Jaydogrules

In this case,I don't think the pedigree will help much, if at all. I've owned some raw Mohawk Valleys and the insides are very toasty. I remember the PQ as not so much cream but a terrible looking yellow. CR/OW is still an instant pass for me, rare or not. Sorry. Why apologize? I will never complain about having one less bidder to compete against on a big book like this. (thumbs u Unfortunately I don't think it will make much of a difference in the end.... -J.

Except when the Marvel chipping pertains to certain mega keys. Jay mustve forgot the recent IH #1 CGC 9.0 that sold for 175K! I didn't forget. The bigger the key the harder it is to find, the less other "cosmetic" issues seem to matter. That's what I mean when I say the supply and demand within the market will naturally always have the final say. (thumbs u -J.

No worries man. On the cgc 8.5, I'd be setting the over/under higher than $55-65. But I guess we'll see. This might be a nice copy to get into before the coming explosions truly materialize. How has that new TV show done in the ratings, anyone know? Cheers Joey Cream will hurt it a little. The Pedigree will bump it. You don't see 8.5s around too often and prices for keys have been a little nuts since June. I know of only one other one in 8.5 and now this one. I would be surprised if it broke 70k if you get two bidders that "have to have it". I think we'll see it in the mid 60's at least, but I'm still betting on low 70s. The PQ thing really needs to be addressed at CGC I just got a book that was OW back CR/OW - so who really believes what the label says - and is it really gonna hurt a gorgeous book like this? I think that us DCers have come to accept the CR/OW as something that isn't that big a deal. At least not so critical that it'd hurt such a gorgeous book. But I suppose if it had white pages, we'd all be gushing over that - including me, "White" and "Brittle" are the only two "PQ" designations that are really capable of being consistently quantified. Everything in between is a shot in the dark and can (and often does) flip flop around even on the same book, as Boba notes. That's likely why there is no consistent difference in prices realized in books based solely on "PQ". And even then, depending on how big the key, even "brittle" pages may not matter. I have also seen books with "white" pages go for less than books with "cream" pages. Like with everything else supply and demand will always be the real deciding factor in the market place in the end. Marvel chipping, on the other hand, is another matter. Those almost always seem to sell at somewhat of a discount. -J.

I'm going to say $65k. -J.

I don't think there is any additional bump for the other insert. But it still sounds pretty cool. (thumbs u -J.

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list? Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181! Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.) The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG. Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are. Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list. It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight. How are we even discussing this? Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me? I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual. When you state that Overstreet...contrary to his own printed words...is purposely excluding books that belong in a "Top X Age Books" list, lists that are ordered according to their values, then yes, that is the very definition of a conspiracy. How are we even HAVING this discussion?? Your conclusions are as always, an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum. Ok. Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting? And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true. In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.") Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this? Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion? I already explained this, but I will explain it again: because it would render the lists meaningless, by their own definitions. Here is a list of the top 10 posters on this board, by post count: * VintageComics User * 72241 * greggy User * 64253 * Comicopolis User * 63714 * G.A.tor User * 50918 * DrWatson User 42721 * Bosco685 User 41675 * DiceX User 40722 * goldust40 User * 40053 * RockMyAmadeus User 38601 * Jeffro User 38454 This is a list of the top 10 posters, using no criteria except post count. But wait! There's a poster missing! MutantKeys has 43873 posts, placing him at #5 on this list, bumping Jeffro to #11. So, by my definition, if I say this is a list of the top 10 posters, by post count...is it accurate? Regardless of why I left out MK, by my definition, is it accurate? No. Of course not. I'm missing something. If I said it WAS accurate, and purposely ignored calls by others to include MK in the list...would I simply be "using editorial discretion"? Or, would I put my own definition to the lie? Clearly, the latter. My own definition would be a lie, because I excluded MK, purposely. So, if the Top 10 Silver Age list in the OPG is missing something, is that list accurate by its own definition? No. Does Overstreet's own definition allow for "editorial discretion"? No. He doesn't say "this is the Top 10 list, the way I think it should be." He says "this is the Top 10 list, according to the values I list." Therefore.... If there is an omission, it is either a mistake...or Overstreet is directly contradicting his own definition of the list. There is no allowance for "editorial discretion", because that's not what the lists are, by definition. Overstreet is not publishing his opinion in those lists. If he were, you would be completely correct. But he is not. His own definition does not allow for editorial discretion. Patent nonsense. Many people have disagreed with me, many times, and in many ways. The issue isn't disagreement. The issue is the way in which disagreement is handled. As always. And I can prove it by looking in this very thread, only a few posts back. Chrisco disagreed with me (which you misread), about the lack of necessity of his post explaining "Team Cerebus." I have known Chrisco for a long time. I have a good deal of respect for Chrisco. He and I have just disagreed, and he even said such a disagreement is silly. I don't think, for a second, that he's insulting me, or that he's "arguing from emotion." When I say you are arguing from emotion, it is because you are arguing from emotion (as evidenced by you resorting to unjustifiable hyperbole like "absurdity, ad infinitum", and statements like "you have the nerve", etc. These are not the words of a calm person. These are the words that angry, outraged people use.) It is not because you "disagree with me." And yes, I know most people DO have such a reaction. I like to think I'm not most people, at least in respect to reason. Well respected? The guy has been here less than a year. If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest putting up a poll. I suspect the vast majority of board members have never HEARD of "jaydogrules", much less "well respect" him. I asked if the books in his sigline were his. That's it. There are, in fact, many siglines that contain pictures of items that DO NOT belong that poster. Was it an "insinuation" that he had a "phony sigline"? Yes. It absolutely was, as all such questions are. It is a questionable sigline, containing scans that are all from clearly different sources. Generally, scans from multiple sources are a "red flag." And you may not be aware of this, but this board generally has a nose for detecting frauds. Investigating red flags are one of the means of doing that. People are insinuated every day on this board. But you'll note that I asked...I didn't simply assume. And I posted no conclusion, insinuation or otherwise. Once he said they were, that was the end of it. Question answered. Not brought up again until you did just now, trying to make hay out of it. Are YOU going to apologize to me for misreading the "silly" statements between myself and Chrisco, and accusing (not just insinuating) me of insulting him? You see the worst, because you wish to. That's a terrible way to live life. That you think me questioning someone's sigline is "the lowest example of class you have ever witnessed on the boards" only demonstrates how deeply you are divorced from reason. There has been far, far, FAR worse on this boards, and if you haven't witnessed it...you haven't been paying any attention at all. You argue from emotion, not reason. This is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility. Your emotion drives you, and one need not go further than this latest "outrage", which has absolutely zero bearing on anything in this thread. It's utterly irrelevant, and designed solely to make me look bad, and if you can succeed in making me look bad, my arguments, as the thinking doubtless goes, won't carry as much weight. It is a classic ad hominem fallacy. I hope...genuinely, for your sake, because it doesn't affect me much at all...that you eventually learn how to disagree with people without becoming emotionally involved. Woooooow. I was just re-living and having a good chuckle at the general Tom foolery of this thread and just noticed this post by you. RMA, you really are a class act guy, bud. (thumbs u -J. Agreed, he is a class act. (thumbs u J is this a classic ad hominem attack? -J.

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list? Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181! Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.) The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG. Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are. Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list. It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight. How are we even discussing this? Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me? I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual. When you state that Overstreet...contrary to his own printed words...is purposely excluding books that belong in a "Top X Age Books" list, lists that are ordered according to their values, then yes, that is the very definition of a conspiracy. How are we even HAVING this discussion?? Your conclusions are as always, an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum. Ok. Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting? And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true. In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.") Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this? Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion? I already explained this, but I will explain it again: because it would render the lists meaningless, by their own definitions. Here is a list of the top 10 posters on this board, by post count: * VintageComics User * 72241 * greggy User * 64253 * Comicopolis User * 63714 * G.A.tor User * 50918 * DrWatson User 42721 * Bosco685 User 41675 * DiceX User 40722 * goldust40 User * 40053 * RockMyAmadeus User 38601 * Jeffro User 38454 This is a list of the top 10 posters, using no criteria except post count. But wait! There's a poster missing! MutantKeys has 43873 posts, placing him at #5 on this list, bumping Jeffro to #11. So, by my definition, if I say this is a list of the top 10 posters, by post count...is it accurate? Regardless of why I left out MK, by my definition, is it accurate? No. Of course not. I'm missing something. If I said it WAS accurate, and purposely ignored calls by others to include MK in the list...would I simply be "using editorial discretion"? Or, would I put my own definition to the lie? Clearly, the latter. My own definition would be a lie, because I excluded MK, purposely. So, if the Top 10 Silver Age list in the OPG is missing something, is that list accurate by its own definition? No. Does Overstreet's own definition allow for "editorial discretion"? No. He doesn't say "this is the Top 10 list, the way I think it should be." He says "this is the Top 10 list, according to the values I list." Therefore.... If there is an omission, it is either a mistake...or Overstreet is directly contradicting his own definition of the list. There is no allowance for "editorial discretion", because that's not what the lists are, by definition. Overstreet is not publishing his opinion in those lists. If he were, you would be completely correct. But he is not. His own definition does not allow for editorial discretion. Patent nonsense. Many people have disagreed with me, many times, and in many ways. The issue isn't disagreement. The issue is the way in which disagreement is handled. As always. And I can prove it by looking in this very thread, only a few posts back. Chrisco disagreed with me (which you misread), about the lack of necessity of his post explaining "Team Cerebus." I have known Chrisco for a long time. I have a good deal of respect for Chrisco. He and I have just disagreed, and he even said such a disagreement is silly. I don't think, for a second, that he's insulting me, or that he's "arguing from emotion." When I say you are arguing from emotion, it is because you are arguing from emotion (as evidenced by you resorting to unjustifiable hyperbole like "absurdity, ad infinitum", and statements like "you have the nerve", etc. These are not the words of a calm person. These are the words that angry, outraged people use.) It is not because you "disagree with me." And yes, I know most people DO have such a reaction. I like to think I'm not most people, at least in respect to reason. Well respected? The guy has been here less than a year. If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest putting up a poll. I suspect the vast majority of board members have never HEARD of "jaydogrules", much less "well respect" him. I asked if the books in his sigline were his. That's it. There are, in fact, many siglines that contain pictures of items that DO NOT belong that poster. Was it an "insinuation" that he had a "phony sigline"? Yes. It absolutely was, as all such questions are. It is a questionable sigline, containing scans that are all from clearly different sources. Generally, scans from multiple sources are a "red flag." And you may not be aware of this, but this board generally has a nose for detecting frauds. Investigating red flags are one of the means of doing that. People are insinuated every day on this board. But you'll note that I asked...I didn't simply assume. And I posted no conclusion, insinuation or otherwise. Once he said they were, that was the end of it. Question answered. Not brought up again until you did just now, trying to make hay out of it. Are YOU going to apologize to me for misreading the "silly" statements between myself and Chrisco, and accusing (not just insinuating) me of insulting him? You see the worst, because you wish to. That's a terrible way to live life. That you think me questioning someone's sigline is "the lowest example of class you have ever witnessed on the boards" only demonstrates how deeply you are divorced from reason. There has been far, far, FAR worse on this boards, and if you haven't witnessed it...you haven't been paying any attention at all. You argue from emotion, not reason. This is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility. Your emotion drives you, and one need not go further than this latest "outrage", which has absolutely zero bearing on anything in this thread. It's utterly irrelevant, and designed solely to make me look bad, and if you can succeed in making me look bad, my arguments, as the thinking doubtless goes, won't carry as much weight. It is a classic ad hominem fallacy. I hope...genuinely, for your sake, because it doesn't affect me much at all...that you eventually learn how to disagree with people without becoming emotionally involved. Woooooow. I was just re-living and having a good chuckle at the general Tom foolery of this thread and just noticed this post by you. RMA, you really are a class act guy, bud. (thumbs u -J.

Nice to see that, even with all of the (also deserved) attention being paid to the hulk right now, that the good doctor is still "in": http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2FAuctions%2Fsearch%2Easp%3Fwhere%3Dauctions%26title%3Dstrange%2Btales%2B110%26x%3D23%26y%3D8%26ItemType%3DCB%23Item%5F1024481&id=1024481 Quite a big jump from the last 6.0 sale. -J.

Thank you pub monkey! And a big to your recently completed TMNT 9.8 magazine run. -J.

Thank you kindly gents. Chrisco, may have to wait a little on the Cerebus 1, I'm a little tapped out after this one. You're right though Hulk44, I saw the price near the end of the auction, threw up a thrill bid at the three minute mark, waited on pins and needles to see if any other bids would come, and ended up being a very, very happy camper. -J.

Wow Maloney you sure are on top of things. Thanks ! (thumbs u -J.

Thank you icculus. Took me a little longer for me to grab one than it should have, but better late than never! -J.

Well in honour of the book officially not collapsing I might as well officially join this very exclusive and illustrious club and get my name added to the list: Couldn't be happier. -J.

Actually the movie did "better" than industry predictions, box office wise. And I don't think anyone who saw the casting, character (re) designs and the first previews actually thought it was going to be "good". I don't think it will go for what the last one went for though because the movie bump has indeed faded. I'm still predicting $14-$15k though. There are deep pockets waiting in the weeds on it, of that I am sure. -J.

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post. People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true. There was an obvious and palpable sub-text to both the question itself, and the timing of it (on both occasions). And I said I thought it was a bit tacky, I didn't say I took it personally. FYI, the offer still stands for me to take a camera phone picture with all of the books that have appeared in any of my sig lines together on my carpet if you insist. If nothing else it will give me an excuse to play with them for a few minutes. (thumbs u -J. Oh brother. Do you know that I've been accused of actual, legal fraud and theft on these boards...? And worse, in private, behind my back, where I can't defend myself...? bronzejonny accused me of insulting Chrisco, because he (BJ) misread my post. Where's my apology for that....? (Not holding my breath.) If you're going to try and make hay because someone questioned your sigline, I would suggest finding another board. Except there was no basis or relevance for asking that, and at that time, and in that "forum". You knew what you were trying to do, what implications you were trying to make, and so did any objective person who read it. Anyway, here you go. Black Panther decided to come out and play too just for gits and shiggles: Does this make you feel any differently (worse) about asking such a question on the open boards like that? I'm guessing no. Well at least I won't have to worry about you asking about my sig line a THIRD time now. -J.

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post. People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true. There was an obvious and palpable sub-text to both the question itself, and the timing of it (on both occasions). And I said I thought it was a bit tacky, I didn't say I took it personally. FYI, the offer still stands for me to take a camera phone picture with all of the books that have appeared in any of my sig lines together on my carpet if you insist. If nothing else it will give me an excuse to play with them for a few minutes. (thumbs u -J.

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense. You only discredit yourself. RMA, I didn't make a big deal out of it, even though you did it not once, but twice, off topic, and in the thread. Truthfully, that was a bit tacky. But I do make it a point to not take anything that is said on these boards personally. -J.

Can you please point me to a post where anyone was called a name? Can you please point me to any "meaningless conclusory statements"? Can you please point me to "condescension"? Disagreeing with you, and laying out an argument why, is not "condescension." Jay, the only thing you think is objective is that with which you agree. That isn't objectivity. I need only use your own words: your arguments are made using "publicly available data points"...those who disagree are merely speculating, even though those same data points are used. This is not objectivity. This is the very definition of subjectivity. Look at this very post: "finally, an objective, substantive discussion"...thereby condescendingly dismissing everything else as subjective and insubstantial. You are doing the very thing you're complaining about.. My friend, either you or your mate chuck have either directly or indirectly called me (and others) all of the following pejoratives: 1) Liar 2) Troll 3) Politician 4) Propagandist 5) Conspiracy Theorist 6) Illogical 7) Overly Emotional 8) Intellectually Dishonest 9) Ignorant 10) Incompetent And those are just the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure I can find plenty more if I read back through some of the posts. The following are examples of meaningless conclusory statements (ie, a flat responses with nothing else stated, or any evidence provided to support the response) that have been bandied about by yourself and a couple others who evidently support your position: 1) "You are wrong" 2) "You are incorrect" 3) "You don't know what you are talking about" 4) "You don't understand the market " 5) "You don't know how to read data " 6) "You don't know how to interpret GPA" Again, there are plenty more but these are the ones that first come to mind (and also show more of that condescension as well). It's great that you love your cerebus, but there's no need to attempt to belittle other posters (some of whom do not even use English as a first language) or try to prove to everyone how smart and informed you are by telling everyone else how they are not smart or informed. Stick to the facts man, and don't make it personal and if you're right people will see how intelligent and informed you are on their own (which you obviously are). -J.

Those are fairly strong results although this US 5.5 went for less then the 5.5 at heritage last bug auction. That one went for $23,900 I believe. That one may have been bought at a premium however for its upgrade-ability. It appeared to be a strong 5.5, whereas this one looks about right. That 3.0 rampaged to a new GPA high and sold for more than the 3.0 that just sold here by $1000, and $1300 more than the one that just sold on heritage on Sunday. That's a great result for the UK copy, but I personally would never stop being bothered by that "9d" on the left hand side and would always still want to get a "real" copy if this was my only one, regardless of how inexpensively I got a pence copy for, and I would never spend that kind of money for it to be the only copy in my collection... call me OCD, but none of my other books are pence copies, and I don't live in England. -J.

Bravo to the last 9 or so posts guys. Finally an objective, substantive discussion on the actual facts/data points without a bunch of meaningless conclusory statements, condescension, and name calling. -J.

MJI (and National Diamond) were put in books distributed to overseas military bases (although it has been confirmed that some were distributed at US bases). They ran in every 32 page book (not giants or square bound) from most of the major players (Marvel, DC, Dell/Gold Key, Charlton) from '72 through the early '90s. Unless you have one in a key issue you're not going to see any premium. However, I have seen where they actually make the sale on some more common and/or lower grade books that just don't seem to move. So - any estimate on the premium? - As luck would have it - the latest collection that I bought was from a military estate - have an IM 55 with the diamond insert - I saw images in the thread with the insert noted on the slab- but no real mention in GPA as far as I can tell. THANKS in advance Congrats on the pick up. Yours is the only other copy of that that I have heard of. Any opinion on the grade ? Does it have the star stamp? As far as "premium paid", some people won't pay any, others will. I would say a majority would pay a premium if the insert is in a big key like your IM 55, and the issue is in relative high grade (8.0+). I've seen other keys with the insert sell at a 15-20% premium under those circumstances. Maybe even a little more. -J. No star stamp - with a press - 7 or better - the book is in good shape - some creasing that should press out - no matter what the grade, it is a cool book and the score of the collection - saw this thread earlier but did not realize until tonight that the 55 had the insert (sold an IM 54 to a boardie that had one so I checked) Yes those are always neat to run across. Quite the rarity, I would definitely hold onto that one. -J.

As much as I could give two pieces of doggy poo about what "pq" cgc puts on most labels, even I raise an eye brow at a CA book with "cream to off white pages" on the label. That just seems weird to me. I have no doubt this will keep the price of the 9.2 down. As for the 9.8, who knows. It's just way off pace at the moment. -J.

MJI (and National Diamond) were put in books distributed to overseas military bases (although it has been confirmed that some were distributed at US bases). They ran in every 32 page book (not giants or square bound) from most of the major players (Marvel, DC, Dell/Gold Key, Charlton) from '72 through the early '90s. Unless you have one in a key issue you're not going to see any premium. However, I have seen where they actually make the sale on some more common and/or lower grade books that just don't seem to move. So - any estimate on the premium? - As luck would have it - the latest collection that I bought was from a military estate - have an IM 55 with the diamond insert - I saw images in the thread with the insert noted on the slab- but no real mention in GPA as far as I can tell. THANKS in advance Congrats on the pick up. Yours is the only other copy of that that I have heard of. Any opinion on the grade ? Does it have the star stamp? As far as "premium paid", some people won't pay any, others will. I would say a majority would pay a premium if the insert is in a big key like your IM 55, and the issue is in relative high grade (8.0+). I've seen other keys with the insert sell at a 15-20% premium under those circumstances. Maybe even a little more. -J.

I honestly can't tell if $120k was a strong price or not for that 9.2 on c link. -J.

The 9.8 is looking like it has a lot of ground to make up in the next 24 hours.... -J.