Jaydogrules

That was an awesome pick up by the way. And pay no never mind to those few people who are deluding themselves into believing that there is any consistent or provable or even quantifiable price difference. There is not. Perhaps they are attempting to rationalize overpaying for books themselves in the past, who knows. But there is no price difference and there never has been, especially in a book as common as this in the BA where even "white pages" on the label is nothing unique or special. -J.

Bravo. -J.

Of course you begin with the false premise that the alleged "PQ" CGC puts on labels is itself on labels is either accurate or consistent (which most "collectors" know it is not). Then you compound your problem by assuming "most collectors" even know what the "PQ" on the label is supposed to represent. Then you finish yourself off with the same conclusory statements, which you continue to make, with no supporting facts. And you show the utter disingenuousness of your arguments by purporting that when someone does produce facts, they are anecdotal/cherry picking, which is a hoot considering that you produce NO FACTS (likely because you know if you did they could just as easily also be called "anecdotal" or "cherry picking"). But sorry Mr. Scientist, you're not going to skate by on unsupported generalities and conclusory proselytizing. So tell you what, any time you ever actually feel so obliged as to produce a data set, I am and will always be ready to produce one to prove the opposite (as I always have). -J.

This hypothetical (and unlikely) thought experiment is a straw man. So I will answer with a non-answer- Barring brittle I don't give much or any credence to what CGC puts on a label regarding "PQ" (and certainly not anything in the BA where "white pages" is nothing rare or hard to come by). -J.

Nothing has been proven. Your unsupported, conlusory statements are not "proof" of anything, nor are the generic statements of a couple of people on these boards who you think agree with you. The fact is and has always been that no "premium" exists, and cannot be quantified or proven, and even if it could, it would be so wildly inconsistent (much like how CGC assesses "PQ" itself) as to be rendered utterly meaningless. Funny (ironic) on how whenever I cite multiple data points disproving your bogus statements it is called "cherry picking". But when you try (poorly) to do the same thing, it is "evidence". Lol So what does it all mean ? It means nothing. Fact is, even if you ever bothered to produce a specific data set I could easily produce an equal amount of data to prove the opposite, causing the alleged "averages" you purport to exist to be reduced to a standard deviation within an expected price range of sales prices that can just as easily be explained by venue, auction end time, seller feedback, etc, as the so-called "PQ" on the label. That means your conclusory statements fail to satisfy even the most rudimentary requirements of the scientific method. Which means your conclusory statements are, have always been, and will likely continue to be, categorically wrong. -J.

It went for $7644. Just $100 more than this guy's 9.0. That suggests that his sale was an outlier (for now, at least), irrespective of the random and generally meaningless "PQ" on the label. -J.

Prove it. -J.

+1 If all you can say is something stupid and negative after watching that, then you are obviously not a fan, are just a perpetual hater, and really, what's the point of even posting in the thread. As a fan, I'm seeing everything I would hope for in a Venom flick, and just cannot wait until next Friday. -J.

Nah... http://collider.com/venom-box-office-predictions/ -J.

$60MM-$70MM -J.

It's projected to be the biggest film of the Fall and one of (if not "the") highest grossing first weekend takes for October releases, ever. Why do you think Sony has already green lit two sequels ? -J.

-J.

How did the late review embargo on Deadpool 2 turn out ? -J.

You do realize that "collectors" completely disprove this fallacy, literally on a daily basis, and with specific regards to this book, right ? -J.

That is a nice 9.0. Congrats! -J.

Bad example. Along with the other pre-Robin Tecs, the "value" is in the classic cover. -J.

That auction was also shilled. -J.

The cover is reprinted from an interior panel of an American comic book (the story itself inside is also reprinted material). -J.

Keep fighting the good fight. Maybe one day that windmill will actually turn into a knight on a horse. -J.

The German one is a reprint too. -J.

People really need to stop crying about why 180 is worth such a small fraction compared to 181. It wouldn't even be worth that if it wasn't for 181. Everybody knows there's a meaningless, throw away one panel teaser cameo at the end of 180, and nobody would otherwise care if it were not for 181. Hulk 180 is a poor man's 181 and that's all it will ever be. -J.

Thanks man. Happy to finally be a member! That's a nice sketch you have by him as well! -J.

I think I had it at #4 on the last update but it would be first or second now. That was definitely a blockbuster sale. -J.

Depending on when you sold it most likely was at the time. I have always thought that is Campbell's best cover, and I expect it to always be his top 1 or 2 highest value books because of that. Plus, that book in blue 9.8 grade doesn't often come to market. -J.

I saw that too. A strong sale, although about $300 below the all time GPA high of $4500 (although, granted, when that sale happened it was about $1k over the prior GPA high). Didn't you sell yours? I also saw an X 23 1 Dell'otto sell for $1800 a couple days ago, which is a high for that book. -J.