The Question of the Day is a way to facilitate community discussion to help members ponder the unanswered questions of the world that are somehow relating to the hobby. Questions are many times open ended and up to interpretation. Feel free to post your thoughts in as much or as little detail as you’d like.
Helpful Considerations may or may not help some people focus their answer, these are blurred to not bother those who have their own ideas.
One of the coolest trainer cards ever distributed. Pseudo-trophy card feel and iconic artwork with the legendary birds and you’re telling me this card has actually stayed stagnant during this boom?
There is a presupposition in this QOTD that I dislike.
So I’ll answer a better question: What is your go to when gauging the rationality of pokemon card market conditions?
I’ll say probably looking at the prices of whatever is modern in print product. If something is wonky, then you have something to be cautious of. For example, if I didn’t already pull the IMO, not very appealing mew ex SIR from the arguably worst, fire saled set in S/V, Paldean Fates; at prices as of writing, I definitely would avoid it like the absolute plague. Kind of boring but like anything else, if it seems too good to be true, it is. Lots of examples of buyouts, price manipulations and shill bidding has given me pause to the truth of the rationality of current situation market rationality. However, like anything, there is always a kernel of organic movement that should in theory always remain. But collapses can also happen due to no real organic interest. Beanie babies is the classic of no real organic interest, which it seems these ugly as sin labudabu things are. A tcg example of no organic interest leading to collapse would be metazoo.
.