I'll put " PSA or PSA Ready" in the auction title. This is to get my action in on searches of people looking for PSA graded cards. Bastien's listing do basically the same thing.
Like yourself I like to do searches like: mtg beta psa OR mtg alpha psa, etc. I hate it wen I am specifically looking for an alpha card and a but load of similar cards from other editions come up. It's really annoying. Afterall, I want just those cards specific to my search to come up. While I hate those listings, they are not unallowable.
Still they annoy me. Right bastien? Does that make sense Borst?
"spacebaby" on ebay
<< <i>Borst,
I agree with Bastien. He is doing nothing with his auction titles that is an ebay violation. In fact, I'd argue that ebay actions actually validate his right to list his auctions this way. >>
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/misleading-titles.html
I do agree that his are not that bad compared to people who put PSA GAI or some grading company in the title when the card isn't even graded at all (noticed you said you do that
The cross promotion that Ebay has is if you sell an item that could really fit well in 2 different categories, not to get people to look at your other auctions by putting keywords in the title.
You also got to remember when it comes to Ebay and Paypal you really have no rights
They sell 1/2 of unlimited price LoL !
Bastien