Jaydogrules

I just track 9.4-9.8. 9.8- $40K+ 9.4- $11k 9.6- $11.5k (?) Definitely some weird pricing anomaly. 9.6's "should" be $15k-$20k. If I didn't already have one I would get one because they look under valued for the grade compared to surrounding grades IMO. -J.

And a 9.6 just went for only $11.5k. 9.6's continue to exist in a bizarre pricing no man's land. -J.

Agreed. And it's nice to see a rendition of MJ that doesn't look like Bambi. -J.

Actually I have seen most graded copies and many raws. One guy got lucky, a couple before him didn't. -J.

Not a bad price. And a bargain if/when they get published. -J.

Another new data point for a NM 98 with the MJ insert- https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Mutants-98-Vol-1-CGC-9-4-Extremely-Rare-Mark-Jewelers-Insert-1st-Deadpool/362524770960?hash=item5468290290:g:I3sAAOSw0YlcLlFE -J.

Wow these are epic. That Penguin is SICK. -J.

http://comiclink.com/search.asp?where=sell&title=Amazing+Spider-Man+667&GO2=GO&ItemType=CB -J.

Sweet mail call! -J.

A little birdie told me Dell'otto himself got 5-10 courtesy copies at time of release ~8 years ago. Maybe these are some of his. -J.

Because the book has been counterfeited in the past. Either way it looks like you get luckiest boardie of the year award. -J.

This isn't rocket science- All in budget- $190MM Domestic- $183MM @ 50%= $92MM China- $63MM @ 25% = $15MM Other Territories- $110MM @ 40%= $44MM Total net to Sony- $151MM That would be a NEGATIVE (-$39MM) theatrical take. Ruh-roh! The only reason this isn't considered a flop is because of its foaming at the mouth rave reviews, which, unfortunately, did not translate into $ at the box office but "might" help it in the home video market (which, *ahem*, is where it should have been released on one third the budget). That it made somewhat more than even bigger box office disappointments (MP and Bumblebee) is irrelevant. -J.

I thought it was okay. Maybe the foaming at the mouth rave reviews raised my expectations too high. "Best spider man movie ever" was laying it on thick. I just don't know if the movie under performed due to Spider-fatigue, if people just didn't care for this "version" of "Spider-man", or what. That's what I'm worried about. The former would have been less of a concern if it was a DTV release like it should have been. -J.

True but mainly because WW had a better domestic to foreign split. Spiderverse had a budget nearly Venom, higher marketing, and made $500MM less money. Even with Venom's great multiplier, even it netted about $175MM to Sony. So it doesn't take a master accountant using basic movie math to see that spider verse underperformed, even relative to other cartoons released this year. -J.

Do you know what the marketing was for this movie? I read somewhere about $100MM worldwide. Sony pushed this movie HARD and spent more on marketing for this than it did on Venom. You think they're back flipping over $350Mm worldwide? Probably not. -J.

This movie has barely broken even to marginally profitable. It made less than the Grinch on a bigger budget, less than Ralph 2 and barely more than LEGO batman which was also made for less and was considered a big disappointment. It has also made HALF the lowest grossing "worse" Spider-Man movie. It isn't a flop, per se, but it is definitely a financial disappointment, especially for a "Spider-man" movie, despite the over hyped foaming at the mouth rave reviews. Yes, this should have been a ~$30MM budgeted direct to video/pay per view release. -J.

Nice pick ups. That Secret Wars is . -J.

Sold for $8500. -J.

All you need to know is that publishers routinely make it a point to massively over print books that nobody has ordered, because.... (*reasons). -J.

Now you're conflating someone "proving" something that no one has claimed is provable with making reasonable estimates based on publicly available data. -J.

Are "you" aware that all you (and Gower) are doing is "conflation"? Conflating a handful of books being given away at a gathering of certain retailers, with occasional Diamond warehouse sales of limited quantities of remaindered case packs. Conflating the mass over printed books from "the '90's" with the orchestrated and coordinated micro print runs of today. Conflating Marvel with DC. Conflating extraordinarily infrequent anecdotes with an industry wide epidemic. Conflating your isolated storytelling with Marvel's official release on the very subject. I could go on, but, I'm good. -J.

And any of what you just wrote would be relevant if @GeeksAreMyPeeps or anyone else was talking about over printed Valiant or "the '90's". But we're not. I also can't help but notice how you've inartfully dodged the direct question you've been asked by Geeks at least twice now. -J.

You sir a charlatan. Your "proof" is unverified, anecdotal nonsense, not even relevant to the point (?) you believe you're making, and three of the titles aren't even Marvel titles. But Marvel is a "liar", believe only you, that it? Good to see your intense hatred of variants remains strong within you. Peace and Good night. -J.

It's like you're deliberately sidestepping the actual central points to seize upon a nominal secondary issue that has already been addressed repeatedly. -J.

Uh... there are plenty of slabbed images on google images for you to peruse. Only about 30-something legit copies have been slabbed in what, eight years (?), so yeah, a guy who pops up with four brand new looking copies (so far), distributing them raw (naturally) to boardies should probably be more of a red flag to you than the same mis-matching of inks that have already been observed before on other fakes. -J.