Jaydogrules

You make it sound as though you've investigated exhaustively the influence of page quality on sale prices by datamining through GPA. Here is a real datamining experiment I ran this morning over coffee that contradicts your opinion on what the hard data and actual facts show. To render enough data points to be potentially meaningful, I ran the sale prices as a function of page quality on Hulk 181 in either 9.4 or 9.2 condition. I focused on all sales recorded in GPA with a verifiable page quality designation from 2014 and 2015. In addition to the average sale price, I also determined the median sale price, which is a better measure than an average that potentially could be skewed by a single outlier sale of a book intended to be upgraded. There are too few sales recorded of copies with other page qualities, and so the focus is on comparing white with ow/w pages. For 9.4 sales: White pages (n=16).....average=3371; median=3350 OW/W pages (n=12)....average=3192; median=3227 For 9.2 sales: White pages (n=8)......average=2705; median=3000 OW/W pages (n=14)...average=2554; median=2500 According to this datamining of GPA, copies of Hulk #181 with white pages attain higher overall sale prices than those with ow/w pages. In fact, white paged 9.2 copies fetched nearly 85% of the sale price of 9.4 ow/w copies. I suspect that for low grade comics, the influence of page quality on average and median sale prices is less pronounced, as with an abundance of defects the nature of those defects will carry more weight on the sale prices than page quality alone. Only a data set much larger than the one used above could evaluate this for low grade comics. I also suspect that comics with c/ow pages do considerably worse overall than those with white or ow/w pages. Personally, I'd always go with what the dealers are saying about the influence of page quality, since they've got the decades of real world experience that just can't be captured in a small data set from one or a small handful of books, or from using GPA alone as a source of information. Indeed, at least 3 dealers have weighed in already in this thread alone that page quality matters to sale prices. The datamining described above backs this up with (and I quote) 'hard numbers and actual facts'. My "goal posts" aren't moving. Please review my posts going back to the beginning, I have quite literally been saying the same thing since Post One. While I appreciate someone even attempting to use actual publicly available data to buttress their opinion, I have to say that your example is apples and oranges, in essentially every way possible. We're talking about B&B 28 here- a relatively tough book in any grade, let alone high grade, not an ultra common BA book. Again, I provided data and analysis 24 different examples of "this" book in seven different grades (the most commonly traded ones), over a nearly two year period. This is not a "small" sampling. This is nearly every grade the book has traded in publicly with more than a few sales in grade over an extended period of time. Dealers may come on here and say "well my experiences have been different", and they may very well be different. But that does not render the publicly sale data meaningless. If anything, it only further proves the point. My point is that the cumulative data is wholly inconsistent which it is. And absolutely nothing absolute can be concluded from inconsistent data. In the case of Hulk 181, obviously if there are several hundreds of copies in grade to choose from, certain people, for whatever reason, may be more inclined to hold off on their bidding on copies that say "ow/w" on the label. However even you concede that your "hypothesis" only applies to just two essentially "mint" grades even for that book, and not the lower and mid grade examples that would be more applicable to the grades that B&B 28 is more typically traded in. If you would like to see how big of a difference the "PQ" on the label actually makes on the totality of grades for Hulk 181 (as I have done with B&B 28) I will happily meet you over in the Hulk 181 thread because I have already examined that as well so I'm ready. Back to B&B 28 however, as ttfitz I believe noted, there are far fewer opportunities to own the book in any grade, let alone mint grade (where the "PQ" on the label, regardless of the book, tends to be "better" anyway), thus creating much greater urgency among buyers who "just want to own the book", and will pay what it takes to own the book regardless of the "PQ" on the label because, let's face it, there are only so many "perfect" books for only so many choosy people to pay a "premium" for out there. Inevitably, as we have seen, books with other "PQ" labels will sell, and, as we have seen, the weighted effect of the market activity is that the alleged "premium" evaporates and/or is rendered meaningless by the sheer inconsistency of the data of what people have been shown to be willing to pay for all those other copies. (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u -J.

The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J. Everything?? Does gpa detail : What specific venue the book was sold? What perspective buyers/bidders participated ? How the book was marketed ? How the book was presented within the sales venue and to whom? (Detailed scans , small Blurry , written description, pic etc etc) What payment options were available to perspective bidders/buyers What the defects were to differentiate it from a comparable copy If a comparable copy with different pq was even available in same venue or at same time to offer buyer/bidder alternative The image of the book is incredibly important in determining desirability and assessing value Etc etc Gpa tells us virtually nothing. It is really only good at establishing general pricing and trends. Nothing specific can be concluded from gpa outside of what that one copy sold for on that one particular date. Everything else is speculation unless you were the buyer Everything you stated and all the hypothetical scenarios you just presented are, conversely, precisely why no one can reasonably make the statement (let alone prove) that the "PQ" on the label actually affects the final prices of books in any significant or consistent manner. (thumbs u (thumbs u (the second thumbs up is for Joey D. ) -J. What you've apparently missed is that they likewise prevent you from saying that PQ hasn't impacted the final prices of books in a significant or consistent manner. If your premise was that PQ was the #1 most important factor then you might be onto something. But your data doesn't provide the clarity on this question in any way that would illuminate buying preferences or motivations. In any good hypothesis you need to find data that support it. If your hypothesis is that PQ is not influencing final purchase price then you need positive data to support the idea. As it stands, you have nothing of the sort. You simply show a lack of correlation between the few data points you have, which are an unknown (not to mention small and skewed) segment of the market, and interpret that lack of correlation as meaning only one thing. There are dozens of alternative hypotheses that are equally (and probably more) likely. PQ could easily represent a significant influence on purchase price that is swamped by other influences in different circumstances. The problem is that you lack the clarity to either support or refute any hypothesis with these data. Here's one for you. I teach, and this occupation brings me into contact with folks that are sick every day of the week. If I don't get sick from being around them, does this disprove the germ theory? This is an admittedly silly example that doesn't much differ from your interpretation of thin data as suggesting only the one possible explanation. You can personally believe whatever you want. Just don't pretend that these data support that belief any more than they do any number of alternatives. If you'd like to persist in pushing your belief please explain precisely how a lack of correlation in the numbers you've presented supports your hypothesis, and start with your explanation for how every other variable Gator mentioned is magically controlled for and known, leaving PQ as the only culprit. Also define what you mean by significant, because that's another crucial but very fuzzy key to your argument. Until you can do these things, please let the thread get back to B&B #28 pricing trends. Sorry, almost forgot. (thumbs u I have no "hypothesis" that I am attempting to prove, unless you believe that I am attempting to prove a negative (which, as you likely know, is impossible). The "hypothesis" has actually been set forth by the other side- that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more. I provided a significant data sampling which pulls from a multitude of sales sources. It is not "all" sources, but it is certainly more than one or two dealers who post on these boards. That does not imply any disrespect toward those dealers or their opinions or what they observe in the field. However the amalgam of data cited is significant and cannot be lightly dismissed simply because you or others disagree with what it reveals. What it does reveal, with regards to "this" book, is an inconsistent and unreliable correlation between the "PQ" on the label and final sales price- and that books with different "PQ" on the label sell for higher amounts not only sometimes, but more than half the time. Some have come into the thread and essentially said, "well of course, there are 'other' factors that come into play which can cause the 'PQ' on the label to in fact not matter so much anymore". And I agree! So then what does that mean? If the hypothesis is that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more, and then someone provides you with nearly two dozen examples of the same book, in seven different grades over a span of two years, where that in fact did not happen, I would say that said hypothesis (ie, myth) has been busted. You want to provide me some examples when the "PQ" on the label made a positive difference? Great, I never said those weren't out there. But there is overwhelming contravening data, for this book (and probably every similar book that you could think of) that also proves the exact opposite. That would be the very definition of "inconsistent", "random", and "unquantifiable", which is essentially makes the attempt to draw any correlation futile and meaningless. If you want to call that my "hypothesis" then it has indeed been readily "proven". (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u -J.

Plenty to go around ! (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u -J.

The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J. Everything?? Does gpa detail : What specific venue the book was sold? What perspective buyers/bidders participated ? How the book was marketed ? How the book was presented within the sales venue and to whom? (Detailed scans , small Blurry , written description, pic etc etc) What payment options were available to perspective bidders/buyers What the defects were to differentiate it from a comparable copy If a comparable copy with different pq was even available in same venue or at same time to offer buyer/bidder alternative The image of the book is incredibly important in determining desirability and assessing value Etc etc Gpa tells us virtually nothing. It is really only good at establishing general pricing and trends. Nothing specific can be concluded from gpa outside of what that one copy sold for on that one particular date. Everything else is speculation unless you were the buyer Everything you stated and all the hypothetical scenarios you just presented are, conversely, precisely why no one can reasonably make the statement (let alone prove) that the "PQ" on the label actually affects the final prices of books in any significant or consistent manner. (thumbs u (thumbs u (the second thumbs up is for Joey D. ) -J.

The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J.

+1 One would imagine. Ironically, I am not the one attempting to speak in absolutes. My statements allow for wiggle room. Problem is, (some of) the detractors "have" to speak in absolutes, because if they allow that what they are attempting to say is even "sometimes wrong" then they essentially concede the point that it is impossible to quantify what (if any) effect "PQ" has on a final price because results are indeed inconsistent and also contingent upon a litany of other factors that can never be equal in the real world. -J.

The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J.

That's why Gators are such good salesmen. -J. I must say that I have always appreciated and respected your even-kieled and balanced debating style. -J.

The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already do that. Deal with it. -J.

That's why Gators are such good salesmen. -J.

Yet they continue to try to do so, without a lick of any supporting hard data to back it up. Old, stale, debunked ideas die hard indeed. -J.

..... many GPA examples are auction oriented. This makes it hard to determine what a winning bidder would have been willing to pay.... so this would make that type of data difficult to link to an individual's preference. GOD BLESS... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u exactly...unknown variables... what data can't and doesn't tell you is what one gains from "experience"...selling books to folks in person, year after year, you tend to learn what does affect buying decisions...and PQ absolutely does (not to all, but to the majority)... one doesn't have to quantify that...hearing it from folks in person, and seeing it play out time and time again, is diligence enough to draw a conclusion The "unknown variables" that you speak of are the very things that prevent the so-called "PQ" on the label from being any consistent or quantifiable determining factor on price. Hence why no "premium" can be proven with any statistical data whatsoever. Word of mouth and "in the trenches" experience is great and has its place. But if it isn't supported (and is in fact utterly contradicted, as I have quite clearly demonstrated yet again) by actual real and hard data, then it is nothing more than "anecdote". It is simply unreasonable for one to choose to ignore real and hard data and facts simply because it does not jibe with their own personal opinions, biases, preferences and pre-conceived notions. -J. unfortunately J, your data is not valid or applicable because you don't have any (scientific) control... you can't say what caused the price variance for this reason...and therefor your data says nothing specific in regards to how pq may or may not affect price... in my data, I have controls in place (same venue, same time frame, same sales person/tactic, same potential pool of buyers), and so I can monitor the effect one variable has on a buyers purchasing decision (PQ in my examples)... so there is nothing anecdotal about my results, I have provided hard , real data....they prove my hypothesis (thumbs u Actually the cited data is vastly superior to yours because it pulls from multiple sources and is entirely neutral and free from any biases and pre-conceived notions of any single individual. Oh yes, and it is also documented, cataloged and easily accessed by the general public. (thumbs u -J.

Awesome pick up congrats. -J.

..... many GPA examples are auction oriented. This makes it hard to determine what a winning bidder would have been willing to pay.... so this would make that type of data difficult to link to an individual's preference. GOD BLESS... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u exactly...unknown variables... what data can't and doesn't tell you is what one gains from "experience"...selling books to folks in person, year after year, you tend to learn what does affect buying decisions...and PQ absolutely does (not to all, but to the majority)... one doesn't have to quantify that...hearing it from folks in person, and seeing it play out time and time again, is diligence enough to draw a conclusion The "unknown variables" that you speak of are the very things that prevent the so-called "PQ" on the label from being any consistent or quantifiable determining factor on price. Hence why no "premium" can be proven with any statistical data whatsoever. Word of mouth and "in the trenches" experience is great and has its place. But if it isn't supported (and is in fact utterly contradicted, as I have quite clearly demonstrated yet again) by actual real and hard data, then it is nothing more than "anecdote". It is simply unreasonable for one to choose to ignore real and hard data and facts simply because it does not jibe with their own personal opinions, biases, preferences and pre-conceived notions. -J.

Of course that cream to off-white will have degraded to slightly brittle or brittle in that same amount of time, so there's that. That depends on who is grading the book that day, and there probably *still* won't be any difference in prices. -J.

Yup. (thumbs u -J.

Is this a trick question? Everybody knows books with better page quality sell for more! ...except when they don't. (thumbs u AF 15, 7.5: 9/2/13- "OW" on the label- $55,000 11/5/13- "Cr/OW" on the label- $62,000 Somebody paid $7k more for a book with supposedly "lesser 'PQ'" on the label just a couple of months after the other book sold. -J.

Eh, no. You initially argued that 'all things being equal' the PQ doesn't matter and then went on to provide examples where 'all things were not equal'. Look man, I think you're wrong (again) but I'm not going to get sucked into a back and forth. The nicer the book the stronger the price it fetches. Anybody who will argue that, well... Just as long as you understand that you are not actually disagreeing with "me" you are disagreeing with data and facts. Denial just ain't a river, as it were. To each his own. And actually, I never once said "all things being equal". Somebody else said that. I said that all things are never equal. Hence why, once again, your arguments fail utterly and completely. -J.

In the extraordinarily unlikely event a situation like that ever arose, it may sell "first". But "more"? As the data suggests, probably not. -J. If you have two different PQ books being offered at two different weeks, all things are not equal even if the books look alike. All things being equal the nicer PQ book (almost) ALWAYS sells for more. Books do not have to sell within a minute of each other and within the same venue to be "comps". You are attempting to impose impossible and unrealistic criterion on the legitimate hard data, and absolutely none at all on those attempting to argue the counter point. Doing so actually only further reinforces the irrelevance of the "PQ" on the label as any kind of legitimate or consistent or quantifiable determining factor in final price on the open market. The data speaks for itself. There is no correlation. Myth busted. (Again.) -J.

In the extraordinarily unlikely event a situation like that ever arose, it may sell "first". But "more"? As the data suggests, probably not. -J.

+1 That basically nails it. (thumbs u -J.

"Buy the book and not the label." -J.

Absolutely, everyone agrees that PQ affects the final value/price of a book, but it's not the only factor. And yeah, you certainly can't attempt to draw conclusions from a limited sample of reported sales on GPA without knowing all the other factors (e.g. eye appeal) that went into the sales price. (thumbs u ...except when it doesn't. Which is a whole, whole lot. (thumbs u I suppose it's easier to draw conclusions from the "no reported sales" that you have provided. And the "sampling" wasn't "limited". It was pulled from nearly every grade with more than one transaction over a two year period. You are literally just creating fiction at this point. -J.

(thumbs u When you have dealers saying they get more for copies with better page quality and collectors saying they'll pay more for copies with better page quality and the fact that not a single collector would pay more for a copy with lower page quality, the matter is settled. So it's just silly-season now...Jaydog vs. the world and he ain't backing down no way, no how, no matter what! The extent of the wrongness of your unsupported, conclusory statemenets is truly mind boggling. So because Joey requested it, here is some of what has actually happened: Grade: 2.0 4/16/14- "Brittle" on the label- $1300 9/14/14/14- "Cr/OW" on the label- $1300 1/14/2015- "Cr/OW" on the label- $1381 No difference in price based on the so-called "PQ" on the label for even a book with "Brittle pages" on the label that sold nine months earlier than the book with "Cr/OW" on the label. Grade: 2.5 9/24/13- "Cr/OW" on the label- $1300 11/17/13- "Cr/OW" on the label- $1325 12/22/13- "OW/W" on the label- $1250 The book with the allegedly "better 'PQ'" on the label appears to have under-performed two other books that sold as much as three months earlier. Grade: 3.0 3/26/15- "OW/W" on the label- $1880 4/29/15- "OW" on the label- $2330 A book with supposedly "lesser 'PQ'" on the label sells for nearly $500 more just a month later. Grade: 3.5 9/22/13- "OW" on the label- $1788 10/15/2013- "Cr/OW" on the label- $2250 Somebody paid nearly $500 more for a book with allegedly "lesser 'PQ'" on the label just three weeks later. Grade: 4.0 8/4/2013- "White" on the label- $2076 8/18/2013- "Cr/OW" on the label- $2749 9/9/13- "Cream" on the label- $2565 12/5/13- "Cr/OW" on the label- $1950 A book with "Cr/OW" on the label sells for $700 more than a book with "White" on the label just two weeks earlier, and a "Cream" page books sells for $500 more. Another book with "Cr/OW" on the label sells for essentially the same as the "White" pages book did four months earlier. "PQ" relative to pricing is all over the map in this grade. Grade 4.5: 3/4/15- "Cr/OW" on the label- $3500 3/27/15- "LT/OW" on the label- $4500 A book with supposedly "lesser 'PQ'" on the label sells for $1000 more less than three weeks later. Grade 6.5: 3/23/14- "OW" on the label- $8500 8/7/14- "OW/W" on the label- $7170 A book with supposedly "better 'PQ'" on the label appears to under-perform another book that sold five months earlier. That's seven different grades, over a two year period, and nearly two dozen examples where the so-called "PQ" that CGC decided to put on a label had absolutely no apparent effect on pricing. If anything, this data would ironically suggest that people pay *more* for books with "lesser 'PQ'" on the label. But I am not making such an argument. To do so would be ridiculous. As about as ridiculous as it would be for someone to say that "everyone, always" pays a premium based solely on the "PQ" on the label. The cumulative publicly available sales data utterly contradicts such a notion. Maybe "some people" have their head wrapped around the completely arbitrary, fickle and unverifiable "PQ" designations CGC puts on a label, but clearly, many, many people do not. Hence we see no "premiums" or "discounts" either way. And as it should be. Mic drop. -J.

Since when....? -J.