Gatsby77

I *loved* X-Men 210-213 (Mutant Massacre) back in the day - ditto X-Men 222 (vs. Sabretooth), Wolverine 10, Punisher # 10 (vs. Daredevil), Punisher War Journal 6-7, etc. Ghost Rider 1 (1990)'s done fairly well too, with 9.8s now going for $200+. Weird that it's 10+ years older now than the original (1973) Ghost Rider # 1 was when the Dan Ketch version came out.

This one too. As a collector in the 1990s, 108 (first Byrne) was *the* key book of the early 100s. Nobody cared about the Starjammers and every time I looked at the cover of 107 I wished it were 108 (the far more key and expensive issue). But now it seems the hobby's literally "first appearance or bust" - artist books or key storylines don't matter nearly as much.

This. Okay - for everyone who argued "there's no single FMV" for a book in a given grade, because FMV can fluctuate +/- 30-40% at any given time, what's the FMV of this exact book? There are your two primary data points: CGC 9.4 (Bethlehem copy, off-white): Sold May 2017 for $95,600 (That's this copy here - noting that it used to be a CGC 9.2 so it's already been "potentialized"): https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/superhero/tales-of-suspense-39-bethlehem-pedigree-marvel-1963-cgc-nm-94-off-white-pages/a/7163-91015.s Non-pedigree CGC 9.4 (off-white to white - so better page quality), sold July 2020 for $99,000 (That's this copy here: https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/superhero/tales-of-suspense-39-marvel-1963-cgc-nm-94-off-white-to-white-pages/a/7231-91075.s) So how much is the Bethlehem copy worth today? Other things to consider. Prior (non-pedigree) GPA 9.4 sales: 2009: $114,900 2011: $147,500 2013: $83,600 2014: $80,500 2015: $89,625 2020: $99,000 What this tells me is: 1) A 9.4 copy is worth less than today than it was in 2010. 2) Iron Man is arguably a less important character today than he was a year ago, as RDJ's run as the character on film is likely over. Even with that, I'd say the Bethlehem 9.4 may be worth around $110,000 today. That's: 15% more than what it sold for three years ago, 11% more than this month's sale of a non-pedigree copy with higher PQ ~23% less than what Rally Rd.'s asking "investors" to pay. Census shows four copies at 9.6 and one 9.8 - so, assuming one was re-graded, let's say three current 9.6s and one 9.8. In addition, what's the investment rationale that the book might be worth say $150k sometime in the next 3-4 years? Again - what's the FMV of the 9.4 Bethlehem copy?

There was a period of time in the early 1990s when Dark Horse's Star Wars: Dark Empire # 1 was more valuable than Marvel's 1977 Star Wars # 1. And Albedo 0 was worth far more than # 2 for years.

Actually, yes. And this is why the "last sale" matters - it points to either positive or negative momentum, even if it's later judged to be "just an outlier." For example, in the last 5-6 days since we've been debating the FMV of ASM 300 there's been another GPA sale at $2,700. So the new 90-day average is $2,358 (over 18 sales). I'll readily concede that FMV of the book is now $2,400+, because after taxes and postage, that's what it would cost to acquire the book - and it seems to be inching upwards overall. Also notable, only this week did GPA remove the $4,500 newsstand 9.8 sale, breaking it out into its own category of "newsstand" copies. Looks like they may do that moving forward, as they have with Image # 1 newsstands for some time.

Believe it or not, a single "Fair Market Value" for this book exists, because we have the transaction volume to determine an accurate value. It's $2,300 - the pure average of the last 17 sales you list. That's what the book is "worth." -- yes -- the $1,246 sale was an outlier to the downside (a great pick-up!) but it doesn't suddenly make the book worth that much, any more than the $2,850 sale makes the book worth that much. GPA variance is natural also because of venue arbitrage. An eBay sale might be 10-15% different from one at Heritage due to postage differences or bidding variance due to the differing house takes. But the value of this book is $2,300 -- not "$1,800 - $2,800." This has been standard since the beginning of the hobby -- the difference is GPA (with all of its flaws and susceptibility to manipulation) has enabled us to get more accurate vs. the single value determined by Overstreet's based on dealer's reports alone. But back to the point, depending on "investors" to consistently overpay by 20-40% (as shown by Rally Road's sales prices vs. trailing average FMVs -- isn't a sustainable business model).

? There is no one specific FMV price for any book in any grade? There absolutely *is* for most Copper Age - present books, where there's sufficient transaction volume. Again - ASM 300, 361, New Mutants 87, 98, Batman Adventures 12. Even common Marvel Silver Age books like Daredevil 1 or Iron Man 1 in CGC 8.5 and below. The issue is, that's not the types of books these services are targeting. But trends still matter. As noted earlier, even Amazing Fantasy 15 is on a clear downward trajectory in 8.0 and below -- at least from two years ago. That makes sense - three major Spider-Man films (Into the Spider-verse, Far From Home, and Endgame) have all come and gone, so there's less attention on the character and smarter near-term investments (like FF # 1). So in this case, the last sale of AF 15 (whatever the grade) matters, because why buy in at a +20% price point today (say...$210,000 for a CGC 8.0), when the trend shows the actual value of a CGC 8.0 is $175,000? For the third time, over-paying by 20% is still over-paying by 20%, whether you lose $20 or $35,000.

Except: 1) Last sales indicate trends - whether the book is trending up or down. And books are obviously worth more or less immediately after outlier sales, be they positive or negative. 2) If we are trusting share prices, FMV is absolutely contingent on the last sale price. The main difference is with actual NASDAQ- or NYSE-traded shares, they're accurate to the last sales price within the last minute or so, not every 12 weeks. The reality is, 98% of comics out there don't have the sales volume to judge a truly accurate value - so every single sale price matters. ASM 300 does - it's got dozens of GPA-recorded sales per month in 9.8 alone. But what about Amazing Fantasy 15 in CGC 8.0? GPA shows just three sales in the last three years - each for less than the last. The book's arguably worth less than it was in 2018. Full stop. Further validating that, it's also shown a downward trend in 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 6.0 and 7.5. Not enough info for the higher grades, as there are only two recorded sales in 8.5+ over the entire last three years.

Not to mention the Skrull twist - which I (personally) didn't see coming, and was arguably the 3rd-greatest MCU twist (after the Mandarin and "I'm always angry").

People didn't like Doctor Strange's director?? I thought the writing and direction on that film was remarkable - it was better than any Dr. Strange film had a right to be. I also love that one the writers was a former AICN guy. Harry Knowles must have been seething at his success.

I agree, and odds are we won't know, because the next film will also be a team-up. However, how would you feel if in the next film, they set the table to have Monica Rambeau take over as Captain Marvel, phasing Brie and Carol out? I'm not against it. In fact, i think it could be a compelling story if Carol died in battle while saving the world, leading to Rambeau to take up the mantle.

Hah - you're right. 78%, not 87%. My pre-coffee brain transposed the numbers. But again, still regarded as a better film than Thor, Thor 2, Iron Man 2, etc. And the film's financial results are *far* from "textbook mediocrity" when it out-performed such films as Episode IX and Spider-Man: Far From Home. Or are you forgetting that, pre-release, a significant number of comic fans both here and on Reddit were predicting Captain Marvel would do "Doctor Strange numbers" - i.e., closer to $250 million domestic / $450 million international. It did $1.1 bn., not $700 million - equivalent to Captain America; Civil War numbers, which was actually sold as an "Avengers v. Avengers" film (not a "must-see-Avengers prelude"), and one with mother-flipping Spider-Man to boot. That's not mediocre by any stretch. Hell - it's like some of y'all think Kevin Feige stole yo' damn lunch money with this film.

Hence this sentence: "And yes, opinions can change once you see a film, but then word-of-mouth either carries it, and it succeeds, or tanks it, and it fails." The critical reviews were more than solid - 87% positive. You're defending the mediocre online fan reviews, but they're not born out by the actual ticket sales. To the extent that audiences either liked, or didn't like it - they either told their friends to go see it (after they'd already paid for their ticket and seen the film) or they didn't. Positive or negative word-of-mouth by those who had already seen the film. What the numbers above show is that word-of-mouth was above average for all of the pre-Endgame MCU movies, with overtly better performance after week 1 than at least half of the MCU movies that preceded it. That just doesn't happen if the bulk of people who saw the film in the first week - or second week - hated it.

Umm...the vast majority of movie-goers don't buy tickets weeks in advance. Not even for highly-touted *event* films. And yes, opinions can change once you see a film, but then word-of-mouth either carries it, and it succeeds, or tanks it, and it fails. See this Reddit thread for analysis of a film's legs - here defined as omitting the first week entirely -- it's the film's domestic run starting on its second Friday, divided by its second weekend gross. The results (through 21 MCU films)? The average multiplier is 3.26x Guardians of the Galaxy had the best multiplier, at 4.72x Civil War had the worst, at just 2.54x 10 MCU films had a multiplier between 2.54x and 3x 5 MCU films had multipliers between 3 and 3.5x 5 movies were between 3.5x and 4x 1 film was above 4 (Guardians of the Galaxy) Captain Marvel then falls in the middle, but above average, at 3.38x. What's that mean? What you call "mediocre" performance is overtly above average, across all the prior MCU films - meaning that lots of people either went to see it again after the second weekend, or encouraged their friends and family to see it after the second weekend. It did not flame out the way we'd expect if there were a visceral reaction against it (Justice League) or if it simply wasn't rewatchable (Civil War).

Except, the internet isn't real life. In real life, people vote with their dollars - and the sounds of thousands of disgruntled fans spilling a million words of ire on the internet are just that - idle keyboard chatter from a small minority whose sound and fury, in the end, signify nothing. There's no more truth to Disney's bowing to supposed post-hoc internet fan backlash to this film to change their plans re. Carol Danvers going forward than there was to the incessant "Kathleen Kennedy's getting fired from Star Wars" rumors we've been hearing for literally three years now. (Even moreso now that she's had incredible success with The Mandalorian.) Sorry, comics nerds, wishing won't make it so. Well, err...except...we're actually getting a Snyder cut of JLA, so I guess occasionally pigs *do* fly.

Ain't no fraud like securities fraud!

I missed it. Again, reading comprehension's not my strong suit. But you're saying the Transformers sequels were good? Or is it that Batman v. Superman was better? What was it - the anorexic Luthor who menacingly threatens a senator with a jolly rancer? The inane deus ex Martha? The ridiculous CGI that turned Doomsday - one of the coolest Superman villains of the last 50 years - into a Toxic Avenger reject? You're right - it was a far superior film to Captain Marvel, and not at all an affront to life-long Superman (or Batman) fans. In fact, it was so successful that Ben Affleck signed a 4+ picture deal to reprise his role...

Yes - I said that, and it's true. But please -- educate me. Explain to me how the Transformers films are somehow excellent in ways that my feeble mind just failed to comprehend, especially chapters 3, 4, and 5. Please use small words, if you can. I went to public school.

Dead inventory "at the top prices Metro would want." Hulk 181 can still be dead inventory. Example: Metro has a CGC 9.0 copy for sale for $6,500. That's not great, given that the 90-day GPA average for the book (over 11 sales) is $5,514, and the 12-month average is $5,641 (across 48 sales). For me to buy the book from them (including taxes, shipping and insurance) would cost more than $6,900. That would be...dumb. Re. Captain America # 3 in 5.0, G.A.tor - who knows the Golden Age market better than most, stated way earlier in this thread that "In cap 3 example last 3 public sales have been 32k, 30k and recently 24k at heritage. That doesn’t bode well for someone owning a share at 37k? And that surely wouldn’t inspire someone 90days later to now pay 40 for that 37 share that’s worth 30?" That's the point. The book's not "dead inventory" at $28,000 or even (maybe) $30,000. But to get $30,000+ guaranteed in a direct sale, without having to pay any type of commission to an eBay or a Heritage or a Clink? Particularly when the last Heritage sale was just $24k, and we don't know how much of the usual 29% tong was actually taken out of even that price?

You don't know that. Occam's Razor - the simplest reason is likely the best. The fact is, Captain Marvel was a blockbuster with excellent fan reception. Maybe not by "comic book fans," but by the public at large. And every indication given by the studio is they are going to capitalize on that success with a second blockbuster film that is set to be a backdoor Avengers movie in the same way that Captain America: Civil War was. And yet, the 4-5 negative voices in this thread have to tie themselves into knots to both justify and wish away its unequivocal success. "It only did so well because it was marketed as a tie-in to Avengers" (a. you can't prove a negative. b. I think it was sold as a fun galactic adventure, a la Guardians. And would have done just as well post-Endgame. Again, can't prove that either, so it's moot.) "The positive critical rating was only because Disney's bought off the critics" () "It only did so well because comic book fans pre-bought tickets for multiple showings before they knew it was ." "It only did so well because I hated it, but went back again to see it anyway with different groups of friends." At the end of the day, the film doesn't need SilverMane, or me, or anyone else to defend its success. Its success speaks for itself.

Overtly not true. Better critical reviews and better box office than: Hulk 1 and 2 Thor 1 and 2 Iron Man 2 Amazing Spider-Man 1 + 2 Better box office (the biggest measure of movie "fans" out there) than most of the overtly non-Avengers films, and the 5th-best box office of the year, ahead of such films as: The Rise of Skywalker Spider-Man: Far from Home Aladdin Joker Here's a hint - if folks don't like a film, it bombs. Because folks tell their friends. Perfect example of this? Justice League. It made more than 40% of its entire domestic take in its first three days.

Haven't you heard? Even the haters on the board saw it 2-3x. The additional times were so they could hate-watch and revel in just how it was.

Also - since when does Marvel care about the comic book fans? I wasn't aware Captain Marvel *had* any comic book fans prior to the post-credits stinger in Endgame. As I've said, I grew up with knowledge of the 1970s Captain Marvel and the Monica Rambeau character - who was active in West Coast Avengers when I was reading them as a kid. But no comic book fans cared about Carol Danvers before the movie. Just like no comic book fans cared about Guardians of the Galaxy before the movie. (I mean, I'm old enough to have read 1-10 of the 1990 series off the shelf when they were new, but in 2013? Nobody cared.) That's the point. Comics fans' opinions don't matter -- movie-goers do. They drive the revenue. You know what film catered to comic book fans (and no one else)? Watchmen. And it was spectacular. And it bombed. Because only comic fans went to see it. 98% of those who went to see Captain Marvel had never read a comic appearance of hers -- I'd wager 85% of them *still* haven't. Doesn't matter. She's here to stay.

Really? $1.1 bn. worldwide prove you wrong. For instance, Ant-Man and the Wasp's storyline arguably had as much an influence on Endgame's as Captain Marvel's did (i.e., the whole - going back in time quantum-verse bit), but it did half a billion dollars worse. Half a billion. Worse. That takes skill.

Umm...maybe because Disney announced as such? There’s rampant speculation since by fanboys that no - it’s *got* to be Spider-Man, or Black Panther, or Falcon, since. But nothings been confirmed - and given the popular box office and critical response to Carol’s film, why should it be anything different?