Posted By:
boxingcardmanthat I share with any buyer who tries to argue from prior transactions with my prices: don't buy it if you don't like the price at which the item is offered.
I don't mean to be flippant or nasty about this and if I come across that way I apologize, but I find posts like this irksome in that they seem to assume that economic values we generally accept as a capital-based society (buy low, sell high; achieve the highest possible returns on investments; allow people as much freedom to contract or not contract as possible within the structure of the civilization, etc.) somehow should not apply to card transactions. But, philosophically, why should a seller leave the last increment(s) of value of the item to the buyer just because it is a card deal; what's the buyer done to merit that special dispensation from the rules of commerce that govern every other sort of transaction? It's like the buyer who asks for a break with some variant of "I really need it" as a justification. Setting aside what a terrible negotiating strategy that is (Don't tell the seller you really want the item if you expect a discount), how is the buyer's desire the seller's concern.
As far as speed of the second sale effort, that has no relevance at all. I've made deals where the cards literally were sold at a profit before I even received them from the person who sold them to me. It all depends on supply and demand. If the demand is there, nothing wrong with fulfilling it.
Finally, in terms of whether a seller may have to carry an item for a while, again, not a relevant issue as it pertains to the question at hand. As far as I know, a seller has the right to sell or not sell an item the moment after he takes title. It should not make a lick of difference to a buyer rationally analyzing the offered item whether the seller bought it yesterday or in 1999.
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc