RockMyAmadeus

I suppose it's already been brought up, but if you just compare the linework of #185-190, to #184, #183, #180, there is a clear difference. The previous issues still show a classic Miller line (though he was even this early starting to develop the more delicate pencils that would be seen in Ronin), and it's clear from #185-190 that the work is all Klaus. So, even if Miller was only doing basic layouts from #179 on, he was either doing a little bit more linework than just outlines, or Klaus was doing a very good job of mimicking Miller by this point (and probably a mix of the two.) PS. As an added bit of trivia, the "next issue" blurb at the end of #166 says the Punisher is slated for the next issue...which, had it happened, would probably have made #167 a book on par with Cap #241 in value, considering it was an early Miller that had a far lower print run than #182-184.

There's been enough hay made in the last 40 posts to feed the Triple Crown.

The Rock was the highest grossing actor last year, so yeah. Not one to doubt Dwayne's achievements (OK, let's say I'm not for the sake of argument ), but he basically owes the "highest grossing actor" honor to Fast And Furious 6, which probably would've been hugely successful even if he wasn't in the movie. Saying The Rock is the highest grossing actor of the year because he played in Fast And Furious 6 is (not exactly but kinda) like saying Jeff Goldblum was the highest grossing actor of 1993, or Sam Worthington the highest grossing actor of 2009. Technically correct, but... How DARE you try to use reason around here!

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post. People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true. There was an obvious and palpable sub-text to both the question itself, and the timing of it (on both occasions). And I said I thought it was a bit tacky, I didn't say I took it personally. FYI, the offer still stands for me to take a camera phone picture with all of the books that have appeared in any of my sig lines together on my carpet if you insist. If nothing else it will give me an excuse to play with them for a few minutes. (thumbs u -J. Oh brother. Do you know that I've been accused of actual, legal fraud and theft on these boards...? And worse, in private, behind my back, where I can't defend myself...? bronzejonny accused me of insulting Chrisco, because he (BJ) misread my post. Where's my apology for that....? (Not holding my breath.) If you're going to try and make hay because someone questioned your sigline, I would suggest finding another board. Except there was no basis or relevance for asking that, and at that time, and in that "forum". You knew what you were trying to do, what implications you were trying to make, and so did any objective person who read it. I thought you didn't take it personally? What bearing does relevance have about asking a question? People ask irrelevant questions all the time. It's called "conversation." I already said I was trying to find out if you were posting books in your sigline that weren't yours. You're completely right that I was looking to see if you were a phony or not. Why is this so surprising? You said you didn't take it personally, and yet here you are, wanting me to "feel worse" about asking "such a question" ( ) on the "open boards"...and yet, you have a sigline composed of pictures from entirely different sources, a common red flag for phoniness. So, not only do I *not* "feel" (there's that word again) worse, I'd ask it again of anyone else with a questionable sigline. You are only looking to make hay. Like I said: you are an EXPERT politician. Did I just namecall you again...? You didn't have to worry about it after the FIRST time I saw your answer. Is that the best you've got.....?

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post. People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true. There was an obvious and palpable sub-text to both the question itself, and the timing of it (on both occasions). And I said I thought it was a bit tacky, I didn't say I took it personally. FYI, the offer still stands for me to take a camera phone picture with all of the books that have appeared in any of my sig lines together on my carpet if you insist. If nothing else it will give me an excuse to play with them for a few minutes. (thumbs u -J. Oh brother. Do you know that I've been accused of actual, legal fraud and theft on these boards...? And worse, in private, behind my back, where I can't defend myself...? bronzejonny accused me of insulting Chrisco, because he (BJ) misread my post. Where's my apology for that....? (Not holding my breath.) If you're going to try and make hay because someone questioned your sigline, I would suggest finding another board. If you didn't take it personally, you would have told bronzejonny "hey, it wasn't a big deal. I didn't take it personally, so don't make such a big deal about it." Your words betray you.

Just for the record...the quotes in my sigline are NOT mine.

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post. People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true.

You, too, are attempting to make hay. Don't you folks have anything better you can use to do so? That's the absolute worst thing you can come up with...? :shrug: "Out of line"...? "Hey, Jay...are those books in your sigline yours?" Notify the mods, RMA's on the loose. PS: A note to Alexander...a sigline is not "personal", by virtue of its existence. Asking about it, therefore, is not "getting personal."

That's not true at all...I mean, at all...but ok. I think this has been happening, and quite often. People talk about books being "hot," people talk about "recent trends," people even talk about DC 100 Page Super Spectacular 5. People compared 9.4s to 9.9s, people made accusations of OPG oversights and conspiracies, people talked about the relevance of "publicly available sales data" and the reliability of dealers' opinions. People celebrated Hulk 181's liquidity and condemned Cerebus 1's scarcity. People compared Wolverine's popularity to Cerebus's niche market. People talked about the relative value of the two books in 8.0 and 8.5. People talked about the run of early Cerebus that went for 25% of guide. I think almost all of this is irrelevant and distracting from the actual source of the disagreement, which was OPG's list of top Bronze Age books in 9.2 in 2013-14. As an aside, I am willing to discuss any point that anyone else brings up. Conversations have an ebb and flow to them. Are these ancillary to the topic? Perhaps, and to different degrees. Do conversations get off-track? Sure, that's natural. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I disagree that this is almost all of it irrelevant and distracting. To a degree, yes, but not entirely. It is messy work, debate, and takes a level of focus that, frankly, internet message boards simply do not, and should not, possess. I do try to keep the discussion focused, wherever and whenever I can (there I go, bragging again), but if other people want to discuss other things, who am I to try and force the conversation? Ah, I see. You were making two different assumptions, one that OPG gets its info from dealers, and another that it is the industry standard. Empirically, rather than anecdotally, you can establish that as a fact. No other price guide is used as widespread as the OPG, and certainly not in print form. One need only do a brief survey of dealers at a show to reasonably conclude that it is the industry standard. True, which is why I stated that dealers themselves have testified that they do, in fact, report to the OPG. Whether Overstreet uses that information or not is not (entirely) relevant, it's just a fact that he does solicit, and receive, such information. It's not within the realm of reason to go to the effort and expense of such a solicitation, and then completely disregard it wholesale (though...in isolated cases, not without precedent.) I don't agree with that, but it's certainly possible, and would be quite conspiratorial if true, giving the OPG a major black eye, with repercussions far beyond any list. I'm with you on that. The list is just a guide. Too much emotion has been invested on "placement." I don't care either way. If it goes down in value, great, I can buy more. If it goes up, great. As a work of art, I hope it's not forgotten, but if it is, that's perfectly ok, too, because my enjoyment of the series is not based on whether or not the character is popular. I don't expect it to decline in the highest grades, at least not for a couple of decades, because there will always be people who find out about it, and will create demand, and it is exceedingly rare in those grades. After all...EC essentially ceased publication 17 years before I was born, and I support that market (in fact, I have been priced OUT of that market.) I was exposed to it, it appealed to me, and I became a buyer. Nothing makes as lasting an impression as Cerebus has, and goes completely away. Dave and Gerhard are both still working (in fact, Gerhard was at Baltimore), so Cerebus will appear in some form in front of the collecting world for some time. Note to BJ and jay: it's entirely possible, and preferable, to have disagreements without becoming emotionally involved. This post is one of those. Try it. You'll like it.

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense. You only discredit yourself. The "Guardian of Reason" has spoken thus... Again, defending the indefensible. Are you not posting in irritation, by snarkily referring to me as "the Guardian of Reason"...? Are you not, therefore, speaking from emotion?

Transposed. Thanks for the correction.

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense. You only discredit yourself. RMA, I didn't make a big deal out of it, even though you did it not once, but twice, off topic, and in the thread. Truthfully, that was a bit tacky. But I do make it a point to not take anything that is said on these boards personally. -J. Do you know what the term "making hay" means...? That's what you and BJ are doing. You were asked TWICE because I didn't see that you'd answered it (and I take your word that you did, because...again...I didn't see it.) If you made it a point to not take anything that is said on these boards personally, you wouldn't have made this post. N'est-ce pas...?

Can you please point me to a post where anyone was called a name? Can you please point me to any "meaningless conclusory statements"? Can you please point me to "condescension"? Disagreeing with you, and laying out an argument why, is not "condescension." Jay, the only thing you think is objective is that with which you agree. That isn't objectivity. I need only use your own words: your arguments are made using "publicly available data points"...those who disagree are merely speculating, even though those same data points are used. This is not objectivity. This is the very definition of subjectivity. Look at this very post: "finally, an objective, substantive discussion"...thereby condescendingly dismissing everything else as subjective and insubstantial. You are doing the very thing you're complaining about.. My friend, either you or your mate chuck have either directly or indirectly called me (and others) all of the following pejoratives: 1) Liar 2) Troll 3) Politician 4) Propagandist 5) Conspiracy Theorist 6) Illogical 7) Overly Emotional 8) Intellectually Dishonest 9) Ignorant 10) Incompetent This is name calling...? :shrug: "You're such an OVERLY EMOTIONAL!!!" "You're a POLITICIAN!" Doesn't quite have the same ring to it. I can't speak for Chuck, nor do I need to. I have not called you ignorant (though you have been ignorant of several things. "Ignorant" is not a bad word), nor have I said you were incompetent. You kept repeating something that wasn't true, even though you were corrected many, many, many times....is that not what a lie is? When you know something isn't true, but you say it anyways? Are all these things true? Is it necessary to repeat the same information in every post? People complain about lengthy posts NOW. Can you imagine, saying everything you've already said, in every post? No one has been belittled by me. Telling you that you don't understand something, when you demonstrate that you don't understand it, is not belittling you. "It's great that you love your cerebus" <---- this is a continuing example of you arguing from emotionalism. This entire discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with who loves, or doesn't love, what. This is the problem. And I am not belittling you by saying that. You use the word "belittling" to mean "challenging what I say, and telling me that I don't understand something." That's not what it means. Ok. Now you're just repeating what I already said to you. That's also a common tactic around here. Don't take things personally, jay, and don't argue from emotion. It's pretty basic.

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense. You only discredit yourself.

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list? Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181! Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.) The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG. Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are. Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list. It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight. How are we even discussing this? Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me? I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual. When you state that Overstreet...contrary to his own printed words...is purposely excluding books that belong in a "Top X Age Books" list, lists that are ordered according to their values, then yes, that is the very definition of a conspiracy. How are we even HAVING this discussion?? Your conclusions are as always, an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum. Ok. Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting? And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true. In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.") Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this? Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion? I already explained this, but I will explain it again: because it would render the lists meaningless, by their own definitions. Here is a list of the top 10 posters on this board, by post count: * VintageComics User * 72241 * greggy User * 64253 * Comicopolis User * 63714 * G.A.tor User * 50918 * DrWatson User 42721 * Bosco685 User 41675 * DiceX User 40722 * goldust40 User * 40053 * RockMyAmadeus User 38601 * Jeffro User 38454 This is a list of the top 10 posters, using no criteria except post count. But wait! There's a poster missing! MutantKeys has 43873 posts, placing him at #5 on this list, bumping Jeffro to #11. So, by my definition, if I say this is a list of the top 10 posters, by post count...is it accurate? Regardless of why I left out MK, by my definition, is it accurate? No. Of course not. I'm missing something. If I said it WAS accurate, and purposely ignored calls by others to include MK in the list...would I simply be "using editorial discretion"? Or, would I put my own definition to the lie? Clearly, the latter. My own definition would be a lie, because I excluded MK, purposely. So, if the Top 10 Silver Age list in the OPG is missing something, is that list accurate by its own definition? No. Does Overstreet's own definition allow for "editorial discretion"? No. He doesn't say "this is the Top 10 list, the way I think it should be." He says "this is the Top 10 list, according to the values I list." Therefore.... If there is an omission, it is either a mistake...or Overstreet is directly contradicting his own definition of the list. There is no allowance for "editorial discretion", because that's not what the lists are, by definition. Overstreet is not publishing his opinion in those lists. If he were, you would be completely correct. But he is not. His own definition does not allow for editorial discretion. Patent nonsense. Many people have disagreed with me, many times, and in many ways. The issue isn't disagreement. The issue is the way in which disagreement is handled. As always. And I can prove it by looking in this very thread, only a few posts back. Chrisco disagreed with me (which you misread), about the lack of necessity of his post explaining "Team Cerebus." I have known Chrisco for a long time. I have a good deal of respect for Chrisco. He and I have just disagreed, and he even said such a disagreement is silly. I don't think, for a second, that he's insulting me, or that he's "arguing from emotion." When I say you are arguing from emotion, it is because you are arguing from emotion (as evidenced by you resorting to unjustifiable hyperbole like "absurdity, ad infinitum", and statements like "you have the nerve", etc. These are not the words of a calm person. These are the words that angry, outraged people use.) It is not because you "disagree with me." And yes, I know most people DO have such a reaction. I like to think I'm not most people, at least in respect to reason. Well respected? The guy has been here less than a year. If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest putting up a poll. I suspect the vast majority of board members have never HEARD of "jaydogrules", much less "well respect" him. I asked if the books in his sigline were his. That's it. There are, in fact, many siglines that contain pictures of items that DO NOT belong that poster. Was it an "insinuation" that he had a "phony sigline"? Yes. It absolutely was, as all such questions are. It is a questionable sigline, containing scans that are all from clearly different sources. Generally, scans from multiple sources are a "red flag." And you may not be aware of this, but this board generally has a nose for detecting frauds. Investigating red flags are one of the means of doing that. People are insinuated every day on this board. But you'll note that I asked...I didn't simply assume. And I posted no conclusion, insinuation or otherwise. Once he said they were, that was the end of it. Question answered. Not brought up again until you did just now, trying to make hay out of it. Are YOU going to apologize to me for misreading the "silly" statements between myself and Chrisco, and accusing (not just insinuating) me of insulting him? You see the worst, because you wish to. That's a terrible way to live life. That you think me questioning someone's sigline is "the lowest example of class you have ever witnessed on the boards" only demonstrates how deeply you are divorced from reason. There has been far, far, FAR worse on this boards, and if you haven't witnessed it...you haven't been paying any attention at all. You argue from emotion, not reason. This is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility. Your emotion drives you, and one need not go further than this latest "outrage", which has absolutely zero bearing on anything in this thread. It's utterly irrelevant, and designed solely to make me look bad, and if you can succeed in making me look bad, my arguments, as the thinking doubtless goes, won't carry as much weight. It is a classic ad hominem fallacy. I hope...genuinely, for your sake, because it doesn't affect me much at all...that you eventually learn how to disagree with people without becoming emotionally involved.

Your conclusions completely lack context. Here, let's see if this might help. There is a coin that is extremely rare...an 1822 US $5 half-eagle. There are three known examples, and two of those are in the Smithsonian. The last example is in private hands. It was last sold in 1982 when Eliasberg's collection was sold off. It sold for $687,500. Now, since then, there have been hundreds of coins that have sold for more than that. By the reasoning that you, Jaydog, and others continue to use, that coin is only "worth" $687K. After all...that price is a fact. There are no other data points to use. No one can reasonably say that it would sell for more, because there are no sales, right? But coin dealers and price guide officials estimate the value of that coin at $5,000,000 at least. How is that possible? The only data point we have is $687K. Ah, but we have to look at the context. That single data point doesn't tell the story..just like all the data points you have just posted. Raw data is meaningless without interpretation. It is not possible to determine "trends" for Cerebus #1 in 9.0+ grade. There simply isn't enough data. Hulk #181 is, indeed, trending strongly upwards. However, there isn't enough data to determine if Cerebus #1 is trending in any direction. 1822 Half Eagle. By your reasoning, the finest two 1838-O Half Dollars...at $734k and $763k respectively...are worth more than the 1822 Half Eagle, because it sold for only $687k. The fact that it happened 30+ years ago is not relevant, right? Raw data without analysis is useless. And what amount is that "significant bonus"...? I'm not disputing that there is some sort of premium for "highest grade on record" (though such a dispute CAN be made)...I'm just wondering what you think that bonus might be. True. And by this argument, New Mutants #98 is worth twice as much as Our Army at War #81. After all...when you compare the highest grade with the highest grade, you have New Mutants #98 selling or $15k, while Our Army #81 has only achieved a paltry $7100. Ipso facto, "collectors value New Mutants #98 higher than OOAW #81." If I may make a niggling point....since there's only ONE copy of Hulk #181 in 9.9, I'm not sure how collectorS, plural, value it higher, but that's probably not a relevant point.......... That's an interesting conclusion. It used to be that if a book was more valuable in the highest grades, it was more valuable absolutely. Mainly because of the fact that it sold for more money. That may not be the case anymore. Also an interesting conclusion, given the scarcity of the data. Why does it have to be limited to a single high purchase? Is it not possible for there to be more than one sale before the OPG data period ends? Likely? Oh, no, definitely not. But certainly possible.

It was faster than typing out "those that think OSPG has correctly placed Cerebus 1 in 9.2 ahead of Hulk 181 in 9.2". Which, in hindsight, I should have done from the get go so that I wouldn't have to type this silly response. Probably, though I disagree with the silliness of said response. You clearly don't agree, but "Team Cerebus" characterizes the discussion as Cerebus vs. Wolverine, and that's never been the case (though that does accurately characterize those arguing for Hulk #181 being "more valuable", which is the heart of the disagreement.) His response is silly? Now who's insulting? Read it again. You've read it wrong. Read it again.

Can you please point me to a post where anyone was called a name? Can you please point me to any "meaningless conclusory statements"? Can you please point me to "condescension"? Disagreeing with you, and laying out an argument why, is not "condescension." Jay, the only thing you think is objective is that with which you agree. That isn't objectivity. I need only use your own words: your arguments are made using "publicly available data points"...those who disagree are merely speculating, even though those same data points are used. This is not objectivity. This is the very definition of subjectivity. Look at this very post: "finally, an objective, substantive discussion"...thereby condescendingly dismissing everything else as subjective and insubstantial. You are doing the very thing you're complaining about..

No one's debating the popularity of Hulk 181. It's a hot book. It's a seller. No one's questioning that. I'd say selling 70 copies at one Con says it's a special book. But we are not debating the uniqueness of this book either? He didn't sell 70 copies at one con. Correct- my mistake - for the year. No one is surprised that it's a huge seller for him. It's a huge seller for anyone. No special insight of the marketplace needed to see that. Right. I don't think that anyone on "Team Cerebus" has made a statement that it's a hotter book than Hulk 181. The liquidity has never been an issue. It's one of the most, if not THE, most liquid book in the hobby right now. A major character first appearance with a relatively low price entry point (in comparison to other major keys). That has never been in question. Ever. There is no such thing as "Team Cerebus." That mischaracterizes the discussion completely. It was faster than typing out "those that think OSPG has correctly placed Cerebus 1 in 9.2 ahead of Hulk 181 in 9.2". Which, in hindsight, I should have done from the get go so that I wouldn't have to type this silly response. Probably, though I disagree with the silliness of said response. You clearly don't agree, but "Team Cerebus" characterizes the discussion as Cerebus vs. Wolverine, and that's never been the case (though that does accurately characterize those arguing for Hulk #181 being "more valuable", which is the heart of the disagreement.)

That's not true at all...I mean, at all...but ok. This is not an assumption, this is an established fact, by the words of the OPG itself: "With input from a network of experienced advisors including well established collectors, dealers, and historians of popular culture, we have undertaken significant effort to assemble this pricing information." - Overstreet Price Guide, 40th Edition, page 64 And we need not take Overstreet's word for it, either. We have the direct testimony OF those advisors that they have, in fact, informed the OPG. This isn't a valid question to ask. Not only can't it be "100% accurate in every case across the country all the time", it doesn't even pretend to be such a thing, It is a price guide, not a price record.. Asking "is it 100% accurate" necessarily assumes that it is not only possible to be so, but that it probably should be so. And that has never been its function. Some may think this is picking nits, but it's the underpinning of this entire discussion. And you may think it is adequately addressed by what you said following, but I'm saying the question itself is not valid. As a price guide. it gives a reasonable retail value (not price...price is what the individual seller and buyer agree to) for any given book in any given grade. It does not pretend to say "this is what X-Men #47 is worth in VF" (even though that is precisely what it appears to do)...it says "this is ABOUT what it is worth, according to previous sales of this book in this grade." There is no new EC material, and yet Crime Suspenstories #22 has been on a tear recently. I do not disagree with you assertion (and have said as much in this thread.) However, lack of new material isn't necessarily going to mean reduced demand in the future (and I hope it does mean that, because I would like to buy them for little money.) This is what several people have said, at various points in this thread. The issue has been the people who think that the OPG is wrong to value Hulk #181 below Cerebus #1, in any grade. That's it. That's the entire crux of the debate.

No one's debating the popularity of Hulk 181. It's a hot book. It's a seller. No one's questioning that. I'd say selling 70 copies at one Con says it's a special book. But we are not debating the uniqueness of this book either? He didn't sell 70 copies at one con. Correct- my mistake - for the year. No one is surprised that it's a huge seller for him. It's a huge seller for anyone. No special insight of the marketplace needed to see that. Right. I don't think that anyone on "Team Cerebus" has made a statement that it's a hotter book than Hulk 181. The liquidity has never been an issue. It's one of the most, if not THE, most liquid book in the hobby right now. A major character first appearance with a relatively low price entry point (in comparison to other major keys). That has never been in question. Ever. There is no such thing as "Team Cerebus." That mischaracterizes the discussion completely.