masterlogan2000

$8 - Wolverine (Vol 2) #12 (Copy B) - NM+ $4 - Wolverine (Vol 2) #12 (Copy C) - NM

$8 - Wolverine (Vol 2) #11 (Copy B) NM+

Here's a big boy... I think I'll stop here for the night and keep posting again tomorrow at some point. $65 - Wolverine (Vol 2) #10 (Copy A) - SOLD! NM+

$4 - Wolverine (Vol 2) #9 (Copy A) VF

First up is a set of books that were part of a collection I picked up in 2019. I tried to grade very conservatively here, but the gloss on these books is undeniable and would make any collector jealous. $5 - Wolverine (Vol 2) #4 (Copy A) VF/NM

ROUND 2 Gear up, everybody! I’ve finally gotten around to sorting, grading, scanning, and pricing for Round #2. I have another couple of projects I’m looking to raise some funds for, otherwise it’s likely these books would stay in my collection. Speaking of collections, all the books for sale for Round 2 are books that were part of some sort of collection that I’ve picked up in the last 2-3 years. I’ve pulled what I’m saving for myself, and the rest will be posted here. Again, if I weren’t raising funds, everything would stay with me, not just a select handful of books. In the interest of time, I’ve only done front cover scans on most books and single scans where I have multiple copies of books available. If you are looking for a scan of a specific issue or back cover, feel free to ask and I’ll get to posting it. Lastly, let's open up Round #1 again with a 10% discount on anything that's left. There is a Recap on Page 1.

OP here... So after a bit of digging and some quick calls to some tax professional acquaintances of mine, the amount in the 1099-K is not the amount I'm being taxed on. It is the amount of reported sales by the 3rd party settlement organization. It is up to me to deduct the expenses against that number to get the true taxable amount at the end. This is far from me giving out tax advice, but moreso the approach that I am taking on this. To me, it makes total sense that my $1,000+ in sales here in Illinois does not equte to $1,000+ in profit. Those books I sold have a cost of acquisition associated with them, along with the cost of any rebags/reboards, plus all the expenses of going to conventions to pick up the books. These expenses are all going to be reported against my sales under the "Other Income" section of my filing. Now, if only I can deduct a reasonable amount for all my time that I spent on this "business" since apparently it's no longer a hobby to me. The bottom line here is to keep meticulous records of everything. I already keep a cost basis and transactions log in Google Sheets. I've been toying with the idea of cleaning up my code and releasing it out to GitHub, but that's low on my list of priorities.

It applies only to third-party settlement organizations such as Paypal. Though the major auction houses and eBays of the world are acting as First Party platforms for us to sell our warez, those entities act as Third-Party settlement organizations when it comes to payment. Afterall, the payment goes from the buyer to the auction house to the seller (vs directly from buyer to seller). If they are not already sending out tax forms to their sellers, I expect the screws to only be tightened as time goes on.

My understanding is that if an entity sends you the form, it would have also been reported to the IRS. Otherwise, why go through the trouble of sending out the forms to individuals if the IRS wasn't notified in the first place?

PayPal just sent me a notice stating that my 1099-K tax form was ready. This clearly had to be a mistake. I'm certain I was well under the threshold for reporting ($20,000 in sales AND 200 transactions). So, after doing some digging, I found that the residents of the wonderful state of Illinois have their own tighter reporting numbers, as does VT, MA, VA, and MD. I just wanted to give anyone in these states a heads up, as it took a little bit of digging on my part to find this info. Why did I receive a 1099-K if I didn’t meet the IRS reporting threshold?Some states (VT, MA, VA, IL, MD) have reporting obligations at a threshold lower than the federal reporting thresholds: Vermont, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Maryland: $600 USD in gross payment volume from sales of goods or services in a single calendar year regardless of the number of transactions. Illinois: $1,000 USD in gross payment volume from sales of goods or services in a single calendar year with at least 3 payment processed. I'd be interested to know if eBay is also reporting this revenue with their new payment systems (I would imagine they are). Funny enough, I was planning on having my first sales thread of the year here, but now I may hold off, as I'm certain I'll hit my $1000 limit for the year between that and my recent sales outside of the boards. It doesn't look like PayPal is going to be a good option for me personally. (And yes, I realize that this is not PayPal's fault).

To add to what @Qalyarsaid, from a Wolverine perspective, be on the lookout for #145 (Standard, Silver, Gold, DF, Nabisco, and Bone... good luck and on any of those last three). If there are newsstands, also check for the Marvel price variants, as denoted in the thread below. Lots of boardies hunting those books down now.

Wow, those are some really poor photos to go off of. To address those that said Director's Cut, there was only one DC that was released and it had issue #1 on the cover, so this isn't it. (Interestingly enough, the DC did collect both #1 and #2 on the inside). My initial thought here is that this is just a print variation off the presses. When I zoom in, it appears that these have the same UPC code 75960605853200221, with the important part being the 00221 at the end. So what you have here is two copies of the same exact book.

This deserves its own thread... THE 2021 IVDYER SKETCH COVER CLAIMING MEGA THREAD

This is my book and in my possession Now, now, ivdyer... are you absolutely sure this book is in your collection and that you're not confusing this one with one of the other bazillion gorgeous sketches you own? I, too, find it odd that someone else would make this claim.

Yes, it would be an iteration of the character... a character that, at the end of the day, is still owned by Disney. So what can't Disney do here? I can think of a couple things... Disney can't stream any of the Netflix Daredevil shows on Disney+ or any of their affiliated, Disney-owned networks (that is, without a contract in place with Netflix to do so). Disney can't produce a television show (or any other medium) where the exact storyline of the Netflix series is retold (regardless of who's acting). They could, however, create their own Season 4 as a continuation of the original series. This isn't a great example, but think of this like Taylor Swift re-recording all of her songs from her original albums. Disney can't do that, Taylor Swift can. (I can elaborate on "why" if you want me to). Now, depending on the original licensing agreement, Disney may or may not have been able to use any NEW characters created by Netflix that was used within the show, though I'm not aware of any that were Netflix-created. Obviously, characters like Elektra, the Kingpin, Foggy Nelson, and Karen Page were already established Marvel characters prior to the show. However, let's say the show introduced a character that was Daredevil's daughter DeeDee... depending on the agreement between Disney and Netflix, DeeDee could actually be owned by Netflix. However, it'd actually be more likely that Disney addressed this in the initial contract and stated that any new character introduced in the show would be Disney property... or they just restricted the use and creation of any new characters. This last point is the exact reason She-Hulk was created by Marvel in 1980... to beat CBS or Universal to the punch from creating the character in the Lou Ferrigno Hulk television show. If She-Hulk was created in the show first, the rights to that character would have belonged with the show and not Marvel. Again, this was based on the contract agreements that were made at the time. To a similar extent, this is also why you may have always heard rumors of the moratorium Marvel placed on creating new characters for the X-Men. Per their contract, Fox had the rights to use any "mutant" character in Marvel's library for their X-Men movies. Supposedly, Marvel execs didn't want to create any new mutants characters for fear that the character would become popular and Fox would be able to profit off of it. Again, Marvel would still have owned the IP, but Fox could use any of that IP per the original contract. All of this is speculative on my part. I'm no lawyer, nor have I seen or read any of these contracts that were signed behind closed doors between Disney and Netflix.

I'm going to disagree and say that this is not a true statement. Netflix doesn't own anything regarding Intellectual Property of the character itself, though they do own distribution and broadcast rights to the actual series they produced (based on whatever agreement they made initially regarding these two items with Disney). However, Disney can do what they want with the Charlie Cox/Daredvil character, as they still own the overall IP. There is nothing stopping Disney from continuing that story if they so choose. This is especially true given that the 2 year CONTRACTUAL agreement with Netflix has expired. That contract kept Disney from using these Netflix characters within the MCU until November, 2020 (last month). However, we're talking about a contract, which is FAR different than actual ownership. I'd say the only thing Disney could not do is develop another Daredevil series using the same exact storyline and same exact scripts that were produced by Netflix. Netflix surely owns the copyright on those specific works, but that doesn't mean they own the whole iteration of that character's IP. Again, nothing stopping Disney from producing additional stories that build upon what Netflix has done.

Good luck here! Just curious though. Why even bother getting it graded? The desirability in this book is in its rarity and not the grade itself. Unless you just prefer your books entombed, I'm not sure if there's any added value here on this particular copy.

If the occurrence happens on every single copy, CGC is sometimes lenient with how they grade the particular book. You can see examples of this with oversized Marvel modern books that all have corner binding tears, yet many copies with these tears are certified as 9.8. In your case, I emphasized the part that matters here. If this is not a likely occurrence, then your grade would likely get docked. The fact that it's pristine other than this defect may save your 9.0+ grade, but my guess is that it will definitely bring it down in some manner. How much weight they put on this defect is the real question. FWIW, my personal copy does not have those fractures.

Ha... beat me by a second with your post.

@joeypost, do you happen to know a good presser or can you recommend anyone?

Ah, so you were the winner of that auction. IIRC, CGC now grades these with green, qualified labels.

Here are all the Marvel Comics Presents (Vol 1) that fit the bill. Some are more subtle than others. Covers of this series wrapped around front and back until issue #89. Starting with issue #90, MCP went flip-book style and showcased two separate covers (which meant double our chances here).

Two less common Wolverine covers. These are books in my collection I just happen to have scans of. Interestingly enough, unless I missed a cover or variant, there are no Wolverine books from my of his seven ongoing series that fit this category.