SETBREAK is a $612 word.
itzagoner
Posts: 8,753 ✭✭
itzagoner
Posts: 8,753 ✭✭
itzagoner
Posts: 8,753 ✭✭
Comments
CU Ancient Members badge member.
Collection: https://flickr.com/photos/185200668@N06/albums
if you didn't know for sure, now you do. what happens to people who have a sick amount of cash? they play the market and destroy any perception of regularity we might have, at least as it pertains to the pricing authorities like VCP. the Britton card, in particular, had not seen the market in that grade since 2012, so who knows what bidders were thinking? the next PSA 9 Britton sold for $127+......then the one which ended tonite sold for $13.
the only thing that intrigues me after having researched several of the aforementioned auctions, is how the underbidders came into play for those inflated final prices. why were they bidding so high? did they know who was waving dollar bills around during that time? hmmm.
Why at the bottom of the history page does it show the underbidder retracted a thousand dollar bid at about the same time? Was it this auction he retracted his bid? Attempt to shill?
<< <i>I have seen lots of cards from that set posted on here with variations. Any chance the $625 fits that profile? >>
no.
<< <i>what happens to people who have a sick amount of cash? they play the market and destroy any perception of regularity we might have, at least as it pertains to the pricing authorities like VCP. the Britton card, in particular, had not seen the market in that grade since 2012, so who knows what bidders were thinking? the next PSA 9 Britton sold for $127+......then the one which ended tonite sold for $13. >>
i quoted and bolded myself for those who can't quite figure it out Bobby.
It looks like the under bidder on the $625 card won the $127 one.
This is a classic example of a card not coming up for auction in a long time and two people deciding they had to have it. I have been the winner and loser in some way, way, way over normal priced auctions and there was never any funny business. Some people do not really care how much they pay. I know several years back I won a card for $1200 and the next example, ending a couple days later, sold for $225 to the under bidder.
Robb
Bid retractions are only in existence for morons and shillers.
Joe
<< <i>Wasn't this MMD's 69 set auction ($625 card)? If so there was no shilling by the seller.
It looks like the under bidder on the $625 card won the $127 one.
This is a classic example of a card not coming up for auction in a long time and two people deciding they had to have it. I have been the winner and loser in some way, way, way over normal priced auctions and there was never any funny business. Some people do not really care how much they pay. I know several years back I won a card for $1200 and the next example, ending a couple days later, sold for $225 to the under bidder.
Robb >>
i agree with you. that's why i posted this in the first place.
too often lately, we have seen activity in auctions which has led us to believe that there ARE shenanigans going on, when the reality speaks to the fact that timing quite often plays a significant role in their successes or failures.
the best question i can come up with at this point is: Where were these guys when my high end stuff was being auctioned?
I'm confident the word "Setbreak" isn't the reason the first one sold for $612 higher, it just because that card was the first one listed in a long time. Make the listing titles the same in this instance and I think there is still disparity in the sales price. Sure, it is possible that the winning bidder for the $625 one wouldn't have searched for the card w/o that term, but it isn't probable.
It makes sense that the underbidder on the $625 card was the winner of the subsequent $127 one. He was probably thrilled with his cost savings for a brief period (unless he found the completed sale of the $13.00 one later). I am surprised that neither the $625 winner nor the $127 winner didn't also decide to win the one that sold for $13.00 in effort to flip and recoup a portion of their costs for the first one.
Also interesting is there was only one common bidder between the $127 and the $13. He only raised his bid one dollar, from $11.02 to $12.02, so I'd say the ending price of prior auctions to the $13.00 one did not have any statistically-significant affect on his decision on how much he was personally willing to spend on that card.
<< <i>I'm confident the word "Setbreak" isn't the reason the first one sold for $612 higher >>
Yes...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>I'm confident the word "Setbreak" isn't the reason..... >>
lol. you may be right. however......
the '69 "set" being offered on the 13th of March stood out because it was a darn nice COMPLETE set assembled by a very astute collector and it also hit the market before other similarly graded material.
the next PSA 9 Britton sold for $127.50 only 4 days after the $625 example had sold, so the downward trend was fairly easy to predict.....but, did the bidders involved even notice? do you wonder if either had access to VCP, or even cared about past history? they indeed just wanted the card. it's baffling, but not unprecedented.
the Britton is a THIRTEEN DOLLAR COMMON. that is a fact. today.
<< <i>the next PSA 9 Britton sold for $127.50 only 4 days after the $625 example had sold, so the downward trend was fairly easy to predict.....but, did the bidders involved even notice? do you wonder if either had access to VCP, or even cared about past history? they indeed just wanted the card. it's baffling, but not unprecedented. >>
Not sure if I understand "notice"? Maybe you meant, were the bidders on the $625 card in a financial position such that the cost mattered to them at all? Like I mentioned in my previous post, the underbidder on the $625 one is the winner of the $127 one.
<< <i>
<< <i>the next PSA 9 Britton sold for $127.50 only 4 days after the $625 example had sold, so the downward trend was fairly easy to predict.....but, did the bidders involved even notice? do you wonder if either had access to VCP, or even cared about past history? they indeed just wanted the card. it's baffling, but not unprecedented. >>
Not sure if I understand "notice"? Maybe you meant, were the bidders on the $625 card in a financial position such that the cost mattered to them at all? Like I mentioned in my previous post, the underbidder on the $625 one is the winner of the $127 one. >>
by notice, i meant the published back history of a card which had never even touched $50 since early 2007. although VCP only collects price info from online auctions, i'd consider it a pretty accurate barometer of value, when properly researched.
the main point about the Britton card is this: a PSA 9 example of the card had supposedly not been available for almost 2 years, according to VCP, but the bidders in question may neither have known or cared that they were still only trying to win a common card which is not by any stretch of the imagination considered rare.
<< <i>by notice, i meant the published back history of a card which had never even touched $50 since early 2007. although VCP only collects price info from online auctions, i'd consider it a pretty accurate barometer of value, when properly researched.
the main point about the Britton card is this: a PSA 9 example of the card had supposedly not been available for almost 2 years, according to VCP, but the bidders in question may neither have known or cared that they were still only trying to win a common card which is not by any stretch of the imagination considered rare. >>
Absolutely right.
Wait, are you telling me not everyone sends a sales report to VCP when they sell a card through something such as PM's here, using the PSA set registry contact function, or actually in person at a show or store?
<< <i>This is a different card with a different cert #....still though...the fact that one copy of the card can sell for $12 and another copy can sell for over $600 just absolutely blows my mind. Where were these other bidders when the $12 card was being auctioned?? >>
I did not catch that the first, thought they were the same card in each link.
<< <i>It only takes 2 people to drive prices up. Not sure this is the case in this particular auction but if 2 people both want it then it can get crazy! >>
True, but MOST people bid low first and raise their bids if they are not top bidder. This guy started at $1000.00 and he was sure to get it, then he retracts, rebids and loses. He also had SEVERAL DAYS to increase his $615.00 bid if he REALLY WANTED THE CARD!!!
FUBAR BABY!