This will allow you to take all NM rares and dump them into TCG player in one shot. Then all LP. Then all MP. And so on, including foils. Now, it's not gonna give you buylist pricing, but buylist cash wise is almost always 50% of retail, so after using this to gather all the retail prices, you can split that total by 50% to get a general idea of what vendors might actually give you. Having said that, bulk rares may skew this a little bit (bulk rares are usually bought at $.10, then resold for $.35-$1.00) but omitting any cards worth less than $1 should pretty much correct this. You only need to input rares/mythics/foils. Ordinarily I'd be a little concerned that the price value displayed might be skewed because this feature is meant to be used to buy cards, so it shops for the lowest priced edition of a given card, however, I'm not seeing anything in your spreadsheet that would generate much difference if it doesn't get the condition exactly right, most of the time it will probably be correct anyway.
I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused here.
When you say to omit sub-dollar cards, do you mean find out which rares are worth that little before typing them into MassEntry, or are you simply saying that I'm filtering Rares/Mythics from the rest to omit the typical sub-dollar amounts of Commons and Uncommons from the final sum of the Rares/Mythics?
Well, at the very least, I'm glad I could give people pointers in organization. Use this knowledge wisely, and never for the purposes of evil.
Sorry to drag this out, but I've gone to the Buylist feature as you instructed. I don't see a means of loading multiple cards at once. I don't have to type them in one at a time, do I?
And...Yeah, offtopic question: Force of Will strikes me as being perfectly useless. Why wouldn't I just use a low cost, generic Counterspell? Any value attached to it confounds me.
Also, it's not a shuffle crease. Imagine for a moment holding a lit match up to a card, and the paint chips, cracks, and peals back from the epicenter. The damage isn't nearly that bad, but picture that type of effect on the card's surface on a very small, almost unnoticeable scale. You need to squint to see it, but it's there, right next to the bloc insignia.
I appreciate the compliment. It would have taken even longer without Magic Assistant.
*sigh* I was afraid of this.
The miserable thing about this whole situation is that, aside from the Legacies, these cards weren't bought steadily over time. If that were the case, I'd be pleased as punch with a $2500 figure since I would have seen some use come from them prior to letting them go this far down the road. The reality is that they were all bought within a three month window in 2014. I was deploying, and a lot of my unit wanted a group activity that everyone could agree upon on our down time--scarce as it was while in theater. We picked MTG.
Full disclosure: I wasn't supposed to end up with 4600 singles all to myself (plus an assortment of boosters and boxes totaling around 2000 cards). They were supposed to be disseminated to an entire platoon with all of the transactions being consolidated through me so as to cut down on the amount of space used in mail trucks and C17s. Unfortunately, our orders were changed on the fly and we didn't end up staying in any one place long enough for that to happen, and I ended up not being paid back for a majority of these orders. I'm not a small business owner with an assisting staff to sort and resell these cards. I'm just a lone MTG fan who was unlucky enough to end up footing (most of) the bill for planned Magic tournaments that never panned out, stuck doing a two person job of grading and sorting all on my own. What's worse is that some of these cards were only bought accidentally: Liliana of the Veil--one of the most expensive singles purchased--was bought entirely by mistake (I don't even play black decks). Imagine my face when what I thought was a blemish turned out be cracked ink on a sixty dollar card I didn't even want (and when I brought the issue up with CK, they wouldn't give me the time of day since I could only call them back after I had gotten back to the states a year later, so instead of getting it replaced, I had to grade it down).
Don't want to depress anyone, but these cards have been a bloody albatross for the better part of two years and I felt like a rant.
To be clear would it be a vendor or a private buyer that gives me $2500 for the collection?
Oh, but I do have dual lands. It may only seem like I don't since I didn't group them in the Basic Land column.
It's a mixture of around 3900 rares, uncommons, and Mythics vs. approximately 3200 commons. There are a portion of them that I had prior to 2014 that consisted primarily of Revised Edition, Fourth Edition, Fifth Edition, Chronicles, Ice Age, Homelands Alliances, Fallen Empires and a few from Unlimited Edition. Not including mana, they number at 991. 284 of them are uncommon and rare. If you want more specificity, here's the Legacy spreadsheet before it was combined with the Master document:
You're doing exactly what you shoul be doing. You can use language that I've seen on ebay that say "I am not a professional grader and all cards were graded to the best of my abilities" possibly adding "based on the following guidelines" and linking/mentioning TCGP or StarCity guidelines or the other resources you mentioned. You can also mention scans for particular cards available on request. Possibly provide scans of the most expensive cards without being asked. You can also add "all cards sold as is".
Ah, thank you. I was afraid that I was proposing something unusual. With this in mind however, I'll use what you've given me and do more research into the common practice.
8,000 cards is not that many. Especially for people who buy collections. Like Bith says, the typical eBay language is "Cards sold as-is, grading is subjective, scans on request". If I may ask, where are you, physically? Posting on CraigsList or a local Facebook group may get you a better price than the store down the road, and save you some eBay fees.
I'm in Orange County. And I want to sell these things quickly, but I'm unwilling to take too much of a hit, which is why I don't want to go to the hobby shop right away. In truth, I have no experience with social media or Craigslist--the horror stories have scared me away. Supposing I did however, what's the average amount of time it takes to find a buyer?
I appreciate your thoroughness. I haven't done any scanning (unfortunately, that would be a logistical nightmare), but I have been diligent about annotating conditions and such. On your recommendation, I'll double check the high-value cards and expand on them in the comments section of my spreadsheet (e.g Snapcaster Mage, Liliana of the Veil, Linvala Keeper of Silence).
As I stated previously, a significant portion of these cards were bought as singles from Card Kingdom. I notice however, that when I upload the various pricing databases such as TCG, MTOL, and MKM into Magic Assistant that the prices differ quite a bit. Can you tell me which database is the most accurate as far as pricing goes? For that matter, can you tell me the difference between TCGLow and TCGMedium?
Without including the labor costs of sorting, storing, and grading, these cards have cost me between $5700 and $5800 in the two years that I've had them. Obviously, I don't expect to get that much back, but I'm really not keen about leaving the $4000 range, and since I'm unfamiliar with this environment, I'm not sure if I'm being picky or not.
Store would definitely be most convenient; there's a hobby shop right down the street. But I imagine that will kill my profit margins the most, so I at least wanted to look into individual buyers before I take the plunge. I guessing though that anyone willing to buy 8000 cards in a single transaction is going to be rare or nonexistent.
I currently have about eight thousand cards that I'm trying to offload in a single transaction. The vast majority is, by my perception, Excellent and Near Mint / Mint. Similarly, the majority of them are Uncommon, Rare, and Mythic Rare. All are in Black or Blue Ultra Pro sleeves. Additionally, I have a sealed Avacyn Restored booster box, and three individual Shards of Alara booster packs.
I'm not a habitual seller/trader in either the private or the professional context. As such, I'm rather overwhelmed by the risks of attempting to sell these cards. The main problem I'm foreseeing is that a potential buyer will quibble with the state of the cards and then give me a massive headache about false advertising and such.
As a single person, I have done my very best to go through every one of these cards myself and grade them using RTG and Card Kingdom as a reference guide for grading standards--since those are the primary sources of the collection. As such, I'm will to advertise them as being in the states that have been ascertained (by me). However, seeing as how I'm only one person who is not a professional, there are BOUND to be discrepancies and errors on my part--if not outright disagreements between my standards and those of a potential buyer's. Needless to say, this is problematic.
Before I even think about trying to put this collection up for sale, I was wondering if there are MTG seller resources out there that provide formal/contractual documentation that essentially states that I stand by the stated presence and conditions of these cards as well as their accompanying prices, but that the grading will not be guaranteed due to the logistical difficulties posed by the proposition of refunding the sale of the collection due to any fractional amount of discrepancies.
I keep trying to attach a spreadsheet and MagicAssistant archive, but the browser keeps hanging after each attempt. What's up with this crap?
Rider is explaining how greed and tyranny can be positive forces, at least in his world view. The debate between Rider and Saber is a classic Black vs White conflict. Rider feels that Saber denied herself an actual life during her kingship. To borrow from Neitzche this is the point of view that perceives self sacrifice as a "life denying" behavior (IIRC something Rand believed as well). Rider may have been a tyrant but his was a life well lived and ultimately one that benefited far more people than hers.
I don't mean you personally were satirizing. I mean the quote itself: if you deconstruct a negatively connotative term with the intent of revealing positive implications, then you are, in effect, satirizing the popular culture that holds it in negative esteem.
Tyranny refers to coercion and oppression. There is no positive from that, and it cannot be satirized in the same manner as could the popular misconception of what constitutes "greed". It seems as though you're treating Objectivism as some kind of Willy Wonka brand machine where you could place within it a seemingly negative connotation and watch it get broken down into something positive. Rand's main point was simply that selfishness and capitalism are not the horrible, awful, "greedy", or "tyrannical" concepts that everyone believes them to be; she didn't reshape them into something more functional, but rather they were always functional.
I'm very curious how you see Red as the color of rational self interest.
I have to correct myself it seems. After reading the Salvation Wiki on the official philosophy of Red, it makes the color out to be totally irrational, non-inquisitive, and non-introspective. Apparently, Blue is the color of rationality that puts enterprise before social virtues and behaviors. This confuses the hell out of me seeing as how blue is the larger source of magic spells and alchemy, two disciplines completely bereft of objective antecedents to be considered anything other than mystical in nature....But I suppose the realms of MTG have somehow ground the mystical nature of magic down into what the lore of the game itself would consider a fine science. That being said, the existence of Mirrodin and Phyrexia would suggest a distinction between magic and scientifically-developed technology.
To answer your question, however, Red produces the most ideal environment for a free market where everyone's in the game for his individual self. The chaotic venue offers no concept of predestination or ordered placement, and therefore is not constrained by totalitarian regulatory burdens or Authoritarian matrices.
The issue has become more ambiguous for me seeing as how Objectivist characters need a well-defined moral structure to meet Rand's requirements. But the only color that seems at all concerned with applied morality is White, which comes across as being far too collectivist to house--let alone produce--a Howard Roark or a Henry Rearden. At this point, I'm convinced that a hero of rational self-interest would be a color combination character consisting of either white and blue or white and red. In the case of the former, the character would strike a balance between morality and enterprise whereas the latter would combine religiously applied philosophy with free-radical, anti-social behavior. Henry Rearden would, perhaps, be a White/Blue character whereas Howard Roark would be White/Red. For that matter, Gail Wynand could probably qualify as White/Black since he implements an idealistic tyranny derived from his sense of morality--which views everyone as disgusting and perverse, and, as such, totally deserving of the suffrage he doles out.
All of that being said, it might be possible to have a monochrome Objectivist character. For instance, I could see Rorschach or The Question as an exclusively white card seeing as how those are purely ethos-derived characters. Yes, I defied all temptation and refrained from knee-jerk labeling those characters as Black/White.
Black can and does have heroes, they're just not the pseudo-Objectivist characters you seem to want. Although, yes, a noble capitalist character would be a good example of a Black hero.
A perfect example would be Rider from Fate/Zero (a romanticized version of Alexander the Great). Saber (King Arthur) accuses him of being a tyrant who cares for nothing but his own bottomless greed. Rider agrees with that. It is, he says, the most important part of leadership. "The king must be greedier than any other. He must laugh louder and rage harder. He must exemplify the extreme of all things, good and evil. That is why his retainers envy and adore him." Rider is amoral but still clearly a hero. He does good largely because he does not care to do evil. To Rider, and to a truly Black character, that is the only reason to be good and indeed the only true form of goodness. To Black if you wish to do evil then you should do evil, allowing White to impose rules on you is much worse than being an evil person.
Objectivism does not lack morality. Indeed, the very point of any given philosophy (see also: Objectivism) is to apply a structured morality. And while I realize that your quote from Fate/Zero was meant to satirize the term "greed" more than define it, it still misses the mark in truly identifying what greed is--especially with respect to Objectivism. Making all the money you can, and absorbing all assets possible is not conducive to the general understanding of "greed" beyond what the popular narrative disseminates to public schools and OWS wastoids. Greed is, above all else, identified according to the harm it does to oneself and society around you, but despite what the "greed" narrative would have you believe, there have been plenty of capitalists out there making money without harming either themselves or anyone else in the process. In fact, the creation of capital--which allows people who otherwise aren't wealthy the opportunity to start a business and get rich--would be impossible were it not for the consumption and investment of so-called "greedy" businessmen. It is possible to OVER-consume and, therefore, harm yourself and the people around you through bad business practices. In which case, that is unarguably greed-driven ruin, but that is not to be confused with the mere enterprise of making large sums of money.
Logically, Objectvist character should be red. That paradigm strikes me as the most industrial and rationally self-interested. If you really think about it, white comes off as being too altruistic. Blue is concerned with mysticism more than anything else. Green is definitely filled with hippies. And black has an air of pure evil that's more concerned with conquering and coercing than with dealing and free trade.
As for the topic, I don't really see black as "black". I see it as darkness. And black is just the color of darkness. John 3:19-21 sums it up for me:
19 And this is the judgment: Because the light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For everyone that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works may not be reproved. 21 But he that doth truth cometh to the light. That his works may be made manifest because they are done in God.
Black isn't evil. But evil dwells in darkness, which is black. So there.
I'm trying to sort my cards and, unfortunately, have a hit a snag.
I was using Magic Assistant to help me with the task of accounting for the mana. The archive provided by MA still shows four iterations of each different type of mana, but certain sets don't attribute a unique collector number to each iteration.
I went to the Wizards of the Coast website figuring it was just a glitch in MA, but I ran into the same issue. The site's list acknowledges four different variations of each mana type without showing them, and they're not counted individually when you sort according to the Collector's numbers.
Is there some other resource(s) out there that can clarify any collector numbers--if any--that can be associated with each respective mana variation?
I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused here.
When you say to omit sub-dollar cards, do you mean find out which rares are worth that little before typing them into MassEntry, or are you simply saying that I'm filtering Rares/Mythics from the rest to omit the typical sub-dollar amounts of Commons and Uncommons from the final sum of the Rares/Mythics?
Sorry to drag this out, but I've gone to the Buylist feature as you instructed. I don't see a means of loading multiple cards at once. I don't have to type them in one at a time, do I?
And...Yeah, offtopic question: Force of Will strikes me as being perfectly useless. Why wouldn't I just use a low cost, generic Counterspell? Any value attached to it confounds me.
Also, it's not a shuffle crease. Imagine for a moment holding a lit match up to a card, and the paint chips, cracks, and peals back from the epicenter. The damage isn't nearly that bad, but picture that type of effect on the card's surface on a very small, almost unnoticeable scale. You need to squint to see it, but it's there, right next to the bloc insignia.
*sigh* I was afraid of this.
The miserable thing about this whole situation is that, aside from the Legacies, these cards weren't bought steadily over time. If that were the case, I'd be pleased as punch with a $2500 figure since I would have seen some use come from them prior to letting them go this far down the road. The reality is that they were all bought within a three month window in 2014. I was deploying, and a lot of my unit wanted a group activity that everyone could agree upon on our down time--scarce as it was while in theater. We picked MTG.
Full disclosure: I wasn't supposed to end up with 4600 singles all to myself (plus an assortment of boosters and boxes totaling around 2000 cards). They were supposed to be disseminated to an entire platoon with all of the transactions being consolidated through me so as to cut down on the amount of space used in mail trucks and C17s. Unfortunately, our orders were changed on the fly and we didn't end up staying in any one place long enough for that to happen, and I ended up not being paid back for a majority of these orders. I'm not a small business owner with an assisting staff to sort and resell these cards. I'm just a lone MTG fan who was unlucky enough to end up footing (most of) the bill for planned Magic tournaments that never panned out, stuck doing a two person job of grading and sorting all on my own. What's worse is that some of these cards were only bought accidentally: Liliana of the Veil--one of the most expensive singles purchased--was bought entirely by mistake (I don't even play black decks). Imagine my face when what I thought was a blemish turned out be cracked ink on a sixty dollar card I didn't even want (and when I brought the issue up with CK, they wouldn't give me the time of day since I could only call them back after I had gotten back to the states a year later, so instead of getting it replaced, I had to grade it down).
Don't want to depress anyone, but these cards have been a bloody albatross for the better part of two years and I felt like a rant.
To be clear would it be a vendor or a private buyer that gives me $2500 for the collection?
Oh, but I do have dual lands. It may only seem like I don't since I didn't group them in the Basic Land column.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/kdfm7d5478k7kbu/Spread Sheet and MA Files.rar
It's a mixture of around 3900 rares, uncommons, and Mythics vs. approximately 3200 commons. There are a portion of them that I had prior to 2014 that consisted primarily of Revised Edition, Fourth Edition, Fifth Edition, Chronicles, Ice Age, Homelands Alliances, Fallen Empires and a few from Unlimited Edition. Not including mana, they number at 991. 284 of them are uncommon and rare. If you want more specificity, here's the Legacy spreadsheet before it was combined with the Master document:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/6axxq6c6ulc5p55/Legacies.rar
I'm assuming "heat" means common?
Ah, thank you. I was afraid that I was proposing something unusual. With this in mind however, I'll use what you've given me and do more research into the common practice.
I'm in Orange County. And I want to sell these things quickly, but I'm unwilling to take too much of a hit, which is why I don't want to go to the hobby shop right away. In truth, I have no experience with social media or Craigslist--the horror stories have scared me away. Supposing I did however, what's the average amount of time it takes to find a buyer?
I appreciate your thoroughness. I haven't done any scanning (unfortunately, that would be a logistical nightmare), but I have been diligent about annotating conditions and such. On your recommendation, I'll double check the high-value cards and expand on them in the comments section of my spreadsheet (e.g Snapcaster Mage, Liliana of the Veil, Linvala Keeper of Silence).
As I stated previously, a significant portion of these cards were bought as singles from Card Kingdom. I notice however, that when I upload the various pricing databases such as TCG, MTOL, and MKM into Magic Assistant that the prices differ quite a bit. Can you tell me which database is the most accurate as far as pricing goes? For that matter, can you tell me the difference between TCGLow and TCGMedium?
I still can't get any files to attach, so I just uploaded the spreadsheet to Mega: https://mega.nz/#fm/SF8xTBTI
Is that a good start in your guys' opinion?
Without including the labor costs of sorting, storing, and grading, these cards have cost me between $5700 and $5800 in the two years that I've had them. Obviously, I don't expect to get that much back, but I'm really not keen about leaving the $4000 range, and since I'm unfamiliar with this environment, I'm not sure if I'm being picky or not.
Store would definitely be most convenient; there's a hobby shop right down the street. But I imagine that will kill my profit margins the most, so I at least wanted to look into individual buyers before I take the plunge. I guessing though that anyone willing to buy 8000 cards in a single transaction is going to be rare or nonexistent.
I'm not a habitual seller/trader in either the private or the professional context. As such, I'm rather overwhelmed by the risks of attempting to sell these cards. The main problem I'm foreseeing is that a potential buyer will quibble with the state of the cards and then give me a massive headache about false advertising and such.
As a single person, I have done my very best to go through every one of these cards myself and grade them using RTG and Card Kingdom as a reference guide for grading standards--since those are the primary sources of the collection. As such, I'm will to advertise them as being in the states that have been ascertained (by me). However, seeing as how I'm only one person who is not a professional, there are BOUND to be discrepancies and errors on my part--if not outright disagreements between my standards and those of a potential buyer's. Needless to say, this is problematic.
Before I even think about trying to put this collection up for sale, I was wondering if there are MTG seller resources out there that provide formal/contractual documentation that essentially states that I stand by the stated presence and conditions of these cards as well as their accompanying prices, but that the grading will not be guaranteed due to the logistical difficulties posed by the proposition of refunding the sale of the collection due to any fractional amount of discrepancies.
I keep trying to attach a spreadsheet and MagicAssistant archive, but the browser keeps hanging after each attempt. What's up with this crap?
I don't mean you personally were satirizing. I mean the quote itself: if you deconstruct a negatively connotative term with the intent of revealing positive implications, then you are, in effect, satirizing the popular culture that holds it in negative esteem.
Tyranny refers to coercion and oppression. There is no positive from that, and it cannot be satirized in the same manner as could the popular misconception of what constitutes "greed". It seems as though you're treating Objectivism as some kind of Willy Wonka brand machine where you could place within it a seemingly negative connotation and watch it get broken down into something positive. Rand's main point was simply that selfishness and capitalism are not the horrible, awful, "greedy", or "tyrannical" concepts that everyone believes them to be; she didn't reshape them into something more functional, but rather they were always functional.
I have to correct myself it seems. After reading the Salvation Wiki on the official philosophy of Red, it makes the color out to be totally irrational, non-inquisitive, and non-introspective. Apparently, Blue is the color of rationality that puts enterprise before social virtues and behaviors. This confuses the hell out of me seeing as how blue is the larger source of magic spells and alchemy, two disciplines completely bereft of objective antecedents to be considered anything other than mystical in nature....But I suppose the realms of MTG have somehow ground the mystical nature of magic down into what the lore of the game itself would consider a fine science. That being said, the existence of Mirrodin and Phyrexia would suggest a distinction between magic and scientifically-developed technology.
To answer your question, however, Red produces the most ideal environment for a free market where everyone's in the game for his individual self. The chaotic venue offers no concept of predestination or ordered placement, and therefore is not constrained by totalitarian regulatory burdens or Authoritarian matrices.
The issue has become more ambiguous for me seeing as how Objectivist characters need a well-defined moral structure to meet Rand's requirements. But the only color that seems at all concerned with applied morality is White, which comes across as being far too collectivist to house--let alone produce--a Howard Roark or a Henry Rearden. At this point, I'm convinced that a hero of rational self-interest would be a color combination character consisting of either white and blue or white and red. In the case of the former, the character would strike a balance between morality and enterprise whereas the latter would combine religiously applied philosophy with free-radical, anti-social behavior. Henry Rearden would, perhaps, be a White/Blue character whereas Howard Roark would be White/Red. For that matter, Gail Wynand could probably qualify as White/Black since he implements an idealistic tyranny derived from his sense of morality--which views everyone as disgusting and perverse, and, as such, totally deserving of the suffrage he doles out.
All of that being said, it might be possible to have a monochrome Objectivist character. For instance, I could see Rorschach or The Question as an exclusively white card seeing as how those are purely ethos-derived characters. Yes, I defied all temptation and refrained from knee-jerk labeling those characters as Black/White.
Thank you both for your help.
Objectivism does not lack morality. Indeed, the very point of any given philosophy (see also: Objectivism) is to apply a structured morality. And while I realize that your quote from Fate/Zero was meant to satirize the term "greed" more than define it, it still misses the mark in truly identifying what greed is--especially with respect to Objectivism. Making all the money you can, and absorbing all assets possible is not conducive to the general understanding of "greed" beyond what the popular narrative disseminates to public schools and OWS wastoids. Greed is, above all else, identified according to the harm it does to oneself and society around you, but despite what the "greed" narrative would have you believe, there have been plenty of capitalists out there making money without harming either themselves or anyone else in the process. In fact, the creation of capital--which allows people who otherwise aren't wealthy the opportunity to start a business and get rich--would be impossible were it not for the consumption and investment of so-called "greedy" businessmen. It is possible to OVER-consume and, therefore, harm yourself and the people around you through bad business practices. In which case, that is unarguably greed-driven ruin, but that is not to be confused with the mere enterprise of making large sums of money.
Logically, Objectvist character should be red. That paradigm strikes me as the most industrial and rationally self-interested. If you really think about it, white comes off as being too altruistic. Blue is concerned with mysticism more than anything else. Green is definitely filled with hippies. And black has an air of pure evil that's more concerned with conquering and coercing than with dealing and free trade.
As for the topic, I don't really see black as "black". I see it as darkness. And black is just the color of darkness. John 3:19-21 sums it up for me:
19 And this is the judgment: Because the light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For everyone that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works may not be reproved. 21 But he that doth truth cometh to the light. That his works may be made manifest because they are done in God.
Black isn't evil. But evil dwells in darkness, which is black. So there.
I was using Magic Assistant to help me with the task of accounting for the mana. The archive provided by MA still shows four iterations of each different type of mana, but certain sets don't attribute a unique collector number to each iteration.
I went to the Wizards of the Coast website figuring it was just a glitch in MA, but I ran into the same issue. The site's list acknowledges four different variations of each mana type without showing them, and they're not counted individually when you sort according to the Collector's numbers.
Is there some other resource(s) out there that can clarify any collector numbers--if any--that can be associated with each respective mana variation?