AlexanderM

Except that the 6-6.5 range has already eclipsed that ratio. Yes, you are right. The incline begins earlier on BB28 than most other SA books because it is scarcer.

I guessed that BB28 would cost 1 to 1 before the end of the year. So we are well on the way 1 to 1.... A 2.0 to cost 2,000, a 3.0 to cost 3,000, a 4,0 to cost 4,000 etc. Until around 6 or 6.5. After that the incline will be steeper.

This is not kinder garten where the one who hits hardest, shouts loudest, or has most friends is right. Jay couldn't care less how many says the moon is made of cheese if he is not convinced that it is. And he deserves respect for that when at the same time his arguments (at least for the most part) are solid.

I am honestly trying to figure out a single correct thing that you wrote above. -J. I'm think Freud would call it projection. "People confuse Wolverine with the Punisher" etc...

That does make Cerebus 1 a potentially explosive book in terms of value. Or a book that slowly slips into the unknown because no major comics company are going to keep Cerebus relevant... In fact, it hasn't been relevant to most comics readers for many years... so when the time comes that they are the main comics collectors... Cerebus might get no lovin'. While the ones who were kids in the 90ties and 00s will have brand attachement with Wolverine and want his first appearance. It might only be a few stubborn collectors keeping up prices as we speak (we already have seen how one person tries to drive prices up on Cerebus 1 in what would be called shilling if there were his own books. He is more than likely the owner of one or several and is desperately trying to keep the price up. I would say it is more likely to drop (like a rock? no, but slowly seep) than increase in price.

The sky is the limit.

Wow - I wish I had some Shazam 28 to sell.... I'm certainly not buying any at these prices. Then I would rather spend my time looking for a Marvel Family 1...

Wait..what? The assertion is that Cerebus # 1 is an $8-$10k book in 9.4. GPA (which tracks a vast minority of sales of a vast minority of extant books) shows a copy of Cerebus # 1 in 9.4 already sold for $9k in March of this year. If you're going to extrapolate, it needs to be from that number, advanced six months to today. Actually Garlanda knows what he is talking about. You cannot extrapolate from a single number.

I don't think so. I give them the benefit of the doubt. If they know anything about data quality and data collection.. then they surely wouldn't. It's not "lying" because it's not intended to deceive, just may not turn out to be correct once the theory is put into practice. The problem with this debate is that we can see copies of Hulk 181 9.2/9.4 sell every few weeks or so and have not seen Cerebus 1 9.2/9.4 sell often at all. Every dealer may have 100% intention of selling Cerebus 1 9.4 for $3500+, but until they actually have one to sell at that price we don't know for sure. Uh, Sir, if a 9.4 comes to market for $3500 there isn't a single poster here, jaydog probably included, that wouldn't pay full ask immediately. Easy easy double. Nothing like making 2 weeks salary for 5 minutes of work. Hit the buy button and then ship it out to CCS, then CGC for a miracle bump, then straight to the auction house. That's an 8-10k book in 9.4, sir. Probably 12-15k in 9.6. I don't think that was his point. The numbers are only examples.

But it hasn't been "I know a guy...". Donut has said HE would price a Cerebus higher. He'd trade a Hulk 181 straight up for one. You know Donut. He'll be running the booth for Cards, Comics & Collectibles at Baltimore this weekend. You know, the shop that puts the entire show on. Dale Roberts said HE would price a Cerebus higher. You know Dale. National dealer, does all the major shows. Makes his living dealing in vintage collectibles. I'll ask a few dealers this weekend what they think and I'll report back (or is that too much "I know a guy who knows a guy"?). Who do you want me to ask? I'll ask Storms, Superworld, Kapelka, Metro (if they are there), Graham Crackers. Well, in order for that to be valid we would need: 1) a reasonable sample size of dealer. 2) to be fully sure that there is no response bias. In other words, that the dealers have not guessed the purpose of the question, and make a cost-less (and perhaps subconscious even) choice to agree with the person posing the question. and even if those things were assured completely there would be the major issue that we would have data on 'intentions' rather than actual behavior. We know that there at times is a pretty big gulf between intentions and behavior (just think about green consumption etc.). Actual sales is by (very) far a stronger source of evidence. What would be the motive for lying? That's what you're saying is, that they might not be truthful in their responses. If a national dealer, from here on this forum says, "I'd pay X for that book in that grade" , you can damn well bet your bottom dollar they would. To LIE, or have some kind of response bias as you call it, would call in to question their character. You think any of them would do that? On ANY Comic or especially on a book they may not EVER even see the rest of their lives? The REASON the ones who've come in here SAY it, is in the HOPES that someone on here HAS ONE and now KNOWING that it is VALUABLE, will BRING it FORWARD. They sell comics for a living. Their job is to make money selling comics. A book like that will command a, some believe, higher price than it ever has. That equates into: $$$$$ Lying about the VALUE of comics in some stupid forum thread isn't worth their time. No, Chuck. I'm not saying they would be lying. It is complicated to explain - try to search for "response bias in scientific research".. or perhaps just "response bias". You will learn that it is not about lying or not. Yeah, I know what it is. We just had a big political issue with it here in the U.S. It was viewed as 'lying'. Well, it is not. I can't speak for Dale or Donut, but if you went up to them and said, "Hey, I respect you're opinion and all, but I just don't value it as much as the comparatively minuscule amount of industry data reported on GPA, because I'm not completely sure the possibility of your 'response bias' is getting in the way of what you're telling me." Pretty sure they might view that as you think they're lying. I don't think so. I give them the benefit of the doubt. If they know anything about data quality and data collection.. then they surely wouldn't.

But it hasn't been "I know a guy...". Donut has said HE would price a Cerebus higher. He'd trade a Hulk 181 straight up for one. You know Donut. He'll be running the booth for Cards, Comics & Collectibles at Baltimore this weekend. You know, the shop that puts the entire show on. Dale Roberts said HE would price a Cerebus higher. You know Dale. National dealer, does all the major shows. Makes his living dealing in vintage collectibles. I'll ask a few dealers this weekend what they think and I'll report back (or is that too much "I know a guy who knows a guy"?). Who do you want me to ask? I'll ask Storms, Superworld, Kapelka, Metro (if they are there), Graham Crackers. Well, in order for that to be valid we would need: 1) a reasonable sample size of dealer. 2) to be fully sure that there is no response bias. In other words, that the dealers have not guessed the purpose of the question, and make a cost-less (and perhaps subconscious even) choice to agree with the person posing the question. and even if those things were assured completely there would be the major issue that we would have data on 'intentions' rather than actual behavior. We know that there at times is a pretty big gulf between intentions and behavior (just think about green consumption etc.). Actual sales is by (very) far a stronger source of evidence. What would be the motive for lying? That's what you're saying is, that they might not be truthful in their responses. If a national dealer, from here on this forum says, "I'd pay X for that book in that grade" , you can damn well bet your bottom dollar they would. To LIE, or have some kind of response bias as you call it, would call in to question their character. You think any of them would do that? On ANY Comic or especially on a book they may not EVER even see the rest of their lives? The REASON the ones who've come in here SAY it, is in the HOPES that someone on here HAS ONE and now KNOWING that it is VALUABLE, will BRING it FORWARD. They sell comics for a living. Their job is to make money selling comics. A book like that will command a, some believe, higher price than it ever has. That equates into: $$$$$ Lying about the VALUE of comics in some stupid forum thread isn't worth their time. No, Chuck. I'm not saying they would be lying. It is complicated to explain - try to search for "response bias in scientific research".. or perhaps just "response bias". You will learn that it is not about lying or not. Yeah, I know what it is. We just had a big political issue with it here in the U.S. It was viewed as 'lying'. Well, it is not.

But it hasn't been "I know a guy...". Donut has said HE would price a Cerebus higher. He'd trade a Hulk 181 straight up for one. You know Donut. He'll be running the booth for Cards, Comics & Collectibles at Baltimore this weekend. You know, the shop that puts the entire show on. Dale Roberts said HE would price a Cerebus higher. You know Dale. National dealer, does all the major shows. Makes his living dealing in vintage collectibles. I'll ask a few dealers this weekend what they think and I'll report back (or is that too much "I know a guy who knows a guy"?). Who do you want me to ask? I'll ask Storms, Superworld, Kapelka, Metro (if they are there), Graham Crackers. Well, in order for that to be valid we would need: 1) a reasonable sample size of dealer. 2) to be fully sure that there is no response bias. In other words, that the dealers have not guessed the purpose of the question, and make a cost-less (and perhaps subconscious even) choice to agree with the person posing the question. and even if those things were assured completely there would be the major issue that we would have data on 'intentions' rather than actual behavior. We know that there at times is a pretty big gulf between intentions and behavior (just think about green consumption etc.). Actual sales is by (very) far a stronger source of evidence. What would be the motive for lying? That's what you're saying is, that they might not be truthful in their responses. If a national dealer, from here on this forum says, "I'd pay X for that book in that grade" , you can damn well bet your bottom dollar they would. To LIE, or have some kind of response bias as you call it, would call in to question their character. You think any of them would do that? On ANY Comic or especially on a book they may not EVER even see the rest of their lives? The REASON the ones who've come in here SAY it, is in the HOPES that someone on here HAS ONE and now KNOWING that it is VALUABLE, will BRING it FORWARD. They sell comics for a living. Their job is to make money selling comics. A book like that will command a, some believe, higher price than it ever has. That equates into: $$$$$ Lying about the VALUE of comics in some stupid forum thread isn't worth their time. No, Chuck. I'm not saying they would be lying. It is complicated to explain - try to search for "response bias in scientific research".. or perhaps just "response bias". You will learn that it is not about lying or not.

Those questions seem fair if asked with no other context. However, it really is not me you should try to convince with this effort because I am not sure Cerebus is not the most expensive in 9.2. It might well be. And even if you get such data from some dealers, it is still intentional data which is far weaker than actual sales data. So I doubt it would be worth the effort.

Well you COULD, but you'd be wrong. Correcting you and disagreeing with you are two different things. He didn't. He hasn't. He won't. No one did. NO ONE SERIOUSLY DID. NO ONE IS SERIOUSLY ARGUING THAT. IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD. Yes, you will. You'll find a way. You'll say (see the next paragraph).... SEE!!! Maybe you should get to know some national dealers. Buy some books from the big guys. Start conversations with them. You'll learn a lot. Am I being punked? NO ONE HAS MADE THAT ARGUMENT. NO ONE HAS SERIOUSLY MADE THAT CLAIM. IT'S IN YOUR HEAD!!!! No. No they haven't. It's in you and jaydog's head. Because: Yes. Yes you do. We have. Yet you still do. SEE! You know why I still respect RMA, even though we disagree? Because he doesn't resort to childishness like you just did. (thumbs u

But it hasn't been "I know a guy...". Donut has said HE would price a Cerebus higher. He'd trade a Hulk 181 straight up for one. You know Donut. He'll be running the booth for Cards, Comics & Collectibles at Baltimore this weekend. You know, the shop that puts the entire show on. Dale Roberts said HE would price a Cerebus higher. You know Dale. National dealer, does all the major shows. Makes his living dealing in vintage collectibles. I'll ask a few dealers this weekend what they think and I'll report back (or is that too much "I know a guy who knows a guy"?). Who do you want me to ask? I'll ask Storms, Superworld, Kapelka, Metro (if they are there), Graham Crackers. Well, in order for that to be valid we would need: 1) a reasonable sample size of dealer. 2) to be fully sure that there is no response bias. In other words, that the dealers have not guessed the purpose of the question, and make a cost-less (and perhaps subconscious even) choice to agree with the person posing the question. and even if those things were assured completely there would be the major issue that we would have data on 'intentions' rather than actual behavior. We know that there at times is a pretty big gulf between intentions and behavior (just think about green consumption etc.). Actual sales is by (very) far a stronger source of evidence.

No one is questioning that. NO ONE. NO ONE. ***NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE THREAD HAS QUESTIONED THIS**** IS there a way to type this in neon and make it flash? You and jaydog and bronzejohnny are having this argument in your own minds. That's.... what.... we've... been.... saying.... Yeah... That's.... what.... we've... been.... saying.... Tell it to jaydog, he still doesn't accept it. That's why this whole thread has been going round and round.... Oh, that and you keep repeating the argument that no one is making. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. No one is going to accuse RMA of being the most popular guy on this forum. There are people on here who'd probably rather have root canal surgery than come in here and AGREE with him. PERSONALLY, I think he is a gentleman, and a scholar, and an all around great guy. But the fact is, a few people, who have clashed spectacularly with him in the past, have STILL come in here and taken the same position as him, because jaydogs argument is pretty universally disagreed with. BECAUSE it's RMA, there hasn't been nearly AS MANY people come in here and jump in. See. Here you go. You came to the conclusion you did above (by one specific standard (9.2+) it might be said that Cerebus is more valuable.), which jaydog is COMPLETELY DISAGREEING with, THUS the ENTIRE THREAD HERE, and yet you still see him as ' in most instances show more objectivity and logic than RMA.' For you the debate is over. You disagree with jaydog (other than the argument you guys are making up in your own head) and AGREE with RMA. You just have an issue with RMA. It's pretty clear. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's a trick. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Yeah, I'm sure he's thrilled by your ringing endorsement. No, the problem is, you're ON the SAME SIDE of the agreement, yet you're still trying to find ways to argue with the side you're agreeing with. Hehehe... Well, I could say the same for you and RMA. I have never said anything else than what I said above... and yet .. at least RMA seems to want to disagree with me. I might agree with RMA... BUT!.... it depends if he tries to claim Cerebus is the most valuable or King of the Bronze Age (and yes... at least one person in here did say that.. ) because then we don't. If he words it correctly.. namely that under very specific circumstances (single copy, 9.2 etc.) a case can be made that Cerebus is more valuable.. then yes, I won't really disagree with him. Having said that.... I'm not entirely convinced either to agree with RMA because Jay's arguments are solid and less based on "I know a guy who knows a guy.." and more on publicly available data than RMA's. So for me it is still up in the air a bit whether Cerebus or H181 is in fact the most valuable even under those specifications of the term "valuable". But it could be he is right on that one... I just wish he could back it up with more hard evidence rather than anecdotale evidence. However, that was (from the beginning of the thread) never my point. My point is that saying that Cerebus is more valuable or the King of BA is simply false. And yes, some people in this thread have argued that. I know that RMA and you are specifically talking about this 9.2 grade for a single book etc. .. and as long as you remain this specific I don't argue with it. .. although I might think it is being very selective and such a rare occurrence (Cerebus being more valuable) that is is an extremely bad representation of reality bordering on a worthless claim... Finally, I have nothing against RMA. In fact I respect the guy.

I keep repeating the same. And it is still true. Hulk IS the most valuable book my most standards (total market value, the value in most grades). However, by one specific standard it might be said that Cerebus is more valuable. Therefore, if the question is "which is the most valuable BA book of the two", it by most standards would be H181. However, if the question is "which book would be most valuable (in terms of price) as a single copy in the particular grade of 9.2", then the answer may be Cerebus. There... that is the bottom line. However, this thread is no longer about who is right. It resembles more a school yard where RMA has more people with a similar agenda or less miffed with him than with Jay. So RMA just has a few more people padding him on the back making him feel he is so incredibly logical. Most people are flock animals and most will follow the herd. So no surprise there. I, for one, still think that Jay in most instances show more objectivity and logic than RMA. For example, Jay mostly relies on hard and publicly available data for his reasoning, while RMA relies on debating tricks (see primary school debate team), and being spurred on by a few other people (both of which are very subjective bases of reasoning). So, while I think we already have a substantive bottom line... the match between objective reasoning on one side and back-slapping on the other will probably continue undeterred PS. RMA is by no means dumb, and he does argue in quite a civil manner. Just like most people involved in this thread actually have done... which is a bit of a credit to us all despite being anything but in agreement on some of these issues.

I'm off to bed. Late here in the first continent

Please open your 2014 OPG, or turn back to page 58 of this train wreck, and note that the difference in price is only $100, which is less than 5% of the overall value of each. Last year, Hulk #181 was $100 over Cerebus #1, and this year Cerebus #1 was $100 over Hulk #181. Both increased, but Cerebus #1 increased a bit more, in this particular timeframe, in this particular grade. I don't think I understand your explanation of market value above, "the price for each book sold times the number of books sold," but it seems like you agree with what Chuck Gower, RMA, and others have been saying: Yes, I don't think you understood it. Maybe I did not explain it clearly enough. This is how market value is usually calculated in financial markets. Take for example the New York stock exchange... the market value of any company there... is the value of each share times the numbers of shares. Right? Similarly, the total market value of a comic book (the total amount of money the combined comic collectors have in terms of value of the issue) is the number of books in exsistence times the price per book. If you are still with me, I am sure you can see that the value put on H181 by the entire market is many many many times the value of Cerebus, Even if we take a simplistic notion of value as the value for one book in one grade - then there are only one or two grades where Cerebus is even close. So in order for Cerebus to be more 'valuable' we would have to not look at the value in the total market, not look at the value in grade 8.0, 6.5 and so on... We can only look at one understanding of value and even within this understanding we can only look at a little fraction of the grades. Such selectivity makes the notion that Cerebus should be "more valuable than H181" hard to take seriously. Market capitalization, Alex. That is the terminology you are looking for. That is the same thing. I work with this every day so maybe I take it for granted that people know. Give me a sec: http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Market-Value-of-a-Company http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/market+value

That you believe that, I have no doubt. You both reason from emotion, and like attracts like. Many of Jay's posts are classic examples of "arguing from emotion", yet you feel (note that word, there) that they have been "more logical." But be assured: logic and reason are not subject to personal opinion. They simply are. Your very words give you away: I don't need to say, as you have done here, that I think so and so is more logical than you, and you are not as logical as me, because logic stands on its own. And why would I be offended? Offense is the very calling card of emotionalism. No one is inherently "more logical" than another, because logic is not an attribute, like intelligence or talent or height, etc. It is a tool. And just like any other tool, it can be used, and misused, but it is not a part of the person using (or misusing) it. A person must be TRAINED to use any tool correctly, and logic and reason are no different. That is, again, because you reason by emotion, rather than by logic. If you made multiple spelling and grammar errors, and I corrected those errors, would that lead you to think that I feel I am "more grammatical" than you? Despite the evidence in front of everyone's eyes that you had misspelled and misused grammar...? Logically, no. Emotionally, yes. That you repeat I argue using emotion doesn't make it so. That is correct. Repeating something merely makes it propaganda. The actual question, then, is whether or not the argument I have laid out, and the evidence I have presented, make it so. That's where the proverbial rubber meets the road. Again...we can let the evidence and weight of the arguments presented speak for themselves. By the way...just by way of explanation, when someone uses a dismissive...in this case, "you (sic) little grammar example" (and a fairly ironic example itself)...the word "little" being the phrase here...it conveys a tone of annoyance and irritation. "Your little comment there was quite amusing." It's meant to dismiss, and diminish, the other person and their comments. So, by the way, is the statement "I didn't think it worthy of a reply"...and then making one anyways. It's an attempt to diminish the other person, and speaks of irritation on the part of the poster. Mind you, I've done it a ton, myself. We all have. But it is a smoking gun for emotion overcoming reason, as all such little digs are. Something to keep in mind. You are grasping at straws. Little was descriptive. It was a little example - wasn't it? Not all things are worthy of replies. Wouldn't you agree? and can you not make such judgment very objectively. If I tell you my car is red 20 times and 1 minute later you ask me what color it is... then I might conclude that your question is not a real question or for whatever other reason does not merit an answer. You don't need to see emotion in everything like you tend to do.

Please open your 2014 OPG, or turn back to page 58 of this train wreck, and note that the difference in price is only $100, which is less than 5% of the overall value of each. Last year, Hulk #181 was $100 over Cerebus #1, and this year Cerebus #1 was $100 over Hulk #181. Both increased, but Cerebus #1 increased a bit more, in this particular timeframe, in this particular grade. I don't think I understand your explanation of market value above, "the price for each book sold times the number of books sold," but it seems like you agree with what Chuck Gower, RMA, and others have been saying: Yes, I don't think you understood it. Maybe I did not explain it clearly enough. This is how market value is usually calculated in financial markets. Take for example the New York stock exchange... the market value of any company there... is the value of each share times the numbers of shares. Right? Similarly, the total market value of a comic book (the total amount of money the combined comic collectors have in terms of value of the issue) is the number of books in exsistence times the price per book. If you are still with me, I am sure you can see that the value put on H181 by the entire market is many many many times the value of Cerebus, Even if we take a simplistic notion of value as the value for one book in one grade - then there are only one or two grades where Cerebus is even close. So in order for Cerebus to be more 'valuable' we would have to not look at the value in the total market, not look at the value in grade 8.0, 6.5 and so on... We can only look at one understanding of value and even within this understanding we can only look at a little fraction of the grades. Such selectivity makes the notion that Cerebus should be "more valuable than H181" hard to take seriously.

What I just read is "if you ignore supply and demand, fundamentals of a market, the book I like is more valuable." And why is it so important to you and jaydog that we acknowledge wolverine is a popular character? Probably because more vauable often equates to more attractive and popular. The musical album that is more popular usually sells more and demands higher prices. However, this mechanism is not at play here. Cerebus might have a higher price individually (in a grade or two) but the total amount of money comics collectors are willing to pay to get a H181 is far far far higher. So in that sense H181 is clearly more valuable. The market value is the price for each book sold times the number of books sold - is far far far greater for H181 than for Cerebus. So only in a very very specific (almost ridiculously narrow) understanding of 'value' is Cerebus (perhaps) more valuable. Therefore we obviously object to someone claiming that "Cerebus is more valuable than H181".

I don't think anyone is discussing whether a couple of books (starwars, cerebus etc.) might be worth more in a grade or two. That is possible but in the larger scheme of things those are both relatively insignificant books. Many books could be worth far more if the print runs were just smaller.. that in itself is a technicality and says little about the appeal of the book. So those are two different discussions. Is Hulk 181 more valuable in most grades despite a much larger print run? Yes. Is Cerebus perhaps more valuable in a grade or two? Not to most, but perhaps to a few people (but maybe enough to keep the price up given the small print run). Is Hulk181 the more attractive book to far the majority or comics collectors? Yes, definitely. Many have probably never even heard of Cerebus. Is Wolverine a top 10 Superhero of all time in terms of popularity? Yes. Does Cerebus contain any character that can be seen as a top 10 character? No. Top 20? No. Top 30? No. Top 40? No... and so on. Is the financing of Cerebus a neat little story? Yes.

What does "precise" mean, in this context? Does GPA record every sale that occurs? No, and it cannot. Does OPG compile every sale that occurs, to come up with an "average"? No, and it cannot, either. So, while some may be offended when you say that, but that is because those people neither understand the actual natures of both the OPG and GPA, nor are they able to separate their emotions from reason. But not everyone argues from an ulterior motive. You're trying to compare that which cannot be compared. One is a data compiler. The other is a guide. Garlanda makes this point excellently above. If Precise means that they collect data about all sales? Are you serious? Would that be logical? Collecting all or less than all would be measured by a variable called all-encompassing or similar, but precision is pretty far removed from the meaning of such a variable. Yes, one is a data-compiler and one is a guide (with significant lag on top of all the other sources of error). That is no defense of OPG being precise; in fact it is part of the reason why GPA is usually more precise than OPG.

That you believe that, I have no doubt. You both reason from emotion, and like attracts like. Many of Jay's posts are classic examples of "arguing from emotion", yet you feel (note that word, there) that they have been "more logical." But be assured: logic and reason are not subject to personal opinion. They simply are. Your very words give you away: I don't need to say, as you have done here, that I think so and so is more logical than you, and you are not as logical as me, because logic stands on its own. And why would I be offended? Offense is the very calling card of emotionalism. No one is inherently "more logical" than another, because logic is not an attribute, like intelligence or talent or height, etc. It is a tool. And just like any other tool, it can be used, and misused, but it is not a part of the person using (or misusing) it. A person must be TRAINED to use any tool correctly, and logic and reason are no different. That is, again, because you reason by emotion, rather than by logic. If you made multiple spelling and grammar errors, and I corrected those errors, would that lead you to think that I feel I am "more grammatical" than you? Despite the evidence in front of everyone's eyes that you had misspelled and misused grammar...? Logically, no. Emotionally, yes. That you repeat I argue using emotion doesn't make it so. In fact, it is so far out I didn't think it worthy of a reply. But just so you have no illusions that I agree with you I'll let you know that I don't. And you little grammar example is far off the mark and irrelevant. I did not feel or think you were being logical... I merely noticed you use the word 'logical' a lot despite not being very logical. So it stood out.