sfcityduck

"The Dentist" is "Anderson" (Dave Anderson - a Virginia dentist) who owns not only the MH AC 1, but the Allentown D 27, and the best Superman 1 (he rejected the MH), as well as many other MHs, including MH Pep 22, the MH Archie 1 ..., and well, you get the point. He wins. He reportedly has a very high grade pedigree (Nor Cal) whose contents are not well known as DA is so secretive, though they did yield a 9.4 AS 8 3, essentially to himself. Second place goes to Verzyl with the MH MC 1, Allentown CA 1 and lots of MH Timely's.

Fischler has a collection? What's in it besides Fantastic 3s? I thought he just had inventory, not a collection.

Seems like there is no reason to believe that Anderson or Verzyl will be selling their collections any time soon, if ever, and those have got to be the top 2 GA collections by far, right? Halperin must be a contender for best OA collection. But no reason to think he'll sell either and he's got two sons. Brulato's collection is mainly SA. My guess would be that next big auction event will be a relatively unknown collection coming to auction from one of the long time buy and hold collectors. Probably composed mainly of books they acquired prior to the 1980s. BangZoom's collection would be an obvious example of this type of collection. I suspect that there are more of these types of collections than people realize, guy who have been collecting since the 60s or early 70s, who will either die or turn their attention to selling.

Hariri has an Sensation 1 9.4. Here's why: He could have had the WW 1 solicitation copy sold by Lasry, but apparently didn't want it at all or at the price. Why would he pay more now?

eBay and Adams do it again! CNET story All-Star 8 9.4 CGC Blue (no ped) Sensation 1 9.6 CGC Blue (no ped) Wonder Woman 1 9.0 CGC Blue (solicitation copy) Bidding opens August 13. Didn't the solicitation copy just come up for auction? Or is this different. The claim on the AS 8 and S 1 is that they were "uncirculated" and unrevealed until now.

The way I heard it back then was that the Guide was over priced on books he had, and under priced on books he wanted.

Very insightful post. Your comments remind me of comments made by Vincent and Fishler: My takeaway is that the most financially successful dealers these days are selling their information and connections more than they are comics themselves. They've become, in a sense, consultants and headhunters. The smart dealers are not sitting back waiting for folks who aren't collectors to sell them comics anymore. Instead, they are building their relationships, taking extensive notes on who has what and who wants what (valuable information), and are turning themselves into necessary middlemen for buyers who want specific items and sellers who want to eager buyers. But, that's just a guess. Correct me if I'm not reading this right.

Comic cons used to be super cool and ultra important because that was the only place you could find comic books not available at your local comic store (LCS). Buying by mail back then was a bit dicey because you had no idea what you were buying. But, now, with the advent of the internet and grading services, you have complete comfort and convenience in buying from afar. So the need for Comic Cons has greatly greatly greatly diminished. Forums like this have even removed the networking benefits of cons. Meanwhile, SDCC has turned into the coolest place in the world to be a pop culture early adapter. Nothing more than watching an Arrowverse premiere 3 months early or being in the room as one of the first around watching the Ready Player One trailer. And there's lots of limited edition "exclusives" to shop for, cool booths to experience, and great panels to attend. And those things can really only be done at SDCC, whereas you can buy comics from anywhere.

Maybe there's some speculation going on in light of the recent Mile High Fantastic 3 auction result. One problem with that thinking: The supply/demand equation for Fantastic 3 has been manipulated, so it is not a good model for predicting the future of other similar books.

Grading services have been accused in the past of utilzing a business model which encourages buyers to "break out" under-graded collectibles (especially coins) and re-submit them to get a higher grade (and hefty increase in price). The advantage to the grading service under such a scenario is that it receives multiple fees. Obviously, there are stories of notable books in the hobby, the record 9.0 Action 1 being the most notable, which were cracked open more than once to achieve higher grades on re-submission. Wasn't the Action 1 once an 8.0 and 8.5? I forget. Obviously, services that offer cleaning and pressing would also benefit from "untreated" books being graded harshly as it would increase the incentive to "realize the potential" of an "untreated" book. So, I'm not sure that it is entirely accurate to conclude that utilizing a more critical eye for the grading of an "untreated" book would undermine the business model of a grading service. It might actually drive more revenue to the grading service.

That list actually made a fair amount of sense back then. The big controversy was MC 1 in the top spot. Back then, what was driving prices was content (first appearance, origins, first issue, etc.) not covers, Marvel Comics was ascendant, rarity mattered a lot more than it does today because collectors had a completist mentality that is greatly diminished now, Batman was at a nadir, and Captain Marvel had made a relatively recent comeback and his history as a (maybe "the") dominant GA superhero was widely appreciated. (Picking a year at random, 1947, reveals that there were 9 Capt. Marvel related books published by Fawcett -- Whiz, Capt. Marvel, Marvel Family, Capt. Marvel Jr., Master, Mary Marvel, Wow, Hoppy the Marvel Bunny, and Funny Animals -- and CM supposedly had the biggest readership of any GA superhero.)

Here's the top 10 from OPG No. 10, one of the weirder configurations: 1. MC 1 2. Action 1 3. MPFW 1 4. Whiz No. 2 (1) 5. D 27 6. Superman 1 7. Wow nn (1) 8. Captain Marvel 1 9. WDC&S 1 10. CA 1 Times have changed. For me, the most interesting listing is Wow Comics nn (1) (Fawcett). OPG valued it highly because it was printed on "unstable paper stock" and was "rarely found in mint condition." A case of rarity resulting in an inflated price. There are only 17 copies on the census, with the Mile High 9.4 being the highest rated Universal and the next highest being a 6.0. The Mile High copy sold in 2002 for $39K.

A "guide" is a guide, not a stock market ticker. The important thing about the OPG is the information. I really appreciate that the OPG updated the information on the Nightingale after I discovered a copy based on my input, including giving more accurate information on the known copies in private and institutional hands. I assume that something similar might now have happened with Double Action 1 (or was that last year?). What I'm most interested in is not the new prices, but the new information and listings.

In the U.S. in the the early 40s, to use KKK imagery (and there's no doubt that's what it is) in such a prominent negative light was a very strong political act of condemning the KKK. Equating the KKK and Nazi's in that time period, when the South was still segregated and the KKK still prominent, was a bold action that I don't think he would have done unless he felt strongly that the KKK should be condemned.

Given the strong revival of the KKK in the 20s and 30s, I view it as a pretty strong social statement for Schomburg to have repeatedly clothed his villains, especially Nazi villains, in KKK robes. And I don't think there's any doubt, given the symbols he frequently put on those robes, that they were KKK robes: I'm not at all shocked that this didn't catch on with other artists. The publishers were terrified of offending whites in the South. (Maybe if I'm more generous, I should say that the publishers were terrified of offending potential customers. After all, Fawcett did dump a racist character when the NAACP threatened a boycott.) It was a very political act on Schomburg's part to use this imagery. As a person of hispanic and Jewish ancestry, though, it is understandable why he did so.

I assumed Schomburg was Jewish because he was featured in the Jewish Museum's "Superheroes: Good and Evil in American Comics" exhibit. After some quick research in response to the above posts, I've now read that Schomburg is sometimes a German-Jewish surname and I've read some assertions by various sources that Schomburg was Jewish -- but I do not know what those assertions are based on. The fact he was raised in Puerto Rico is not determinative of anything because Jews immigrated everywhere (my college girlfriend was Jewish and her family was from Oaxaca). The best way to find out would be to ask his kids.

I don't recall seeing that in the 80s. I'm thinking 90s to 00s.

Suspense 3, MMC 28, MMC 29, MMC 51, MMC 52, MMC 56, All New 8, etc. etc. They have two things in common (1) Alex Schomburg and (2) bad guys, usually but not always Nazi's, wearing KKK robes. As far as I know, Nazis never wore anything like the KKK robes. Yet, Schomburg used that motif again and again. It makes sense, he's a Jewish kid and the KKK were fellow travelers with the Nazis. But, I'm a bit shocked he got away with making the KKK/Nazi equation back in the 1940s when publishers were leery of offending the racist South. I personally view it as a bit of a profiles in courage moment for the publishers who used the motif. Which brings me to my questions: (1) Anyone got a list of all of Schomburg's KKK robe covers? (2) Anyone know of any cover artist other than Schomburg using that motif? (No, the Crime Suspenstories cover doesn't count as that's of the KKK itself).

From an "investment perspective," in today's market, I don't think it matters if someone has read the interior of the comic or not. To the extent that a comic book can properly be called an "investment," as opposed to a "speculation," the value is not derived from the contents or the quality of the book. It is derived from the perceived desirability and rarity of the book, and increasingly really of the cover, and you don't need to read the contents of Fantastic 3 or Suspense 3 to get a sense of the "hype" which is driving the reputation of the book. In fact, you are better off ignoring the book and reading this board. "Collectors" can be very irrational and changeable, which is "investing" in comics is a speculative enterprise.

Do you know any "average, big time spenders" who are as you describe?

For me its the cover to No. 10 (Schomburg), but all of the covers from 4 to 11 are pretty cool.

I don't get it. Are you asking folks to speculate on what would earn the best rate of return - a 2.0 Action 1 or Marvel SA keys in 7.0+? My advice to the guy would be twofold: (1) collect what you love the most and (2) invest in a market you understand in accord with your risk profile.

I love Miller's Batman. I was a collector in the 70s and 80s and have vivid recollections of that period. He certainly helped the development of the character, although he didn't invent the gritty Batman. But, I'd never argue or accept the argument that the proliferation of Batman titles (or X-Men titles) in the 80s is evidence of a popularity increase. I think it is really evidence of a change in the way publishers marketed comics with the advent of the direct market as they tried to squeeze every dollar out of collectors. That proliferation of titles drove me out of collecting new comics by the end of the 80s. It is also worth noting that the proliferation of titles started before DKR. I fondly remember "The Untold Legend of the Baman" and unfondly remember such junk as Batman and the Outsiders. Viewed more broadly, I think Batman & Robin anchored four titles in the GA, more in the SA, and the Bronze Age explosion started in 1980. Dark Knight was the fourth new Batman title of the 80s. It was part of the new publishing trend, not the cause of it. It's popularity certainly sped the process along for Batman though. DC lagged Marvel a bit on this front.

Frankly, to my mind, they were far less crazy than collectors today. Encapsulation had not turned comic books into baseball cards yet, so content meant more to them "back then" than covers. Which is a pretty rational way to view a collectible that is a book with interior contents, not a two dimensional card or poster, and which really can't stand up to being put on display the way equivalently valued fine art is. Of course, the type of content that mattered to them was not just first appearances, but also origins of characters, significant story lines, stories of special artistic merit, content important to comic history, etc. In short, what drove the value of books back then seems, to me, to have been a broader array of factors and a more intellectual and historically driven view of the hobby. The Gerber book and encapsulation havn't eliminated those considerations for collectors, but it sure has made them less of a factor for many collectors who appear to focus on covers and financial factors. From my weird perspective of being a collector in the 70s and 80s, parking the hobby, and only really re-discovering it 10 years ago after encapsulation had changed the hobby (sort of like being Buck Rogers in going from one era to another without seeing the evolution), a lot of the modern attitudes are simply inexplicable. Which of course, doesn't change supply or demand. It just makes me scratch my head at how demand has changed.

You aren't reading my posts. I am explaining why "back then" MC 1 meant more to collectors than CA 1. It was not because back in the 70s and 80s the Human Torch and Subby were more popular than Captain America. They weren't. It was because collectors back then valued the very first Marvel comic (Oct. 1939) more than a comic issued a year and half later (March 1941), after Timely already had several new titles and a bunch of issues had been published. Today, character appearances mean more than comic history in driving value, as do covers. This mentality also explains why back then Detective 1 was ranked higher on the most valuable list "back then" than it is today. You might want to read the posts a bit more closely before you attempt to be patronizing.