sfcityduck

Offered on eBay, a photo of a D27 in the wild: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Batman-Detective-27-1939-1st-app-magazine-comic-book-rack-salesman-photo-pulps/392122068949?hash=item5b4c4befd5:g:GasAAOSwKqlbl2om

This is the closest I think you'll ever get to seeing a picture of an Action 1 in the wild during the GA:

I really doubt your claim. No one else has ever found them. And many have looked and shared the fruits of their labor on this thread:

Yeah, never seen a period photo of an Action 1. Only photoshops. Have seen a period photo of a MC1 being read by a kid in a group shot. Can't recall with regard to D27.

I thought the Verzyl family's MH MC 1 was widely thought to be much better than a 9.0 (there are two of those graded already). I'd heard it had a chance at 9.8.

Unless you provide an objective criteria to distinguish between 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8 that is more meaningful than the distinction between 9.6 and 9.8 you are just embarking on a slippery slope that ultimately leads to "ranking" of submissions not "grading" of them. After all, to use your example, why couldn't you add a 9.65 grade? Or how about 9.625 and 9.675? Where do you draw the line? I'm happy with where it is now. The finer the distinctions become, the more subjective the decision becomes.

Respectfully disagree. If that was the standard, there would only be one "highest graded" of any given issue. The graders should give a book the grade it deserves, whether it is "highest graded" or not.

One observation, I agree with most of what RMA says about grading having a subjective element. However, the most important aspect of grading is the consistency of the grader. It doesn't matter if a particular dealer always views the books he sells as a notch better than I think they are, so long as he is consistent. If he's consistent, then I can adjust my view of his books accordingly. Where you lose me is when the grading is all over the map. And, obviously, for a grading company, consistency is far more important than for a dealer. Which is why I think that adding more grading intervals is a really terrible idea. Doing so implies that there are finer gradations of grading than those that already exist which can be applied consistently. I really doubt that. Doubling the intervals between 9.0 to 10.0 doubles the number of subjective calls, and inevitably will decrease consistency. Grading is not a science now - as evidenced by the lack of wholly objective grading criteria for the current scale - and will be less of a science with twice as many grading intervals. Absent true comparison grading, with CGC grading each book in comparison to pictures and notes it made of all graded issues, a finer grading scale is more trouble than benefit. The only winner would be the grading company as increasing the intervals would lead to a bunch of re-submissions of already graded books, with all the resulting chaos in the Census, flipping mania, and ultimately lost credibility for the hobby that would entail.

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con: MAGAZINE MODERN Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 35 b days; CGC = 45 b days (Total 80 b days or 16+ weeks) Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018 CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4) "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13) "Received" - 9/14/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 52 b days (+17 b bays or 3.5 weeks over estimate!) "Verified" - 9/18/2018 (Bus. days since "Received" = 2) To get this submission back on track, CGC has turn around the grade in 18 b days when the estimate is 45 b days. Bets?

I stopped looking at OPG 17. I've got a gap in my guides at that point. I realize that trade deals are a different beast than cash deals, but I'm inclined to think you ought to include them for purposes of your chart. Because I don't think there's much doubt that these blockbuster trade deals did impact the market's perceptions and were viewed as "records" when they occurred.

Yes. But, I'm already aghast that D33, featuring the origin of Batman and a very cool cover with Batman wearing a gun holster, is already considered a second tier "pre-Robin tec" compared to some of the other covers. I blame CGC. This hobby is more and more resembling two dimensional coin and baseball card collecting than the comic collecting hobby I knew in the 70s and 80s which focused on interior stories.

You made me curious enough about the 1984-1990 gap that I cracked my old guides. OPG 15 reported in the 1984 market report that the MIle High Marvel Comics 1 sold for $35K (!), and three other high grade copies changed hands for between $20K and $24K. It also reports that the Mile High Action 1 sold to a dealer for $20,500 and MH Action 2-13 for $29,500 (would that have been Chuck to Snyder?). It then says that the set was sold to a collector (DA), for cash/trade, with the value of the A1 set at $25K. That adds some context to DA's purchase of Action 1 that I think I was missing. OPG 17 reported in the 1986 market report that the MH MC 1 changed hands in a first trade deal valued at $69K and a second trade deal valued at $80K.

Two comments: Action Comics #1 (Church Copy) by an unknown seller for $25,000.00 ($58,979.79) to Dave Anderson sometime in 1984 Detective Comics #27 (Allentown) by an unknown seller for $80,000.00 ($150,035.20) to Dave Anderson sometime in 1990 I thought I'd heard that Snyder was the first unknown seller and Fishler/Payettel the second, right?

"First Appearance" means first story appearance of a character in a comic book. Action 1 is the "first appearance" of Superman. "First appearance in print" means a non-story first appearance of a character, usually in a house ad. More Fun 31 is the "first appearance in print" of Superman. Good luck arguing that More Fun 31 is the "first appearance" of Superman. It's not. It is a cool historical item that has enhanced value because of the house ad. And that appears to be what you are missing. You can enhance the value of an item by pointing out it is the "first appearance in print" of a character without doing violence to the normal terms used by the comic collecting community (thereby making you look like a fool). I'd suggest you hype all you want, but do so in a way that doesn't reflect poorly on your common sense. Other useful terms to know "first full appearance" (Hulk 181); "cameo" (Hulk 180); and "first cover appearance" (Vacation Parade 2 for Uncle Scrooge). P.S. Another reason "first appearance" does not mean, in the parlance of comic collectors, the "first appearance" ever in any medium is the simple reason that many "first appearances" in comic collecting parlance are of characters who previously appeared in books (James Bond), comic strips (Prince Valiant), magazines/pulps (Tarzan), tv (Jetsons), radio (Lone Ranger), cartoons (Harley Quinn), and movies (Star Wars). Your twisted interpretation will never gain traction because it is anathema to how comic collectors have been using these terms for 60 years or more. The battle was lost a long time ago with MF 31/Action 1, Hulk 180/181, and many others. For example, Hulk 180 was originally the more valuable book because it was the first appearance. But, collectors thought Hulk 181 was the cooler book, having more Wolverine and Wolverine on the cover, and it became the more valuable book. This confused some folks, and they started calling Hulk 181 the "first appearance" because they thought that was the only way to justify the higher price. But, the comic collecting community pushed back and Hulk 180 is widely recognized as the "first appearance," albeit most view it as the lesser desirable book. If those who sought to re-define "first appearance" lost that battle, ain't no way you'll ever get the comic collecting community to view a fanzine, a previews Xerox, a poster insert in the CBG, or other preview advertising as the "first appearance" of a character. At most, they will only be the "first appearance in print." Sorry.

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con: MAGAZINE MODERN Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 35 b days; CGC = 45 b days (Total 80 b days or 16+ weeks) Date of Con Drop Off - 6/10/2018 CGC Received Date ("Rec-CCS Required") - 6/14/2018 (Bus. days since Con submission = 4) "At CCS" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 13) "Received" - 9/14/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 52 b days (+17 b bays or 3.5 weeks over estimate!) To get this submission back on track, CGC has turn around the grade in 18 b days when the estimate is 45 b days. Something going wrong here.

This click bait makes me so angry I'm going to go postal!

You adopted your comics!?!

They were geniuses for creating the direct market. We can debate what aspects of the direct market was good for comics, collectors, and the companies. Certainly, I would not argue that enabling large scale speculation was a good thing (many people lost money on things like Dazzler 1). Nor would I argue that it was a good thing that the direct market caused the comic companies to exploit some collectors' obsessive desire to own every comic in a particular title by publishing the same issues with different covers. Maybe they were evil geniuses.

I always understood the term "speculator" to refer to someone who is buying a large number of multiple copies of a brand new comics, such as Dazzler 1, in the hope that it will blow up in value and garner a quick return. However, in poking around some old threads, I found this comment by Gary "Moondog" C.: I don't view buying a few extra copies as the same as "speculating." To me, it is pretty basic collector behaviour to buy two copies of an issue (a reading copy, and an extra copy for future trading stock). Some folks collect comics to read and enjoy, others to keep untouched for resale or other reasons, and some do both. To me, that's a bit different than buying a case of comics for quick resale when prices spike in a few months, which is what happened in the 80s. But, if you define "speculating" as buying more than one copy, than Moondog may be the basis for RAM's original post. I don't think Moondog is referring to the mass buying (say the 200 issues of Dazzler 1 a poster referenced up thread) that we refer to as "speculation" today. But, RAM might want to page him to this thread to get clarification. Moondog is well-placed to give us the straight scoop. Gary also posted that there was speculation in the Marvel 1s of 1968. That may well have included "speculation" like what occurred with Shazam 1. But, I'd always heard Shazam 1 was the first example of guys buying cases of comics for re-sell. Gary would know. Or, at least he would know about his locale. The guys I've talked to are from the suburban West Coast, not Chicago, and it may have been different in different areas.

Yep. I too have heard that speculation appears to have really begun in the 1970s. Your Conan story makes perfect sense.

Answering the OP's question: Little Dot 119 is on fire! Multiples of guide, way above the adjacent issues.

I've not heard that there were "speculators," as I understand that term, in 1965. What's the source of this info? To be clear, I don't doubt that there were some astute collectors buying an extra copy or two for their collections in the mid-1960s. They could easily do that anywhere comics were sold (which back then was corner stores, newsstands, grocery stores, etc.). But, I don't call that speculation. There was not the kind of "hot market" that led to the runaway "speculation" we saw in the early 80s. (Anyone else remember "Comic Values Monthly" and other hype publications that sought to push up the value of comics within weeks of publication?). I have heard that Shazam 1 (2/73) was the first heavily speculated book, as I understand that term, with folks buying up cases of that book. A quick internet search reveals Mark Waid saying: "Today, it’s typical for collectors to horde copies of new books in hope that they’ll go up in value. Back then, it was a new idea – and Shazam! #1, with Captain Marvel reintroduced on the cover by Superman himself, was one of the first books that fans just had to have." Waid said he bought two copies when the book came out (he was 10). Michael Uslan, who was 22 at the time, says he bought 12 copies. As a result Shazam 1 is not worth much. It was the Dazzler 1 (ouch!) of the early 1970s generation of comic collectors. But, "speculators" in 1965? I haven't heard that. I have read that there were a LOT of people who had come to appreciate that comics (really GA comics) had some value due to media reports. 1964 is often cited by guys who know as the line of demarcation when comics were saved in much much greater numbers than before because of the proliferation of comic collectors and the realization by more and more people that they had some value. Still, guys I talk to who were collecting in the 1960s tell stories about being able to amass collections comprising tens of thousands of comics (GA included), and they were working class, because they knew what others didn't and cared about comics more. Those guys also seem to be the ones who hold most of what they have (or became dealers), but I haven't talked to anyone who "speculating" in 1965.

Everyone, it seems, has a perspective. Which, again, is why I think the "ages" terms are far less than helpful. For example, you state that Showcase 4 is commonly viewed as the book that began the Silver Age, but then take the contrary position that what really defines the Silver Age are SOTI and the Code. However, the guys who came up with the concepts of the "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" would not agree with you. Those terms were coined to discuss the "golden age of superhero comics" starting with Action 1 and the "silver age of superhero comics" referring to the revival of DC golden age heros starting with Showcase 4. SOTI and the CCA had no relevance to the original intended meaning of the GA and SA terms. And the CCA was formed in 1954, two years before Showcase 4. I dunno, I prefer Pre-Code if your focus is on how pre-CCA comics differed from post-CCA comics. That term, however, doesn't work for all genres (most notably superhero comics) and all publishers (Dell). It's better used to describe a part of the universe of comics, which I think is more helpful than claiming there is such a thing as a comic "age."

My plan is working! Soon everyone will want Little Dot 119! Bwahahahahahahahahaha.