>>45101608Not sure I agree with the premise in a general sense, but this is likely the case for the really expensive cards (the stuff that sells for way over market value, like reprint base set zards that are going for the price of a 1st edition gem mint).
>>45102336Collectables do end up having a market price though, like any other used goods. It's based on availability and average sale price. Read my below reply.
>>45102494Take a look at the mint and gem mint base set Charizards on eBay. Since Logan Paul bought one for $150K every retard is listing their $20K card for $100K+ because they think that means it's worth $150K. Any expert would disregard that price because it's a huge outlier. Even the Beckett 10 Charizard the seller has is only worth about $35K (I'm splitting the difference, it's actually between $30K and $40K), and that's the only known Beckett 10 1st edition base set Charizard. Logan Paul actually wanted that one, but the seller wouldn't sell it to him, so he took one of the numerous PSA10s the seller had. The sellers whole collection (which has dozens of 1st edition PSA9 and 10 zards) was worth $380K on the high end, which includes the Beckett 10 zard.
So people will think that the card is worth a certain amount because 1 sold for it. But it's not worth that much. If you were to get it appraised, you'd be given the market price for what the card is. For a 1st edition PSA10 base set Charizard, that's $20-25K. No, the one Logan Paul bought wasn't worth $150K, the card he wanted (the Beckett 10) was only worth around $35K, and that price is from an actual appraisal (granted it was on Pawnstars).
I can guarantee that those $700 Pikachu cards were either 1 sale listed twice or they went to the same buyer. I wouldn't be surprised if they are laundering petty amounts of dirty money that way. It's an ungraded common unlimited print card. It's only worth a couple bucks tops (literally like $1.50-2).
