Say what you would spend and how cautious you are. The picker draws one card at random from the … cards that have a 90-day outlook, leaving out the ones it expects to lag. It is a way to find cards worth a look, not a recommendation to buy one.
Loading the cards…
Every card with an outlook is in one of five groups by its score. The picker removes the two lowest groups, the ones the outlook says are likely to lag the market, then keeps the cards that fit your budget and choices. From those it draws at random, with cards in the highest group three times as likely to come up as cards in the middle one, and the fourth group twice as likely.
It draws at random on purpose. The test behind the outlook was good at spotting cards that go on to lag and much weaker at ranking the rest, so naming one “best” card for a budget would claim more than we know. It would also send everyone to the same card. Pick again and you get a different one; the link keeps the pick you are looking at.
The outlook cannot see reprints, announcements, grading or hype. It was tested on a single year in which prices rose. The published price trails real sales, so you will usually pay more than the figure shown, and selling costs roughly 13–15% in fees and postage. Each card’s page lists the reasons and the caveats in full, and the outlook record shows how past outlooks turned out. This is not investment advice.
Count this visit? Google Analytics tells us which pages are worth keeping. Saying yes stores a cookie that links your visits together. Saying no still counts the page, just nothing that identifies you — and the site is identical either way. What we store.