You're right... partially.
Alright.
Take gold, for example: Its price fluctuates. But that doesn't necessarily mean the rarity of gold fluctuates. Its general price is high due to its rarity, I'll give you that. But gold 10 years ago was worth fraction of what it's worth today. That's not to say that there's fraction of gold available today than there was 10 years ago.
So you are basically restating what I said in your first sentence, and creating a new but invalid point in the second. Lets look back at the above subject of the thread. Shiny Hunterz quoted this: "Maybe this will increase the value of our shinnies a little more...?" to which you replied: "There was no value to be had in the first place. " Our topic at this point has become that fact that as rarity increases, our value will also. I argued on the side of this point in my post because this is simple economics. You didn't agree with the topic originally with the reply: "Sure, they won't be as easy to find, but I don't know if that means it's "value" increased. " I am arguing this point. You just now created a new topic by saying: "Its price fluctuates. But that doesn't necessarily mean the rarity of gold fluctuates." (So value impacts rarity, which is not an effective counterargument since this wasn't what we were talking about to start with.) "Its general price is high due to its rarity" - This statement contradicts what you said in your very first post here, so now we are seeing eye to eye and you agree that increased rarity of shinies increases its value. But nonetheless, I will expand upon your new topic:
But gold 10 years ago was worth fraction of what it's worth today. That's not to say that there's fraction of gold available today than there was 10 years ago.
You forgot one thing. Inflation. There is also the fact that gold is melted down and sold to men to give to a lucky lady, who might hold onto that gold (thereby temporarily removing it from circulation and thereby increasing this "fraction" of gold that is no longer in circulation and raising its rarity), traded to other countries (increasing its value in America), and is almost impossible to mine as much as it was in the late 40s, but those reasons aren't as big as inflation. Inflation is the decrease in value of the USD because of its overproduction (further proving our point that rarity directly influences value). Give a big thanks to years worth of stupid politics for making that 25 cents laying in your couch right now no longer enable you to enjoy a bag of chips and a coke.
Take a Base Set Charizard, for example: Why is much more expensive than Base Set Chansey, for example, even though both cards are of the same holo rarity? Because Charizard was more popular than Chansey, and arguably still is. Even the exact same cards differ in value based on its condition. For example, Base Charizard in a gem mint condition would be worth thousands, while a Base Charizard that was sitting outside for 30 days soaked in rain would be worth considerably less, maybe next to nothing. That's not to say that there is a difference in rarity of those cards.
This is another new point. Two to be exact. Popularity and condition are two factors to increase value, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean that rarity is automatically ruled out. Lets say you put a gem mint Chansey card right up against that gem mint Charizard. Charizard is rarer, and is still more valuable because of this, even if you like Chansey more than Charizard (some holes in popularity, if you will). Now lets say you put that Charizard in the rain for 30 days. Sure it is going to be worth less than the Chansey now, but you have to remain constant and also place that Chansey out in the rain for 30 days. Now we have a constant. I would bet that that wet Charizard card is going to be worth more than that wet Chansey card. This is because of its rarity. Condition is one thing, but rarity is still involved when everything remains constant. A flawless shiny Lucario is worth more than a normal shiny Lucario, but the fact still remains that they are still worth more than a regular Lucario.
Now take shiny Pokemon, for example. I'll take a very popular shiny and compare it to a less popular one, let's say shiny Greninja and shiny Sunflora. Which one would people look for more? Even though shiny Sunflora is probably more rare because nobody really breeds or looks for Sunkerns, it's probably worth less than a shiny Greninja, because nobody really uses Sunflora, while shiny Greninja is arguably much more popular. (I'm sorry, Sunflora fans)
This is yet another point deviating from our original point that rarity effects value. This is different from the point about popularity that you made above, because this isn't so much popularity as it is our next economic term: functionality. But this deviates too far from the original argument. Lets remain
constant shall we? Compare that shiny Sunflora to a non-shiny Greninja, or even a non-shiny Sunflora. The Sunflora would most likely win the highest value and same if you compared a shiny Greninja to a non-shiny one, because as shiny hunterz indirectly mentioned in the first post:
shinies are more valuable as they grow in rarity. This remains true and always will until every single Pokémon fan stops playing or they come out with some magic method for getting the chance of finding a shiny down from 1 in 8000ish to 1 in1.
It's easy to assume that rarity equates to value, because as you said, rarity is a good factor that determines value, which I agree with.
I'm glad to see that we all agree on the original point.
However, rarity isn't everything that value entails.
Never said it was. But
consistency will always say it is.
