Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Here's a free piece of advice. Repeatedly saying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or uninformed or unqualified or disingenuous is not an effective means of debate or discussion.
|
Fair point. It just makes me look like an ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
And here's a counterpoint. If a card is common enough and has an established recent value range, it shouldn't matter if an extra 10,000 people or however many view auction 2 instead of auction 1. None of those extra eyes should be willing to pay more than the card is worth/available elsewhere readily. By your theory, almost every PWCC card would sell higher, since it has more eyes on it, and it's just empirically not true.
|
Yes, as I mentioned above, the relationship is not a linear function. This is what I meant when I said,
"there would be an element of diminishing returns (i.e., having 40 million eyes on an auction is effectively equivalent to having 5 million eyes on that auction, but having 40,000 is still significantly better than having 5,000)." The shape of the curve and the ceiling for a maximal benefit view count and the point at which the diminishing returns "kick in" would all be a function of both supply and demand for that individual card. We should expect to have a steeper curve for something like a Ken Griffey Jr PSA 9 Upper Deck RC than we would for something like a 1933 Goudey Lou Gherig and a shallower curve for something like a 1933 Goudey common. But the relationship between view counts and sold prices should look like some version of the plots below.