Jaydogrules

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Amazing-Spider-Man-667-Retailer-Incentive-Gabrielle-Dell-Otto-Variant-/222217433633?hash=item33bd30f221:g:XK4AAOSwgZ1XrgDl -J.

Now a $500 book raw if you can find one in the wild... http://www.ebay.com/itm/JOURNEY-INTO-MYSTERY-633-1-50-VENOM-VARIANT-MARVEL-COMIC-BOOK-SCARCE-THOR-1-/291833906888?hash=item43f2a806c8:g:S5QAAOSwARZXnpW3 -J.

I saw those too. The one that went for $1400 was an SS copy. I'll be updating the list soon. -J.

CC has about 5-6 books (preRobin and early Tecs) listed. ALL of them have Trimmed on label. Which issues did not have Trimmed on label ? The Tec 27 and Bats 1 did NOT have trimming listed on the label. I know for a fact that the 31 and 33 did not have trimmed on the label either. -J. Jay, the 33 had trimmed in the notes section on the label. I would post a picture, but I cannot because it is a CBCS book. Here ya go: http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=566865 http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=566872 Thanks ! I must be losing my mind. So maybe it was just the Tec 27 and the Bats 1 I'm remembering ? I definitely remembered seeing it (or rather not seeing it) and more than one label saying something about it and then getting a tongue lashing for pointing out from a boardie (bluechip I thinkJ. whom I suspect was the consignor). -J.

CC has about 5-6 books (preRobin and early Tecs) listed. ALL of them have Trimmed on label. Which issues did not have Trimmed on label ? The Tec 27 and Bats 1 did NOT have trimming listed on the label. I know for a fact that the 31 and 33 did not have trimmed on the label either. -J.

I'd wager $22k takes the CC copy. -J.

Geez, wonder who placed that low-ball offer. I knew it. Isn't that what Leroy paid for his 1.8 two years ago? -J. I think less but Tec 33 is soooo passé Are you listening Vinnie You're right he paid $12k..... -J.

Geez, wonder who placed that low-ball offer. I knew it. Isn't that what Leroy paid for his 1.8 raw two years ago? -J.

Looks like CC still has this as a "restored" book in their listing (in spite of the picture) http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=675641 -J.

Yup, shame on IGB, shame on Voldy, and shame on the entity financing this greedy enterprise. Maybe now some of the misguided apologists who have defended these IGB books will finally understand what the detractors have been saying all along. I have seen many Voldy slabs where trimming wasn't disclosed quite a while back. They graded some books from a bound volume that were trimmed but did not disclose that on the label either. At the time, apologists said "well it's from a bound volume and everyone knows those are trimmed." To which I replied: "Even if that were true, so?" -J. Jay, are referring to the Bob Kane books where some labels listed trimming and some didn't? Yes I am. I'm not sure if it was the pre Robins or the early Bats but I know for a sure that they had no "trimming" notes on the labels. -J.

Yup, shame on IGB, shame on Voldy, and shame on the entity financing this greedy enterprise. Maybe now some of the misguided apologists who have defended these IGB books will finally understand what the detractors have been saying all along. I have seen many Voldy slabs where trimming wasn't disclosed quite a while back. They graded some books from a bound volume that were trimmed but did not disclose that on the label either. At the time, apologists said "well it's from a bound volume and everyone knows those are trimmed." To which I replied: "Even if that were true, so?" -J.

So let me understand this. White pages do not command a premium according to you but CGC books automatically do. When generalizations suit your point they are OK. When they don't they are not OK. I just want to show your hypocrisy and why many people don't bother engaging with you any more. I'll just disagree with your points and leave it at that. You are (as always) twisting what has actually been stated in the past, however irrelevant and off topic, to suit your agenda (or rather, whatever product you are attempting to sell at the moment). Sufficeth to say, I (and many, many others) won't be paying you CGC slab prices for anything graded by Voldemort anytime soon. Carry on. -J.

The Voldemort discount is real. To what extent may be debatable, but there is nothing resembling parity between CGC and CBCS books, whether some choose to accept that or not. -J.

Probably $1000 minimum, either raw or lowest graded slab. -J.

Looks like the 9.8 was re-listed. But the 9.4 closed at $1650 ($400+ over the last sale and just $100 under the GPA high). -J. That 9.8 has been re-listed 4 times now without any bids. A 9.8 also just failed to sell on the boards for $3,300. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Spider-man-678-CGC-9-8-MJ-Variant-Cover-/252494602002?hash=item3ac9d9df12:g:xmkAAOSw6n5XqmNj -J.

77K That's really low. What did most people think the grade actually was? 7.5? Yep, I have been scratching my head on this one too. Why didn't this book go for 100k+? 9.0s have exceeded 200k recently. So, one would think an 8.5 would be in the 115-140k range. Maybe the red label confused some folks? As gadzukes mentioned, perhaps soft grading. The top front cover has some issues, but nothing extreme. To my eye, it is at least an 8.0. That's your standard Voldemort 25% discount. In all seriousness , the book looked over graded, had no "upgrade potential", had an unverified, "verified" signature with a weird red label and was in a CBCS slab. A perfect storm for failure. As for the restored copies. Who cares. That's a completely different market with seemingly its own set of rules from book to book even. But restored SA has been underperforming on many titles lately (like that Showcase 4 in the MCS auction). -J.

+1 I also have to a little bit at the irony of the notion that it will require petulant teenagers to prop this dud up in the coming weeks, considering all the talk about how Marvel is the one that only makes movies "for kids".. Unfortunately, August is historically Hollywood's dumping ground for bad movies. As always, Marvel has already paved the way for DC in this month with GOTG, but that was a critically acclaimed movie, that was also beloved by audiences, whereas SS is just yet another polarizing flop from Warner that will likely also have a 65-70% second weekend drop with all of those teens back in school (closer to the 70% if Sausage Party actually gets decent reviews). -J.

Actually, no. The same source noting the $175 million budget has said that includes a single $10 million for reshoots. It's the absurd (although incredibly effective) marketing budget that will affect SS's long-run profitability. Perhaps. I may be confusing that with another article I read questioning that figure. -J.

$750 million is not an accurate box office success and as usual Hollywood Reporter is pulling mess out of the air. For as long as I can remember, the number was between 2.5x and 3x budget. Otherwise, they are saying Guardians of the Galaxy barely made a profit (similar budget of $170 with a $775 worldwide return.) Budget was $175. Break even is between $437.5 and $525 million. But like I said, let's redefine how we define success. they spent $150MM on marketing per today's NYT. no way break even is $437.5 - $525MM for theatrical release. the profits will come from ancillary revenue streams: DVD, TV, merchandising. Right. They also spent "tens of millions" on the re-shoots that are not included in that $175mm budget either. -J.

$750 million is not an accurate box office success and as usual Hollywood Reporter is pulling mess out of the air. For as long as I can remember, the number was between 2.5x and 3x budget. Otherwise, they are saying Guardians of the Galaxy0 barely made a profit (similar budget of $170 with a $775 worldwide return.) Budget was $175. Break even is between $437.5 and $525 million. But like I said, let's redefine how we define success. http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/suicide-squad/257556/suicide-squad-needs-750-million-800-million-to-break-even http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squads-secret-drama-rushed-916693 -J.

A 9.6 copy of this aweome book just closed on Heritage for just under $7800. An easy, all time GPA high. -J.

I'm putting this Turkey's final BO somewhere between $500mm and X-Men apocalypse. And that should be considered a success. Kudos once again to Trailer Park and WB's marketing machine. Time to reset the spin cycle, rinse and repeat now for Wonder Woman (aka "Captain America- SJW's Delight) and Justice League (aka "Where Have I Seen This Before?", aka "Suicide Squad 2- The Sequeling"). -J.

I was quoting from the Pristine Comics dealer report - he (assume also an American) used the term in his Overstreet report The fact remains however, they are literally a "price" variant. But am fine with "UK edition" as clearly I'm not foreign Touche! -J.

Have we gone back to calling these "price variants" rather than simply the "foreign editions" that they are ? -J.

This just isn't true though. BvS made quite a bit of money for a movie that didn't connect with audiences. Is it possible it did connect and critics didn't like it? And it sold a ton of BluRays too. If JLA fails next summer, then I'll agree with you. Until then, this is no different than Marvel when they built their Cinema Universe, except Marvel's movies got better ratings. I'll bet SS does just fine. Why does it bug people that the DC movies are doing fine financially? Because critics didn't like it? If SS is DC's 3rd movie in their DCCU, I'll bet it matches up just fine to Marvel's 3rd movie which was IM2. Not exactly a movie that set the world on fire. Don't get me wrong, I was one of the people that liked BvS much better than Civil War, but the fact that BvS did not crack $1B at the box office tells you all that you need to know about how well it is connecting with the broader movie-going audience. I expect that WB/DCCU learned their lessons and will apply that to their movies going forward. WRT critics, do they really matter anymore? I am happy that the DC movies are doing well financially, but I would like to see one top a Marvel box office to watch the heads spin on some of the haters here on the boards. Give DC time. Marvel didn't have the huge breakout blockbuster until their 6th movie. Marvel had to learn what worked and didn't work as they went as well. This is true but it is also true that Marvel is playing with one hand tied behind its back (not having access to its top tier and most famous characters and titles) which is what makes what they are accomplishing cinenamatically that much more impressive and truly remarkable. And what makes the recent failures of Warner and DC (with their most famous and marquee characters ) that much more inexcusable, glaring and downright pathetic. It really does look like they either don't know what they are doing , or are just going for quick first weekend cash grabs with great marketing of inferior product. -J.