Beckett Proves Their Values Are Inflated

JoshMc

I’ve been a strong critic of the once high and mighty Beckett.  I’ve called them out on several topics from shady business practices to having unrealistic values in their price guide.   Today they have proved to me that their numbers are completely based on fantasy, or at least on eBay.  Tracy Hackler has a write-up on a high school football card of the Denver Bronco’s head coach Josh McDaniels.  You can check it out here.  Give them a few minutes if the page does not load, they’re still in their beta stage of the site.  The article claims his card from the 1995 Ohio High School Big 33 set had a value of just $.75 in January.  Later it rose to $3 and then $5.  Just recently one sold for $26 on eBay.  So what value does Beckett slap this card with?  $10, maybe $15, that would be an honest average of what the card has been worth and what it has sold for right?  Nope, they decided it is now worth a whopping $30.

I know they make the argument of scarcity and how surprising of a storyline the Broncos have been this year but that should not inflate the value of this card by that much.  They even state that it is a 3,500% jump in value in 9 months.

Whenever I bring up the argument of book value vs. real world value, I always hear form the Beckett defenders that if a card sells for an unusually large amount on eBay, it shouldn’t affect the book value.  People always state that one out of the ordinary sale should not spike up or drop the book value.  Well in this instance one sells for $26 and they value it at $30.  Why the extra $4?  My theory is they added in the shipping charge into the value.  This contradicts another popular argument about eBay vs. book value.  That eBay shouldn’t have an effect on value because of the variables such as shipping charges, time of day, and the day of the week an auction ends on. These all affect the final purchase price of a card but it should not have an effect on the value.  If they want to value this card at $30 that’s fine by me.  All I’m really trying to say is if this card is worth $30, a ’89 Donruss Griffey RC should be worth $.25 and not $8.  Right?  The next time I hear someone mention that eBay shoud not be the be all, end all price, I’ll be quick to point to this card to end the argument.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “Beckett Proves Their Values Are Inflated

  1. That’s awesome! I had no idea the ’89 Donruss Griffey still books for $8. Now, if I can find someone who will trade me a ’51 Topps Red Back Bob Feller (recently sold at $11.50 plus $2.50 shipping on ebay) I ‘ll gladly send them two (!) of the ’89 Griffeys and even eat the $2 difference with no quibbling.

  2. Unfortunately Beckett says it would take almost 8 Griffey’s to get that Feller, it books for $60. It would still be a great deal if you could pull it off!

  3. RiceLynnEvans75

    Good point. And believe it or not, I’ve become more of a fan of your viewpoint in the past few months. Where does that other $4 come from? Eh, maybe an editor over there found a stash of these things and wants to make a quick flip for some $$. 🙂

  4. Those are your words not mine! This particular card shoots all their arguments to the ground. It shows that they pad the numbers. I don’t see any advantage on their part in doing so here, but it makes you wonder how a $5 card can jump to $30 based on one sale. Who’s to say this sale didn’t involve a shill bidder or two McDaniel’s super fans got involved in a bidding war. Would that justify a $25 hike in value? They say so, and we all know who the #1 Authority is!

  5. RiceLynnEvans75

    LOL! Yeah, I thought that last sentence looked familiar. I checked last night and from what I could tell, this was the ONLY one of these cards to end on ebay in the completed cards section with no others currently listed. I want to know what other sales/auctions took place to justify this leap. What this tells me then, is that they SHOULD be pricing any cards that are numbered below 25. I see those cards frequently selling on ebay but they put a N/A as a price due to scarcity. So what’s the difference here? It’s one auction, where else did they get their info from and why the extra $4?

  6. RiceLynnEvans75

    Well, they just flat out ignored my questions and knocked the article off the front page all together.

  7. RiceLynnEvans75

    So I wonder now if this card will continue to sit at $30 or drop since he no longer looks like a good coach.

  8. RiceLynnEvans75

    They did after all give it a value based on one sale. Why they can’t assign values to cards SN’d under 25 yet you can find 10 different ones of those for sale on ebay in a 1-2 month span.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s