Jaydogrules

Since when did buying variants and making sense ever belong in the same sentence? I'll be looking for them when the shops open for a quick flip I agree it has quick flip potential I just don't think the $90-$100 sales from the same buyer are legit. Good luck tomorrow. Thanx, and no it definitely shouldn't be in the $100 range but Checchetto is the name of the month on another site so people are either A) buying into it or B) shilling it to prove their prediction skills. Either way if I find one for $20 or less tomorrow, I'll eat better this week So no chance at a C) Collectors are realizing how talented he is? I agree, speculators are turning onto him right now, but that usually only happens when at least some demand is there. -J. I They look nice but I'm not blown away by them. Avenging Spider-man #6 variant is probably my favorite of his I agree. The Gamora I'm keen to pick up. I think his Superior Carnage #1 from a few years ago is his best so far. The attention it's getting now (along with the artist) is justified. Eventually people are going to want to talk about and buy more than just the same three cover guys. I think Checchetto and Opena will be players in 2017. -J. Opena is long overdue, I grabbed his Infinity 1:50 character variant set when they came out, I just love those covers +1 Opena's pen and ink work puts JSC to shame (at least his stuff from the last couple of years which mostly looks lazy, uninspired, and rushed). And the man can do interiors. -J.

I've noticed that as well. When is the best time to sell? Summer when there are lot of cons and movies going on I'm guessing. I'm not a seller but I hear February to September are the best times. *Edit- I stand corrected by Lonzilla above me. -J.

Since when did buying variants and making sense ever belong in the same sentence? I'll be looking for them when the shops open for a quick flip I agree it has quick flip potential I just don't think the $90-$100 sales from the same buyer are legit. Good luck tomorrow. Thanx, and no it definitely shouldn't be in the $100 range but Checchetto is the name of the month on another site so people are either A) buying into it or B) shilling it to prove their prediction skills. Either way if I find one for $20 or less tomorrow, I'll eat better this week So no chance at a C) Collectors are realizing how talented he is? I agree, speculators are turning onto him right now, but that usually only happens when at least some demand is there. -J. I They look nice but I'm not blown away by them. Avenging Spider-man #6 variant is probably my favorite of his I agree. The Gamora I'm keen to pick up. I think his Superior Carnage #1 from a few years ago is his best so far. The attention it's getting now (along with the artist) is justified. Eventually people are going to want to talk about and buy more than just the same three cover guys. I think Checchetto and Opena will be players in 2017. -J.

Since when did buying variants and making sense ever belong in the same sentence? I'll be looking for them when the shops open for a quick flip I agree it has quick flip potential I just don't think the $90-$100 sales from the same buyer are legit. Good luck tomorrow. Thanx, and no it definitely shouldn't be in the $100 range but Checchetto is the name of the month on another site so people are either A) buying into it or B) shilling it to prove their prediction skills. Either way if I find one for $20 or less tomorrow, I'll eat better this week So no chance at a C) Collectors are realizing how talented he is? I agree, speculators are turning onto him right now, but that usually only happens when at least some demand is there. -J.

One peak price for $1625. Still selling for between $1100 (low) and $1500. 90 day average right at $1300, same as its 12 month average. And It's also holiday time. Many books sell for lower this time of year, variant, modern, and otherwise. -J.

That's about 10% off the Sparkle City copy price. Do you think that price is bullish or bearish? Chipping is one thing that I do see quite often hitting prices in the negative. -J.

Like the evidence for White pq affecting prices? -J.

Because people know about it and the artist now and it features a bad-azz rendition of a character with surging popularity. Why wouldn't it? Don't like it, don't buy it. But your irrelevant opinions don't change the fact that it is hot and merits mention in this thread. -J. I still don't understand this 'know about it' reason that gets referenced so often with such certainty. This isn't a 25 year old book, variants were a 'thing' 3 years ago. Was this some super secret under the radar unannounced cover? I could see it if you were talking about a surge of new variant collectors that entered the market in the gap between it's release and now, but otherwise, this reasoning is always suspect to me. I don't know a single comic book hound, let alone a variant hunter, that isn't camped out online and reading solicitations. I don't get it. You gripe when a new book comes out (or is "pre-sold") and goes up in value. And you gripe when an older book is discovered by the masses and goes up. Some books are released with little fanfare. And the spec game even three years ago was nothing like it is now. It happens. It obviously happened here. If it all baffles and befuddles you to such an extent, maybe you should just consider quitting this thread altogether. -J. You either are confusing me for someone else, or you're making things up. Also, nice way to totally drop and run from your "they know about it now" statement without defending it at all with any... I don't know... rationality. Sufficeth to say, that, in debuting at #34 on the sales charts with barely 48,000 copies of the regular covers sold, the title didn't exactly set the world alight. And it's also getting tiresome hearing from the peanut gallery whenever someone deigns to point out a book that is heating up. THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD IS FOR. if you don't like it, take your petty snark to another thread. Or try contributing positively to it for once with some of your own observations. But for god's sake, whatever you do, change the channel man. -J. I don't have a problem with "books heating up" - I have a problem when the reason given for it is a tissue paper thin one that is dropped like it's a fact. I'm going to question those reasons. It isn't personal, it's about the information being presented as if it were some sort of fact. Also, I don't appreciate your tone, perhaps you should be more considerate to people, this is after all a discussion forum, not your own personal area on the internet to navel gaze. You're in no position to tell me or anyone else to leave a thread, certainly not when you're the one that appears to have a problem being civil in this particular instance. I'm not "telling" anyone to leave the thread. Simply pointing out that this thread has slowed down to a crawl thanks to a small cabal of self-appointed comic book police who seem to believe they should have some kind of advance approval on what books are or are not pointed out here. No, no one has come right out and said that, but the constant peanut gallery snark that is tossed about like so much cow dung at a county fair whenever someone does point out a book heating up should stop (unless of course you really do just want the thread to die for some reason). And see my edited post above for "why" the book I mentioned likely did fly under a lot of people's radars. And guess what ? I am alerted to older books all the time that I missed. There are a lot of books that come out every week and even a savvy collector can miss books sometimes (particularly a variant hunter, like me). I didn't even know about ASM 667 D'O until nearly a year after it came out. So yeah, this thread, and other sites can be useful for showing collectors (like me!) books they have missed, books they would have liked had they seen them when they first came out, and can make them want to seek them out. Is this rocket science? I think not. This is a board for talking about comics. So can we talk about comics , dammit? Please, all you guys that used to post in this thread, don't let this little clique of party poopers stop you from showing guys like me what books we should be taking a look at or might have missed. That includes you divad! -J.

Because people know about it and the artist now and it features a bad-azz rendition of a character with surging popularity. Why wouldn't it? Don't like it, don't buy it. But your irrelevant opinions don't change the fact that it is hot and merits mention in this thread. -J. I still don't understand this 'know about it' reason that gets referenced so often with such certainty. This isn't a 25 year old book, variants were a 'thing' 3 years ago. Was this some super secret under the radar unannounced cover? I could see it if you were talking about a surge of new variant collectors that entered the market in the gap between it's release and now, but otherwise, this reasoning is always suspect to me. I don't know a single comic book hound, let alone a variant hunter, that isn't camped out online and reading solicitations. I don't get it. You gripe when a new book comes out (or is "pre-sold") and goes up in value. And you gripe when an older book is discovered by the masses and goes up. Some books are released with little fanfare. And the spec game even three years ago was nothing like it is now. It happens. It obviously happened here. If it all baffles and befuddles you to such an extent, maybe you should just consider quitting this thread altogether. -J. You either are confusing me for someone else, or you're making things up. Also, nice way to totally drop and run from your "they know about it now" statement without defending it at all with any... I don't know... rationality. I didn't "drop and run from anything". Had you done any research on the book before posting you would have realized the folly of your statement on your own. Sufficeth to say, that, in debuting at #34 on the sales charts with barely 48,000 copies of the regular covers sold, the title didn't exactly set the world alight. And it's also getting tiresome hearing from the peanut gallery whenever someone deigns to point out a book that is heating up. THAT'S WHAT THIS THREAD IS FOR. if you don't like it, take your petty snark to another thread. Or try contributing positively to it for once with some of your own observations. But for god's sake, whatever you do, change the channel man. -J.

Because people know about it and the artist now and it features a bad-azz rendition of a character with surging popularity. Why wouldn't it? Don't like it, don't buy it. But your irrelevant opinions don't change the fact that it is hot and merits mention in this thread. -J. I still don't understand this 'know about it' reason that gets referenced so often with such certainty. This isn't a 25 year old book, variants were a 'thing' 3 years ago. Was this some super secret under the radar unannounced cover? I could see it if you were talking about a surge of new variant collectors that entered the market in the gap between it's release and now, but otherwise, this reasoning is always suspect to me. I don't know a single comic book hound, let alone a variant hunter, that isn't camped out online and reading solicitations. I don't get it. You gripe when a new book comes out (or is "pre-sold") and goes up in value. And you gripe when an older book is discovered by the masses and goes up. Some books are released with little fanfare. And the spec game even three years ago was nothing like it is now. It happens. It obviously happened here. If it all baffles and befuddles you to such an extent, maybe you should just consider quitting this thread altogether. -J.

Because people know about it and the artist now and it features a bad-azz rendition of a character with surging popularity. Why wouldn't it? Don't like it, don't buy it. But your irrelevant opinions don't change the fact that it is hot and merits mention in this thread. -J.

That is also likely a QC issue. CGC slabs a lot of books. As Vintagecomics keeps reiterating, ANY glue on a post-1950 book, regardless of perceived intent, is an automatic PLOD. Same goes with colour touch. Any SA book with "small amount of colour touch" on the label in a blue label has also slipped past QC (I have seen a handful of those as well). -J. Pretty sure that you're wrong on this. Color touch, yes. Glue, no. If you can show me where it says this anywhere on CGC's website, I would really like to know. It took ten seconds to find a half dozen examples in Heritage's archives on SA books. Consistently "small amount of dried glue" was blue label. No results were purple labels. And it spans back to as early as 2005. It's not that I particularly care one way or the other. But put yourself in the shoes of the buyer who just dropped 36 grand on his copy. That could've been his life savings and his holy grail once in a lifetime purchase, and you are on here saying it's tainted and it should be a purple label if not for CGC's QC dropping the ball. If I was him, I would be furious. https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-incredible-hulk-1-marvel-1962-cgc-vg-40-cream-to-off-white-pages-this-classic-first-issue-from-marvel-features-the/a/15092-17418.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Hulk 1, 2005) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-avengers-1-marvel-1963-cgc-vg-40-off-white-to-white-pages/a/121620-13189.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Avengers 1, 2016) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/superman-104-dc-1956-cgc-vf-nm-90-off-white-pages/a/7007-93320.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Superman 104, 2009) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-flash-120-dc-1961-cgc-vf-85-cream-to-off-white-pages/a/110074-14260.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Flash 120, 2010) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/wonder-woman-97-dc-1958-cgc-vf-75-cream-to-off-white-pages/a/110071-11419.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515 (Wonder Woman 97, 2010) I understand what you are trying to say, and yes, if I look I can find examples of other QC problems with labels, ie, wrong titles and issue numbers, artist names mis-spelled, etc. Feel free to contact CGC yourself to confirm. SA + Glue = PLOD. There's a reason why the book went for a third less than all other sales in grade this year. People knew what they were (or weren't) bidding on. -J. Occam's razor. Scenario A: CGC's QC absolutely blows, and they consistently got it wrong. Every. Single. Time. Scenario B: Small amount of dried glue is supposed to be a blue label, as every example shows. You say A, I say B. I'll agree to disagree. Okay I just called CGC and did confirm that, yes, glue on SA books are PLOD, 99.99999%, HOWEVER, if it is residual glue, having never served a restorative purpose (in the opinion of the grader), then ON VERY RARE OCCASION, they will still put it in a blue label, with glue notes. This, of course, still isn't really going to help a book with that kind of notation, as glue notes on a SA book, because they are so uncommon, are a massive scarlet letter that will turn off many buyers, especially since you cannot remove glue (and thereby getting rid of the notation), without scraping the book and likely defacing/damaging it. And as for all three of those DC books you linked with "glue on the spine", those DEFINITELY should be PLODs, and are in fact a QC oversight. -J. 'Having never served a restorative purpose?" Meaning the kid was gluing together his Aurora model on top of a comic and some spilled? From the significant number of these books I've seen, I think it would be more accurate to say that the book ends up in a blue label if the glue no longer serves a restorative purpose. That is, the small spine split or small tear it was sealing has opened back up. My take from your conversation with CGC is that it confirms that the glue notations are not QC mistakes, but reflect their policy of sometimes putting SA books with glue in blue labels. Whether the glue label notation is a "massive scarlet letter" that significantly reduces the value of the book is difficult for any of us to know without doing a more intensive analysis. I don't think inferences from one example are valid. The evidence of glue notations affecting the final realized price on an SA book is prima facie. Particularly with Marvels (and especially AF 15's ) that are so common that there is no reason to settle for something like that at full FMV when it is, in fact, an aberration amongst SA books that are not already in PLOD holders. -J.

+1 It's a great, highly detailed cover. And it's Carnage. -J.

Superior Carnage #1, Checchetto variant (still) heating up. $100+ raw now... http://item.ebay.co.uk/112223625149?item_hash4=42e3f75b&LH_Complete=1&LH_BIN=1&LH_BO=1&_ipg=200&_pgn=1&rc=nt&rmvSB=true http://item.ebay.co.uk/222344446992?item_hash4=848711f6&LH_Complete=1&LH_BIN=1&LH_BO=1&_ipg=200&_pgn=1&rc=nt&rmvSB=true -J.

No, because B & B 28 predates it by a year, it's his first cover appearance (ever), and his inclusion and multiple appearances with the JLA (also, first appearance in B &B 28), prior to it raised his profile to the point that likely made the "tryout" in Showcase 30 even feasible or possible in the first place. -J.

I would try the boards first. Comic connect is great but I think those kinds of results are usually on the upper end grades, ie 9.4+. -J.

What title? Thunderbolts? If monthly sales/attrition weren't so abysmal, I'd probably guess you wouldn't even need to wait that long. That's really what I am wondering. You spend all that money on a rare variant of a title and then they cancel a title. There is no way this book maintains its value. Happens all the time. Especially with how publishers constantly reboot titles nowadays. -J.

There were also waaaaaay too many Hulk 1's offered in this auction at one time, and too close in grades to each other. Come on Vince, spread that out a little bit. -J.

Another 9.6 just cracked $8k in the Comic Connect auction tonight. http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=684501 -J.

I think you're right. I know it's his first SA cover. If first cover ever then it's even more significant. +1 I just double checked, and yes, B & B 28 is indeed his cover appearance ever . https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-12/amp/?client=ms-android-sprint-us Knowing that easily puts it way over the top IMO. -J.

That is also likely a QC issue. CGC slabs a lot of books. As Vintagecomics keeps reiterating, ANY glue on a post-1950 book, regardless of perceived intent, is an automatic PLOD. Same goes with colour touch. Any SA book with "small amount of colour touch" on the label in a blue label has also slipped past QC (I have seen a handful of those as well). -J. Pretty sure that you're wrong on this. Color touch, yes. Glue, no. If you can show me where it says this anywhere on CGC's website, I would really like to know. It took ten seconds to find a half dozen examples in Heritage's archives on SA books. Consistently "small amount of dried glue" was blue label. No results were purple labels. And it spans back to as early as 2005. It's not that I particularly care one way or the other. But put yourself in the shoes of the buyer who just dropped 36 grand on his copy. That could've been his life savings and his holy grail once in a lifetime purchase, and you are on here saying it's tainted and it should be a purple label if not for CGC's QC dropping the ball. If I was him, I would be furious. https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-incredible-hulk-1-marvel-1962-cgc-vg-40-cream-to-off-white-pages-this-classic-first-issue-from-marvel-features-the/a/15092-17418.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Hulk 1, 2005) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-avengers-1-marvel-1963-cgc-vg-40-off-white-to-white-pages/a/121620-13189.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Avengers 1, 2016) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/superman-104-dc-1956-cgc-vf-nm-90-off-white-pages/a/7007-93320.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Superman 104, 2009) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-flash-120-dc-1961-cgc-vf-85-cream-to-off-white-pages/a/110074-14260.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Flash 120, 2010) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/wonder-woman-97-dc-1958-cgc-vf-75-cream-to-off-white-pages/a/110071-11419.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515 (Wonder Woman 97, 2010) I understand what you are trying to say, and yes, if I look I can find examples of other QC problems with labels, ie, wrong titles and issue numbers, artist names mis-spelled, etc. Feel free to contact CGC yourself to confirm. SA + Glue = PLOD. There's a reason why the book went for a third less than all other sales in grade this year. People knew what they were (or weren't) bidding on. -J. Occam's razor. Scenario A: CGC's QC absolutely blows, and they consistently got it wrong. Every. Single. Time. Scenario B: Small amount of dried glue is supposed to be a blue label, as every example shows. You say A, I say B. I'll agree to disagree. Okay I just called CGC and did confirm that, yes, glue on SA books are PLOD, 99.99999%, HOWEVER, if it is residual glue, having never served a restorative purpose (in the opinion of the grader), then ON VERY RARE OCCASION, they will still put it in a blue label, with glue notes. This, of course, still isn't really going to help a book with that kind of notation, as glue notes on a SA book, because they are so uncommon, are a massive scarlet letter that will turn off many buyers, especially since you cannot remove glue (and thereby getting rid of the notation), without scraping the book and likely defacing/damaging it. And as for all three of those DC books you linked with "glue on the spine", those DEFINITELY should be PLODs, and are in fact a QC oversight. -J.

That is also likely a QC issue. CGC slabs a lot of books. As Vintagecomics keeps reiterating, ANY glue on a post-1950 book, regardless of perceived intent, is an automatic PLOD. Same goes with colour touch. Any SA book with "small amount of colour touch" on the label in a blue label has also slipped past QC (I have seen a handful of those as well). -J. Pretty sure that you're wrong on this. Color touch, yes. Glue, no. If you can show me where it says this anywhere on CGC's website, I would really like to know. It took ten seconds to find a half dozen examples in Heritage's archives on SA books. Consistently "small amount of dried glue" was blue label. No results were purple labels. And it spans back to as early as 2005. It's not that I particularly care one way or the other. But put yourself in the shoes of the buyer who just dropped 36 grand on his copy. That could've been his life savings and his holy grail once in a lifetime purchase, and you are on here saying it's tainted and it should be a purple label if not for CGC's QC dropping the ball. If I was him, I would be furious. https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-incredible-hulk-1-marvel-1962-cgc-vg-40-cream-to-off-white-pages-this-classic-first-issue-from-marvel-features-the/a/15092-17418.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Hulk 1, 2005) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-avengers-1-marvel-1963-cgc-vg-40-off-white-to-white-pages/a/121620-13189.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Avengers 1, 2016) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/superman-104-dc-1956-cgc-vf-nm-90-off-white-pages/a/7007-93320.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Superman 104, 2009) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/the-flash-120-dc-1961-cgc-vf-85-cream-to-off-white-pages/a/110074-14260.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 (Flash 120, 2010) https://comics.ha.com/itm/silver-age-1956-1969-/wonder-woman-97-dc-1958-cgc-vf-75-cream-to-off-white-pages/a/110071-11419.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515 (Wonder Woman 97, 2010) I understand what you are trying to say, and yes, if I look I can find examples of other QC problems with labels, ie, wrong titles and issue numbers, artist names mis-spelled, etc. Feel free to contact CGC yourself to confirm. SA + Glue = PLOD. There's a reason why the book went for a third less than all other sales in grade this year. People knew what they were (or weren't) bidding on. -J.

I agree with this. I've seen the notation often enough on SA books that I don't think it can be a QC problem -- or is always a QC problem. I think that improving the book v. just on the book is probably the key. Suppose a tiny bit of glue was used to seal a spine split, but the glue has dried and the spine split has reappeared. So now the glue is just there but isn't helping the apparent grade of the book. I believe that book goes in a blue label with a glue notation. What you are saying is how it works on GA books, and is the reason why some of those with that notation still find their way into blue holders, NOT SA books. ANY glue on a SA book is an automatic PLOD. -J.

I'd be curious to see if either of them could get that range currently. Absolutely. A 9.9 WD #1 just sold for $12k yesterday, and a 9.8 ASM 667 sold for $7300 last month (first copy to come up in 3.5 years). -J. Curious, are there any 10.0 WD #1 or is 9.9 the highest? 9.9 Is the highest grade, and there are 24 copies in that grade (as compared to 28 copies total for the ASM 667 Dell'otto). -J.

This is something that you have said that I do agree with. I have always stated that showcase 30 is certainly not a "key" or relevant nor important book for anyone other than diehard Aquaman fans or SA Showcase completionists. MULTIPLE prior appearances in BB and Adv 260 before that revamping his origin seals its fate. (No offense intended to those who are among that group of collectors and are fans of the book.) -J. I hear what you're saying, but I think it's a stretch to take the position that SC 30 is neither a key nor a relevant book nor important book to collectors generally. Kinda like saying white pages don't affect the value of a book. The fact is that SC 30 is Aquaman's first full-length comic book -- ever. Since his first appearance in 1941, he had been relegated to back-up stories. SC 30 was yet another key move by Julie Schwartz and other editors to resuscitate National's library of storied GA characters. Had SC 30, 31 and 32 flopped, Aquaman would not have gotten his own title. That being said, Adventure 260, in my opinion, is the more important of the two books for the reasons discussed above. Don't get me started. I have my data points always at the ready. -J.