masterlogan2000

I understand that you and I have taken this topic wildly off course. But, don't tell me that I'm just arguing to argue, when I am simply exercising my right to defend my position... a position which, again, you have constantly decided to attack. Let's recap. I post that there is a time element involved in new moderns when determining value. You jump on this and tell me I'm wrong. I defend that position and point out the hypocrisy of your own posts using very clear logic leveraged against your own unsubstantiated numbers. Yet within every single post I've made, I've still stated that I agree with you regarding what little value that signatures add to these comics. So, who is arguing just to argue here? Oh, and kudos points to you for editing your original post here to make it less confrontational than your original wording. I now only count four instances in this one sentence in which you try to escalate a confrontation. You've initiated and tripled down on attacking every one of my replies on this topic, so this is more than "just pointing it out". But, I take no offense to this, as that's what one comes to expect by engaging with you. So if it's not relevant, then stop making up these claims. The 90-99% figures were originally stated by you. And just to be a model of consistency, I agree with you here.

What strikes me first is that this is NOT the Black and White variant edition as denoted on the CGC label. As far as the black hologram is concerned, the blue ones have gotten a lot of attention and generally command a slight premium. People have reported on the black hologram, but this may be the first example I've seen. Definitely rare, and may also command a slight premium like the blue ones if a collector out there is looking for one. Then again, how much of a premium can you get from a 5.5 grade?

This is very well reasoned. But I will say that I had been the Seller and they dropped the "don't ship until after Jan 1" on me I would not have even though about it again until the first weekend of January, and it would have been exactly the same for me as it was for Frank. You can't ask for something, have the Seller do it within a reasonable time, start a Paypal dispute and then complain about lack of communication. Buyer was the one who asked for the three week shipping accommodation. Who knows how inconvenient that may have been for Frank. But he did it and got all the BS for his trouble. Sorry about not just doing another meme.

You need to read the other thread to get the full picture dude. Yes, that other thread impacts what happened here because it shows a pattern of shady behavior. Shady behavior or dumb behavior? I get it, backing out of that purchase (and publicly) was a very bad way to start. Perhaps this current PayPal dispute was a way to "get the book and keep the money, too", but if the seller really never replied to messages for 30+ days after accepting payment it's not black-and-white. I have worked with Frank on many occasions and jump at any opportunity to purchase from his threads. IMO, he's one of the best guys on this entire forum. With that said, I have to agree with @manetteska here. If there was never a confirmation that the book was to be held until 01/01, then I can see how the buyer could have a case. Afterall, how would the buyer know that the seller didn't just disappear (especially if there was indeed no tracking number)? Should Frank have been nominated here? If the clock started on December 9th when payment was made, then that constitutes 30 days from the time of the original post. There is an argument that this is valid. Now, this doesn't dismiss the buyer's behavior in other threads, but those issues should be taken into account separately with regards to the discussion of this exact issue. Otherwise, if this buyer (or anyone in a similar situation) had a legitimate issue, he would have no recourse, as he's automatically assumed guilty. Could this situation have been handled better? Absolutely! Should a PayPal dispute have been opened before the the nomination here? IMO, no (you have 45 days to open a PayPal dispute, so 15 days to work something out here). Don't take this as me outright defending the buyer. As manetteska stated, this isn't so black and white. The buyer already stated that the nomination can be closed. The PayPal dispute has supposedly also been closed. The buyer didn't do himself any favors here, but I think we can all put him on our block list and simply move on.

You know the rules, as it's been pointed out to you every single sales thread that you've ever created here on the boards (and from multiple Boardies). Every sales thread you ever created in the past has been consolidated, whether by you, or forcefully by an admin. This isn't a one off situation, yet you still try to skirt the rules. I know this must really be a big pain for you to adhere to the regulations set forth in this public forum that so graciously allow you to sell your comics for FREE.

Actually, I made a simple statement about what may also affect the value of a book. In fact, YOU are the one that started incorporating the factors of "value" into the conversation in the first place, not me. Remember this, as it is very important to the conversation below. My numbers were a derivative of the unsubstantiated "90-99%" figures that YOU provided without providing any actual data to back those claims. I simply divided your percentages by two with my claim that a book may lose half its value within the first 30 days of publication. (Not to mention that the cited reference to a known and respected comic dealer puts that percentage loss much higher). So let's take an example with arbitrary numbers and simple math... something worth $100 today loses 50% of its value within 30 days of release. The book is now worth $50. Arguably, 50% of its value was therefore tied to the age of the book. You then can't have 90-99% of the value tied to the book's status when you've already lost 50% (otherwise we'd be at 140-149%). Actually, I'm NOT referring to depreciation here at all. I'm also NOT stating that the value of an item is dictated by time. Time decay is the EFFECT we see, with weakened demand weeks/months after initial release being the CAUSE. With your misunderstanding, it's your argument that is erroneous. I find it utterly laughable that you completely write off my statement on what may play a factor when determining the value of a book, yet your gospel on what constitutes value is apparently deemed relevant. Where you are COMPLETELY off base is that it doesn't matter one bit the ingredients of the total value of a book. Total value can be summed from the status, the condition, time value, how many words are on the seventh page, whether or not Olivia Munn licked the cover, is it raining outside... the factors that constitute the total value are ALL completely irrelevant! Why? Because for the sake of what you are arguing, and hence what you should care about and focus on, the only thing that matters is the ratio of TOTAL VALUE against the value that was added by a signature. All other factors, including condition and status (the factors YOU listed) are completely irrelevant to YOUR point. And despite all of this, you continue to attack this minor mention of time decay that is 1) established as fact, 2) was made to contribute to the discussion, and 3) was in total agreement to your original point. Yet, apparently MY argument is completely irrelevant and I'm radically complicating the issue, while you're the one that started these arguments in the first place.

I don't think I'm overthinking it at all. If anything, I think I've had to overexplain it here to get the point across. You can't have a blanket statement that "90-99% of the value of every book is in 1. its status and 2. its condition" when I just gave you a scenario in which another factor plays a big role. If after 30 days of release, a book loses half its value because it's no longer "fresh off the stands", then your claim of "90-99% of the value" actually drops down to 45-49.5%. And those values just don't sound very convincing to your argument. Now, if you had stated that 90-99% of the value of every book with an established market... that would be more accurate. All the books you have listed as an example have already been bought and sold for years, and their values are already established and no longer volatile. Yet, the discussion here in this thread has mostly centered on Campbell new releases, his CGC tax, and his website pricing structure that circumvents some of this tax when you buy his books raw. With that said, time decay plays a major role in establishing the value of a book. And don't get me wrong, I'm in total agreement with you. I'm just trying to add to the discussion.

I have a feeling you're going to be fielding a lot of PMs.

Don't forget that for moderns, especially the variant cover market, much of the value is derived by the age of the book. A variant cover fresh off the presses today commands a premium because of its freshness, with speculators and addicts both keeping prices inflated. There is a "Fear of Missing Out" mentality on all of these books. But, wait 30 days and, in the majority of cases, prices fall precipitously. Ok, but how is that different from a book's status (that is, "what it is")...?  The "status" of a book can mean any number of things, but by your example, you illustrate that we're talking about how much of a key the comic is. New Mutants #98 is clearly a key issue with an established market. New Mutants #92 is not a key, yet still has an established market. The value of such established books is driven by demand, which is driven by a number of factors (1st appearance, movie hype, speculation, cover art desirability, etc.). Comparing pricing on the NM #98 vs #92, it's clear that the #98 has a higher status. This is completely different than what I had mentioned. What I'm referring to is simply time decay. Though the status of a new comic may play a factor in the price of certain new issues (again, due to pre-release hype, speculation, etc), the market for a new comic has yet to be fully established (afterall, we're talking about books that are just released). We've seen time and time again that prices on new comics have a tremendous dip weeks/months after release, then tend to level off at a more reasonable level. If you don't believe me, or if I'm not articulating my point clearly enough for you, there's a good discussion on this topic going on in Comics General right now regarding an article posted by Phil Boyle of Coliseum of Comics. In particular, the first problem that Phil establishes is the following: The Problem: 90% of the books coming off the stands at the end of their shelf life have zero value as a back issue. A link to that article is here: https://icv2.com/articles/columns/view/42172/something-has-change A link to the discussion in Comics General is here:

Don't forget that for moderns, especially the variant cover market, much of the value is derived by the age of the book. A variant cover fresh off the presses today commands a premium because of its freshness, with speculators and addicts both keeping prices inflated. There is a "Fear of Missing Out" mentality on all of these books. But, wait 30 days and, in the majority of cases, prices fall precipitously. I find this interesting, as I believe that there is truth to this at least with the initial onset of a creator charging a fee. However, creators aren't dumb, and I'm sure many of them see (and maybe even track) the resale numbers on their own books. The math is easy, and I'm sure many of the creators KNOW that their signature doesn't add the same value to the book that they are charging for CGC submissions. I would be VERY surprised if in the last two years and two months, Campbell hasn't drawn this same conclusion (not to pick on him here, but you listed a specific date). So why continue down this path? Why continue to gouge fans with signature fees? Well, it's because they can! And, at some point the creator has made the decision that it feeds their own self-interest to charge more, as it lines their pockets with fans that are unable to help themselves and say no to the abuse. For as many fans out there like you and me who refuse to pay exorbitant signing fees, there are hundreds of fans that are either ignorant to the process or still willing to pony up the extra cash.

This

Giving this a quick Even with my flat rate shipping offer, any orders placed by Thursday should still make it in time to go under the tree.

Two of the three sigs are Axel Alonso (top left) and Joe Quesada (bottom left in the poor color choice of black).

PM sent!

Wolverine #154 (Copy B) from last round sold via PM! Thanks! For those of you waiting for discounts on the current round, I do not plan on running any. However, I am always open to offers, so feel free to PM me if you have any interest.

You're right. I must have completely misunderstood what you were asking. My fault entirely. Next time I'll pay more attention to the question and answer more precisely, with additional facts, examples, and clarity. I'm glad we could come to a resolution.

OK, last book of the night (and potentially the round)... $85 - Wolverine Origins #40 (Romulus Variant) NM+

$4 - Wolverine (1988) #44 NM+

$4 - Wolverine (1988) #43 NM+

$5 - Wolverine (1988) #29 NM+

$5 - Wolverine (1988) #22 NM+

$6 - Wolverine (1988) #20 (Newsstand) NM+

$6 - Wolverine (1988) #18 NM+

$6 - Wolverine (1988) #16 NM+

$6 - Wolverine (1988) #13 NM+