RockMyAmadeus

I really wish you wouldn't mischaracterize what I say. I am not saying the census is meaningless at all, essentially or otherwise. I am saying you are using the census incorrectly. That's not accurate. Explanation below. I've never said, nor given any indication whatsoever, that I resent this book in any way. I have no problem whatsoever with this book, and I shouldn't have to always explicitly spell these things out all the time. And even if someone did resent something, that doesn't mean they wouldn't talk about it. Lots of logical inconsistencies, here. But I digress. As always, I am going to ask you for examples and proof of this claim. This statement is the very crux of the issue. You are misusing and misinterpreting the census to arrive at conclusions that cannot be drawn. Let me use a very obvious examples to illustrate the problem: A book has a print run of 500. As we know, "print run of 500" doesn't literally mean only 500 copies are printed; almost always, there is a 5-10% overrun to account for damages. Now, say that book is very popular with the CGC crowd, and nearly every copy is submitted. The census shows 528 copies have been submitted for a book that only had a print run of 500. Accounting for possible resubmissions, if we didn't know independently from other sources that the book had print runs of 500, we might assume the book had a very large print run, based on how you're trying to use the census. Conversely...say a book has a print run of 247,000 copies, but there are only 4 copies on the census. Using the census the way you're trying to do might lead someone to conclude that a particular book is very rare, when it's only an example of lack of interest in that particular book. The census, in trying to establish the rarity of any particular item, only operates in very, very broad ways. It doesn't give us an accurate picture (and never can) of what might exist; it only tells us what DOES exist, and even that, due to resubmissions, isn't completely accurate, either. It would be an error to look at the census and say "yes, this book is rare, because of these census numbers." It's also an error to say "yes, this book is rare or not rare because of its frequency on the marketplace." The marketplace is only a snapshot in time of what is available by people looking to sell what they have. If items are held in very strong hands, it could be relatively....key word there...common, but unavailable on the market, even if it does have value above and beyond costs. The census, especially as it relates to what exists outside of the census, and the marketplace only shows us what the situation tends towards. It tends to be the case that a book may be rare based on low census numbers, or scarcity in the marketplace, but that is as far as you can go. There is no conclusion that may be arrived at using the census and marketplace in this way, for the reasons stated above. This is why your argument that there are "only 100 or fewer copies if Sandman #8 variant, because there are so few on the census" is wrong. Can it be proven wrong? Yes, eventually. But one doesn't need to wait for that proof, when one simply applies logic and reason, knowing what we know about all the factors involved. Please provide proof that shows what the print runs of these books are. A statement from Marvel, Diamond, COA (like Dynamic Forces used to issue), anything along those lines that is an official statement of print run. I don't expect anything I claim to be accepted without proof. That's the standard we all need to hold ourselves to.

There are 3 Blue, and 1 SS copy in 9.8 now. Mine's not so unique anymore....

The entire print run for the regular cover has nothing to do with the print run of any variant. I don't have ANY information regarding the print run for this variant. However...what I do know, and what needs to be made clear, is that 1:XX are allocation numbers, not print run numbers. And, I also know that, usually, print runs for variants are not generally less than 1,000, because anything lower than that, though of course possible, is not worth the effort for Marvel, DC, Image, etc. There's really no need to be demeaning. Just because you don't agree with or understand the analogy, does not mean it is "absolutely nonsensical." The print run of Platinum Spiderman had nothing whatsoever to do with the print run of the regular versions, so bringing up the regular version print runs is not relevant. The print run of Platinum Spiderman was 10,000....but at the beginning, and for many years afterwards, the prices were kept artificially high because Marvel sat on a good 3,000 of the copies, and stores only got a single copy...and the copies were distributed were distributed very, very widely. Platinum Spiderman #1 was rare, too. Well, I imagine people who want to own Primer #2 care. It's just an analogy, jay. The circumstances are similar, and anyone who says "oh, no, there's no warehouse copies of thus and such modern book" will be pointed to Primer #2. If it can happen with Primer #2, 20 years after the fact, it can happen with any modern book. What do you base these numbers on? Guesswork? Since when does the census have anything whatsoever to do with the print run of any book? They have nothing to do with each other, and it is a comparison that simply cannot be made.

That isn't how print runs for allocated variants work. 1:XX has to do with allocation to retailers as a percentage of orders; it has little to do with the actual print run. I suspect the print run was actually much closer to 2,000 than 500, based on Marvel's practice. 2,000 is still a tiny amount for a Spiderman book...maybe even scarce....but Spiderman #1 Platinum sold for $500 back in 1990, when it was 1 per store, period. After the additional cases that Marvel had were released to the market, the price took a pretty big nosedive. The odds of a case of Primer #2 sitting in a warehouse were beyond remote...yet it happened, according to Joe Koch. Primer #2 has been tough since Day One, and particularly tough in NM/M condition, as it has a mostly black, thin, weak cover that shows every single flaw. Hey, so did Primer #2! Fan recreated art....this is just a rework of the John Romita panel that is quite famous....it makes sense that there would be posters, prints, and the like, since the cover itself is an homage.

Jay answered, a few posts back:

I sold all three of my 9.8 blue Harby #1s. $720,. $720, and $650 (I needed the money.) My "willing to sell" price was always $500. I refused to sell below that. For several years, no interest....and why should there be, the book was selling for $300-$400. I'm very glad I waited. On to the next batch!

I had a buyer walk away over a $2.51. I called them cheap here on the boards and got a 7 week strike. It's a crazy world. Yeah, some people are just serious tightwads. I love when I have a comic on eBay that's originally listed at $3.00 and I have it on sale for $1.50 and I get an offer on it for $1.25. Really??? Sorry.

Yes, it would be nice to see just how these were distributed, but I suspect no one kept complete records. Think about this: Primer #2, first Grendel, is supposed to have had a 2,000 print run. This is the number that I believe Joe Koch came up with (and he was in a position to know.) It was an uber expensive book in the B&W "craze", and remained so for much of the 90's....until Gary Dolgoff (I think it was Gary Dolgoff...might have been Koch) found an undistributed case of them. Yup...200 or so copies, brand spankin' new (but kind of banged up.) They were parceled out on eBay in the late 90's. I bought several at $30/per. That's where my four 9.8s, among others, came from.

Do not be fooled. 1:XXX numbers aren't real, and never have been. Those numbers refer to allocation, not print run. I have seen people claim this book had a print run of "500". That's possible....but not likely. Marvel rarely prints books in numbers of 500, even for its scarcest of scarce books. It's very possible...because we've seen it over and over again....that Marvel/Diamond has warehoused copies of various incentives, to use as....well...incentives, and we know that Marvel/Diamond has a retailer/wholesaler where unsold variants...including some quite rare ones...can be purchased in bulk. It may be that a case or two of this book is hiding in a warehouse somewhere. Or, it could be that all the copies were distributed far and wide, and sitting in people's collections. Hard to say. But, if history is any teacher, it's safe® to assume that these books are just tied up in the distribution warehouse chain somewhere, because it's happened for many, many, many books in the past.

Caught up in the madness. Indeed.

"GIMME GIMME GIMME". Is this what RMA meant ? If so, then we probably deserve a crash. Anyone who suddenly wants this book simply because the concept of a potential movie was announced and pays "$700+" will probably lose money, as hundreds and hundreds (thousands?) of copies are now being boxed and readied for CGC as I type this. Although I do still find RMA's comments hypocritical, considering he will be an active particpant in the "madness". I don't think anybody who pays $700 for this book would ever (or have any right) to go back to the dealer who sold them the book six months later and blame them for their nonsensical impulse buy. And I don't think that is anything RMA (or any other dealer) worries about. It really is a "GIMME GIMME GIMME" on both sides then, isn't it RMA. By the way, the books to own are (still) X-men 1, Hulk 181, NM 87 and 98. Those no-name D-lister mutants in MGN 4 will not be what carry any movie (assuming the movie even happens). The general public has gone to see every x-men movie thus far essentially for wolverine. The comic fan boys want to see Deadpool and Cable now. The real X-men would undoubtedly appear in any "New Mutants" movie as well. And Oops, what if the potential title literally means what it says and FOX actually creates "new mutants" that never appeared in any comic. Quite the possibility, since, lets face it, the "new mutants" that appeared in the comics really are quite lame. -J. That would be hilarious, but I bet Fox cannot just slap these brands on any characters due to contract restrictions. With that said, I mentioned before I am in awe how many people are sucked into this movie hype. People that could care less about a book today, but when a movie is announced, all of a sudden they want the book. I don't understand the mentality at all. Why is the book more desirable because of a movie? I am so glad I made the decision to divest myself of most of my collection. Every day, a new book is popping and I am able to capitalize on it. If I sold my collection 5-10 years ago, I wouldn't have gotten nearly as much as I'm am able to make today. I don't understand it, but I also am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. Jay doesn't understand what hypocrisy is. It means "don't do this" while you do it, or "do this", while you refuse. Recognizing that the prices the market is paying at this point is unsustainable, while simultaneously selling at those market prices isn't hypocrisy. I'm not telling anyone to not sell at those prices, while I do, nor am I telling anyone not to buy anything, while I buy. It's a simple acknowledgement of what is, and what it might lead to. I find it offensive, and would like Jay to apologize, but hey, no one cares what I find offensive.

I had a buyer walk away over a $2.51. I called them cheap here on the boards and got a 7 week strike. It's a crazy world. You got off too light. Heh heh heh... "Dribbleturd"...

Poor Flash.

Do you have a source for this information? It would be good to file this away for reference.

The first mention of "6 Infinity Gems" is Marvel Team-Up 55. I believe I posted the exact panel maybe 6 months ago in this thread. I'm not sure where the first individual gem is mentioned but MP 1 is probably as good a guess as any. First Soul/Infinity Gem: Marvel Premiere 1 First Mention of Multiple Infinity/Soul Gems: Random Issue of Captain Marvel Here's what Wikipedia states are the 1st appearances/mentions of the gems/stones. I know Wikipedia can be edited, but more than likely whoever posted this did their homework. I found this interesting: But Marvel Wikia states SS44 as first appearance: http://marvel.wikia.com/Infinity_Gauntlet_%28Item%29 I don't have Thanos Quest 2 to verify but I do have SS44 and it's there. Are the gems in the gauntlet in SS44? That seems to be what the Thanos #2 reference is about. Oh sorry, I misread it. I thought it was about the Infinity Gauntlet which 1st app in SS44 rather than just the gems themselves. Carry on. But yes, SS44 also refers to the gems on pg 6 - but it's not their 1st appearance though. Notice their color.

The first mention of "6 Infinity Gems" is Marvel Team-Up 55. I believe I posted the exact panel maybe 6 months ago in this thread. I'm not sure where the first individual gem is mentioned but MP 1 is probably as good a guess as any. First Soul/Infinity Gem: Marvel Premiere 1 First Mention of Multiple Infinity/Soul Gems: Random Issue of Captain Marvel Here's what Wikipedia states are the 1st appearances/mentions of the gems/stones. I know Wikipedia can be edited, but more than likely whoever posted this did their homework. I found this interesting: But Marvel Wikia states SS44 as first appearance: http://marvel.wikia.com/Infinity_Gauntlet_%28Item%29 I don't have Thanos Quest 2 to verify but I do have SS44 and it's there. Yes, there is no gauntlet appearance in Thanos Quest. The first time it appears is SS #44.

Yes. As long as it doesn't break color, or break the paper fibers ("NCB creases") or disturb the gloss, and isn't a deep gouge or whatnot, the damage can be repaired to an extent. Not, of course, as well as traditional cover stock, as it is cardboard, but it can be mitigated.

I miss this thread. It's one of the first I check every day.

The question isn't whether the $5.95 single price versions exist, but rather what they are...reprints, Canadian versions, or something else? Remember: the later print MGNs are not all identified in obvious ways.

I may have found something on that Copyright Records website about which you told me: I bolded the salient text. So I am guessing The New Mutants was delayed (but already had the cover printed), and Marvel decided to print off a small portion of Canadian price covers instead of trashing a bunch of single-price covers. That's interesting information indeed. I wonder if any distribution records remain... The Copyright Office info has been known to be incorrect. For example: the entry for Superman #75 is a couple of weeks off. no. 75, Jan93. Claimant: DC Comics, Inc. (employer for hire) Created 1992; Pub. 1992-12-08; Reg. 1993-02-16; TX0003489382 When we know the actual pub date was the third week of Nov. Credit where credit is due: Divad was the one who led me to the Copyright Office search.

As usual, instead of saying "oh, I guess I misunderstood you. Sorry about that." you do as so many here do, and double down on the arrogant posturing, because you cannot ever admit you might be wrong about anything. You are the very thing you complain about me. No, Jay, the whole world isn't wrong, and you are very presumptuous to imagine you speak for the whole world. Yes, that's right. Contempt for a market that is mired in madness, that thinks there's no end in sight, that everything will always go up up UP!!, and there has never been a crash. Contempt, because such thinking destroys lives when the inevitable happens. You still don't understand: it's not about SELLING...it's about BUYING. You got all of that from: "Same ol' madness. I've got probably 20 raw 9.8s that I could really use in slabs right about now." Really....? I mean, really?? Wow. Yes, because saying "I've got probably 20 raw 9.8s" is boasting, right...? Nope. Because you don't understand it doesn't make it so. I will tell people...all day long...to not pay ridiculous sums of money for things just because everyone else is paying ridiculous sums of money for them. I will not, however, say "...and therefore, I cannot sell this to you for the current market price, but must insist you pay a lower price, because: principle." There is no inconsistency here, Jay. In fact...TELLING people that the item they are currently paying $50 for probably isn't worth $5 is far, far more than most would, and more than the buyer deserves. If the buyer wants to spend that money, I'm not going to turn him away. If I can convince the buyer that it's not worth the money....AGAINST MY OWN INTERESTS....then I am doing a good thing. If they decide, of their own accord, that it IS...then that's THEIR decision. That doesn't mean it's not still madness....but that's the way the market works, Jay. Yup. Because anything is only worth what someone will pay for it. True...so why do you engage in it? (See above.) That is correct. If the buyer says GIMME GIMME GIMME with FULL knowledge of what they are doing....I'm not going to turn them away. That's how it works CORRECTLY, Jay.

Hey, welcome to what I've been saying forever.

That's very nice, Bosco, congratulations. I know you, and a lot of people, have been looking for a 9.8 on this for a very long time.

Same ol' madness. I've got probably 20 raw 9.8s that I could really use in slabs right about now. I find it interesting (ironic) that, on the one hand you evidently believe the fact that a couple of people have maximized their profits on a famous, rare variant reflects a "GIMME GIMME GIMME" mentality, and is foretelling the end of days for the hobby in general, because you disagree with what said famous, rare variant sells for. And yet here you are in this thread, slickly cheerleading common, mass produced, copper age schlock (NM 1, MGN 4) that you conveniently have stacks of in a back room somewhere, and that nobody gave a rat's azz about until the announcement of a (possible) movie being made in the next ten years featuring (possibly nothing more than) the title "New Mutants". Interesting to be sure. -J. Which is broken, your eyes or your brain? So much more eloquently put than I did.