Gatsby77

Maybe less. IIRC, I bought the first copy, DocJoe bought two of the next three. I see what you're saying but this isn't stocks - in that there's no inherent value in the shares. Instead this business model seems predicated on fractional (cheaper) ownership having a broader pool of available buyers -- thus driving values up, to a point. Sort of like...WeWork. And we all see how that turned out...

Yeah - but, as the previous poster said - not all 9.0s or 9.4s, or 9.8s, are equal - which also leads to price swings among even key books at the highest levels. Here's an example: Conan # 1, CGC 9.6. For the last four years, this book has consistently swung between $1,100 and $1,800 a copy per GPA (with other venues selling them as cheaply as $950), based on random timing but also on the quality of each individual book (white pages, centering/wrap, etc.). Not sure I would trust Rally Rd. to buy on the low side -- or, more specifically, not to buy on the low side but then price at the average/high side in selling shares, inherent mark-up aside. (i.e., buy a $1,200 copy but sell the shares at an $1,800 valuation.) Timing also plays into it. Example: Doctor Solar # 1, CGC 9.4. After not having a GPA-recorded sale in nearly 3 years, back in 2012-2013 4 copies sold in just 14 months. I lost out because I was won the first copy, which was also the most expensive. Here were the sales: April 2012: $1,575 July 2012: $1,315 Sept. 2012: $1,420 Jun. 2013 (Massachusetts Pedigree): $1,030 So how much is the book worth? What was a $1,600 book in April was arguably worth only $1,350 by the following summer - probably less, given that the sole pedigree copy barely breached $1,000. In a situation like this, RallyRd. would likely go after the first book (not knowing other sales were forthcoming), and sell 100 shares at $18 apiece, or a total $1,800 valuation. And for the "investors," that'd be a stupid play. It took another two years for a sale to establish a new $4,000 price point, and three years after that for that price level to be legitimized.with a $5,200+ sale. Will this comics business model still be viable from this company six years from now? Maybe. Do I want to risk my money now waiting to find out? No.

Could be worse. Remember "Comic book coin?"

Time payments or credit cards - as folks have already been doing for decades. The key is liquidity. That you can't buy or sell even on a daily basis here is a huge red flag, as is that they've built in a mark-up at far over market price.

If I'm going to "invest" in shares of a comic I'll never see and have little control over when I can sell (or buy more shares), I'm going with traditional ETFs or index funds that are far more liquid.

Thanks, man! I try... Best part is I actually took 5 minutes to re-watch the trailer to Fate of the Furious to evaluate if it really belonged on the trash list. I saw it at the $2 theater, and again later in passing while it played at my favorite Japanese bar. It *almost* gets a pass for Charlize Theron and the plane fight with his son, but nope - the submarine finale just kills it. Still trash. They're now to the point where they're going to *have* to go to space soon because that's the only ridiculous setting left.

Nah. I stated initially that the Transformers movies made a bunch of money, but are trash. And Captain Marvel made a bunch of money, but is great. Both are true.

Solid list, but you're wrong about: Furious 7 The Last Jedi Captain Marvel

Apples and hand grenades, and you know it. Three of the six Transformers films have Rotten Tomatoes scores of 20% or lower. Captain Marvel's sitting at 78%. Which is a better overall score than films including: Thor Thor 2 Iron Man 2 Age of Ultron

Nice Gish Gallop ya' got yourself there, man. Literally none of the points you posted above are relevant to the fact that Captain Marvel's runaway box office success -- and positive critical reviews -- points to the obvious conclusion: Folks liked the movie. Yes - a movie (like Transformers) can make a bajillion dollars and still be bad. Doesn't make it the case here. So audience demographics for this film mirrored that of other MCU movies? So what? It still outperformed a good number of MCU films (ironically, most not on your list) and blew away pre-release expectations. So now the theory is that it was typical MCU fanboys who saw it in the theater, than apparently hated it so much that they went back to see it again (maybe with a different set of friends), this time to hate-watch heckle it MST3K, style? All the way to $1.1 bn.?? Thanks, Bosco. I needed that laugh today.

3 copies of Magnus # 46 (the last issue). They came back 9.4, 9.6 and 8.5.

Also - moviegoers *clearly* liked the film, above and beyond its just being a "prelude to Endgame." How do we know? You don't get to $425+ million domestic and $1.1+ bn. worldwide unless *a lot* of people chose to see it more than once. That's 50%+ higher than Doctor Strange numbers and 40% higher than either Amazing Spider-Man film. The film made more money than either of the Tom Holland films did, too. $425/$1.1 bn. is not "I have to show up for this film to "get" Endgame" results -- that's "I enjoyed this so much I went again" results.

Not true. When criticism of her acting and "emotional range" emerged here on the boards, I read all the comments thoughtfully - and went back to see the film in the theater a second time with those comments in mind. Her acting fit the role perfectly, and she does indeed grow over the course of the film - including learning to visibly enjoy the full range of her powers. I think some folks here are criticizing her supposed "lack of range" with the subtle portrayal of a female hero we've seldom seen before -- a reserved, serious Air Force test pilot -- basically, how Hal Jordan *should* have been portrayed in the Green Lantern film before some combination of writer/director/Ryan Reynolds made the film's Hal Jordan into an immature jokester. Closest analog I can think of for the role that Captain Marvel called for was that of Linda Hamilton's Sarah Conner in T2. Did you all think she Hamilton did a similarly sh*$t job there?

This. The book was $200-$300 max when it first came out (in 1990). Yes - that was a lot of money at the time - especially for a brand new comic. But *nobody* was charging, let alone *paying* $1,000 for a copy.

Umm...the masses disagree with you. She was trending on Twitter this morning for 6+ hours due to the Scott Pilgrim 10th Anniversary table read. Yes - she didn't participate; but the *vast* majority of the posts - at least the ones with traction - were praising both her and her take on Envy Adams.

? Define "pop." The film was first announced back in 2014, and the book in CGC 9.8 immediately spiked from ~$150 to $1,000+. Today it's sitting at $1,800 in 9.8 and it's been consistently selling at ~$300 in CGC 9.2 and ~$400 in CGC 9.4 since 2015. The point? It's already popped. Where, realistically, do you see the book going from here? That it will double? Triple? That suddenly folks are going to be paying $1,000+ for 9.2 copies and $4,000+ for 9.8s? The time to buy this book was before the movie announcement. The time to sell is the week the first trailer drops (probably next April, if the Dec. 2021 release date holds). Dropping $1,800+ for a 9.8 -- or even $400 for a 9.4 -- on a non-first-appearance, speculating on a book for which you know demand will peak in less than a year, seems idiotic.

I'm convinced that Doctor Solar # 1 is basically Radioactive Man # 1 from that classic Simpson's episode where they pool their money to afford a copy. Also, interesting to me that Doctor Solar # 1 had an October 1962 cover date, the same month the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred.

Maybe - still not his first appearance, tho. And the movie was announced *years ago.* There was an additional casting announcement made last week It's not like this isn't a known thing.

I'd still rather have a gold UPC copy.

Honestly, I don't remember - and you're right. Not sure we saw any of Domino's powers in her New Mutants appearances. But I started reading New Mutants off-the-shelf from # 93, and (naturally) stopped reading with X-Force # 7. Was also very active in the back issue market at that time -- and NM 98 was a hot book because it was Domino's first appearance. And I absolutely call BS on the "intention of the creator" or "creator infallibility" -- George Lucas proved that with midochlorians, and the Star Wars prequels in general. Likewise, Bob Kane is far from the best Batman writer. Ditto Ian Fleming -- the best Bond stories were written by subsequent writers - for both book and screen. Unlike with Terra, zero chance I believe Nicieza had the Domino reveal planned from the beginning.

Exactly, which is why I will always hold that New Mutants 98 is the first appearance of Domino. It said as much on the cover, she was integral to recruiting for and founding X-Force, and her first appearance, not that of Deadpool, is why New Mutants 98 became an $8 book almost instantly. The book became valuable as Deadpool's first appearance much later. That - more than a year later, Nicieza goes "just kidding" - here's the *real* Domino - with the same look, feel and powers, is revisionist history, aka BS. I felt the same way in the massive Ben Reilly clone storyline in the '90s, which suddenly tried to maintain that Peter Parker hadn't actually been Spider-Man since ASM 150. Nope, sorry. Not buying it.

Exactly! I was thinking of that too - but couldn't remember the issue.

No. Wolverine's first full appearance is Hulk 181, not Wolverine 10 or Origin 1.

"Heavily implied to be" is what screws you here. If it's not obvious -- as in, if an average reader can read the issue and not go "Oh cool - that's Old Man Logan," then it's BS. And literally two people have piped up in this thread alone to state exactly that -- one even bought the issue, read it, and couldn't figure where or if the character appears. If a character named Clark appears in More Fun # 6 and 10 years later Siegel and Shuster are like "Oh yeah - little known fact - that was Clark Kent" - it doesn't make More Fun # 6 the first appearance of Superman. Why is this relevant? We already know -- from Spawn # 10, no less -- that the primary trademark for Superman involves the "S" on his chest. If he doesn't have that part of the costume on, it's not Superman, so it's not trademark infringement. Period. Likewise, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the relevant character designs and trademarks for "Old Man Logan" refer to how he looks in Wolverine 66, not the "younger-timeline-version undercover-in-a-cloak-during-an-alternate-time" FF version.

This. I don't have the FF issues in front of me, but from what's been written here: 1) He's never identified as Logan, let alone Old Man Logan in the FF issue itself, and 2) It's a different version of the character anyway, in a different timeline - hence what SeanFingh says above. I am interested, however, if someone could verify whether the FF issue indeed came out first. I don't doubt it, since CGC says as much, but the FF issue and Wolverine 66 were released the same month. I'd like verification that the FF issue *actually* preceded it by at least a week. Not that it matters - we all know that X-Men 266 was supposed to be the first appearance of Gambit but scheduling delays meant that X-Men Annual 14 happened to come out a few weeks earlier - which is why no one in that issue is like "Wait - who the F are you?"