techtre2003

Yep, when it costs tens of million$ to make a game, studios are going to play it safe; just like Hollywood.

I think the big yellow banner on the 137 is a big distraction that takes away from the image; maybe part of why I don't find it nearly as appealing?

A Boardie confirmed with Len Wein that the #181 pages were not lost in the fire and are in the process of being restored from unspecified damage. X-Men #101 is the more valuable comic book than X-Men #137, but, in the OA world, we don't play by those rules - for example, McSpidey #1 is an almost worthless comic book, but the art is one of the most iconic and memorable images from the '90s, so, hence, its $358.5K auction price). Zero question that a top Byrne/Austin cover to one of the most memorable books from the '80s is going to absolutely trounce the valuation of any of the X-Men Cockrum covers except for the key books that were pencilled by Kane and inked by Cockrum (GSXM 1, UXM 94). Honestly, I wasn't even referring to which comic was more valuable, just the cover images themselves. I'll admit I've only gotten into the older X-Men books in the past year or so. But I've seen many more references made to the 101 cover than I have to the 137 cover. I think the 101 cover is really cool myself, the 137, not really. Just sharing my experience and opinion though so it may not be the norm

This surprises me. I'd think the 101 cover would be worth quite a bit more than the 137. It's definitely a much more iconic cover in my eye anyway.

+1 Here's a picture of me at MoMA back in 2004 in front of a Pollock: I do like that one much more than the one I posted; and I can agree the size makes it more impressive. I still don't "get it" though To each their own I guess (thumbs u

The short answer is that, you may not understand it, but people with real money do. Do you not like/appreciate the art or is it just the price that you find egregious? I'll be the first to agree that $140 million for almost anything is nutty, but the art itself is beyond reproach. It's mesmerizing, innovative, iconic and historically significant in a way that the 1st appearance of Wolverine could never be - centuries of painting technique and composition turned on its head. As for the price, when you have billionaires competing for so little of the great stuff, sometimes you need to get to $140 million to achieve price discrimination. Like I said, I think paying that much for a painting is pretty nuts. But it would be less nuts to me than seeing that Hulk #180 page sell for 7-figures. Both. I've never understood "art" that simply looks like someone threw some paint at a canvas. I mean, I could create something like that but I couldn't draw Wolverine You say it's mesmerizing, innovative, and iconic. I say any old hack could do the same thing! The fact that "people with real money" understand the art makes the whole thing even more laughable to me. And that's not meant as a jab at you; I've heard that argument before. I don't have a ton of money myself so I think it's silly to spend 10s of thousands on a comicbook. Now if I had money to burn I'm sure I'd feel different. However, I don't care how much money I had, I wouldn't spend a dime on some of the art that's sold for millions. 72.8 million - Really?

I would LOVE to know who has this guy trying to sell his book

you can't use the outlier of all outliers as a benchmark, sir. No way does it reach 1m. Sure you can. In fact, you almost have to. Once *something* breaks a psychological barrier, it then becomes easier for something else to beat it. It took decades for coins to break $1M. The first one came tantalizingly close in 1989, at $990,000. It took 7 more years, 1996, for it to finally happen. Since then, in 18 short years, more than 200 different coins have sold for $1M+, some as much as $10,000,000 (1794 Dollar.) The sale itself was a huge outlier...granted...but the public then forgets that it was a bidding war, and only remembers the price. And then it becomes "well, if such and such sold for $600K, it's not out of the question that this far more important piece would sell for so much more. It's bound to happen. When Warhols and Pollocks sell for $100M+, 1/100th of that for pop culture icons doesn't seem so out of the question. I mean, if Jasper Johns works...and he's still alive...can sell for around $100M, it is hardly inconceivable that the most important piece of original art from the last 40 years can break $1M. It's the original art showing the first appearance of what has become arguably the 4th most popular superhero of all time. The only thing I could see being more valuable (as it relates to Wolvie) would be the cover to 181. The best Warhols and Pollocks should be worth more than 100x the best Herb Trimpe. Jasper Johns may be alive, but he ain't making any more $100 million pieces - that price level is reserved for his most important older works. This is not the most important piece of OA from the last 40 years. The Hulk #181 cover probably exists and the GSXM #1 cover definitely exists. I'm sure others would rate various covers (e.g., DKR #1, etc.) above this panel page as well. The public story behind the ASM #328 cover was all kabuki theater. If you knew the real story behind it, you'd readily acknowledge that extenuating circumstances trump any psychological price barrier that was broken. OA guys know this was a total outlier event and treat it as such. I'm not saying that it's impossible for this piece to surpass $1 million, but it's a very small probability (like a 50-1 shot at best). No one who knows the OA market can state with any authority that there is "little doubt" it will hit that level, while "transitive property" arguments (e.g., "The ASM #328 cover sold for $657K, this page is better, so it must be worth a million!") are often flawed and empirically wrong because of shakiness in one or more parts of the syllogism - it would be utterly naive to base an argument around one grounded in a total outlier. Just curious as to why you think that. I just don't understand how this is worth 140 Mil.

Fair enough, thanks for the response.

If you have no idea what books they were, are you concerned at all that you may be in possession of some of them? Your brother works for you, does he sell any of his stuff at your place? I know you want to say you have nothing to do with your brother's dealings but if he is working with you, pleading ignorance really doesn't work. Just remember, like it or not you are judged by the company you keep.

I liked that one too. I guess when you have books that can sell themselves that's the way to do it!

Yep Not really a fair solution if the book isn't actually trimmed though.

Unicorns fart rainbows. People keep forgetting this pertinent fact.

Just got my vote for Boardie of The Year 2014. I'll 2nd that (and third).

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences. For CGC though, not at all. Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it. Sad but true as I think we'd be much more advanced in those fields if there were more knowledge sharing going on. You'd de- incentivize the entire industry. Without the prospect of a profitable monopoly you can't get the research funded. NOT sharing is what makes research possible That's definitely a point against it and I really do understand that. I still believe in a lot of a cases a better system could be developed which could benefit more people by the advancement of knowledge and still retain profitability. Greed just plays too big a part in the whole equation for that to happen. Edit: Here is a super simplified example of what I'm trying to say: Company A puts $10 million into R&D for a specific drug that they predict will be a $20 million a year drug. Company B is doing the same thing. Company A and Company B have both figured out a few different things working to create this drug that the other hasn't yet. They don't want to share that information because they don't want to share the $20 million a year they will get from the drug. However, if they had worked together they could have put the drug on the market 2 years earlier, split the profits and be working on another project. Again, over simplified but that's kind of the concept I was implying with the knowledge sharing being a beneficial thing. What you are talking about happens all the time. I worked for a small biotech research firm and we had partnerships with Proctor and Gamble and SmithKline. When a major company, like P&E, puts out a new drug, process, or piece of equipment there is frequently a smaller partner in the wings making a profit off of it as well. That's why I said super simplified. That was the easiest way I could think of to make my point. I guess it wasn't a good example. You actually gave a great example though: "The hard-science labs will publish findings in journals, it is a requirement to keep tenure, but you are smoking crack if you think these scientists aren't secretive about their experiments until they are ready to publish. Many, not all, but many file for patents before they publish. The patents usually belong to the University but the scientists get the praise and the tenure; occasionally they will even get a cut of profits when the patent, or company, sells." Just replace my Company A and Company B with Scientist A and Scientist B.

I wouldn't be shocked if that's what it becomes.

Greed often has part of it's roots in just not trusting the other person. If everyone were open to sharing we'd probably have less greed. The problem is that you or I likely don't trust that anyone will share as much as you and I are...so we need to protect ourselves. Since monetary value is king, we protect ourselves by monetizing everything we have to offer. That's where contracts and lawyers come in I guess I'm not suggesting everyone should be open to sharing everything. But when you are focused only on how you can benefit from a situation you close a lot of doors of opportunity. Many times, those missed opportunities could really end up benefiting you more when you look at the big picture.

You are such an absolutist. How do you even function in a world where almost nothing is absolute. Restoration is not a matter of opinion but whether it is detected or not is. And unicorns don't fart. Or do they? Didn't we cover this already?

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences. For CGC though, not at all. Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it. Sad but true as I think we'd be much more advanced in those fields if there were more knowledge sharing going on. You'd de- incentivize the entire industry. Without the prospect of a profitable monopoly you can't get the research funded. NOT sharing is what makes research possible That's definitely a point against it and I really do understand that. I still believe in a lot of a cases a better system could be developed which could benefit more people by the advancement of knowledge and still retain profitability. Greed just plays too big a part in the whole equation for that to happen. Edit: Here is a super simplified example of what I'm trying to say: Company A puts $10 million into R&D for a specific drug that they predict will be a $20 million a year drug. Company B is doing the same thing. Company A and Company B have both figured out a few different things working to create this drug that the other hasn't yet. They don't want to share that information because they don't want to share the $20 million a year they will get from the drug. However, if they had worked together they could have put the drug on the market 2 years earlier, split the profits and be working on another project. Again, over simplified but that's kind of the concept I was implying with the knowledge sharing being a beneficial thing.

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences. For CGC though, not at all. Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it. Sad but true as I think we'd be much more advanced in those fields if there were more knowledge sharing going on.

Yeah, hang on for those. They'll be releasing detection methods right after their grading criteria. Just be patient. Jesus. Can't anyone just do something cool one time for the hell of it? Huh? for the people that keep them in business?? They already explained it to you. 'Extra scrutiny' is applied whenever the 'extremely subtle' is confronted. I just wanna know what their scrutinizing revealed, that's all. So we can all better understand what happened then maybe we can watch out for it. If you knew how to do something which was in demand to the point where people paid you to do it based on the skill rather than just the labor, would you teach them how to do it? I wouldn't expect them to divulge any trade secrets, but a somewhat vague overall idea of what to look at would be nice. It's just kind of hard to swallow that certain books are trimmed because "we are saying it is trimmed". It would be nice to hear "we believe it's trimmed because..." I think we can all agree micro-trimming is TOUGH to catch so if CGC truly believes they have the best in the business doing it (and they might, I don't know) I wouldn't think they would have anything to worry about sharing a little information. I agree that it would be nice to get an explanation, as that would remove the temptation to believe that their diagnosis is simply a guess in cases like this, but in practice this is problematic for CGC. Your second statement I've bolded isn't really compatible with the first bolded passage. If they tell us what they found and how they found it, that will often require a trade secret in the detection of trimming to be divulged. It's not likely to happen, Yeah, I see how those can be contradictory huh. At the same time, it sounds like even if you know what you are looking for it's still very tough. So maybe they could say what types of things to look for and not necessarily their tools or methodology? We know what to look for when grading books yet we don't know CGCs process and they seem to keep a lot of business. Has anyone come out and explained how micro trimming is done in other collectible paper hobbies, ie: sports cards?

Yeah, hang on for those. They'll be releasing detection methods right after their grading criteria. Just be patient. Jesus. Can't anyone just do something cool one time for the hell of it? Huh? for the people that keep them in business?? They already explained it to you. 'Extra scrutiny' is applied whenever the 'extremely subtle' is confronted. I just wanna know what their scrutinizing revealed, that's all. So we can all better understand what happened then maybe we can watch out for it. If you knew how to do something which was in demand to the point where people paid you to do it based on the skill rather than just the labor, would you teach them how to do it? I wouldn't expect them to divulge any trade secrets, but a somewhat vague overall idea of what to look at would be nice. It's just kind of hard to swallow that certain books are trimmed because "we are saying it is trimmed". It would be nice to hear "we believe it's trimmed because..." I think we can all agree micro-trimming is TOUGH to catch so if CGC truly believes they have the best in the business doing it (and they might, I don't know) I wouldn't think they would have anything to worry about sharing a little information.

there's a big difference between original art and mass produced comics though. No doubt; one can spin off on many different tangents here, but in terms of "detecting restoration", the analogy is rather accurate. I was just thinking in the case of a good art forgery, one could reproduce the piece using the same materials as the original. As for comics, very few people are going to take the time to put together the press, plates, inks, etc... it would take to press a comic. That was just my train of thought after a few evening beers though so keep that in mind.

To be fair you never had the book in hand. While that crease is ugly, that certainly doesn't make a 7.0 totally impossible. The inside is nearly perfect, and the back cover is really nice. If grading was based solely how the cover looks, then I would agree with you It's a 6.5 Universal IMO No, but I did see some scans that were taken prior to you receiving it. Not the photos you had on the sales thread. It's interesting that you say it's a 6.5, CGC graded it 3 times and never came up with that number. 6+7+6=19 19/3=6.33333333333 but since 6.3333333333 isn't a grade he said 6.5

I'm not suggesting CGC hasn't done good things for the hobby, I'm merely suggesting that their detection efforts are lacking. Everyone's detection efforts are lacking when compared to a perfect, 100% average. The question is how does CGC stack up to everyone that is not CGC? I don't think you will find anyone here who would argue that CGC isn't the best 3rd party grading service, I mean who is their competition? Again, I don't use their service, but if I did I would want it to be because I had full confidence in them; not because that's the only choice I have. Like I said before, everyone's tolerance for error will vary (thumbs u Oh really? http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/comicbookjunkie/504340-east-west-1-hickman-auto-signature-series-grading-order.html Technically, I wasn't using their service, Indy was I've also posted in this thread that I did in fact have one book subbed to CGC myself (which was actually done by another BO member). You want full disclosure? I have had in my hands a grand total of 7 CGC graded books and 2 still in holders in my collection: 1. My first CGC book was from Graham Crackers. They were liquidating some Wizard con book for around $10 for a CGC 9.8 and I was curious as to what a CGC book looked like. Still have it. 2. Was the book you posted here. I've actually tried to sell that book both here and at BO since it really doesn't fit into my collection but would probably have to take 1/2 what I paid. Still have it. 3. A PLOD New Mutants 98 I got here from a boardie and immediately cracked out 4. A PLOD midgrade ASM in the low 100's I got from the PIF here and cracked out 5. Another PLOD midgrade ASM in the low 100s I got here from the PIF and cracked out 6. The one book I bought raw and subbed myself (through a BO member). An Avengers 55 that I bought to resell because I got a killer deal on it. Took the profits and paid a couple bills and bought a raw ASM 6 from the LCS I got the Avengers from. That is the gem of my collection 7. My LCS owner who does about as much CGC business as me showed me his Daredevil #1 he sent in to get graded. That's it. P.S. Come on man, a fellow BO member baiting me? Just kidding, it's all good!