If you’re not actually going to prove my intent wrong after clarification: don’t argue semantics.
Your point is this:
Modern Masters rose to 360$ for a booster box, then over the course of two years it dropped down to 350$ a box.
The fact that you can't acknowledge that shows me how little you believe your own statement.
Like I mentioned before tax. (Tax per pack would actually cover the difference)
And even if you don’t factor in tax...
The difference between 350 and 360 is 50 cents per pack...
Are you really going to criticize me for a 50 cent difference that can be attributed to rounding and or tax? 350 would be 14.5 per pack.
360 is 15.
This is why I said you are arguing Symantics.
So you're saying that Modern Masters 2013, is the set that defies the inflation laws of Modern Masters 2015, and Modern Masters 2017, and started at 360$, that's WITHOUT Tax, and dropped down to 350$ over the course of TWO YEARS.
I'm not arguing over semantics, I'm arguing against your reading comprehension apparently.
I never stated that it dropped down to 350$ per year. You did.
Originally I said that the price rose to 15$ per pack. It's not uncommon for LSGs to include tax in the final price of their products. The MTGOGoldfish data does not.
My argument has been and will always be the sale price quickly rose to 15$ PER INDIVIDUAL PACK (which in most places included tax)
You are indeed arguing semantics at this point to prove me wrong... but whatever floats your boat.
If you’re not actually going to prove my intent wrong after clarification: don’t argue semantics.
Your point is this:
Modern Masters rose to 360$ for a booster box, then over the course of two years it dropped down to 350$ a box.
The fact that you can't acknowledge that shows me how little you believe your own statement.
Like I mentioned before tax. (Tax per pack would actually cover the difference)
And even if you don’t factor in tax...
The difference between 350 and 360 is 50 cents per pack...
Are you really going to criticize me for a 50 cent difference that can be attributed to rounding and or tax? 350 would be 14.5 per pack.
360 is 15.
This is why I said you are arguing Symantics.
EDIT: The reason I don't entertain the
Modern Masters rose to 360$ for a booster box, then over the course of two years it dropped down to 350$ a box.
because that's only my argument if you are looking at semantics... which I am not ._.
a LSG will sell a pack that normally goes 14.5 (if you buy a box) for 15$ on a pack-per-pack basis ._.
There was literally no reason to post two year old data if we were looking at recent data.
I just assumed you actually were posting relevant information (regarding the price history after release) to the arguement. My bad. I was on Mobil at the time and just assumed
I’ll see if I can dig something up, but I don’t think sale data goes back that far unfortunately.
You have made comments, you haven't backed them up, you continue to make comments criticizing my evidence, again without anything to back up your claims.
Every response you have made has been some form of you tripping over yourself to try and reroute what you said to make sense.
If you're saying that the price of Modern Masters, which retained it's value quite well over the years, DROPPED after it's print run and over 2 years, or stayed the same, then you are obviously out of your league when discussing MTG Finances.
If your going to trash the reputation of others, take your own advice and actually use data to prove you are right.
My entire intention of my original post was to highlight that modern masters quickly (faster than any other set) rose to 15$ and stayed there.
I keep “tripping” over myself (clairifcying myself). Because I acknowledge my original point wasn’t well laid out (like I said I was on Mobil)
If you’re not actually going to prove my intent wrong after clarification: don’t argue semantics.
You’re literally arguing semantics. Take your own advice.
As far as the overal value of this set, will depend a lot on commons/uncommons. We don’t know that yet.
Edit: my first comment wasn’t even an arguement. It was a comment made in jest. Hence the retractions since it sounded like you actually wanted to have a legitimate debate.
I wasn't trying to prove a point. I realized I had over-stated the fact and retracted.
You're the only one who is still trying to prove a point by pointing out a typo. Which isn't even part of the current arguement and/or debate.
(definition of straw-man arguement).
The point of the discussion was that you claimed that the packs spiked to 15$ in the first week and undermined the EV of the cards in the pack.
So according to MTGGoldfish which has price trends only as far back as to 2015
Around the time of Magic Origins it was selling for 350$ a box on average.
350$, TWO. YEARS. AFTER. PRINT.
Not a weekend.
Not a month.
Not a Jewish New Year.
Not a Sweeps Week.
Two. Years.
As in. This set went into print, went out of print. And then two years later, you could buy a box at 350$.
Your statement is that one month, after it was still in print, the general economy made it unable to buy these packs under 15$ a pop?
Please re-evaluate everything that lead you to this moment and either gather better evidence or concede this argument, it's shameful.
What’s shameful is your misconstrewed data.
There was literally no reason to post two year old data if we were looking at recent data.
I just assumed you actually were posting relevant information (regarding the price history after release) to the arguement. My bad. I was on Mobil at the time and just assumed
I’ll see if I can dig something up, but I don’t think sale data goes back that far unfortunately.
It wasn't a cute edit. It was clearly a decisive. I even mentioned the edit so you wouldn't feel the need to point it out so we could attempt to avoid any straw-man arguments.
But here we are.
And yes. MMA had insane value. But it doesn't mean sets that came after are worthless or not worth it simply becuase they don't have the same value.
M17 and eternal masters were considered, overall, a success. (m17 was arguably better then m15).
It's not a straw-man argument to point out that you made a statement, and then retracted it to try and prove your point from a revised statement.
I clearly pointed out that MTGGoldfish had boxes listed at 350$ prior to Magic Origins, which was TWO YEARS after the print run of Modern Masters had ended.
Yet you still maintain that they were 15$ a pack? By that logic MTGGoldfish should have the lowest listed price in 2015 at '360$' your argument is bogus based on that simple fact.
Your anecdotal 'evidence' that you bought packs at 15$ a pop from the obviously flawed recollection may only be accounted for an LGS that was not being competitive in the marketplace. So just because some Local Shops MAY have sold the packs for 15$ a pop after release does not mean that the economic trend of Modern Masters at release was dictated by a few Local Shops, especially with the prevalence of the internet.
And while my statement isn't that 'all other sets are worthless', this set, Masters 25, is particularly worthless.
I wasn't trying to prove a point. I realized I had over-stated the fact and retracted.
You're the only one who is still trying to prove a point by pointing out a typo. Which isn't even part of the current arguement and/or debate.
(definition of straw-man arguement).
That's why I clearly... clearly identified that error as soon as I realized I made it.
The price in the very beginning was 350$. That's... 14.58 per pack.
Are you really going to criticize me for rounding up? Really?
Did you even look at your own data point?
Yes there were "periods" where you could get the original modern masters for less than 15$ a back...
but if you average the price increase the product faced in the first month it reached an average of 15$ per pack.
So yes. You are using a straw-man argument because the exact source you posted proves what I was saying ._.
2) Your secondary link was misleading. It includes only events in the first couple of weeks of set release. Price didn't start going up until after the first month. (People realized not enough printing to meet demand). It was then that 15$ became the norm.
EDIT: I had a typo. Meant the first month. I was being over dramatic to prove a point.
Sales tax, at a generous 10% is... 27.50 / 33.00$, still at MSRP (MSRP doesn't include sales tax either but good try!)
Also, cute 'edit' I provide evidence of the first week as you claim to the contrary andddd now it's after the first month? Uh-uh.
You want to make a claim that they were 15$ a pack to draft with between July and October? Bring evidence. Otherwise I've made my point and my case.
The Pack EV on Modern Masters 2013 was higher and had a better return per dollar spent than this set, even with a Dragon in your box.
It wasn't a cute edit. It was clearly a decisive. I even mentioned the edit so you wouldn't feel the need to point it out so we could attempt to avoid any straw-man arguments.
But here we are.
And yes. MMA had insane value. But it doesn't mean sets that came after are worthless or not worth it simply becuase they don't have the same value.
Imagine opening your box and finding your mythic is Tree of Redemption. Haha. Sad.
Not as bad as opening up original MMA and only finding dragons
Yeah but you had...
Cryptic Command, Pact of Negation, Doubling Season, Aether Vial, Engineered Explosives, Arcbound Ravager, Chalice of the Void, Tooth and Nail, Kira, and Blinkmoth Nexus held on for pack value, which at the time was 6.99$ MSRP
And... Path to Exile, Lightning Helix, Lava Spike, Eternal Witness, and Spell Snare, which even weeks after their printing maintained a 3-7$ price tag.
So while a box was around 160 to 180, you could recoup your investment pretty easy, and the set also provided TONS of playable cards.
That's also why pack prices are 10$ starting...
MMA was never sold for 6.99. Prices spiked to 15$ in the first week.
That's also why M25 is better due to better uncommons/commons.
So according to MTGGoldfish which has price trends only as far back as to 2015
Around the time of Magic Origins it was selling for 350$ a box on average.
24 x 15 as you so claimed, would be 360 a box, ten dollars higher than the earliest listed price on MTGGoldfish, and two years after the print run was over.
So either you're recalling things incorrectly, recalling them at a different time frame, or over-inflating the actual cost of the packs at the time to try and make your point.
In either case, you are summarily wrong.
Also with a bit of research I found that Modern Masters drafts averaged between 25$ and 30$
Given that the go-to Prize Support is 5$ per person for store credit, packs at the time sold between 7$ to 8.50$
Thanks for playing though.
1) You didn't figure in sales tax.
2) Your secondary link was misleading. It includes only events in the first couple of weeks of set release. Price didn't start going up until after the first month. (People realized not enough printing to meet demand). It was then that 15$ became the norm.
EDIT: I had a typo. Meant the first month. I was being over dramatic to prove a point.
Regardless: The retail was less then 10$ So the sale price was already on a massive upward projectory in the first few weeks and continued to sore until it settled at about the 15$ mark.
Imagine opening your box and finding your mythic is Tree of Redemption. Haha. Sad.
Not as bad as opening up original MMA and only finding dragons
Yeah but you had...
Cryptic Command, Pact of Negation, Doubling Season, Aether Vial, Engineered Explosives, Arcbound Ravager, Chalice of the Void, Tooth and Nail, Kira, and Blinkmoth Nexus held on for pack value, which at the time was 6.99$ MSRP
And... Path to Exile, Lightning Helix, Lava Spike, Eternal Witness, and Spell Snare, which even weeks after their printing maintained a 3-7$ price tag.
So while a box was around 160 to 180, you could recoup your investment pretty easy, and the set also provided TONS of playable cards.
That's also why pack prices are 10$ starting...
MMA was never sold for 6.99. Prices spiked to 15$ in the first month
That's also why M25 is better due to better uncommons/commons.
I really really hate the way the internet becomes so salty, but this is the time to be as loudly salty as possible. We've been complaining from day one about expensive packs with valueless cards in them. Wizards actively and purposefully has refused to listen. It's like they're trying to kill the masters product because they want to return to core sets.
It's not like there aren't solutions.
The obvious solution: carefully curate the set so that it is guaranteed to contain a satisfactory minimum value.
The right solution: reduce cost of packs to 6 dollars.
The clever solution: Take a hint from Unhinged, and include bonuses. For example, a foil land with randomized art from the last decade in every pack.
The disturbing thing is not them making the mistake, it's them repeatedly making the same mistake despite the fact the the community is vocally of one mind on the matter. I don't want masters sets to die, because I really like when a reprint destroys the value of an overpriced card. It seems likely that this is the last masters set.
You should read Gavin Verhey's article from around a week ago about the future of Masters sets. I have never seen a more clear indication of a company simply not getting it than what his article spelled out.
Basically...
1) Iconic Masters was actually great, and we're all stupid for not liking it.
2) The reason it was a sales disaster was because of the way the spoilers came out from Hascon months in advance. No other reasons. These are not the droids you're looking for.
3) R&D has been taken over by a bunch of draft nerds, and creating a draft format they enjoy is all they really care about.
Not only does Wizards completely fail to understand why IMA bombed, and why M25 is extremely likely to bomb as well at this point, but they have doubled down on the mentality that has directly caused it.
I basically quit playing constructed Magic several years ago because, IMO, Standard has been dog feces since BFZ was released. I actually hated Theros block too, but Khans kept me going. Between the constant banhammers and terrible set design, I'm definitely glad I spared my wallet the money I used to pump into the game.
Eh, the main problem with Iconic Masters was the commons/uncommon had terrible value.
M25 at least has decent chaft. In Iconic masters the "filler" wasn't even good.
I am not sure why people are so upset about 10$ premium pack.
It helps keep it from becoming another "Chronicals".
Honestly the thing I love about these "premium sets" is the draftability. It's like playing a mini-cube.
So far - it looks like it could be an insanely fun draft format.
Because no one wants to open a $10 pack to only see a bunch of chaff. If these sets were filled to the brim with value where a player would be guaranteed to get around $10 back in secondary market value, that price tag could be justified but we know that it costs just as much to print Masters packs as it does to print standard packs. This makes these sets stink of being $10 pack lotteries designed to make players hope to pull a Chalice of the Void, Imperial Recruiter or Jace the Mind Sculptor. WOTC is trying to serve two masters and it isn't working. Are these supposed to be value reprint sets or great limited environments? We've already examined how they're not doing so hot on the former and if it's the latter then why do they expect players to drop $10 on limited packs with an experience that as mostly been met with an "eh, it's okay" instead of spending $10 on Innistrad packs, a set widely thought of to be one of thr best limited environments of all time? And if the point of these sets is to offer affordable reprints to players then why are packs over double the normal price?
None of this would be as much of a problem of the packs were normally priced but at over double the normal pack msrp a lot of players do not feel like WOTC is producing a product that matches its price tag. I honestly wonder how sales of this set would look without invetsors and card stores busting hundreds of packs to sell the expensive singles.
See my first point. If packs were cheaper, they could easily become another Chronicles which would be terrible.
The whole purpose of the price point is to prevent another Chronicals. Over-printing (at cheap prices) is just as bad as not enough value.
So if they are just as bad you're telling me that these sets are already as bad chronicles because they don't contain enough value. But you're okay with this extreme but not the other?
Here's the thing, you're looking at this like the knob is only at either zero or eleven. WOTC doesn't have to print all of the best cards ever at common and sell the packs for $4 or sell packs for $10 and only include mostly chaff. They make these products and they can tune them to be reasonable for their price points. If a pack is over double the normal price of packs it should be equal to that in value and/or play experience. And that value should probably be scaled back a bit if the packs were $4. But honestly as it stands now with almost all of the value in these sets being found at mythic WOTC could sell Masters 25 for $4 a pack and I guarantee you we would not have the Chronicles effect because this set is not filled to the brim with value.
I don't think you understand why chronicals was so bad. It had nothing to do with the value of the cards in Chronicals.
In fact Chronicles actively tanked the value of every single card that was in the set. Due to being reprinted into oblivion.
It's the same effect shocklands and fetchalnds faced when they were printed in standard Price dropped by 50% (and stayed there).
If cards like blood moon, chalice, etc. were printed in a pack that only cost $4.0 the value of those cards would quickly be gutted.
The reason why the packs are $10 is to slow demand for the product, so key modern/legacy staples don't become "worthless". This does two things:
a) allows key "chase" cards to retain their value so the set is still worth something even months after the original printing. and b) Allows for a slight decrease in the cost of cards without completely skewing the market.
I am not sure why people are so upset about 10$ premium pack.
It helps keep it from becoming another "Chronicals".
Honestly the thing I love about these "premium sets" is the draftability. It's like playing a mini-cube.
So far - it looks like it could be an insanely fun draft format.
Because no one wants to open a $10 pack to only see a bunch of chaff. If these sets were filled to the brim with value where a player would be guaranteed to get around $10 back in secondary market value, that price tag could be justified but we know that it costs just as much to print Masters packs as it does to print standard packs. This makes these sets stink of being $10 pack lotteries designed to make players hope to pull a Chalice of the Void, Imperial Recruiter or Jace the Mind Sculptor. WOTC is trying to serve two masters and it isn't working. Are these supposed to be value reprint sets or great limited environments? We've already examined how they're not doing so hot on the former and if it's the latter then why do they expect players to drop $10 on limited packs with an experience that as mostly been met with an "eh, it's okay" instead of spending $10 on Innistrad packs, a set widely thought of to be one of thr best limited environments of all time? And if the point of these sets is to offer affordable reprints to players then why are packs over double the normal price?
None of this would be as much of a problem of the packs were normally priced but at over double the normal pack msrp a lot of players do not feel like WOTC is producing a product that matches its price tag. I honestly wonder how sales of this set would look without invetsors and card stores busting hundreds of packs to sell the expensive singles.
See my first point. If packs were cheaper, they could easily become another Chronicles which would be terrible.
The whole purpose of the price point is to prevent another Chronicals. Over-printing (at cheap prices) is just as bad as not enough value.
I am not sure why people are so upset about 10$ premium pack.
It helps keep it from becoming another "Chronicals".
Honestly the thing I love about these "premium sets" is the draftability. It's like playing a mini-cube.
So far - it looks like it could be an insanely fun draft format.
Is Lantern still good? The one guy at my local scene stopped playing it after the unbans, and I haven't faced it yet online. The online lists I've seen also hasn't had any Lantern Control showing up. Is it just unpopular or is there like an overreaction of BEE + Kolaghan's Command or something?
Since the unbans, it has 5-0ed at least twice. There was one week where it was absent, but then it came back the following posting.
Lantern Control has always been hit or miss online, especially since tron traditionally is played at a higher proportion online than in paper.
Is it just me, or does "Jace" seem to be normalizing on MTGO?
I looked at today's posting and it actually looks like there are less Jace decks today than a week ago (in the 5-0 bracket).
Also interesting to note non-jace blue decks still exist.
I never stated that it dropped down to 350$ per year. You did.
Originally I said that the price rose to 15$ per pack. It's not uncommon for LSGs to include tax in the final price of their products. The MTGOGoldfish data does not.
My argument has been and will always be the sale price quickly rose to 15$ PER INDIVIDUAL PACK (which in most places included tax)
You are indeed arguing semantics at this point to prove me wrong... but whatever floats your boat.
Like I mentioned before tax. (Tax per pack would actually cover the difference)
And even if you don’t factor in tax...
The difference between 350 and 360 is 50 cents per pack...
Are you really going to criticize me for a 50 cent difference that can be attributed to rounding and or tax? 350 would be 14.5 per pack.
360 is 15.
This is why I said you are arguing Symantics.
EDIT: The reason I don't entertain the
because that's only my argument if you are looking at semantics... which I am not ._.
a LSG will sell a pack that normally goes 14.5 (if you buy a box) for 15$ on a pack-per-pack basis ._.
If your going to trash the reputation of others, take your own advice and actually use data to prove you are right.
My entire intention of my original post was to highlight that modern masters quickly (faster than any other set) rose to 15$ and stayed there.
I keep “tripping” over myself (clairifcying myself). Because I acknowledge my original point wasn’t well laid out (like I said I was on Mobil)
If you’re not actually going to prove my intent wrong after clarification: don’t argue semantics.
You’re literally arguing semantics. Take your own advice.
As far as the overal value of this set, will depend a lot on commons/uncommons. We don’t know that yet.
Edit: my first comment wasn’t even an arguement. It was a comment made in jest. Hence the retractions since it sounded like you actually wanted to have a legitimate debate.
What’s shameful is your misconstrewed data.
There was literally no reason to post two year old data if we were looking at recent data.
I just assumed you actually were posting relevant information (regarding the price history after release) to the arguement. My bad. I was on Mobil at the time and just assumed
I’ll see if I can dig something up, but I don’t think sale data goes back that far unfortunately.
I wasn't trying to prove a point. I realized I had over-stated the fact and retracted.
You're the only one who is still trying to prove a point by pointing out a typo. Which isn't even part of the current arguement and/or debate.
(definition of straw-man arguement).
That's why I clearly... clearly identified that error as soon as I realized I made it.
But sure. Lets look at that link you provided for actual evidence.
Source: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/price/Sealed Product/Modern Masters Booster Box#paper
The price in the very beginning was 350$. That's... 14.58 per pack.
Are you really going to criticize me for rounding up? Really?
Did you even look at your own data point?
Yes there were "periods" where you could get the original modern masters for less than 15$ a back...
but if you average the price increase the product faced in the first month it reached an average of 15$ per pack.
So yes. You are using a straw-man argument because the exact source you posted proves what I was saying ._.
It wasn't a cute edit. It was clearly a decisive. I even mentioned the edit so you wouldn't feel the need to point it out so we could attempt to avoid any straw-man arguments.
But here we are.
And yes. MMA had insane value. But it doesn't mean sets that came after are worthless or not worth it simply becuase they don't have the same value.
See below for the "value" of sets.
http://mtg.dawnglare.com/?p=sets
M17 and eternal masters were considered, overall, a success. (m17 was arguably better then m15).
1) You didn't figure in sales tax.
2) Your secondary link was misleading. It includes only events in the first couple of weeks of set release. Price didn't start going up until after the first month. (People realized not enough printing to meet demand). It was then that 15$ became the norm.
EDIT: I had a typo. Meant the first month. I was being over dramatic to prove a point.
Regardless: The retail was less then 10$ So the sale price was already on a massive upward projectory in the first few weeks and continued to sore until it settled at about the 15$ mark.
That's also why pack prices are 10$ starting...
MMA was never sold for 6.99. Prices spiked to 15$ in the first month
That's also why M25 is better due to better uncommons/commons.
Not as bad as opening up original MMA and only finding dragons
Eh, the main problem with Iconic Masters was the commons/uncommon had terrible value.
M25 at least has decent chaft. In Iconic masters the "filler" wasn't even good.
I don't think you understand why chronicals was so bad. It had nothing to do with the value of the cards in Chronicals.
In fact Chronicles actively tanked the value of every single card that was in the set. Due to being reprinted into oblivion.
It's the same effect shocklands and fetchalnds faced when they were printed in standard Price dropped by 50% (and stayed there).
If cards like blood moon, chalice, etc. were printed in a pack that only cost $4.0 the value of those cards would quickly be gutted.
The reason why the packs are $10 is to slow demand for the product, so key modern/legacy staples don't become "worthless". This does two things:
a) allows key "chase" cards to retain their value so the set is still worth something even months after the original printing. and b) Allows for a slight decrease in the cost of cards without completely skewing the market.
See my first point. If packs were cheaper, they could easily become another Chronicles which would be terrible.
The whole purpose of the price point is to prevent another Chronicals. Over-printing (at cheap prices) is just as bad as not enough value.
It helps keep it from becoming another "Chronicals".
Honestly the thing I love about these "premium sets" is the draftability. It's like playing a mini-cube.
So far - it looks like it could be an insanely fun draft format.
Since the unbans, it has 5-0ed at least twice. There was one week where it was absent, but then it came back the following posting.
Lantern Control has always been hit or miss online, especially since tron traditionally is played at a higher proportion online than in paper.
I looked at today's posting and it actually looks like there are less Jace decks today than a week ago (in the 5-0 bracket).
Also interesting to note non-jace blue decks still exist.