RockMyAmadeus

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?

Cool. You usually get more money at shows than on ebay for certain books but thats really impressive you were able to unload so many copies. It's impressive that he HAD that many copies. George was at the show, signing like a madman. If any of you are show dealers, and have never considered this, bring books to get signed by creators who are there. They are perfect impulse purchases, and will sell like hotcakes.

...cursory...?

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??

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? Right here: You are wrong. It is a simple list of "The Top X Age Books", and they are ranked according to their value in the OPG. Nothing more. Nothing less. In fact, from the 2010 OPG: "The place in rank is given for each comic, with its corresponding value in highest known grade." See that? That means the lists are organized according to their price in the OPG. Therefore, if a book is MISSING from the list that would otherwise be there, it is either A. an oversight, or B. a purposeful decision by Bob Overstreet to exclude particular books that otherwise would be in the list according to the value given elsewhere in the pages of the same guide, and Bob Overstreet is LYING (that is what is called a CONSPIRACY.) I'm going to Occam's Razor that biz, and go with A. Again...how are we even HAVING this discussion?

Yes, that was the worst scene for me, too. Gave me nightmares. That, and the giant demon when Craig T Nelson tries to pull Jobeth Williams back through the closet. *shudder* The pool scene was pretty creepy, too. And the clown grabbing Tommy was a good fright.

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?

Would that it were so easy....

....and there you go, arguing out of both sides of your mouth again. No, he's arguing out of one side. The same side he's been arguing this whole time. "Arguments made with data and context" when you say it. "Unfounded and speculative" when others say it. Chuck didn't make this characterization at all. That's all you. You can't invent positions, attribute them to your debate opponents, and then argue against them. That's called a "straw-man" argument. That's not what he said. At all. You make this argument based on TWO SALES IN TEN YEARS. Let me say that again, in case anyone is unclear at all on this point: Your entire argument is based on TWO SALES...in TEN YEARS. How does anything "tank" when it is premised on TWO SALES in TEN YEARS? And yet, if we look at the last FIVE years, sales are UP! Do you not see that your canvas is mostly empty, and thus no clear picture can be discerned in ANY direction? How about the last FIVE years....? You have no reasonable basis to make this claim. None. There was nothing personal or condescending about Chuck's post to which you responded. You don't understand the market. That's not condescending. Condescending would be "....and you're incapable of understanding it." THAT would be condescending. No one's said that. Again, you're projecting. You like that there are people who agree with you, and support your arguments, unreasonable though they may be, so you assume everyone else is like that, too. But I respect Chuck enough to tell him outright if he's wrong, and he's mature enough to admit it when he is. Likewise, I hope Chuck respects me enough to tell me when I'm wrong, and that I would accept it, as I have in the past. And...your entire post has a snarky, ubercondescending tone ("the same chorus line in your cerebus 1/OPG apologist parade", "I recommend that you compare crib notes"..and that's just the last paragraph.) So, I would recommend thinking twice about complaining about others being condescending, when you find it impossible to refrain yourself.

Finally. Dragged, kicking and screaming the whole way, to an accurate representation of the facts. You still, however, do not understand the market for very rare books.

My Sig Series Econ is officially celebrating it's 3 month anniversary today.

Someone told me you can typically tell what made the pre screen cut before grades post. Is that correct? Yes.

Once again... For a book with so few 9.0 and up copies in blue label, it's appeal in that blue label increases for HG collector. IT becomes the white whale. The pretty girl who is unavailable. It's enchantment will draw a bigger game hunter. You simply do not understand the marketplace. And if I may be so bold as to speak for Chuck, he's not saying you're stupid, or incapable of learning. It's nothing personal. You just don't understand it now. That's why I rarely post in Gold. I know next to nothing about that market. I may know a good deal about the history of the era, and I may know which issues are important, but the market for them? Outside of my beloved Batman, very little clue, because it's not what I deal with (and, frankly, don't want to know...it is doubtless a field of endless heartbreak and frustration.) There are several people who betray their lack of understanding of this market just by what they say (and don't say), like the fellow who tried to compare GL #76 to Cerebus #1. GL #76 has nearly 1200 copies just on the CGC census. That's 60% of the entire print run of Cerebus #1 when it was brand new in 1977, never mind the raw copies of GL #76, which exist by the tens of thousands, and the copies of Cerebus #1 that have been lost to time.

It's too late to apologize..... It's too late....

On the one hand, you are the only one "posting your arguments with data and context", and on the other hand, when other people post their arguments with data and context, they are "seizing upon the minutiae of a post and glossing over the main points." It is genuinely (no sarcasm) breathtaking watching you post, Jaydog. You are a master of propaganda. I have no doubt, if you were of a mind, you could be an extremely successful politician. .....or salesman. -J. No, that's not true. Salesmen cannot deliberately lie and expect to be successful in the long term. Politicians can. In fact, they must. Except I haven't "lied" about anything. If anything, that kind of inflammatory mis-characterization is better suited in politics. -J. Yes, you have. You were clearly corrected on the "15% decline" statement, which isn't true, but you keep repeating it. If you keep repeating something that isn't true, after you have been corrected about it multiple times, what other conclusion is there...? There has only been a single sale of a 9.4 Universal Cerebus #1. Therefore, by definition, it can neither have risen nor declined in value. You keep trying to compare it to a Sig Series 9.4, and the two aren't comparable. You have been informed of this, repeatedly, but you have ignored it and continued to repeat your claim. Is that not the heart of a lie? Saying something you know isn't true? Why do you put "lied" in quotes?

This is not true. There has only been a single recorded sale, ever, of a 9.4 Universal Cerebus #1. By definition, it has neither gone up NOR down. The sale you keep citing is a SS 9.4, and the SS market is different from the Universal market. They cannot be reasonably compared. RIP and I have been inter changing blue/yellow sales due simply to the lack of significant sales data for the cerebus 1 But like I said before, if you want to compare like to like, the hulk 181 SS that sold for $3700 utterly destroys anything a 9.2 cerebus 1 SS has ever sold for. You cannot compare extremely rare books, with a handful of recorded sales over years, to the highest ever sale of a book that sells in every grade on a regular basis. Why do you leave out relevant information? You can see, with your own two eyes, that the $3700 sale you cite here is a Sig Series copy signed by Stan Lee, Len Wein, Herb Trimpe, and John Romita Sr. It is the highest sale, by far, of this book in this grade. It is also $1,000 higher than the NEXT highest sale EVER of an SS book in this grade, and $500 higher than the highest Universal copy EVER (and $950 higher than the next highest Universal)..which sales have taken place in the last month. These are relevant, pertinent details...and yet...nothing. No mention by you whatsoever. No context for this sale provided by you at all. None. And your argument is littered...absolutely littered...with such tactics. It is intellectually dishonest, and yet....you keep doing it. You cite the most outlying examples, completely fail to provide actual context for these sales, and post as if it's typical. You grant nothing, allow nothing, concede nothing, admit nothing. You are trying to compare what cannot be compared, and this is not reasonable. That is correct. It also doesn't make me wrong or you right, which is precisely the point that has been made the entire time. Without reliable data, it comes down to what is reasonable. When you draw conclusions, it is "based on data and context." When other, much more experienced, much more educated in the market people draw opposing conclusions, they are just "speculating."

You have repeated this...it doesn't mean what you think it means. If you disagree, by definition, you are NOT "like minded." What *I* mean by it is two intelligent, and intelligently debating comic book enthusiasts. -J. I understand what *you* mean by it...it's still incorrect. If I say "Bubble gum is chewy" but I *really* mean "The US Constitution is a valuable contract", I have failed to communicate properly, by using the language incorrectly. Not minutiae. Critical to understanding.

This is incorrect. There has only been one sale of a 9.4 Universal Cerebus #1 ever, so it cannot, by definition, be "off" from anything. You are attempting to compare SS copies with Universal copies. They are different markets, and behave by different rules.

On the one hand, you are the only one "posting your arguments with data and context", and on the other hand, when other people post their arguments with data and context, they are "seizing upon the minutiae of a post and glossing over the main points." It is genuinely (no sarcasm) breathtaking watching you post, Jaydog. You are a master of propaganda. I have no doubt, if you were of a mind, you could be an extremely successful politician. .....or salesman. -J. No, that's not true. Salesmen cannot deliberately lie and expect to be successful in the long term. Politicians can. In fact, they must.

You have repeated this...it doesn't mean what you think it means. If you disagree, by definition, you are NOT "like minded."

On the one hand, you are the only one "posting your arguments with data and context", and on the other hand, when other people post their arguments with data and context, they are "seizing upon the minutiae of a post and glossing over the main points." It is genuinely (no sarcasm) breathtaking watching you post, Jaydog. You are a master of propaganda. I have no doubt, if you were of a mind, you could be an extremely successful politician.

This is not true. There has only been a single recorded sale, ever, of a 9.4 Universal Cerebus #1. By definition, it has neither gone up NOR down. The sale you keep citing is a SS 9.4, and the SS market is different from the Universal market. They cannot be reasonably compared.

Some of you should be grateful that this thread isn't in CG. You would have been treated far, far unkindly than you have been here, where people would have actually abused you for unreasonable arguments, rather than just attempting to reason with you.

There has been more than ample evidence posted of why you're wrong and why a statement is incorrect. Reposting that evidence over and over again serves no purpose. It's all in the thread; anyone interested can see it all laid out for themselves, right here. You "mis-state" while complaining that other people misstate, by claiming that "others don't present their arguments with data and context", which has been done exhaustively by everyone disputing you. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Jaydog, you are a master propagandist. The heart of propaganda is to simply lie as big as you think you can get away with, and then keep repeating it. This is what you have done, this entire thread. Do you have any evidence of someone "mis-stating", "perverting your position" or "deliberately citing you out of context"...? If so, lay it out, for all to see. Note: not quoting everything is not "taking something out of context."

Nor who has the highest word count per post. Less is more, my friends. No, clarity is more. Highest word count, lowest word count, all meaningless. The only thing that matters is whether or not your argument is reasonable. When you discuss things with people who (perhaps purposely) misunderstand and misinterpret what you say, you are required to cover your bases by making sure you leave very little room for misintepretation. This results in overexplaining, from multiple angles, to make sure nothing is missed (which still doesn't always work completely.) This is why legal documents are so wordy: people invariably find a way to "misunderstand" them, and violate the spirit of the argument, and then retort with "well, it didn't SAY that, so I interpreted it to mean THIS." It is unfortunate, but it is necessary in a world filled with people more interested in self than in honesty and integrity.