>>46309511>characters on the cards will affect their intrinsic value, because some are more popular than othersthe question is "why"? and the answer is "it's arbitrary"
"wow cool dragon" is as arbitrary as "wow limited print run," and it's baffling to me that you still don't recognize this.
>There is no organic interest in first run cards as a conceptand yet the concept of "first editions," and collectors who specifically seek out first editions predates pokemon cards by a century or two.
>Labeling cards as members of the first print is a completely arbitrary thing to do. it represents, or even commemorates, a completely meaningless status.i hope you also believe this about, say, different levels of rarity, because ultimately, that's all the 1st ed stamp signifies: "this card is rarer than other similar cards."
> FE stamped cards are different only because they have that stamp again, what kind of absurd, retarded argument is this? "this thing wouldn't be different if we had no way of distinguishing it from other things." a shocking revelation.
>It represents, or even commemorates, a completely meaningless status. do you really think there's some kind of intrinsic meaning behind any aspect of any card?
>>46310266>yeah except he is completely right about everything he stated. his argument is incoherent, because he's unwilling to admit that nothing in this hobby has intrinsic value. each individual card in the hobby has value because people collectively determine the value of these things -- this is true of competitively viable cards, cards with popular characters, cards with nice art, cards with appealing defects, and cards from limited print runs. none of this meaning or value is handed down to us by god, none of this is rational -- the value of any given card (or any given trait of a card) is overwhelmingly based on taste and sentiment, and this is the case in all collectibles markets.
