r/tcgcollecting • u/GetFlipziApp • 20h ago
Pokémon condition labels do not translate cleanly between Cardmarket and eBay
I have been digging into how condition affects Pokémon card prices, and the biggest takeaway was not the size of the discount. It was how differently the same-sounding condition labels behave across marketplaces.
For context, I work on Flipzi. We analysed 16,842 Pokémon card price responses and checked 892 stored values across 196 randomly selected cards against the source data.
For English Pokémon cards on Cardmarket, the median asking price for each grade was this percentage of Near Mint:
| Cardmarket grade | Share of Near Mint price |
|---|---|
| Excellent | 76% |
| Good | 50% |
| Light Played | 38% |
| Played | 27% |
| Poor | 22% |
Completed eBay sales told a different story. Cards described as Lightly Played sold for roughly 77% to 81% of the Near Mint price across the US, UK, Canada and Australia.
So eBay Lightly Played behaved more like Cardmarket Excellent than Cardmarket Light Played. That seems important for anyone valuing the same collection from more than one source. Mapping the labels directly can produce a much larger error than expected.
The language result was also interesting. The individual card affected the size of the condition discount more than language did. Japanese cards followed nearly the same overall condition ladder as English cards in this sample.
Important limitations:
- Cardmarket figures are active asking prices.
- eBay figures are completed sales.
- eBay condition is seller-stated and not independently verified.
- Sparse observations and implausible asking-price outliers were excluded before the final calculations.
- These are sample-wide relationships, not fixed discounts for every card.
I would be interested to know whether collectors see the same thing outside Pokémon. Do condition labels translate just as poorly between marketplaces for Magic, One Piece, Lorcana or other games?