Von Cichlid

Punisher War Journal's 1-20 were awesome.  Stories, art, and everything.  I also loved the Portacio issues from the regular series.  8, 9, and 10 were my favorites.  The Daredevils from 250 to about 280 or so were great as well.  The Wolverine regular series was pretty fantastic until about issue 48 were they started the ret-con of his past.  Issue number 10, the first battle with Sabretooth, I must have read over a 100 times front to back.  It single-handedly made Sabretooth the nastiest villian in the Marvel Universe.  And what did they do?  They ripped the whole story apart over a drecky stretch of 20 issues.   

7 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

The Captain Universe Spideys were really hot for a minute there during Acts of Vengeance.

I loved Acts of Vengeance, such fond memories.  Punisher 28 has such an awesome cover, Spider-Man versus Magneto was cool as was X-Men 256-258.  Even Wolverine versus Tiger Shark was cool.  

I thought it was common knowledge that the cape was what allowed Superman to fly. 

Speaking of, who was the first character to fly without a cape or wings?  I guess Human Torch, maybe.

On 3/19/2020 at 5:57 AM, Ken Aldred said:

Nicely spotted comic book connection there.

I don’t mind Sal’s artwork at all.  For me he’s associated with some very good Spider-Man stories during the 80s / 90s period, especially J M DeMatteis’  psychodramas.

 

I'm the same way.  I started collecting late 80's early 90's and those Spectacular Spider-Man books were actually some of my favorite to read at that time-  Especially those issues with Tombstone and Punisher.  

After 227, 232, and 251, Detective 400 is the one to get.  I'm in the market for one now, and I am finding out that that book ain't cheap if you want a nice copy.

2 hours ago, kav said:

True story.  I mean people cant really fly but here you have this cover.

If it wasn't for that magic flute, there's no telling how that hose would have got pointed at that fire.

4 minutes ago, kav said:

And the current variant hype and 9.8 frenzy.  Bubbles.

I think the variant hype is a bubble because of the fact that more variants can be made each month, essentially printing money just like the early 90's.

I don't feel that way about the 9.8 frenzy though, at least as it pertains to pre-90's material.  That seems a lot more genuine to me.  I think somebody that spends big on a 9.8 is probably not looking to flip as much as they are just really OCD about condition, which is totally understandable.  Nothing takes you back to your childhood like seeing a book look just like the day it came off the press.  That nostalgia/escapist factor, to me, is much of the essence of collecting anything.   

5 hours ago, Jasten said:

And how many of people collect now a days because they grew up in the 90's and were caught up in it all? I bet the number is a hell of a lot more than you think. In fact, without the 90's, i bet comics would be long gone by now. There was some great content in the 90's and it sparked the love of comic books for so many people. It's so irritating to hear people trash that era...

I'll agree with this.  In the late 80's early 90's the sky was the limit for Marvel.  X-Men, PWJ, ASM, Wolverine, Daredevil, New Mutants, Silver Surfer, etc.  I loved and read all those titles.  There was so many cool new artists and memorable story lines (at least to a 12 year old like me) that I just read as many books as I could all the time.  

I personally blame the creative exodus that started Image for ruining comics.  Greed from the publishers and creators did infinitely more damage to the hobby than speculators, IMO.

As far as the 90's overall however, it was a pretty bad decade, especially the middle part.  I liked the Marvel Knights stuff at the end of the decade, but from about 92 - 97 it was pretty bleak, again, IMO.  

4 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Anyway, here are some more issues that fit the thread:

 

 

Probably any Wonder Woman issue worth more than cover price would fit this thread.  

Just now, mattn792 said:

340 

Dude, I was talking about the Man-Bull.  

Batman 227 and 423 are the first that immediately come to mind.  I still think 75% of HOS 92's value comes from the cover alone, but that doesn't fit the criteria for entry.  I'm not sure if Hulk 341 should be in here either.  It does have the first Marvel appearance of the "classic" McFarlane style, but again, that cover contributes to most of its success.   

Am I missing something here?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-MUTANTS-98-1st-APPEARANCE-DEADPOOL-DOMINO-GIDEON-ROB-LIEFELD-MARVEL-COMICS/293478323505?hash=item4454abd531:g:Fd8AAOSwrWFePiZW

13 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

What's the price range of 'affordable"?

I think "affordable" means mostly that the book hasn't exploded yet or reached its full potential.  It also means price relative to other keys in the era.  For example, Daredevil 1 is more expensive than NM 98, but Daredevil 1 would be considered an affordable key while people would probably have many other copper options in mind before putting NM 98 in that category.   

32 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

I can’t understand what you’re trying to say.

I think he is saying that he would only slab a book to sell if it would make him a net profit with the price he paid factored into the situation.  If he would lose money in the slabbed or raw scenario, then he would opt not to sell at all, thereby not losing money.

You and Hamlet are approaching this from the mindset that the book must be sold, and are deciding that slabbing is worth it when the increase in sale price is more than the cost of slabbing.

Krypto is approaching this from the mindset that it is better not to sell at all if even when slabbed it would result in him getting less than he paid for it.

Deathlok stuff is pretty cool and not too expensive.  As a character he was way ahead of his time for the period.

The only flaw I can see is a slightly rounded bottom right corner.  That would keep it from a 9.8 probably.  Otherwise it looks really fresh.  Those are some very white pages.

I would call the new age something along the lines of the "Movie Subsidiary Age," I just can't think of anything catchier.

Although movies like Superman (1978) and Batman (1989) were major hits, people knew of these characters from the comics first.  Same with Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, and maybe the X-Men too.

Around 2010 (when I would say this age began), you started getting major blockbusters like Ironman, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers, Black Panther, etc.

Now, collectors have known these as comic book characters for decades, but the general public has not.  Ask your average person when the first time they ever heard of Black Panther, Rocket Raccoon, Groot, Thanos, Ironman (even), Nick Fury, and Captain Marvel was and I would bet anything the vast majority would say "When the movie came out."  Heck, none of those characters, save Ironman, could even carry an ongoing series more than a few years, but yet the movies they are involved in were all blockbusters.

Essentially, movies are now by far the driving force of superhero consumption, not the comic books, so I deem this the "Movie Subsidiary Age," or maybe the "Cinematic Age."

Here is a link to the highest grossing superhero movies of all time (adjusted for inflation).   https://www.superherohype.com/movies/423213-highest-grossing-superhero-movies 

3 hours ago, thunsicker said:

While I would be happy to share this information if I had it, there is none-the-less a corollary to this.  The minute enough people had this formula it would no longer work.  Let’s say you figure out the prices peaked two weeks before the reviews drop, or one week after wide release, or whatever the optimal time was.  If everyone started dumping at that point the peak price would suddenly be one week before everyone started dumping it.

I get that.  It's kind of like quantum mechanics.  The act of measuring a particle's position forces it into a position that it would not necessarily be in if its position were not being measured in the first place. 

Venom had a Web of Spider-Man 18 and 24 and ASM 298 and 299, so that is a tie.  Mystique is up there too.

I would have guessed copper but it does make sense how it would be bronze/silver.  Most copper stuff is just too cheap to justify the shipping costs.  Furthermore, much copper age is readily available in decent condition at LCS's.  I know all the copper keys come through my LCS on a very regular basis multiple times per year, except for early TMNT and stuff like that.  

If I wanted a X-Men 266 , ASM 300, or any New Mutants, I could wait a month and they would get one if they don't have one already.

Silver on the other hand, while I have seen plenty of nice books / semi-keys that I have bought on impulse, I have never seen one in particular that I have previously wanted at that precise moment.  Like if you want a TTA 44 or 52, an JIM 89, 103, 112, or any pre-1965 silver really, it is very unlikely they will have a copy of one of those, never even mind it being in decent condition.  ebay is your best shot on something like that.    

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Correct...which was answered with the two examples above. New Mutants #87 second printing is dated 3/90, even though it came out a year or so later. 

Most, if not all, of the Joe reprints, for example, are also dated from the original issue, not when the reprint came out:

That book came out 4+ years after the original, but it's still dated "August, 1982."

That's not an inconsistency on CGC's part. CGC goes by the indicia...not the cover date, be it original or new. X-Men #248 was an exception to Marvel's practices.

Here's another example: the indicia for the book says "9/90", but the second printing was printed sometime in 1992 (which is made obvious by the Spidey 30th anniversary UPC box art.)

In the case of the older reprints of keys that Marvel was into in 1991-1993, they usually revised the date in the indicia. But for the newer reprints, they kept the indicia, which is why that Hulk #377 3rd print is dated 1/91, when it was printed in 1994.

OK my mistake.  Shouldn't have blamed CGC.  

On 1/27/2020 at 5:16 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Because Marvel didn't change cover dates.

 

 

 

And they were inconsistent with indicias, too.

I think he meant why does the CGC label show a cover date of 3/90.

That is an inconsistency on CGC's part.  In the X-Men 248 reprint, for example, they post the reprint date of 6/92 as opposed to 6/89.

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

What's sad about that book is there are probably 5 times as many of it than the first print.

At the time that was the hottest, most expensive Marvel comic from the copper age.  It was probably higher than ASM 300 too, but I would have to look in some old Wizard's to be sure.  

On 1/27/2020 at 4:25 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

PS. For those keeping score at home, New Mutants #87 was reprinted in between New Mutants #100 and X-Force #1...over a year after the first print.

That what I was thinking.  I was going to look it up but you beat me to it.  I remember from being a kid at the time that that book came out way later.  

2 hours ago, LordRahl said:

Were you aware that the book was trimmed? Everything about that auction sends off shady seller vibes. 

They took a weed wacker to the top edge of that thing.  Sheesh...