MTG Salvation

5000 count boxes for bulk (By Set By Color), smaller boxes for somewhat playables (By Color), binders for sets.

@MinaHarcout - it's a link in the FAQ section of the page:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i6pqhbaykpwzesm/rfDPfQbeGY?lst

Unfortunately, he doesn't have 'all' the sets...

Comment Hidden

I haven't used this software but I've utilized the author's other tools so I'm fairly sure it will automagically update your collection prices:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-software/337213-the-vault-v0-11a-15th-nov-2015-deck-collection

Also if you store your collection on deckbox, that should update as well.

@DefaultUser:

Yes, that's why I went with CI. They cover the cards you bring with you to play with at events (i.e. cards not in a safe)!
On book-keeping, unfortunately this is unavoidable. The good news is that you don't necessarily need to grade the cards - just assume an average condition throughout and maybe list a few of the highest-$ graded ones. Pricing for signed cards can be assumed as SP, as that's what they are generally sold for, on an individual basis anyway
Once you have the list of cards, getting and maintaining prices on them is an automated process if you're using a good app to store your collection.

@KnickM - Yes on homeowner's insurance. However I've found that homeowner's insurance will not cover your mtg collection, at least not up to the amounts you must be inquiring about if you're thinking about this. As for collection value - I actually have a list of most of the cards in my collection, even the ones less than $1 and manage it with pricing software. Deckbox or other apps out there can do this as well, I believe. The difficulty was in typing out all those cards to begin with, but managing it has been not too bad. It's also helped that a large portion of my collection are complete sets, which makes for much, much simpler card management.

Some external reading - there's links to other articles in there from other sites.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22800-Insuring-My-Collection-Advice
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/329573-insuring-ones-cards
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/325430-insuring-your-collection
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/278k6u/has_anybody_insured_their_mtg_collections_can_you/

There are a couple more threads on this on MTGS, reddit, motl too for more references btw.
2 good online insurance sources: Collectinsure.com, TheFia.com. I've asked for quotes from multiple home insurance vendors (as recently as winter '16) but the prices were pretty crazy.

In the end I went with CI (cheapest option for my usage), they don't require an independent third-party appraisal and I made several videos for my collection. In addition to this, I have copies of my collection regularly updated on various online sites as well as a workbook documenting all changes to the collection for audit purposes.

@LandBoySteve: Mmm I just want to point out that your opening statement qualifying you as a non-jealous hater of RL doesn't quite have the impact you may be thinking. You are in favor of abolishing the RL in part b/c you "bought a playset of every dual land when they were selling for $12 a piece" (sic). That's only a $480 cost basis. If you bought a playset of every dual for $5k or however much it costs today, you may feel differently. The level of what constitutes a large amount of money at risk varies from person to person but in general, regarding this entire conversation of the RL it's easy to just view it as a straightforward comparison of people's cost basis, people who have a low cost basis want the RL to be abolished and people who have a high cost basis are in favor of it staying. There are, of course exceptions but in general that's the way I've seen it.

In any case, I'll patiently wait for the complainers in this thread to accumulate income over the next few years, buy the cards they've always wanted and observe how they quietly stop complaining once they have a larger amount of $ at risk

I may be in the distinct minority here but I hate watching even a 10-min video, when I could just read an article in a tenth of the time...

You can define the domain of 'whatever' however you like, but as I said earlier, it's wishful thinking. One can wish that collectors know nothing about finance, as if the two are inexplicably incompatible but that's not going to change reality. I can wish that the people who complain about the reserved list would learn more about planning personal finances and careers - to the point where they can afford to buy cards with the fruits of their labor, like the rest of us instead of spending unproductive hours whining in forums. But that's not going to change reality either.

As a note, there's probably very few people in mtg who are 'pure' players even if they like to categorize themselves that way. I would describe myself as a collector/investor/player all-in-one so whatever singular black-and-white motives and actions you are attributing to any particular group all apply to myself and I'm not finding that I agree with your assessments on motives or what people would or would not do.

Now, on the name-calling, who came up with a term really doesn't matter. For example even if you didn't invent racist terminology doesn't matter if you're the one using it. I can see by your sour-grape comments that you require usage of derogatory terms to bolster your arguments and that's understandable. I had hoped to engage in polite discussion of the reserved list but I guess that's too much to hope for. I have no need to toss out catchy populist terms and hope they 'stick', I was really just hoping that the common sense of what I'm saying would make sense to some folks

On financial savvy-ness, this is an area I'm greatly interested in discussing. What particular reason do you have to say that financially savvy people would be buying and selling cards at a regular pace? I disagree entirely with your sentiment. As a general observation across this and various other forums, I find that the individuals who understand the concepts of finance - wealth management, time value of money and so on tend to be the ones who do well for themselves financially as well as in collecting mtg. The average working professional is going to make significantly more on an hourly basis than he could buying and selling cards. Indeed, if there was any free time, it would be better spent, on a financial basis, engaging in additional contract opportunities related to one's career rather than flipping cards for piddly amounts of return, both on an absolute as well as a relative basis. There's a lot of people flipping cards - what car do you see them driving again? Compare and contrast to working professionals. 'Nuff said. Anybody doing the simple math on this would see that the financially-savvy move, in terms of short-term $ potential as well as the additional long-term career impact of additional skills and experience via off-hours contract work would be to just work more and accumulate cards by just buying them. In contrast, one could just not do any of that and instead whine about how cards are expensive, yadda yadda and keep wishing that collectors are financial idiots I guess. Why anybody would think that those who have the large amounts of money in the first place to spend on a hobby are not financially capable is beyond me.

Lastly, I would have to ask that anybody who claims to not care about taking a large % hit in the value of their collection in exchange for more people to play with should just put up or shut up, it's not that hard - unless of course it is It seems that it's still about sour-grapes at the end, the endless railing at the "haves" from the "have-nots" or "not-have-as-much's". As a player/collector/investor - I lend my cards out a good amount as well, there's no legacy scene at my LGS unless I'm the one bringing the decks. Regarding how far lending a collection goes, it depends on your collection - one good thing about being an avid collector is that I have large numbers of those staple cards so whenever I lend decks out, I can play most decks against most other decks. Oh and at the end of the day, I'm not above resorting to just writing card names on basic land cards because from a player perspective, what I care about is being able to play some legacy right? Everybody did this back in the day to play the game, the culture of entitlement these days is truly amazing.

Update of the MTG GamePack
- Up to Core Set 2020: http://www.mediafire.com/?ksapcl1gv7g54



Enjoy !

Couple small changes for Winter cube drafting.
Ydwen Efreet > Rukh Egg
Vodalian Mage > Electric Eel
Morale > Blessing

Vodalian Mage is awful and probably never should have been in the cube in the first place. Eel is more playable and can make for an interesting play with Red/Blue.

Ydwen Efreet is a personal favorite, but he's really hard to play at RRR in cost. We removed Ball Lightning for a couple of reasons and that was one of them so he's out. Rukh Egg has some interesting combo potential with cards like Earthquake and Nevinyrrals Disk.

Morale is bad for 1WW. Blessing is only marginally better, but better is better.

Quote from towishimp »

But what I'd argue is that printing Legacy Masters would actually expand their customer base.

This is true if one of the following is true:
1) There is a segment of customers that will only play Legacy.
2) There is a segment of customers that will spend more money than they do now, in order to play Legacy.

Quote from towishimp »

I know of many players that only play Legacy, and therefore earn Wizards around $0 each year, despite their being avid players of Wizards' game.

Unless one of these players wants to spend money on a second set of staples, these players aren't buying cards from a Legacy Masters set anyway.

Quote from towishimp »

I also know of many players who would like to play Legacy, but do not because the price to enter the format is too high.

The same could be said of Modern (Tarmogoyf is frequently cited as the card that makes Modern feel like "pay to win"), and for obvious reasons, Legacy will never be cheaper than Modern.

Quote from towishimp »

I'd argue that Wizards could earn extra revenue from both of these groups.

The former group isn't spending money anyway, and the latter group would increase WotC's revenue in the short term. In the long term, the second group ends up playing Legacy instead of playing Modern or Standard. (Again, people have a certain amount of Magic-allocated dollars. Just because you give them more options for playing, doesn't necessarily mean that they spend more money. There are diminishing marginal returns on the additional formats that WotC can support. In other words, adding a second format probably increases revenue, but adding a fifteenth format probably does nothing. In the long run, WotC only makes "extra" money off of people that wouldn't play Standard, Modern, or EDH.)

Quote from towishimp »

Diehard Legacy folks might draft the set...

Drafting Legacy Masters would be awesome. Count me in. Although to be honest, I'd rather draft Vintage Masters. Here's the problem: the diehard Legacy players aren't drafting the set because they need/want more staples; the diehard Legacy players are drafting the set because Legacy Masters would make a fantastic draft environment. WotC can make a fantastic draft environment without reprinting reserved list cards, so why would they run the risk of alienating the people who want to see the reserved list upheld?

Quote from towishimp »

...or might want foil versions of cards that never were foil, thus earning Wizards sales.

Conspiracy is proof that this isn't true. The intersection of people that "spend money on a Legacy deck", "want to foil their deck", and "can't foil their deck", is extremely small. Okay, admittedly, this is a bit misleading, given you're suggesting foiling cards that otherwise were never available in foil. However, this trick only works once for WotC. It's a temporary bump in revenue, but that demand isn't year-over-year sustainable.

Quote from towishimp »

And people like me would enter into Legacy, likely spending at least some money more than the normally would, at least to get that first deck so that they could play the format that had previously been closed to them.

WotC doesn't really care if you build that first deck. They want you building a bunch of decks. In fact, building a bunch of decks isn't even enough; they want you to build a different deck every season. That's why Standard exists as a format. WotC is a business. They don't just want to make money this year - they want to make money every year. They have investors (or, Hasbro does), and it doesn't help WotC to make money this year, only for revenues to fall flat the next year.

Quote from towishimp »

I cite as evidence Modern Masters, which resulted in a growth of the Modern format (and which didn't crash the price of high-end staples like Goyf and Cryptic Command, I might add). I'd say that evidence is pretty strong, given that Wizards is making a second Modern Masters, and that it looks like they aim to make it a regular offering.

Define "regular offering". Modern Masters is a special release, currently being offered once every two or three years. The original Modern Masters sold really well, and you're suggesting that it's proof that there's a market for these kinds of non-rotating formats.

I'm willing to agree with that, on the condition that you acknowledge that this can't be WotC's core business.

The rate at which players change decks in non-rotating formats is relatively slow. It's not just a function of the deck price (although that does tend to be a problem); it's because people like the deck (or two or three) that they play, and they can play it forever with minimal upkeep cost. WotC couldn't release a Modern Masters set every year, and make a sustainable profit. Why not? Because encouraging players to play non-rotating formats with regular frequency actually hurts WotC revenues, even if WotC is the one supplying the cards.

WotC would rather have 80% of committed players rotating their decks every other year (Standard) than 100% of committed players rotating their decks every 3-4 years.


The "regular offering" of Modern Masters, and the support of Modern as a format, is proof that the reserved list will never go away. I submit that there are only two reasons to get rid of the reserved list:
1) To support Legacy
2) To support Vintage

Although there are a lot of casual players, casual players don't care about the reserved list.

Both Legacy and Vintage are non-rotating formats, and supporting them with reprinted cards makes them a direct competitor with Modern. In fact, if all three were supported, the only reason to play one over the other two, would be personal preference (including to play in LGS tournaments). WotC doesn't need three formats that fill the same role in its business model.

WotC needs a non-rotating format. Many players don't like having to change their deck every year (Standard). For a long time, the reserved list put Wizards in a tough situation: they could either go back on their promise to not reprint those cards, or they would have to accept that they couldn't make money off of a non-rotating format.

Modern was WotC's answer to all of this, and Modern Masters was a test of whether or not WotC could make money by literally selling non-rotating staples (spoiler alert: it worked). Modern was the best possible thing that WotC could do. Not only can WotC finally support a non-rotating format without the threat of "legal recourse", but WotC can also shed all of the mistakes that they made early in development. If you want to play with the Power 9, WotC isn't going to stop you, but WotC isn't going to make that mistake again by reprinting them.

But what about how different formats appeal to different players? I have some bad news. WotC does lots of market research. There are an enormous number of Legacy and Vintage strategies that the average Magic player finds unfun (land destruction, counterspells, etc.), and if you really enjoy the complexity that comes with this game's rich history, then you're in the minority. Heartbreaking, I know. As a Legacy player and advocate, I would like for WotC to acknowledge and encourage the depth of strategies that Magic has to offer, but the masses have spoken with their wallets, and I have been outvoted.

In order for Magic to grow, Magic needs new players. New players don't like prison decks. New players don't like fast combo decks. New players don't like it when the learning curve involves 20+ years of cards and keywords. Standard may be the gateway to Magic, but Modern is the non-rotating format that WotC always wanted. It's a midrange slugfest, and the ban list is tightly monitored to make sure that every set of matchups stays close.

The success of the Modern format, and the success of Modern Masters is the end of the reserved list discussion. The reserved list isn't going anywhere. WotC has a non-rotating format that they can profit from. WotC doesn't have to worry about its early mistakes. And most of all, WotC can finally stop having to explain the reserved list itself. New players barely know what the reserved list is, or why it matters. Vintage and Legacy are remnants from a different age of Magic, and WotC has no intention of dwelling on the past.

The reserved list will continue to exist because WotC doesn't care about profiting off of Vintage or Legacy, even if only for a year. It's more detrimental than beneficial to WotC's business model, and new players aren't any more excited to play Vintage than they are to play Standard.


In spirit, I appreciate the discussion about the reserved list. Eternal formats are the best. But to even discuss the reserved list today, is to waste your time. The reserved list was created in 1996, and WotC didn't stop adding cards to the list until 2002. Almost 13 years later, the reserved list still exists, and we have a completely new format whose implicit purpose was to circumvent the problems that the reserved list caused. If WotC was going to eliminate the reserved list, they would have done it by now. At this point, the path of least resistance is to leave the reserve list, and to stop supporting the formats that are hamstrung by it.

You make these "the sky is falling" threads every few weeks, and none seem to be founded in reality.

Some people like the new card frames. Some people don't. No one thinks it is a signal of an impending mtg market crash or really has anything whatsoever to do with the value of cards.

Comment Hidden

I don't believe that WotC is sticking to the Reserved List because of some promise made to the the players nearly 2 decades ago. And, I don't believe that WotC strengthened the Reserved List a few years ago to protect the monetary value of the customer collections.

I believe there are two real reasons for the Reserved List, and also not reprinting key high value cards not on the Reserved List; such as Force of Will or Wasteland. First, if Legacy was cheaper, many more people would play Legacy and ditch Standard. Second, they want to preserve the perception of Magic cards as a collectible.

I believe WotC likes Legacy to an extent. They want new players to aspire to play Legacy because that keeps them loyal. They also want to keep Legacy alive, but in check, because high value Legacy cards give legitimacy to MTG as a collectible.

WotC has traditionally been very reluctant to reprint high value cards regardless of the the Reserved List, but that stance seems to be changing in the last year or so. We may actually see a Judge Force of Will. But they don't want to lower the barrier of entry to Legacy so that the masses of Standard players can get into Legacy and leave Standard behind.

Finally, WotC will reprint everything at some point, but will probably only do so as a last gasp cash grab when it is clear the game is dying.

I consider myself something of a collector, so I'll chime in with some options...

First off, when someone implies that there's a problem with collectors or that they create a problem, I find their statement ridiculous and actually take offense. If card prices are too high for other people to afford, that's not my problem whatsoever, that's theirs.

As already stated, this is a COLLECTIBLE card game and always has been. People who fail to acknowledge, remember, or understand what this means honestly shouldn't play to begin with, because every market in every economy is driven by supply and demand, and I'll never apologize for or feel guilty about you having difficulty finding something at a price you consider affordable because I or others like me buy up the supply before you do. When cards (or any products for that matter) are released onto the open market, every consumer on this planet has an equal opportunity to buy as much or as little of said products as they desire. If you can't afford it or feel certain products are beyond your budget (or credit limit), you either need to get a better paying job, look for things on sale at a discount (ie: at garage sales, craigslist, ebay, etc), or find other ways to make your hobbies more affordable (ie: help out part time at your local hobby store for employee discounts, etc). But whatever you do (or don't do), don't ever hate on those with money simply because they choose to spend it on something which you don't have disposable income for, and then get frustrated about not being able to afford because supply goes down causing market value prices to increase. If anything, you should be frustrated at yourself for neglecting to jump on the early train, not redirecting it towards other consumers or shareholders. Always remember: The early bird catches the worm. Have I missed good purchasing opportunities? Of course, plenty! We all have. Need perfect examples?... I didn't buy Night of the Ninja (planechase 2012) or Counterpunch (Commander) when they first came out, and now they're either sold out everywhere or selling for 300-500% of their initial suggested retail prices. Am I disappointed? Slightly. Am I angry to the point where I resent or blame anyone who took the initiative to buy them early before they shot up in price? Of course not. Hell, I could've bought dozens of Revised dual lands, hundreds of Force of Wills, and several ounces of gold for peanuts back in the mid-late 90's but I didn't and markets fluctuate, so it's nobody's fault but my own. Unlike some people, I'm man enough to admit my own negligence and ignorance as far as not thinking (back then) that the game would last as long and become as popular as it has. Sure I was in high school and building my collection on a weekly allowance budget back then, but I don't make excuses for missed opportunities and we all know that hindsight is always 20/20, so "C'est la vie!" as we say in Quebec.

Now moving on...
As far as I'm concerned, cards which don't see play regularly in Vintage (or at least legacy) were never staples to begin with. They created the illusion of being something akin to pseudo-staples for newer players who were/are either unable or unwilling to afford true staples for eternal formats. Furthermore, anyone "investing" in MTG should know better than to sink their money into cards which are at best "staples" in Modern, or even EDH which is still a casual format. A true collector knows how to do a proper risk assessment and appraise cards better than to buy up playsets of modern "staples" thinking they'll either never be reprinted, or may not see printing again for many years. At worst, they're going about their investments completely the wrong way since cards have never been a very reliable or profitable collectible to invest in (as opposed to say art by well known painters or sculptors, rare coins, old stamps, etc). At best, they're gambling, and placing their bets on assumptions, unfounded predictions, and hope, which suffice it to say is a rather desperate and unreliable method of turning a profit or acquiring something which appreciates in value significantly over time.

Am I a gambler at heart? Somewhat, but I'm still not foolish enough to put all my eggs in any one basket be it a card collection, a portfolio mutual funds, stocks, bonds, foreign currency, precious stones, bone china, crystal figurines, or anything in between.
Do I play standard, Modern, and EDH? Yes
Do I expect my standard chase cards to maintain most of their value post rotation? Not a chance!
Despite this knowledge, do I still buy various standard and modern singles? Yes. As an investment? Hardly (unless I'm very confident they haven't plateaued yet and I can easily trade or flip them asap when they do for older Legacy staples).
Do I buy Legacy staples? Yes. As an investment? Usually, but most will still end up seeing play in decks as well so I get to have some fun with them as well.
Do I buy other cards as an investment? Yes. Occasionally I'll buy high demand foils and promos which I'm confident won't depreciate in value.
Do I buy other MTG products as investments? Yes. Sometimes I'll pre-order an extra booster box or two of a set and then trade or sell it a few months down the line when they're harder to find and retailers have all jacked up the prices due to lower supply. Last year I even bought an uncut foil rares & mythics m12 sheet from some guy who won it at an event but didn't care to keep it and needed some fast cash. I've even bought some unlimited power9 over the past year because the prices they were offered to me at were too good to refuse (ie: nm moxen @ 325-375 apiece, nm time walk @ 500, ex timetwister at 180). Have I gotten a few tempting offers for the uncut sheet or the boxes I've kept sealed? Occasionally, but sometimes I get stuck with something for awhile until I can flip it.

Does Goyf being reprinted in next year's "modern masters" set or Sylvan Library being reprinted in Commander's Arse worry me at all? Not a chance. Why? Because reprints with alternate art rarely cause the originals to drop significantly if at all, and most people who play such cards still prefer the original printings purely for the nostalgia. Did the new foil FTV Maze of ith cause the original to tank, no. Because it doesn't have the nostalgia of the original, nor the high rarity of the judge foil. Therefore, it's perfectly safe to assume that the new Goyf won't have much effect (if any) on the original's price and demand.

As a matter of fact, just this week I traded two Mirrodin booster boxes (yes, the original Mirrodin from 2003) and $40 for a playset of goyfs (3 French, 1 English). Was the decision a mistake? Possibly, but I know I'll get more value out of the goyfs since they have more utility for decks, and will be easier to trade or sell if/when needs be than sealed boxes of Mirrodin which I've had collecting dust in my closet for awhile. Sure the boxes retail online for $179.99 and might go up to $199.99 by this time next year while goyf drops $10 after the reprint, but I still don't care (mainly because I accepted the worst case scenario in advance). The fact of the matter is that I only paid $90 per box when I got them off someone else last may who held onto them for awhile thinking they might go up more over time, but eventually conceded that the set didn't have enough chase cards for modern (let alone legacy) to be worth cracking open or trying to resell later for more.

So lets calculate...
currently
1x english goyf @ ~94.99
3x french goyfs @ ~104.99 ea
=409.96

Dude got...
2x mirrodin booster boxes @ ~179.99
+40 =399.98
but was willing to accept $320 cash from another interested party

Is it a good deal for him? Yes. He's getting approximately $80 more in retail value than he was willing to accept in cash had he sold the goyfs straight up.

Is it a good deal for me? Yes. The boxes only cost me $180 together when I got them, and I know that since there's such a low demand for those boxes now (which likely won't change for another several years), I'll never find a buyer easily who is willing to pay 179 each (or more) for them, so essentially I paid $220 for a playset of goyfs (roughly 46% off what the current market value is for them)

Conclusion: We both come out ahead!
I get my my goyf playset at close to half off, and dude gets to have fun drafting a 9 year old set with his friends who will likely be overjoyed to have such a rare opportunity.

Two of my friends said I was a complete fool when I bought those Mirrodin boxes because they knew I wouldn't open or use them, but I assured them I'd trade them up for something nice in due time, and as fate would have it, now I'm the one who gets to laugh at those goyfless friends and say "I told you so!"

Oh ya, did I mention I also collect snapcasters?