RockMyAmadeus

Hey, look, information that was already shared. Neat.

Oh, no, only 9.4s, whatever will you do....?

And now I have another book to get signed.... Show off Clarification: And now I have another book that I need to go buy a copy of to get signed. i was just kiddin sheeesh Just CMA.

I'm not dead yet.

Correct ! this is from mile high web site: So early direct market books should be valued way higher than newsstand ! if your into that ! Year % Newsstand %Direct Market 1979 94% 6% 1982 80% 20% 1986 50% 50% 1990 15% 85% 1995 10% 90% 2000 5% 95% 2005 2% 98% 2013 1% 99% Take these numbers with CONSIDERABLE grains of salt! Why would those numbers be skewed? Do you have evidence that they are? Yes. I took these numbers with honey mustard. I used to take them with kosher salt, because it was easier to skewer them on cast iron grill. Lets have the facts RMA , I really would like to know, As stated those where from Mile high. Whats the actual percentages? Let's consider Chuck's 1990 figures: 85% Direct Market, 15% newsstand. But when we look at the print run figures from a typical book...let's say, Iron Man....we find a different picture...from Iron Man #266, the SOO for 1990: Avg. copies printed: 327,728 Avg. copies sold: 198,100 Avg. copies returned: 128,878 Now, sold copies includes all venues, Direct and newsstand. And they don't distinguish which is which. The only absolute numbers we know are 327k for total run, and 128k, which we know are ALL newsstands. So, if 85% of the entire market in 1990 was Direct, that means, of the 198k sold, 168k...85%...were direct, and 29k...15%...were newsstand, according to Chuck's numbers. But wait...the total number of newsstand returns was 128k. That means, they printed 157,000 newsstand copies, and of those, 128,000 were unsold?? That's a sell-through rate on the newsstand of only 18%! Things were getting rough for the newsstand, but they weren't THAT rough. An 18% sell-through for a mainstream Marvel title in 1990 would have been absolutely unheard of. They were much closer to 30-50% sell-throughs (remember, of the NEWSSTAND copies printed) at that time. There are similar numbers across the board. It's not workable for 1990, and not really even for 1995. 1986, I can buy a 50/50 split, but even 1982 is questionable.

How to appeal to 10 year old boys: the master class.

And now I have another book to get signed.... Show off Clarification: And now I have another book that I need to go buy a copy of to get signed.

And now I have another book to get signed....

Correct ! this is from mile high web site: So early direct market books should be valued way higher than newsstand ! if your into that ! Year % Newsstand %Direct Market 1979 94% 6% 1982 80% 20% 1986 50% 50% 1990 15% 85% 1995 10% 90% 2000 5% 95% 2005 2% 98% 2013 1% 99% Take these numbers with CONSIDERABLE grains of salt! Why would those numbers be skewed? Do you have evidence that they are? Yes.

Correct ! this is from mile high web site: So early direct market books should be valued way higher than newsstand ! if your into that ! Year % Newsstand %Direct Market 1979 94% 6% 1982 80% 20% 1986 50% 50% 1990 15% 85% 1995 10% 90% 2000 5% 95% 2005 2% 98% 2013 1% 99% Take these numbers with CONSIDERABLE grains of salt!

It's a hobby.

It can be pressed. The main problem is that the cover is cardboard, so most impact damage isn't going to be correctable.

Admit it. You missed me. I have been nothing but laudatory. I think you're finally realizing I'm not trying to pick a fight. I want to think happy thoughts. Too much bad out there as it is. Heck, if I could get into any of the positions and get myself off the floor once I get down there I'd start taking Yoga. You're overthinking things.

Right. I'd also contend that the underlying reason that the 1 to 4 ratio of 9.8's to 9.6''s exists is largely due to the problems that plague black, embossed covers. Which is....?

There is a small, but very vocal, movement around that is trying to change long held hobby conventions regarding the definitions of terms like "first appearance." For example...according to these folks, the first appearances of scores of characters wasn't in any comic book...it was in Previews. Because, ya know...that's their first "appearance." Also...the listing that starts this thread is still in violation of eBay rules. You CANNOT sell "secret" items.

I believe that Campbell's work on Spiderman is what has turned him into a superstar. Prior that that...Gen 13, Danger Girl...he never managed to get into the upper echelon of "hot artists." But since the early 00's, when he began to do a lot of Spidey (and, let's face it, MJ, Black Cat, and other supporting characters), he's definitely become top tier.

Fell in love with this one man, can't wait to see her in person. You fell in love with this one man...? Lucky guy!

Admit it. You missed me.

(Don't mind me, I'm just waiting for today's "stop beating a dead horse!" brigade to arrive. Myself, I'm thoroughly enjoying Chuck's posts.)

...demand that is based on fluff, on smoke, on mirrors. There is nothing substantial beneath; there is nothing to the work on its own merits. "Why do you want this issue of Previews?" "Because it's the first appearance of Deadbloodkillsport!" "What is special about Deadbloodkillsport?" "He's cool!" "Why?" "What are you, a nutter? Look at him, he's got blades coming out of his armpits!!" "What does he do?" "I don't know...I've never read any of this stuff. Prolly fights bad guys, right?" "How do you know he's not a bad guy himself? I mean, with a name like Deadbloodkillsport, that doesn't sound very wholesome, does it?" "Aww, no one cares about that. He looks COOL!!" And when the ADD-driven madness moves on to something new, as it invariably does, the house of cards collapses, because it had no artistic value, in and of itself, in the first place. Some of you need to educate yourselves on why comic book characters occupy the place in pop culture that they do.

That man is very large. I wouldn't mind being that large. I don't think I can grow another 9 inches, though...

Well, at least you're getting liquor out of the deal...

Your therapist is stealing your money.

+1 or their own business too. David's "large ego" comment aside (because "large ego" is defined here as anyone who takes the time to post one more than one-liners, who takes the time to discuss issues in depth, and is willing to defend their opinions), do you think it's acceptable to deliberately mislead prospective buyers? I mean "mind your own business" is convenient when someone is doing something that isn't legitimate, right?

Don't you think many that do not appreciate our hobby find anyone paying more than cover price for a 'silly funny book' bizarre? Yes. All the more reason for finding something that truly ISN'T valuable, selling for a premium, to be bizarre. Because WE should know better. If, say, Invincible was my favorite character, and I wanted to own the Previews to show how he was first promoted in it, I wouldn't find that weird. I would have a hard time justifying it as an item that I would pay $50 for. We DO know better. Unfortunately, as comics are on the rise again, so are the snakes and weasels. There are people who DON'T know better. And once they get tricked into buying enough worthless junk they'll stop buying comics and move on again. And this hobby doesn't need that all over again. You forgot 4) What some dingleberry convinces them that it's worth. When most of us say 'a collector', we're generally thinking of someone as experienced, at least, as ourselves. The truth is, there are many collectors who are NOT as experienced as some of us and WILL spend money on someone's deceitfully priced junk, because 1) their emotional attachment is easy prey, 2) assumed future value is a trick for 90+% of this copper/modern stuff, and 3) their excitement at 'that' point in time is heavily contingent on their experience. But those PREVIEWS DID sit and sit, UNTIL someone decided that they were a good angle to make some money on. As the saying goes, a sucker is born everyday. Sports Card dealers did this kind of thing in the 90's - "Hey Look, this is a business card from Emmitt Smith's Card shop in Florida, you can own one for $25!" (Unsigned even) I mean let's face it.... no one here with experience TRULY believes a PREVIEWS preview of a character is REALLY going to be of value in the future and is a good investment. So the only reason anyone with experience would think to SELL a PREVIEWS preview of a character to someone for an outrageous price is simply to dupe someone who doesn't know better. People can argue they're appealing to a collector's need and yadda yadda yadda, but when someone CREATES a demand, to simply take advantage of it, when they know it's NOT an item as valuable to they're selling it for.... it's bordering on a con game. Add into it, a few shill accounts to create fake sales to falsely try and prop up the market (we know it goes on) or to come on a message board and argue for it's value (corporations do something similar, creating shill accounts to secretly join forums and promote products), then what you have is a full on con. Yes. Maybe hearing the message from multiple people and perspectives will help it sink in. It's not about demand. It's not about personal views. It's not about "what I collect rocks, what you collect sucks." It's about trying to redefine terms that are perfectly fine as they are, in order to manipulate a market and take advantage of the ignorant.