Jaydogrules

Deadline does in the annual accounting for the biggest movies. So when you are spending $100MM on your prints and advertising before you make a single dollar in the theaters (hence it is not "post theatrical") yeah, people are counting it. Having more information and knowing what movies actually cost and when they really do hit profitability is never a bad thing. And regardless of whether you knock the movie for those expenses "post" theatrically, or on the front end when they actually spend it, money spent and lost is money spent and lost. All the rest is just "spinnnnning". -J.

With an all in of about $175MM, there's no way this thing breakers even at $235MM. Not even close. Using that dummy Hughes' own numbers as applied to Venom, break even is more like $350MM. -J.

And *I* remember when this unapologetic DC hack claimed that Venom, similarly budgeted as Birds of Prey and Shazam, needed to make $400MM to be "'worth it". https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/10/05/review-venom-is-the-bane-of-sonys-superhero-plans/amp/ Now extolling two money losing DC flops BoP and Shazam, neither of which sniffed 400MM are now "success stories". Bwahahahahahahaha! The dead Herbalife guy has more credibility than this rambling nimrod. Warner is still playing with unexpected found money from Joker. But as of now they are 1-2. The sad performance of Birds of Prey (and Shazam) is why I'm still raising my eyebrow that Warner would be so dense as to actually triple and quadruple down on failure by still actually following through on a pointless shazam sequel and even more pointless Black Adam movie. -J.

Sold for $6500, right? -J.

Wowza I didn't even see that. Are we sure that's a bona fide tear ? Or just a flaw in the cover stock? -J.

Legit copy. Any guesses on grade from pictures? -J.

Define "king". -J.

Sweet, congrats on that score! @Mister Franklin I've spoken to Diamond about the 648 colour, there were actually only about 450 of those printed. -J.

Well that right there is a little bit of somethin' somethin'. -J.

As these have exploded in popularity even more so the last 2+ years, have opinions/perceptions changed at all or bec further entrenched with all of the new available data? -J.

It's been five years. Maybe time to find a new talking point. https://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2FThe-Amazing-Spider-Man-667-DellOtto-Variant%2F153375873930%3Fhash%3Ditem23b5ea1b8a%3Ag%3A4B0AAOSwHOlcYxUH%26autorefresh%3Dtrue&campid=5338116315&customid=CGCForum&toolid=10001 -J.

This isn't even the highest paid for a raw copy. Another raw one, appearing to be in better condition, went for I believe $8500 early last year. -J.

Looks like the raw ASM 667 Dell'otto on Ebay one-bidded for $6500... https://www.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Spider-Man-Comic-Book-667-DELLOTTO-1-100-Variant-Aprox-200-Printed/283751502775?hash=item4210e853b7:g:MHcAAOSw1kpeLM4S -J.

It's because marvel phase 4 sucks, and all the DC TV shows are long in the tooth. -J.

For last year or for this year ? Same question to @Mmehdy -J.

FF 48 would be my choice for last year. Either that or x men 1. Think I might need to see a little more data before I can make a reasonable guess for this year. -J.

I though So then this is literally all you have, huh? I suppose this is what happens when someone buys the wrong book for cheap (in comparison) and then wants to convince the masses that they're wrong, cheap book "should be" something it is not. And here I thought it was common knowledge those "on sale ads" often weren't reliable back then. DC says now it came out in June, 1940. I suppose they would know better now than an ad from 80 years ago. Just another one of many unfortunate flies in your ointment. So I think I'll stick with what DC says on its official website in 2020, and enjoy watching your windmill tilting from afar since I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point anyway. -J.

And when does DC officially state Superman 4 was released ... ? https://m.readdc.com/Superman-1939-2011-4/digital-comic/T0823700045001 Oops. -J.

You're repeating already failed arguments, and regurgitating information from "Mike's Amazing World Of Comics" website, which for the last time, itself disclaims that it is not an authoratative source. Still tilting at windmills. Oh, and Action 23 actually has the earlier copyright number, so you're still wrong about that too. Oh, and you may want to let DC know what the first appearance of their character is. They also still disagree with you. https://www.dccomics.com/characters/lex-luthor Keep tilting Don Quixote. Maybe somebody someone who matters will care. I'm out. -J.

Huh? This is still just as weak and inconclusive now as it was 15+ pages ago, and it has already been explained ad nauseam why. This is the epitome of tilting at windmills. -J.

A raw, mid-grade beater went for $2250 back in September. -J.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Amazing-Spiderman-667-Variant-Dell-Otto-SUPER-RARE-Comic-Book-Spider-Island/283726378713 -J.

True.... But I think the prize may have gone to FF 48 last year.. -J.

Or... 5) Are privy to facts and contacts that you are not. -J.

Are we considering that a "mega key" now? -J.