Jaydogrules

Deadline still clinging to its own fake news about the first shazam "netting"  $75M in "profits", in a truly sad cope article, and how it totally makes sense that they would make a sequel to such a hugely popular character and movie that everybody loved and clearly wanted to see more of (!), based on a completely made up $155M in "home video" sales that never actually happened or even could have happened by the time they published their fake news.

Basically, the same kind of boot licking BS "creative accounting" they tried to use to show that Black Adam was "profitable".  

All three of these misguided movies have lost money.  I would say that the geniuses who green lit them all should be fired, but they already have been.  

-J.

On 3/15/2023 at 3:24 PM, paperheart said:

the mystery of the review embargo lifting 21 hours prior to release is a mystery no longer

But twitter loves it.  🤷‍♀️

-J.

On 3/15/2023 at 10:56 AM, Artboy99 said:

it is poor story telling and poor character. Ri-Ri is an awful character following in the footsteps of Rey in Star Wars: just simply is the best and has no character journey. Cassie from Quantumania is yet another teen girl that can build a device that can create a portal to the quantum realm and build her own ant suit.

You forgot about Shuri.  

-J.

On 3/12/2023 at 9:40 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Yeah, but if you zoom out >$450 million worldwide is still solid for an Ant-Man film…

And it’s Fk’in *ridiculous* that we’ve gotten three Ant-Man films before one g-d d-n Flash movie.

Not when they spend 200M on it. 

-J.

This poor movie, along with Black Adam, were doomed the moment they were foolishly greenlit.

-J.

On 3/7/2023 at 2:05 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I will say. I admire your dedication to this comic! I've seen your tag sigline, and you have comics that are definite keepers, I wouldn't call this a fascination to this book (could be wrong), but it looks to be devotion.

What can I say.  Nobody's perfect.  😉

-J.

On 3/7/2023 at 6:11 AM, Lockford88 said:

Well, I finally got around to grading my 667. It has some problems on the back corner that are visible, but I was holding out hope for an 8.0-8.5. I wasn’t far off and am satisfied with it overall. 

Nice !  I saw that when it hit the census.  Many copies have back cover flaws.  Looks great from the front.  Congratulations on the book and grade!

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 3:47 PM, paperheart said:

$245M is a crack pipe dream

The third weekend of Disney/Marvel Studios’ Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania at 3,825 theaters is seeing a third estimated Friday of $3.5M and 3-day of $13.3M which will get it to $187.6M.  (that's down nearly 60% for those counting at home)

Hold up.  But variety and deadline just told me yesterday that it was going to make up to 19M this weekend.  🤔

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 11:07 AM, valiantman said:

Come on guys, Jaydogrules has repeatedly pointed out how he's just using the data available and not forcing the results to match some pre-determined conclusion that he's pushing despite the evidence.

 

That would be ridiculously hypocritical and make this whole topic as meaningless as his claims of 

 

 

Duh. I'm allowed to state my opinions on the data and historical trends. 🙄

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 10:12 AM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

The key there being "usually"; I can see why someone dropping 5 figures on a book wants it in the original condition, not autographed. I will note as well that an SS Dell'Otto variant, which sold at the height of the comic market in 9.6, also sold for less than a Universal 9.6 prior to the height of the market. Using data from all label types is fine, but if you're comparing different comics with different labels, that's not a fair comparison. That's comparing apples to oranges. That's manipulating the data to support a pre-determined conclusion.

I'm comparing GRADES irrespective of label color and have been doing same since 2016 to no prior objection from you or anyone else.  

Not doing so now would in fact be "manipulating data to support a pre-determined conclusion".  

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 9:39 AM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

The other UF4 was a SS, and there was not a comparable SS of 667, so it's not a wash, unless you're looking to make it wash to prop up 667.

I refer you back to page 1 of this thread of the criteria I use for this list that considers ALL label types.  And usually signed copies go for more and certainly not 10k below blue copies. The yellow label was actually more in line with what the book has sold for now twice on comiclink making that weirdly high 43k sale on heritage look like the outlier. 

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 9:30 AM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I'm in the same boat. I don't own either book and am not looking to buy either book. But if I was, I would be looking for a UF4, because it's got a much bigger upside.

Generally, I can understand being a little wary of just looking at the last sale to determine a value, because sometimes there are outlier sales, and maybe there just aren't a lot of eyes on some sales. But these are both very visible books, and we have two instances of pretty much the perfect comparison of the books; sales in the same grade closing very near to each other on the same selling platform. And in both cases, UF4 is on top. And the comparable recent average shows UF4 is on top. If you want to go with something like a 5-year moving average, then I guess 667 wins out, but honestly who is going to care about that, except someone with an agenda to make a particular book the winner?

Some of your points are exactly why I use weighted data.
But as to the heritage auction, there were actually two uf 4 9.8's in that auction- one came in above the 667, the other well below, so that's a wash.  Which leaves us with just this one comiclink auction, and sorry that one data point is not near enough, especially with the multiple other copies of the uf4 at or coming to auction, and with many more likely to come out in thr next few months as people cash out on the cartoon.  

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 9:08 AM, valiantman said:

So, you don't want to show the current rankings, you want to show historical rankings as if they're still current rankings by ignoring the current sales that don't match what you personally own, but you don't like historical sales for books that you don't own, like the Ultimate Spider-Man #1 Pichelli Sketch Variant.

Got it.

First, you don't know what books I do or do not own.  Second, yes, the data is weighted.  The list is the Most Valuable Modern Variants, it's not a "hot 10 of the week or last auction result".  If I did what you propose, the next UF 4 sale to go below 30K , automatically makes the 667 #1 again ?

No.

And I reiterate- these books do not only sell in a 9.8.  An 8.0 dell'otto has gone for nearly as much as the uf 4 does in a 9.6.   Data. 

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 8:38 AM, valiantman said:

The CURRENT ranking is looking at the most recent comparison available.

UF#4 won by THOUSANDS of DOLLARS in a direct head-to-head battle.

The Super Bowl battle for #1 was last night. We all saw the winner.

The trophy goes in the hands of the winner, not in the loser's owner's box, because he remembers that time that he didn't lose.

Incorrect. This list is weighted and has become increasingly more so as these books have aged and more sales have occurred.  Which is why the top 10 has remained virtually unchanged for years and I ultimately decided to double it to make it more interesting and relevant.  

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 8:18 AM, Broke as a Joke said:

Congratulations to the new variant king.  UF4 -- the demand is real and growing.  Don't see it stopping now.  

4-2 Dell'otto.

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 8:13 AM, valiantman said:

Most recent sales, head to head... last night.

UF#4 beat ASM667 by THOUSANDS of DOLLARS during the same auction, minutes apart.

Currently, ASM#667 is in 2nd place.

No one (but you) cares what happened 5 sales ago.

Cherry pickin' like there's no one watchin'.

"The data" isn't one data point. That's called cherry picking.🙄 It isn't even two data points. In this case we have 6. And 9.8 is not the only grade these books are sold in.  That's called looking at ALL the date. 

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 8:03 AM, valiantman said:

The data - 4-2 Dell'otto 9.8.   Undefeated in all lower grades.  

-J.

On 3/3/2023 at 7:39 AM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

We get it; you're creating the rules that support your conclusion.

I created a criteria, as spelled out and unchanged since page 1 of this thread from several years ago, before some of the books on it now were even published,  that  ranks these books based on a direct sales comparison methodology with tiebreakers. That's the comparison.  

-J.

On 3/2/2023 at 8:22 PM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

No mention of how the 667 sold for nearly 10K less as well?

Because it sold for 7 less and it didn't have a second 9.8 copy in the same auction that also sold for more than 10k less like the UF 4 did.  

-J.

On 3/2/2023 at 8:13 PM, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

That's just it; I'm looking at the relevant comparable data.

Me too.  And it's currently 4-2 Dell'otto in 9.8's and a clean sweep for the Dell'otto in all lower grades. 

-J.

On 3/2/2023 at 7:44 PM, valiantman said:

Market cap isn't messy when it's a runaway blowout. UF4 over ASM667 by a landslide. Collectors value UF4 significantly more than ASM667, so much so that any way you calculate market cap, it's UF4 by a mile.

If you don't use market cap, then one sale of one unique Marvel book (and you know they'll do one someday) for $100,000 will make all these sales meaningless. ASM 667 is bigger than a six-figure 1-of-1 Marvel (which is inevitable). Market cap is already the reason why.

No.  Market cap IS messy because it assumes all copies would sell for the same top dollar amount, and that is not reality.  Case in point, this copy of UF 4 just sold for over $10k less than the one copy that supposedly sold on heritage just a couple of weeks ago.  

-J.

On 3/2/2023 at 7:32 PM, valiantman said:

All the data would include the market share also. The collective value of these variants. The books people actually have the most money invested in. ASM 667 has never come close to UF 4... not even close. Just one book is not the market. Four sales of a book is not the market. The whole market is the market.

Don't ignore the forest of a variant, by clinging to individual trees chopped down a year ago.

Attempting a "market cap" analysis on comic books is messy.  Especially when there's well under 100 slabs in existence of a particular high priced book.   That's why I don't do it.  But I could see why someone else might try to do it.  And I'm looking at head to head 9.8 sales, in addition to below grades that have all happened in the last few months  not only a year ago.   

-J.

On 3/2/2023 at 7:14 PM, valiantman said:

Just admit that you don't have UF #4 variant, so people will stop thinking that you've obviously got something against the variants you don't own, and they'll know that you've got something against the variants you don't own.

Lol I'm just following the data bub. ALL the data.  

-J.