Jaydogrules

I don't. -J.

You give us license to judge when you slather your life across cyberspace. -J.

I'd wager "Just friends". -J.

-J.

PM sent. -J.

Maybe because that's "not" what happened, not even with your completely out-of-context sleight of hand. Speaking of agendas.... What's yours again? Or does me merely addressing you (or someone else) directly (instead of indirectly, as though you're not here, nice chat board etiquette by the way there, mate) always constitute a "personal attack" in your book ? -J.

I've never "moved the goal posts" on anything I've literally made the same point for years now. Let's leave the high school debate cliches for the high school debaters. These are just the most recent sales examples the debunk your points, not the only ones. The fact that you are pretending otherwise is very disingenuous of you. It's evidently only an "outlier" when the result isn't what "you" think it should be, yet you tacitly acknowledge at least three other factors that will trump the alleged "PQ" on the label for most buyers. Maybe you should make up your mind what side of the issue you're actually on before you post. You make too many assumptions. "The books will press up". You don't know that. That's just more blind speculation on your part. Other people have called you out on this, yet you continue to do it. (And the notion of someone paying nearly $60k for a 5.0 that was recently graded based on the possibility of it "pressing up", to what, a 6.5? is frankly, absurd, even at today's prices.) Your absolute statements on what books will sell for what look particularly impotent when you make them after you've been shown to be wrong again. Word to the wise- pick your spots better. -J.

Publicly available sales data says it, including a litany of sales of this book that literally just happened. -J.

Yes I just must be stupid for reviewing readily available public sales data and coming to my own conclusions. -J.

That's great congratulations. That's such a great cover it's going to look sweet in a slab. -J.

Hi bomberbob, I don't care what other people like or collect. I just don't feel the need to belittle or demean other people's books, not even in the subtlest of matters, or cause them to feel their books are "inferior", and since "all things" are almost never equal with anything, I simply take exception with those few who like to state things in absolutes, when nothing, is in fact, absolute. And what some people may or may not ask for in a WTB thread is of little relevance here. If someone is willing to advertise that they're willing to pay more for a book with this or that trait, then more power to them. And I don't see a single place in any of my recent posts where I used an "lol" emoji. Perhaps you are confusing me with drbanner and his "rofl" emoji, which I noticed you didn't actually take exception with. -J.

I was not. I want not even a wee pup then. I am familiar with the old OWL cards. I suppose no one really uses those anymore. I don't know how relevant Overstreet is anymore either. I do believe dealers used to use "the Guide" as a means of hosing naive collectors into taking low ball fractions of their collections' true value whilst also using it to get the most from those same books when it came time to sell. Guess that's just how business works, can't blame someone for trying to make a living. I also think the internet changed all that. Information became readily available to practically anyone at anytime. To the point where the significance of a published-once-a-year book became essentially obsolete. To the point where practically any collector could become a dealer at any time, and then a collector again. To the point where larger audiences of people had access to data, practically in real time, so that they can decide on what a book is "worth" based simply on a scan and a label, with said information then becoming instantaneously available for public consumption. The words and assurances of an LCS owner became a distant second to the digital records of the likes of eBay, GPA, and gocollect. Now we can all see for ourselves. Thanks to CGC, comic books became commoditized, and we no longer get to experience for ourselves the sights and smells of these relics, hold them in our hands, peruse the same pages that have been enjoyed who knows how many times by how many other custodians in its history before. Now they're just pictures within pieces of plastic. So naturally there has been a shift. A shift to "eye appeal". Brightness of colour. Centering, etc. Purely visual assessments of books, most of which have little to nothing to do with how CGC calculates a structural grade. We also look at the label. Some people put more stock into a label than others. More than they should maybe sometimes. So we are told to "buy the book and not the grade". Sound advice to most, yet when that clearly happens, and results buck the trend of what the traditional or "old school" collectors expect, a cognitive dissonance occurs and we get discussions such as these, where it is very easy to point to the publicly available data and say "see, look here, this is what's happening". But after 30, 40, 50 years of collecting, this may be hard to accept, or believe. And yet still there it is. They will try to rationalize that data, tell you that the reasons they "think" it is the way it is, make very persuasive statements cloaked within their decades of experience. However it is the last 10 years or so that has changed everything, so this experience they speak from is, all due respect because I consider most of them fabulous friends and businessmen, but it is dated experience. I do believe they all mean well and that they are coming from a place of good and sincere intention. But things have changed. The comic book buying experience simply is not the same as it was before. When I point these things out, when I say "hey guys, let's look at these sales, they aren't necessarily saying what you are saying or necessarily reflective of your past personal experiences" it's not a knock on anybody by me either. I can see what's happening in "the market" with my own two eyes. I'm going to point it out. The old school guys should see what's going on now, just as much as the newer collectors should be made privy to what was going on then. Things change. But without what happened before now, we wouldn't be where we are now. -J.

Well one thing I'm sure we can both agree on is the mathematics of the recent sellers of all of these beautifully "inferior" copies as they laugh all the way to the bank with their multiple GPA shattering realized prices in these public auctions. -J.

No. Because books with "white pages" on the label have often sold for LESS than other books. This is a fact. This isn't speculation. It is a FACT. So your "arithmetic" doesn't add up. And once again, you pick a poor time to continue to advance this utterly defeated position, when still more recent public sales data points continue to thoroughly undermine everything you are saying. -J.

Poppycock. That's nothing but blind speculation. -J.

Yes I agree that it is sad that dissenting opinions that are nonetheless backed up and supported by numerous recent publicly available data points are grounds for shutting a whole thread down. -J.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I'm telling you, I don't pay a premium based on the alleged "PQ" on the cover. I've bought from you before and I've told you that. Many other boardies here have come on and said the same thing. For perhaps different reasons than me. But many others have said it. I don't pay "extra" because I find the so-called "PQ" on the label and the way it's graded is wishy washy and inconsistent, and because CGC has specifically informed me that the "PQ" on the label is but a snap shot in time at the time of grading and is not necessarily indicative of it at the time of purchase, even under the most optimal of slab storing conditions. Thus I put more weight on "eye appeal". Clearly that is actually the direction "the market" is moving as well. GPA certainly does not support any "premiums" one way or the other. So you disregard it. Multiple recent sales clearly do not support a "premium" one way or the other. So you disregard those. Multiple boardies say they won't pay a "premium" one way or the other because the "PQ" on the label is often too inconsistent. And you disregard that. The evidence to the contrary is all around you. It's overwhelming in fact. But you disregard it because of your own personal biases. It's fine to have personal preferences, we all do. Let's just all acknowledge them for what they are though, because one size clearly does NOT fit all in this hobby. Not by a long shot. -J.

I respect your opinion and experiences as well. But I find ALL data to be pertinent and worthy of consideration, not only that which supports my own personal preconceived notions and/or biases. -J.

The boards, possibly. "The market"? That's highly debatable. -J.

Clearly not for everyone.... -J.

So to paraphrase, a 5.0 copy with nice front cover eye appeal and "c/ow pages" on the label obliterated GPA on the open market. -J.

-J.

In before the edit.

I'm gonna make the 2000th reply in this thread, just because. Thanks to all who have contributed to the thread and shared all of this artist's amazing work. -J.

The only actual "detractor" for the book is the name on the holder that it's in. It may not be totally fair or logical but it is what it is. -J.