Debate: What is the "Real Value" of a Card?

[Otaku]

The "real value" of a card would be like what, barely anything? Its paper, of you count the production value and art, maybe like half a pound? Something along those lines.

If you want to approach it from a (less-than-half-remembered) accounting perspective, I seem to recall that in addition to the physical component's of production, all the overhead would also apply. That would be where counterfeiters make their money, especially the ones that aren't just cranking out obvious fake cards. The-powers-that-be have undertaken the costs of creating an actual game for their trading cards. Logistics would also play a part as even though a single card is light and you can fit a lot into a small space, it still costs to ship their around the world.

One might also have to include whatever else is being done to keep the Pokémon intellectual property strong; that gets really fuzzy (assuming I'm correct in trying to quantify it at all) as by now all the various aspects both benefit and help to keep "Pokémon" a worldwide phenomenon: video games, animation, manga, trading card game, etc. If that doesn't sound like something to consider, do you think being Pokémon flavored/derived hurts this TCG more than it helps? I doubt this game would be so huge if it was simply the "[Original Intellectual Property Clearly Resembling Pokémon] Trading Card Game".

 

[Gentlefish]

I guess what I meant it what is a card "really worth/actually worth?" It's a vague question but if you get into a card price dispute IRL the phrase or something similar is eventually going to get said. ie. "That's not the real value of it/that's not what it's ACTUALLY worth."

I do know it's vague and it is very hard to pin down the answer to, but there has to be a concise answer somewhere, and while I do think you guys have had very good answers, it seems like it will always be just out of reach.

I think that for the most part I agree with Exxtrooper:

The "real value" of a card would be like what, barely anything? Its paper, of you count the production value and art, maybe like half a pound? Something along those lines.

In the end trading cards are, like money, pieces of paper/cardboard to which we arbitrarily assign value (even when money is backed by gold, our valuing the gold is pretty arbitrary as well). Of course, the fact that they're also game pieces makes things a bit more complicated, because then there's usefulness in the game to consider (which I can't help but see as a more objective measure of value than rarity, since card rarities are blatantly artificial- though I guess usefulness is too, in a way). And, as Otaku touched on, you also have to take stock of the work that goes into bringing them to customers. I guess it comes down to supply and demand + the work that goes into them... whatever the real value of that is.
...Somehow this came out as the cliffnotes version of what I intended to write.

Oh, one more thing:

I have always gone with the idea that the value of a card is determined by an individual person.

For example someone could be selling a First Edition Shadowless Base Set Charizard for 1000 US dollars? Are you willing to pay that amount for the card? If you're thinking no because you have know several sellers that you could get it from them for less, then to you that card is not worth that value.

I've seen this argument crop up multiple times, but I just don't buy it. Yeah, at some level the value is what people pay for it, but no one has ever bought something for one price, seen it sold in the same condition for a lower price (a significantly lower price, at least?) and not been disappointed he/she didn't see that one sooner. If you ask me, the place where what the most sellers want to get and the most buyers wants to pay meet (I forget what the technical term for that is- market clearing price, or at least close to it?) is the value of an item.
I remember seeing a discussion or two* on the practice of sharking (offering trades to/seeking trades offered by people who are unaware of the market price of an item and thus willing to trade it for significantly less) in virtual economies in which someone defended it using this exact argument - that the value is determined by how much worth the individual sees in it - in addition to the argument that if everyone comes away from the deal content everything's fine. Pretty shady, if you ask me. I'm not accusing you of holding the same position, but I do want to point out that I've seen the logic carried to an undesirable conclusion. Granted, one could probably argue that it doesn't necessarily go there, making the example a bit of a straw man.
*note that I don't remember these well and I think one of them was from the POV of someone who didn't mind paying somewhat exorbitantly for the following reason

 

[gumball51321]

the competitive value of a card depends on the person who's playing it. let's say someone is building ShayQuaza, and they want a Shaymin-EX(25 US$) and they are trading 2 Mega Manectrics( about 14 US$ a piece), if they did not care about manectric and Shaymin is their favorite pokemon, then they'd ignore the difference and trade anyway. a better example would be that I'm trying to build mega rayquaza ( 13$ ), I tried to trade someone 26$ worth of stuff for it ( but they took it back 2 minutes after the trade ) because I value rayquaza higher than everything that I traded for it. I rest my case.

 

[Otaku]

Gentlefish has a good post, but I did want to touch upon a few things.

...our valuing the gold is pretty arbitrary as well

Gold actually has qualities that explain at least some of its value. It is a "noble" metal, which means it is naturally resistant to oxidation and corrosion. It also is a softer metal, making it easier to work this. This was in addition to being aesthetically pleasing to our ancestors. These are actually good reasons to seek it out and use it. True if it were more readily available it would have had a lower value, but because it did have both practical and decorative/symbolic applications, its scarcity on top of its other properties then made it an excellent store of value. "Money" makes it easier to labor by being a "store of value". You could use any goods, but most are perishable to one degree or another and/or subject to wild swings in value. So using "gold" or other precious metals could give you a store of value that would rot or otherwise significant degrade and also was unlikely to be subject to wild inflation or deflation just because of a bumper crop or famine... problems with using an otherwise more logical form of value like "food".

Edit: Oh an in the modern world, gold is one of the reasons certain electronics or similar devices cost so much as it is a good conductor of electricity. Combined with some of its other physical properties and this has made it a useful building component!

I remember seeing a discussion or two* on the practice of sharking (offering trades to/seeking trades offered by people who are unaware of the market price of an item and thus willing to trade it for significantly less) in virtual economies in which someone defended it using this exact argument - that the value is determined by how much worth the individual sees in it - in addition to the argument that if everyone comes away from the deal content everything's fine. Pretty shady, if you ask me.

This is something to be careful with because of an aspect you leave out entirely: personal accountability. There is also the distinction between things that are "questionable" or "shady" but those that are flat out "right" or "wrong". There are sometimes things that are "wrong" but trying to enforce what is "right" would actually cause a greater "wrong". "Sharking" is a good example; I do consider it "wrong" to unduly enrich one's self by taking advantage of the ignorant or the desperate but where does one draw the line? "Price controls" have a nasty tendency to cause economic stagnation and to backfire horribly as someone figures out how to manipulate them.

The buyer has a responsibility to be informed; if anything the solution on (as an example) the PTCGO would be to flat out tell people to visit the In Game Item Exchange subforum on the official PTCGO message boards and read for themselves what the going rates are for most cards. If on the other hand you've got someone commanding a premium for trades but earning it because (like the effective trading houses) you can come to them essentially 24/7 and get a trade accomplished within the hour, well they've added value to that trade through their effort.

If you've got someone savvy (being savvy is a good thing) that knows the current prices are inflated just because of novelty (like when XY: Double Crisis was new) and thus are making offers well below what the trading companies are asking, they aren't ripping anyone off either. Yeah I might be biased because that was me, but I made sure over on another website that our Card of the Day section told it straight (some of the lowest scores we've ever had for a Top X list). When the set was new many of the prices were double what they are now with the most in demand cards going for like 6 boosters per copy, and if you're patient even when the sets were new you could get the rarest cards from XY: Double Crisis for just one or two booster packs, so if you're in an absolute hurry to get them it is just barely worth the price of going through a trading house.

Still... if we want to be technical then we could amend it to say "It is what well informed buyers are willing to pay consistently pay."

 

[ejorange]

I think cards have different types for worth/value; all of the following are in my opinion the best way to describe all that I can think of at the moment.

---Monetary value is what people are willing to pay for the card. (People are willing to pay more for a Full Art N than a regular N, or even a full art Thundurus EX. Whether you use Ebay, TrollandToad, Amazon, Coolstuffinc, etc. doesn't really matter too much)

---Sentimental Value varies from person to person. (A full art N pulled at a tournament from the last pack at the store on his/her birthday will be worth more to the person than a card dealer who pulls a full art N from one of his several cases that he is going to sell anyway)

---Material Value is the cost it takes to make the card. (whatever the cost of the paper/foil in the card is what the material value is)

---Competitive value is how commonly the card is used in the metagame. (N has a lot more worth than Battle Reporter)

---Collector's Value is a combination of the age/rarity/artwork/popularity of pokemon/quality of card. (To Collectors, a secret rare Charizard from Stormfront will be worth more than the regular rare Golem from Arceus. The artwork is a lot cooler, in my opinion, on the Charizard. However, a full art Charizard from FLF might be worth more to some collectors just because its a full art. The quality of the card includes condition, centering, etc. Also, cards with misprints are worth more to collectors than regular cards, because they are much much more rare.)

Basically, I think cards (for that matter, anything) cannot have just "value" or "true value." There are different types of values that will vary depending on the situation and person, which interact. To the Pokemon company, material value may be how the cards are valued. To a second party seller, monetary value. For collectors, collector's value. For really anyone, sentimental value can play a part. Competitive value really only has effect on players. This is why some people will trade bulk, which will have more monetary value, for better cards (better art, competitive, etc.)

Anyway, that's what I think.

 

[Robin Aisaga]

I agree that the most important aspect of value is what each individual is willing to pay, Though that doesn't determine the value in the competitive market, It's what matters the most. Sadly It's not only the buyers that decide how much a card will be worth, the seller will set a price. Perhaps It's more expensive than you had in mind. But you decide to go for it anyway.

For example the Shaymin EX I just bought.....

 

[sid18]

Everything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

However in terms of setting a price for something I agree that sold listings give you a pretty good idea since a lot are bids or best offers so they reflect what the buyer wanted to pay for the item, it's only the static buy it now prices that throw things off, although I think this doesn't apply to particularly rarer items, ones that you can actually count the amount available of as sold listings then only reflect what someone was willing to pay for it when there were more available but once those ones sold less were available and so the price should be higher than that of the sold listings.

 

[CYL]

I've been playing pokemon for 5 years or so and this rarely comes up, but when it does no one has a solid answer. It's kind of like debating what exactly a god is, you take 10 really smart people ask them the question and they all have different answers with no consensus, just a lot of yelling.

So, let me ask you guys, what is the "real value" of a card? Here are the arguments I've heard that I can remember, for multiple people. The "real value" of a card is: Counter arguments are in parenthesis

Its competitive value.
The completed listings on ebay. (no, that's what people jacked them up to on ebay)
The listed price on Troll and Toad as of some XY set as they started being good about that as of that set. (no that's the price they sell them at to make money)
The listed price on Amazon as their prices are consistent. (see T&T argument)
The listed price on X website I haven't heard of.
How common it is to get via packs. (no, there could be cards that are common but are worth a dollar like Wobbutfett)
How much it is worth to the person getting it/what they value it at.
The price on Pokeprices with the possible average of 3 days of prices. (I'll admit I do this) (no, that's only because people on pokeprices jacked up the price to that much because they're selling them there. *note there is no selling etc on pokeprices so that argument is BS* "Still, that's not the 'real value' of the card"

So, people of Pokebeach what do YOU think the "real value" of a card is? And if there is one why is it so hard to find?

I believe the competitive value and how in common packs work opposite each other. As such, the same counter-argument can be presented for the former. For example, if there's an EX that's completely useless competitively, does it mean it gets sold at the same rate as any other common card?

Edit: To actually answer the question, I believe it is the value that the buyer places on the card. Though, of course, that paves way to ripping people because they want those cards, which is similarly wrong as the other options.