sfcityduck

I don't know why Schmell sold off, but I do know that he was selling off pedigree comics which he bought relatively recently in the 2000s (Pacific Coast) and even into the 2010s (Twin City). He is not the type of black hole collection collector that this thread is about. Personally, I am talking about folks like Bangzoom who bought many great comics long long ago, including un-entombed mega-keys, and have held them since.

I understand the risk that comic prices could decline in the future. I have long voiced the opinion that it is a possibility that is increased by the potential decrease in supply and increase in demand as the collectors who started in the 60s sell off collections that have been sitting off the market for the past 50 years or more. The disagreement between Sqeggs and I concerns this statement by him: "Putting $1 million to $2 million or more into an Action 1 or Detective 27 strikes me as an investment whose expected return is too low to offset the risk you are taking on, unless you truly are very wealthy, so you can ignore the risk. But that's the investment you are making if you hold on to these books rather than sell them." I agree with the first sentence: "Putting $1 million to $2 million or more into an Action 1 or Detective 27 strikes me as an investment whose expected return is too low to offset the risk you are taking on, unless you truly are very wealthy, so you can ignore the risk." I disagree with his second sentence: "But that's the investment you are making if you hold on to these books rather than sell them." That's blatantly untrue. The only money you invested if you bought an Action 1 in 1980 for $6,000 (or better yet for $200 in the mid-60s) is the amount you paid. The notion that the amount of your "investment" is the amount of paper profit you could achieve on any given day you don't sell is contrary to how the IRS, accountants, and rationale folks view what an "investment" is. Prices fluctuate, the amount you have invested does not.

To beat the horse even deader than it is. When you state: "The $6,000 you paid for it has zero relevance in calculating the risk (although, obviously, it is relevant in calculating your capital gain should you decide to sell)." Exactly. The only money you ever have at risk is what you paid. Your gain (or loss) is calculated from the starting point of what you paid. You break even if you get your money back, you profit if you get more, you suffer loss if you get less (ignoring any other values of ownership). That is the way that the IRS and accounting firms look at financial gain and loss. You are looking at the risk of losing out on maximising gain. You are not looking at the risk of taking a loss on the investment. The later is the correct view of risk in this situation. A collector who paid $6,000 for an Action 1 in 1980 faces ZERO financial risk of taking a loss. ZERO. In contrast, their risk of failing to maximise their gain is impossible to define. The pricing history would suggest that as long as they hold the item they have a ZERO risk of failing to maximise their profit because Action 1 has never declined in value. But, that's inherently speculative and not a rationale view of financial risk. Your day trader perspective is also not rationale as it based on the assumption that Action 1 will never increase in value. The only rationale view of financial risk starts with the purchase price (but, feel free to factor in time value of money/inflation).

You are defining financial risk the way a day trader does, not the way a collector does. Because you are ignoring what is being purchased. When you purchase stock, all you are purchasing is an expected return in the form of increased value (or increase plus dividends). The purpose of the purchase is to maximise return, consequently those who purchase stock stress over the timing of the decision to sell. Sell too early or too late, and you don't maximise return. The sole purpose is to maximise return. That appears to be your mentality. BUT, when you buy a piece of art or a comic, you are buying far far more if you are a collector. You are paying for the benefits of owning the collectable: The ability to appreciate and display the piece, the enhanced reputation that can come from ownership, the joy of reading, the entertainment value, the emotional uplift, etc. etc. All of these benefits are "returns" that you enjoy commencing the moment you purchase the piece. Heck, some collectors even make money off displaying their collections. So. If you pay $6,000 for a piece in 1980, what you bought was all of the above identified benefits (plus the prospect of a future return - an uncertain benefit). When, in 2018, 34 years later, your Action 1 is worth $1M, you've already received benefits that probably far exceed the measly $6,000 original purchase price. You have received full value for your purchase price. You will lose absolutely nothing if you don't sell because you still have all of the above identified benefits (plus the prospect of a future return). The amount of the return is not the driving benefit because the purpose of the purchase was not to maximise return. If the return, which is a paper gain or loss until the date the piece is sold, fluctuates ... so what? You haven't lost that you will get a return of some sort. Which is why your "fundamental rule" that "if you wouldn't buy an asset at its current price, they you should sell it" is a fundamentally flawed view of art and comics. You are ignoring the daily returns the purchase provides the owner and the fact that the owner has zero opportunity cost at all in holding on to the piece. They aren't re-buying the piece each day. They bought it 38 years ago (in my example), so the question of whether they'd pay the present value to buy the piece is entirely irrelevant (and most could not afford to do so anyway). In short, it is your attitude towards the piece which defines the nature of the financial risk. And most old collectors don't share your attitude. If they did, they'd have sold many many many years ago (like Mitch Mehdy did) and missed out on the paper gain which is causing you so much stress at the prospect of losing it. Your day trader attitude is the opposite of the buy and hold (and most importantly enjoy) attitude which motivates collectors.

I noticed that as I was monitoring the auction, a couple of books were temporarily showing the prior book's bids after the auction closed. I don't think it impacted the bidding as it occurred.

The 1966 Batgirl was not an original concept. The first Batgirl (Betty Kane) debuted in 1961. She was the niece of Batwoman (Kathy Kane), who debuted in 1956. Supergirl, of course, debuted only after a series Superwoman tryout starting with Action 60 (1943). An example: These included a Supergirl tryouts, such as in Superboy 5 (1949). Here's an example: D.C., of course, copyrighted both Superwoman and Supergirl by Ashcans issued in the 40s.

I have seen distributor marks made with grease markers.

Looks more like a grease marker.

Ducks did well at Heritage today. FC 367 9.6 up an incredible over 40% from a year ago, FC 62 9.0 also up around 40% from two years ago, FC 199 9.2 up about 14% from a year ago, FC 328 9.6 also up from the sale of the exact same book a mere year ago, FC 159 9.0 up from a year ago. Only a contrary indicator is FC 147 9.2 down from a year ago.

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con: FAST TRACK VALUE Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 20 b days; CGC = 32 b days (Total 52 b days or 10+ weeks or ETA of 8/24/2018) 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" - 6/18/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 2) "Received" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 11) "Scheduled for Grading" and "Graded" - 8/2/2018 (Bus. days since "Received" = 21) MAGAZINE MODERN Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 35 b days; CGC = 45 b days (Total 80 b days or 16+ weeks or ETA of 10/3/2018) 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) VALUE Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 45 b days; CGC = 57 b days (Total 102 b days or 20+ weeks or ETA of 10/31/2018) 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) TOTAL BUSINESS DAYS ELAPSED SINCE CON DROP OFF AS OF THIS POST = 38 (or 7.5 weeks)

Well ... you lost me on your first sentence. He's not the greatest or most original Marvel character IMHO. I view him more as Marvel's Mickey Mouse (the corporate emblem). But, setting that aside, as to DC: I think it's very hard to argue that Deadman is not the most "original" character to come out of D.C. in the SA. There are other characters I like more, Adam Strange is high on the list, but they lack the originality of Deadman. Adam Strange is just Flash Gordon. Supergirl and Bargirl are obviously derivative. Doom Patrol was very original, and was well copied by Marvel's X-Men (Goodman always liked a good emulation of D.C.), but it's a group. Ditto for Metal Men which pre-dated both. For a single character? I can't think of anyone more original and unprecedented then Deadman. Very hard character to write because he is so outside the comic book conventions.

Thanks for the two explanations. So Dell was going to start the numbering of the DD series with 318, but changed gears and instead went with numbering that took into account the prior DD "one-shots," albeit with an incorrect count. Personally, I would not be shocked if the right answer is that Barks supplied the DD numbers, ignoring the books for which he did no interior stories after he started working on the "one-shots" (which would leave out FC 339, 348, 356, 379, and 394, right?). E.g., sticking to the Barks' canon (and with respect to Al Talafiero).

Can someone please explain to me how this auction description (and CGC label note) makes sense: The numbering of Donald Duck started with No. 26. Maybe you can correspond that to someone failing to count the Four Color's correctly, but how do you get FC 328 to be DD No. 2? I'm wondering if this is a "copyright protecting error" that CGC and Heritage use. Or am I missing a bunch of DD four colors after FC 328? For that matter, what FC is DD 1?

COMPLETED status on books submitted at San Francisco Con: STANDARD Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 15 b days; GCC = 15 b days (Total 30 b days or 6+ weeks or ETA of 7/27/2018) 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" - 6/18/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec. CCS Required" = 2) "Received" - 7/9/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 14) "Verified" - 7/10/2018 (Bus. days since "Received" = 1) "Scheduled for Grading" and "Graded" - 7/30/2018 (Bus. days since "Verified" = 14) "Grading Quality Control" - 7/31/2018 (Bus. days since "Graded" = 1) "Shipped Safe" - 8/1/2018 (Bus. Days since GQC - 1) CGC's Report Card: I give them a "B" meaning they basically hit their estimate (A for beating estimate, Less than B for missing estimate by significant portion) . Total Bus. Days since SF Con dropoff to Shipped Safe: 37 Total Bus. Days since "Rec-CCS Required: 33 (3 more than stated TAT) Total Bus. Days at CCS: 14 (grade "A" for beating TAT by 1 day) Total Bus. Days at CGC: 17 (grade B- for missing TAT by 2 days) I'm really really happy with the grades! So thanks CGC! I'm a happy customer!

Just counting money.

I don't know anyone who views financial risk this way. As you acknowledge, certainly not the IRS or accounting firms. Look, if I paid $6,000 for an Action 1 that fluctuates in value, what I paid for it is, nonetheless, $6,000. That it may have a paper value at times of $1M or declines to $800K or then increases to $1.2M is immaterial to the amount of cash I actually have it risk. It remains $6,000. What is fluctuating is the potential gain, not the risk. And gain is not risk.

Updated status on books submitted at San Francisco Con: STANDARD Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 15 b days; GCC = 15 b days (Total 30 b days or 6+ weeks or ETA of 7/27/2018) 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" - 6/18/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec. CCS Required" = 2) "Received" - 7/9/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 14) "Verified" - 7/10/2018 (Bus. days since "Received" = 1) "Scheduled for Grading" and "Graded" - 7/30/2018 (Bus. days since "Verified" = 14) "Grading Quality Control" - 7/31/2018 (Bus. days since "Graded" = 1) FAST TRACK VALUE Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 20 b days; GCC = 32 b days (Total 52 b days or 10+ weeks or ETA of 8/24/2018) 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" - 6/18/2018 (Bus. days since "Rec-CCS Required" = 2) "Received" - 7/3/2018 (Bus. days since "At CCS" = 11) MAGAZINE MODERN Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 35 b days; GCC = 45 b days (Total 80 b days or 16+ weeks or ETA of 10/3/2018) 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) VALUE Stated turnaround times when submit.: CCS = 45 b days; GCC = 57 b days (Total 102 b days or 20+ weeks or ETA of 10/31/2018) 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) TOTAL BUSINESS DAYS ELAPSED SINCE CON DROP OFF AS OF THIS POST = 36 (or 7 weeks)

Barks was a very early entry. Not sure why the award was started or why Fred MacMurray was the first recipient. The second class of recipients were a mentor of Roy Disney and the girl actor from the "Alice" cartoons. The third class is where it got serious, with Ub Iwerks and the Nine Old Men. The next class honored the Sherman borthers and key imagineers. The fifth class featured a very deserving group, including Carl, Julie Andrews, Fess Parker, Mary Blair, Sterling Holloway, etc. At the induction ceremony, Carl famously said (too much laughter): “I want to thank all the kids that bought my comic books for a dime and are now selling them for $2,000.”

Well, to use the $6,000 Action 1 purchase example, a 1000% gain (10x) would be only $60,000. These days, the right Action 1 with minor restoration is pushing the 10,000% (100x or $600K) gain level.

Uh ... no. If you bought an Action 1 in 1980, to use my example, for $6,000. You have zero risk. What my friend paid $6,000 for was the opportunity to and joy of ultimately being able to complete his Action run. The joy of owning the most important comic. For less than the average price for a car that year (slightly more than an El Camino, $500 less than an F150 truck). There is no risk. No matter what you do, that Action 1 will garner you a big profit. Five years ago, you might have thought that profit would be $500K. Today, you might think it is $1M+. So what? Especially, if you derive more joy from the book than the money. Here's the thing, the guys who started collecting in the 60s were able to buy a lot of what newer collectors view as out of our range comics for cheap. They did it because they were fanatics about comics. They hold on to those books because they are still fanatics about comics. For them, its about the comics, not return on investment. Mainly because they really don't have significant money invested. Bangzoom once said the most he ever paid for a comic was $75.

Gator answered your question on page 1: I've heard other high end dealers give larger estimates, more in the range of 300 copies of Action 1 total. Obviously, there are also Action 1s that are slabbed by companies other than CGC which don't publish census figures (that I know of ).

No, all it takes is a fanaticism about comic books. As I said, I know a guy who started collecting in the 60s, owns complete runs of Action, Detective, Superman, Batman, and many more, including all Marvels, has a high grade Archie 1, has a pristine Reform School Girl and lots of high grade GGA, Barks, etc., and, is perfectly content to live a modest life. He makes enough to support his middle class lifestyle, so he doesn't have any incentive to sell his Archie 1 for the $150K+ it would bring. After all, he bought in the 1970s for $200 and he doesn't miss that money (even though it was one of biggest purchases comparatively). He's in his mid-60s. And there were a LOT of folks collecting comics from 1964 onward, many who bought what we now view as astronomically valuable books that should be encased in plastic for prices that don't engender that sort of thinking in them.

I know of several un-slabbed Superman 1s that have a coupon clipped. I know of others that are un-slabbed probably because they were restored. There might be many reasons why, viewed from the perspective of print runs, as a percentage fewer Superman 1s have been slabbed to date.

Yep. I know a buy who bought his for $6,000 in 1980, money he borrowed from family members and paid back. He lives a modest lifestyle, even though his total collection is worth millions.