GeeksAreMyPeeps

Yea If a book moves because a "spec" site likes it, that's a bad reason to invest. If a book moves because of a media deal, key issue, or rarity, that's a good reason to invest. If it's a comic book that's a bad reason to "invest". +1 Every time someone uses the word 'invest' in regards to comics, I can't help but chuckle. And 'movement', that's another one. 'Movement' "Some sucker on eBay bought a copy! Get yours ready!" This +1000. Traditionally, an investment is something that generates income while it is held and speculation is something held in anticipation of gains when it is sold. So, comics, gold and tulips are not investments they are speculation. Bonds are an investment. Stocks could be either one. Neither is a bad thing, but the strategies for maximizing returns are different for each. This is a great article, that helps explain the nuances in the distinction: Investing vs. Speculating QFT- "So, if you buy something with the expectation or hope that you can eventually sell it to someone else for more than you paid, that’s a speculation. ... Overall, we can describe ourselves and the way we participate in the market any way we want. It’s more important to be aware of what exactly we are partaking in, and are honest with ourselves as to why we’re doing it. " The key is that neither are "wrong" just different and apply different rules. If you look at your comics as a financial instrument, then you need to understand what sort of financial instrument they are and how best to maximize your return. For me, I don't see comics as a financial instrument. They are a hobby. However, I don't have a problem with people that do see comics as a financial instrument and behave ethically toward that end. I like them because they buy my comics in which I have no interest. For me, my investments are in my portfolio and my comics are in my closet The article talks in circles really, basically how the author chose to phase things. Investing: Pay yourself first Well, the old way was easy to tell. An investment is something that pays you. So is real estate an investment? It can be. If you purchase a house or a building and then rent it out, the answer is yes. Of course, if the income doesn’t cover your expenses, then it’s a bad investment. ... The same can be said of buying artwork, or any other collectible, and yes, even an education. You may get back what you put in, and maybe more. And then again, you may not. On the other hand, buying a business fits the classic definition. The caveat, of course is that that how “good” an investment depends on how much profit is derived from owning it. Taken out of context, the quoted portion may seem confusing. However, the point is pretty straight forward, artwork and collectibles are generally not an investment because they don't pay income while you hold them. Any gains are realized on the back end when they are sold. But, they could be investments if they were able to generate income while you held them e.g. artwork in an art museum that generated revenue. But in the end, it's all semantics. I'm not here to defend the article. If someone wants to call them investments, I don't have a problem with that, I just don't agree with them. By this reasoning any stock that doesn't pay a dividend is not an investment, but rather speculation. But I don't agree with that, since what the stock represents (ownership in a company) can be building value depending on the finances of the company. Of course some stocks are still very speculative when the expected value is built on too may ifs. I think liquidity is a key aspect in separating what is an investment vs. what is speculation. That's why I don't necessarily think that even modern keys with small print runs are "investments," because we don't know what the pool of potential buyers is going to look like down the road.

How the hell does Doomsday put his undies on (besides "very carefully")?

Would CGC check something like this to determine whether it's legitimate? I imagine if this had been put together after the printing process there would signs similar to restored books

You could say the same thing about Star Wars: A New Hope. we knew NOTHING and had no back story of the characters or the world they lived in, George just dropped us right in the middle of the action and counted on the audience to fill in the blanks or figure it out, which is what I loved about it. wasn't that the appeal for a long time as well with Wolverine and his unknown Origins, until, that is, Marvel made his origins known. I don't mind not having every thing set up or explained to me before hand. I really enjoyed the Death of Supes storyline and the Funeral for a friend follow up. it's what got me back into comics as a young adult. I did NOT like the Four Supermen storyline that followed, (Cyborg, Superboy, Eradicator, and Steel), I think you're cherry picking some phrases in the criticism. The bottom line is that there's nothing established within the story either. You can pass on "setup" if your story reveals what the reader needs to know. The Death of Superman storyline didn't do that, from what I remember. not necessarily talking about just the setup, but the entire world of Star Wars was foreign to us without much explanation, my point was/is does everything need to be known to enjoy the story? we didn't know much of what "the force" was until of course Midiclorians, (ugh), some of my favorite movies/TV shows/stories are those that don't lay everything out for you. 2001 space odyssey, 12 Monkeys, just to name a few. Some things don't necessarily need an explanation. A viewer could understand the concept of the Force because it's analogous to religion, and that is made clear, even if everything isn't completely explained. As I remember it, there's not much to go on at all as to why Doomsday was rampaging through Metropolis. He was just something that Superman had to stop. That's kinda cardboard storytelling.

You could say the same thing about Star Wars: A New Hope. we knew NOTHING and had no back story of the characters or the world they lived in, George just dropped us right in the middle of the action and counted on the audience to fill in the blanks or figure it out, which is what I loved about it. wasn't that the appeal for a long time as well with Wolverine and his unknown Origins, until, that is, Marvel made his origins known. I don't mind not having every thing set up or explained to me before hand. I really enjoyed the Death of Supes storyline and the Funeral for a friend follow up. it's what got me back into comics as a young adult. I did NOT like the Four Supermen storyline that followed, (Cyborg, Superboy, Eradicator, and Steel), I think you're cherry picking some phrases in the criticism. The bottom line is that there's nothing established within the story either. You can pass on "setup" if your story reveals what the reader needs to know. The Death of Superman storyline didn't do that, from what I remember.

There are five golden ticket variants to Unity #1 that we know they only produced one of, so at best it would be a tie. Regarding slabbing double covers, the number on the label is generally the better (usually the inner) cover, so even if the outer has creases, if the inner is better it will grade higher.

One popular comic writer at the time (I think it was Peter David, but I could be wrong) claimed that the big problem with the storyline is that Superman (written properly) always finds a way to solve the problem that's more than just brute force.

Wouldn't it be a problem that none of the characters from Justice League 69 are in the movie? That didn't seem to prevent the first issue of the '90s Guardians of the Galaxy series from getting a bump.

I would add that I was once in possession of 1/10 of the print run of one of the variants, but Valiantman would put that to shame.

I was just flipping through the 2013 FCBD book. Those that consider previews to be first appearances should probably hunt this down, because it contains the preview of the first appearance of: • Morris Kozol (head of PRS) • Generation Zero • The Torment • The Faraway • the VEI versions of Quantum & Woody

I wonder if on other planets there are action figures that look human that are basically Joe from the Bar.

Yea If a book moves because a "spec" site likes it, that's a bad reason to invest. If a book moves because of a media deal, key issue, or rarity, that's a good reason to invest. If it's a comic book that's a bad reason to "invest". QFT

Sounds like he wasn't a very good cop.

It cost someone about $3/book to acquire, so it was worth that much to that person

I remember reading that this series was originally creating so top talent that didn't work on the monthly title of a character could have a showcase for a story on a character they had a story idea for. But it later became a dumping ground for inventory stories (The "fillers" mentioned previously) that outlived their usefulness.

Some of the Age of Apocalypse books have reprints. My copy of X-Men Chronicles #1 is a second print. I think Astonishing X-men #1 has a second print as well. And many have "X-tra" editions. Don't know whether those are technically reprints.

I think you mean $2 each.......... HAHAHAHA It's $3 a piece for the buyer once shipping is factored in. But I can see Spider-man 2099 getting a little attention since the character was brought back recently.

Remember in the '90s when Ghost Rider and the Punisher were hot, so Marvel created versions of them for 2099 and the Guardians of the Galaxy timeline? Was anyone interested in those? The print runs on those book were massive, the art was poor and the writing was nowhere near the level we are at now. The only 2099 books worth anything ( not counting the toy edition for Spider-Man 2099 ) are some of the final issues and it's not due to quality. At least Spider-man had Peter David writing it. I couldn't tell you who worked on any of the other books, except that Stan Lee supposedly wrote Ravage.

They've been around a lot longer than you and have seen ridiculous threads pumping up bad books just for the sake of it many, many times. Pre Heat? What a pointless thread... The modern forum used to be interesting once. In my day, talk of Moderns was for Copper books

Remember in the '90s when Ghost Rider and the Punisher were hot, so Marvel created versions of them for 2099 and the Guardians of the Galaxy timeline? Was anyone interested in those? briefly, yes. punisher 2099 1 sold a lot of copies. was it ever more than a $5 back issue? probably not. i collect the ashley wood GR 2099s, but that's because i am weird like that. I think the reason Punisher 1 sold a lot of copies was due to rampant speculation. It's not like the 2099 version was a known quantity. Punisher was hot, so people figured a new version of him would be hot and bought a lot. I don't remember hearing any buzz about the quality of the book. Point is, pumping out a new character that happens to have the same name as a popular character really only matters in the long run if there's quality to back it up.

Remember in the '90s when Ghost Rider and the Punisher were hot, so Marvel created versions of them for 2099 and the Guardians of the Galaxy timeline? Was anyone interested in those?

Low supply. High demand. Perceived (at the very least) key.

Is this the closest any publisher has gotten to producing a 1 of a kind variant? Seriously, we can count on 2 hands the number of retailers who can order 4,999 copies of a single issue of a comic book. Valiant did five "Golden Ticket" editions for the order-all covers of Unity #1. The artwork is the same but the UPC calls out that it's a variant. Only three of the five have been publicly announced to have been found.

That issue is also the first appearance of the Shadow Seven (and most of the individual members).