RockMyAmadeus

Please open your 2014 OPG, or turn back to page 58 of this train wreck, and note that the difference in price is only $100, which is less than 5% of the overall value of each. Last year, Hulk #181 was $100 over Cerebus #1, and this year Cerebus #1 was $100 over Hulk #181. Both increased, but Cerebus #1 increased a bit more, in this particular timeframe, in this particular grade. I don't think I understand your explanation of market value above, "the price for each book sold times the number of books sold," but it seems like you agree with what Chuck Gower, RMA, and others have been saying: Yes, I don't think you understood it. Maybe I did not explain it clearly enough. This is how market value is usually calculated in financial markets. Take for example the New York stock exchange... the market value of any company there... is the value of each share times the numbers of shares. Right? Similarly, the total market value of a comic book (the total amount of money the combined comic collectors have in terms of value of the issue) is the number of books in exsistence times the price per book. If you are still with me, I am sure you can see that the value put on H181 by the entire market is many many many times the value of Cerebus, Even if we take a simplistic notion of value as the value for one book in one grade - then there are only one or two grades where Cerebus is even close. So in order for Cerebus to be more 'valuable' we would have to not look at the value in the total market, not look at the value in grade 8.0, 6.5 and so on... We can only look at one understanding of value and even within this understanding we can only look at a little fraction of the grades. Such selectivity makes the notion that Cerebus should be "more valuable than H181" hard to take seriously. Market capitalization, Alex. That is the terminology you are looking for. That is the same thing. I work with this every day so maybe I take it for granted that people know. Give me a sec: http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Market-Value-of-a-Company http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/market+value Market capitalization doesn't work for collectibles, as Garlanda explained. I cannot pick up a phone and buy 1,000 copies of Hulk #181 in 9.2. I CAN buy 1,000 shares of Microsoft right now. Just takes money. That you would mix the two betrays a fairly unsophisticated understanding of how the collectibles market works.

What thread have you been reading? That is what this entire thread has bee about. :shrug:

I would have to believe Cerebus #1 would be considerably higher. I know exactly what a Hulk #181 would sell for. Would be more trial and error with the Cerebus #1. So....you think it would be "considerably higher", yet you are unable to divine a price? What would then be your basis for making such a determination and statement ? -J. There is little to no sales data on one of these books. I know exactly what the other one sells for because I have sold multiples this year (and actually none on line). And I didn't say I didn't know what I would price one. I simply didn't state what I would price it. There is a difference. You stated your pricing of a cerebus 1 would be more "trial and error", which I interpret as meaning you would not really know how to price it. So tell you what, next time you have a cerebus 1, 9.2 (since you dealers seem to run into and sell so many of these a year outside any and all public forums and you can definitively say what they are "worth" on an annual basis), and a Hulk 181, 9.2.... ....put them both on your wall for $3k at the same time and see which one you actually sell first, and closest to that price. Wolvie would win, and you know he would. You'd be staring at that cerebus for months, having to explain to most younger and/or casual collectors why the book is "important", justifying its price tag, waiting for that one niche collector to wander in and then haggle you down on your price. Meanwhile everyone and their mother of every generation will automatically know what that Hulk 181 is, and exactly why it has the price tag it does on it. The book would probably sell in two weeks or less. -J. This is a completely unreasonable argument, that vastly overstates the popularity and demand of Hulk #181 in 9.2, a vastly understates the popularity and demand of Cerebus #1 in 9.2. And, sadly, fairly unprovable, as the number of Cerebus #1s in 9.2 can be counted on one hand, so the odds of one "coming up for sale" are pretty slim. So... However, if I get my hands on a Cerebus #1 9.2, I'll make sure I also get my hands on a fugly Hulk #181 9.2, with poor page quality, bad wrap, and no eye appeal, and take you up on your challenge. After all...aren't all 9.2s the same...?

Alexander... This is a perfect example of an unreasonable statement. How? Because no one has said anything even remotely like what Jaydog is characterizing here. It is petulant hyperbole borne out of emotion (mostly frustration.) It's not reasonable to make this statement in the context of this discussion. And yet....here it is.

That you believe that, I have no doubt. You both reason from emotion, and like attracts like. Many of Jay's posts are classic examples of "arguing from emotion", yet you feel (note that word, there) that they have been "more logical." But be assured: logic and reason are not subject to personal opinion. They simply are. Your very words give you away: I don't need to say, as you have done here, that I think so and so is more logical than you, and you are not as logical as me, because logic stands on its own. And why would I be offended? Offense is the very calling card of emotionalism. No one is inherently "more logical" than another, because logic is not an attribute, like intelligence or talent or height, etc. It is a tool. And just like any other tool, it can be used, and misused, but it is not a part of the person using (or misusing) it. A person must be TRAINED to use any tool correctly, and logic and reason are no different. That is, again, because you reason by emotion, rather than by logic. If you made multiple spelling and grammar errors, and I corrected those errors, would that lead you to think that I feel I am "more grammatical" than you? Despite the evidence in front of everyone's eyes that you had misspelled and misused grammar...? Logically, no. Emotionally, yes. That you repeat I argue using emotion doesn't make it so. That is correct. Repeating something merely makes it propaganda. The actual question, then, is whether or not the argument I have laid out, and the evidence I have presented, make it so. That's where the proverbial rubber meets the road. Again...we can let the evidence and weight of the arguments presented speak for themselves. By the way...just by way of explanation, when someone uses a dismissive...in this case, "you (sic) little grammar example" (and a fairly ironic example itself)...the word "little" being the phrase here...it conveys a tone of annoyance and irritation. "Your little comment there was quite amusing." It's meant to dismiss, and diminish, the other person and their comments. So, by the way, is the statement "I didn't think it worthy of a reply"...and then making one anyways. It's an attempt to diminish the other person, and speaks of irritation on the part of the poster. Mind you, I've done it a ton, myself. We all have. But it is a smoking gun for emotion overcoming reason, as all such little digs are. Something to keep in mind. You are grasping at straws. Little was descriptive. It was a little example - wasn't it? I'm going to have to agree to disagree with that one. I doubt your veracity in the matter, but it may be a cultural thing. Suffice it to say...in the US, when "your" is followed by "little", it is almost always meant as diminishment. "Oh, look, your little friends are here." "Your little tirade is boring me" "You and your little mind games are getting old." "Your little analogy fails." "Your little hobby is taking up too much space in this house." Just FYI. Absolutely. But it's not the concept, it's the statement that is the issue. That may be a bit oblique, but hopefully you appreciate the difference. I understand that's how you feel. However, like I said, we'll simply have to let the evidence speak for itself.

I would say, just about anyone who has given me a fair hearing over the last 7-8 years. To those who can't be bothered with things like fair hearings, but instead get "just the gist" from friends and the like, I can definitely appear otherwise. You should try it, Dale...giving people a fair hearing, that is. You might be very surprised at what you actually see when you look for yourself. see, this is why people don't give you a fair shake If you ask anyone who knows me, I treat everyone very fairly and generally very well. So you say. My mileage quite obviously varies. You come right out of the gate and question my ability to reason, a written boot to the head, and then complain when I apparently mischaracterize you for mischaracterizing me...? THAT'S why people don't give me a fair shake...? I don't believe you have given *me* a fair shake at all, or you wouldn't say things like "RMA is the voice of reason. Who'da thunk?" I don't know whether you treat others very fairly; I was using a figure of speech to make my point. I have been "the voice of reason" many times, in many ways, on this board. Not that I haven't been a condescending ...I have, much to my discredit. But you have judged me as the one, while ignoring the other. That's the way life goes. I made my bed. Hopefully, you and others won't make me lie in it forever.

What does "precise" mean, in this context? Does GPA record every sale that occurs? No, and it cannot. Does OPG compile every sale that occurs, to come up with an "average"? No, and it cannot, either. So, while some may be offended when you say that, but that is because those people neither understand the actual natures of both the OPG and GPA, nor are they able to separate their emotions from reason. But not everyone argues from an ulterior motive. You're trying to compare that which cannot be compared. One is a data compiler. The other is a guide. Garlanda makes this point excellently above. If Precise means that they collect data about all sales? Are you serious? Would that be logical? Collecting all or less than all would be measured by a variable called all-encompassing or similar, but precision is pretty far removed from the meaning of such a variable. The word "precision" doesn't mean everything. It means that what is has is accurate to a high degree. Again, that depends on what you mean by the word "precise." "Precise" doesn't have much to do with "comprehensive", which is probably the better word to use. Is GPA absolutely precise about the data recorded? Of course, it's simply raw data. If something sells for $543.21 on eBay, that's what is recorded. Precisely. But if GPA only records tiny amounts of the market, it is not "precise" in a comprehensive meaning of the term...that is, it doesn't "precisely" reflect the market as a whole, and the OPG is far more "precise" by that measure.

That you believe that, I have no doubt. You both reason from emotion, and like attracts like. Many of Jay's posts are classic examples of "arguing from emotion", yet you feel (note that word, there) that they have been "more logical." But be assured: logic and reason are not subject to personal opinion. They simply are. Your very words give you away: I don't need to say, as you have done here, that I think so and so is more logical than you, and you are not as logical as me, because logic stands on its own. And why would I be offended? Offense is the very calling card of emotionalism. No one is inherently "more logical" than another, because logic is not an attribute, like intelligence or talent or height, etc. It is a tool. And just like any other tool, it can be used, and misused, but it is not a part of the person using (or misusing) it. A person must be TRAINED to use any tool correctly, and logic and reason are no different. That is, again, because you reason by emotion, rather than by logic. If you made multiple spelling and grammar errors, and I corrected those errors, would that lead you to think that I feel I am "more grammatical" than you? Despite the evidence in front of everyone's eyes that you had misspelled and misused grammar...? Logically, no. Emotionally, yes. That you repeat I argue using emotion doesn't make it so. That is correct. Repeating something merely makes it propaganda. The actual question, then, is whether or not the argument I have laid out, and the evidence I have presented, make it so. That's where the proverbial rubber meets the road. Again...we can let the evidence and weight of the arguments presented speak for themselves. By the way...just by way of explanation, when someone uses a dismissive...in this case, "you (sic) little grammar example" (and a fairly ironic example itself)...the word "little" being the phrase here...it conveys a tone of annoyance and irritation. "Your little comment there was quite amusing." It's meant to dismiss, and diminish, the other person and their comments. So, by the way, is the statement "I didn't think it worthy of a reply"...and then making one anyways. It's an attempt to diminish the other person, and speaks of irritation on the part of the poster. Mind you, I've done it a ton, myself. We all have. But it is a smoking gun for emotion overcoming reason, as all such little digs are. Something to keep in mind.

This. Again.

I didn't take it personally. If you believe "what world do you live in?" is not insulting, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea conveyed by such a sentence. Perhaps that is the reason behind this thread to begin with: a fundamental misunderstanding of the way words and ideas are used and conveyed. I don't know, but it is a compelling argument. Or, you're simply lying. One of the two must be true. Pointing that out is not "taking it personally"...taking it personally would be responding in kind. If I say "that is the most idiotic thing I have ever read, and am dumber for having read it"...but then said "I don't mean that to be insulting, it's just the truth", would you believe me...? And if I then said "well, you can be insulted if you want, but that's your choice", would that be an intellectually honest statement...? I didn't "change" your original comparison...I made one of my own. The first sentence of my post answered your question, but I'll repeat it here: It depends entirely on the books being discussed. I try not to make blanket statements without good cause.

What does "precise" mean, in this context? Does GPA record every sale that occurs? No, and it cannot. Does OPG compile every sale that occurs, to come up with an "average"? No, and it cannot, either. So, while some may be offended when you say that, but that is because those people neither understand the actual natures of both the OPG and GPA, nor are they able to separate their emotions from reason. But not everyone argues from an ulterior motive. You're trying to compare that which cannot be compared. One is a data compiler. The other is a guide. Garlanda makes this point excellently above.

The ad at the bottom of the page has a Star Wars #1 35 cent variant in 6.0 at the moment.

1. Yes. 2. No. 3. And this one. My question for you is: when will you be able to disagree about things, and discuss things, without being insulting? If you disagree with me, clearly and reasonably state why, without the snide commentary. Is that really that hard? Sorry if you took my answer as insulting. Not meant that way. "What world do you live in?" was not meant to be insulting....? Really....? It depends entirely on the books being discussed. If it was an 8.0 Church and an 8.0 non-Ped, for the same price, I would, of course, take the Church. If it was for a slight premium, I would take the Church (say, 10%-20%.) If it was any more than that, I'd take the non-Ped.

I would say, just about anyone who has given me a fair hearing over the last 7-8 years. To those who can't be bothered with things like fair hearings, but instead get "just the gist" from friends and the like, I can definitely appear otherwise. You should try it, Dale...giving people a fair hearing, that is. You might be very surprised at what you actually see when you look for yourself.

That's a fascinating postscript, right there. Damned by faint praise, indeed! I DO think you're being unreasonable, and have said so, many times, but not in the way you think of the word "unreasonable."

That you believe that, I have no doubt. You both reason from emotion, and like attracts like. Many of Jay's posts are classic examples of "arguing from emotion", yet you feel (note that word, there) that they have been "more logical." But be assured: logic and reason are not subject to personal opinion. They simply are. Your very words give you away: I don't need to say, as you have done here, that I think so and so is more logical than you, and you are not as logical as me, because logic stands on its own. And why would I be offended? Offense is the very calling card of emotionalism. No one is inherently "more logical" than another, because logic is not an attribute, like intelligence or talent or height, etc. It is a tool. And just like any other tool, it can be used, and misused, but it is not a part of the person using (or misusing) it. A person must be TRAINED to use any tool correctly, and logic and reason are no different. That is, again, because you reason by emotion, rather than by logic. If you made multiple spelling and grammar errors, and I corrected those errors, would that lead you to think that I feel I am "more grammatical" than you? Despite the evidence in front of everyone's eyes that you had misspelled and misused grammar...? Logically, no. Emotionally, yes.

The real issue is that YOU feel as if I "feel superior in terms of logical thinking." As a result, you are offended when I point out that a position isn't rational or logical. I, however, think nothing of the sort. You see no reason why I should think so, because there is none, and, more importantly, I don't. Logic is, reason is, they are not subject to feelings and emotions. Frequently, they are at complete loggerheads with feelings and emotions. For example...it is not logical or reasonable to call people here "hardcore Cerebus fans", simply because they defend the fact that Cerebus #1 in 9.2 and above is worth more money than Hulk #181. This is a reaction borne out of emotion, not reason, because no evidence exists which demonstrates otherwise (that they are "hardcore Cerebus fans"), and much evidence to the contrary exists. To those making such a claim, it is, of course, completely logical to do so, because that's how they feel about Hulk #181, so they project that motive onto those they are debating, despite the lack of evidence, even direct testimony to the contrary. On top of that, you attribute an ulterior motive to others, that they are only arguing to protect their "best interests", not because it is a conclusion they have reached based on the evidence. On top of THAT, you attribute MY motives simply to a desire for attention. And to you and others, someone pointing out that such comments and responses are borne of emotion, rather than reason, even though everyone reading this can see the evidence before their own eyes, is offensive...and thus, the claim that "oh, you just think you're so superior!" It's the vicious cycle that emotionalism inflicts on any debate. It doesn't matter what any of us feels. If one disagrees, one should lay out why, logically, rationally, and without resorting to personal statements about the other people in the discussion, as you have done here. Making personal statements about others is sure proof that such a person is resorting to emotion, rather than reason...precisely what you have done here. And you wonder why your statements are questioned on their logical merit...?

I still do. 232 9.8s isn't all that common on the most popular, highest selling book of 1977. We can disagree on what common means. There are, for example, 170 9.8 X-Men #121s, only 62 fewer copies than Star Wars #1.

A "price variant" of a regular issue cannot be the "king" of the BA. Maybe the star wars 1 issue ( a comic book adapted from a movie) can be considered the "King of price variants", sure. But not all of the BA. That title is deservedly and indisputably hulk 181- the book that trades on a daily basis, and is one of the primary engines (if not THE primary engine) of the BA market. Just because something is more "expensive" the few times it sells in a year does not automatically make it the "king". It just makes it more expensive. Whether or not there is any rational basis why it actually is, is a whole other discussion. -J. Sure, if you are talking about the most important character - it's Wolverine. No other Bronze Age creation comes close. If we are excluding variants and discussing the most important book, then I agree with RMA. I'd go with GSXM #1. I thought we were discussing value, and if so, I was simply stating that Star Wars #1 deserves to be where it is. What I like about Star Wars is that demand and desirability play such a large part in it's value. If not for the fact that they originally printed ten copies for every man, woman and child in North America, the regular edition would be worth more than it is as well. At five years old I had multiples of this issue. It was everywhere. I wouldn't make the mistake of underestimating how many people want this book in their collections. It's a different beast than the other variants, and it is a beast. Agreed about Star Wars 1 variant. It is the indisputable top valued comic of the BA. Star Wars 1 had over 1 million copies printed (roughly 4 times Amazing Spider-Man) across the various prints. (So, not quite 10 for everyone in NA ) It is a common book, for sure, but like NM 98, ASM 300, etc. for a book with such a large print run, Star Wars 1 has demand. It has been slowly rising in price for the past couple of years now. You know a book is in demand when it routinely sells for guide or more. Couple of points... First, New Mutants #98 had a print run of about 250-300k, while Spidey #300 had a print run of about 450-500k (with surviving rates of about 175-200k and 250-300k, respectively.) Second, Star Wars #1 is only worth money as a first print. There are oddball uber high grade reprints that are worth something, but it is the first prints that hold the value, and there weren't that many first prints printed...maybe 250,000, and while they were saved in far greater numbers than, say, Amazing Spiderman #168, they were also read to death, and are not especially common in high grade (first prints, that is.) Yeah, that's what happened, despite concerted efforts to keep focused. Not that I want to dispute you, but there are a lots of high grade 1st print Star Wars comics. Just the CGC census alone shows this: 9.8 232 9.6 710 9.4 689 9.2 376 You're not disputing anything I said. But how many are "lots"? Those copies represent less than 1% of the copies printed. 232 9.8s isn't a huge number for this book. Wolverine #1 has 1630 9.8s, nearly 8 times as many as SW #1, and it's only five years younger. We'll have to disagree on what constitutes "lots." But this is a bad comparison. Star Wars was instantly popular. It was the very first mainstream comic book in history that was immediately reprinted in the same format because of demand. People saved them, and they saved them in high grade, and they saved them in low grade, and in every grade in between. Hulk #181, on the other hand, was ignored for 3-4 years after it came out, so it was naturally subject to more attrition. It also didn't become a back issue juggernaut until the 80's. Plus...those 2.5 years difference were some of the most important in the history of comics, and the way people collected was evolving.

There is a slight premium for the run of the mill pedigrees. There's a couple auctions Ive been watching where they seem to command 10-25%. The FP 1 Twin Cities 9.8 commanded a premium to the 9.8 that sold on connect. $1675 vs $1400 roughly. The Dr Strange 172 BG pedigree in the comiclink summer feature has already set the all time high for the book with 7 days left in the auction. They do add some value. How much is up for debate. In these two cases the pedigree copy is also the highest graded, which probably makes it the most desirable. Not all of them add value. It exists for some, but for all intents and purposes, it's been replaced by the slab, outside of the "famous" Peds. You are an intelligent man. If the pedigree commands a premium in these two examples, it certainly doesn't detract from the marketability of a scarce, yet heralded, Bronze Age book that was auctioned as a second highest graded copy. That $879 sale of the 100 Page #5 is an embarrassment. You are about to witness several books surpass the Danielle Steele novel, as IM 55 very clearly already has. Once again, there is no defense here. There is enough data to show this is an easy easy easy easy call yet you continue to defend the #5. Let it go, man. If you want romance study French, drink wine, watch Eat Pray Love and read poetry. A better case could be made for the ASM 129, which surprisingly is showing some recent strength due to the first appearance of the Jackal. Take it up with Overstreet. No need for flattery. You cannot make an argument based on 4 sales in 10 years, no matter how you wish to try. Take care. 2 sales in 3 years. Pedigree copies. I can make a pretty good argument. If you don't want to hear it then you should not have said it belongs on the list. This book is the Four Color #9 of the Bronze Age There are nationwide traveling comic book dealers, right here on this board, that have sold more copies of that book raw than GPA will ever have to show. Why don't you ask them what they've seen? If I want to know what the REAL value of a book is, I would rather ask someone who actually sells the books for a living and has seen multiple copies of it over the years, than rely solely on something like GPA, that takes a SMALL percentage of sales (specific auctions), from a SMALL percentage of type books (3rd party graded). Okay I think we get it now...The "good" sales are the ones that are only happening privately. All of the other ones that are offered publicly where the overall market is allowed to set the price, which then becomes a matter of public record don't really count. (thumbs u -J. Are you saying that when I ask Bob from High Grade Comics (highgradecomics.com) or Dale from Dale Roberts Comics (www.dalerobertscomics.com) or Richard from (www.bedrockcity.com) or Greg from (www.gregreececomics.com) or Brad from (www.sharpcomics.com) or Roy from (vintagecomics.com) or Dan from (http://www.flyingdonut.com) that they are LYING to me? That the information they are giving me is incorrect? No offense to GPA, as I use it, subscribe to it, support it - but it's just a web site with some limited information on it. I prefer to use multiple sources for my information as +90% of most sales of comic books are raw. Of course I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that we have no reason to believe that the publicly reported sales are not at least reasonably representative of whatever a dealer is doing privately. That's the point of GPA- so that we don't have to just go by what a dealer says alone. -J. It depends entirely on the context being discussed. If the book is routinely sold, then YES, GPA paints a pretty accurate picture. If the book is very rarely sold, then NO, GPA doesn't paint that picture.

There is a slight premium for the run of the mill pedigrees. There's a couple auctions Ive been watching where they seem to command 10-25%. The FP 1 Twin Cities 9.8 commanded a premium to the 9.8 that sold on connect. $1675 vs $1400 roughly. The Dr Strange 172 BG pedigree in the comiclink summer feature has already set the all time high for the book with 7 days left in the auction. They do add some value. How much is up for debate. In these two cases the pedigree copy is also the highest graded, which probably makes it the most desirable. Not all of them add value. It exists for some, but for all intents and purposes, it's been replaced by the slab, outside of the "famous" Peds. How has CGC taken the place of pedigrees? And what are the pedigrees that fall outside your "famous" criteria? See explanation in a post above. So the slab replaced the function of the pedigree? So the history of the pedigree becomes irrelevant? What world do you live in? Umm...that'd be the real world. RMA's dead-on here. CGC has _vastly_ reduced the appeal of pedigrees, as we now have a credible 3rd-party grading system that can tell you whether a normal, non-pedigree book is of a higher grade (and, via GPA, more valuable) than lesser-graded pedigree books. _Many_ collectors want the best-available copies, and would take a non-pedigree 9.8 over a pedigree 9.4 or 9.6. Further, all pedigrees are not created equal, and only a few (probably ~1/3) still carry significant premiums (Church, Allentown, White Mountain among them). I've even heard as much, in person, from CGC reps themselves -- Twin Cities books? Yes - but Savannah, or even Crippen? Not so much. Even Gaines File Copies have normalized somewhat, with higher-graded non-Pedigree copies of some books going for more than the lesser-pedigree counterparts. There's a premium on the pedigrees, Gatsby. RMA is right, CGC levels the playing field, however, one of the weaker pedigrees will still outperform an identical book in grade and pq. Not by the Chuck Rowzanski 200-300%, but by 10-30%. And if I show you examples that disprove that, what do you say then...? Why do you keep repeating things that have already been refuted? Four sales in 10 years is NOT a *trend.* But do you have a DC 100 Page #5 in 9.2 for sale? If so, I'll pay you $750 for it right now. You are talking about TWO SALES, from 2011. How many times, and in how many ways, does this need to be repeated? OPG does not use just GPA data to formulate its values. GPA is only ONE resource that OPG may (or may not) use.

There is a slight premium for the run of the mill pedigrees. There's a couple auctions Ive been watching where they seem to command 10-25%. The FP 1 Twin Cities 9.8 commanded a premium to the 9.8 that sold on connect. $1675 vs $1400 roughly. The Dr Strange 172 BG pedigree in the comiclink summer feature has already set the all time high for the book with 7 days left in the auction. They do add some value. How much is up for debate. In these two cases the pedigree copy is also the highest graded, which probably makes it the most desirable. Not all of them add value. It exists for some, but for all intents and purposes, it's been replaced by the slab, outside of the "famous" Peds. You are an intelligent man. If the pedigree commands a premium in these two examples, it certainly doesn't detract from the marketability of a scarce, yet heralded, Bronze Age book that was auctioned as a second highest graded copy. That $879 sale of the 100 Page #5 is an embarrassment. You are about to witness several books surpass the Danielle Steele novel, as IM 55 very clearly already has. Once again, there is no defense here. There is enough data to show this is an easy easy easy easy call yet you continue to defend the #5. Let it go, man. If you want romance study French, drink wine, watch Eat Pray Love and read poetry. A better case could be made for the ASM 129, which surprisingly is showing some recent strength due to the first appearance of the Jackal. Take it up with Overstreet. No need for flattery. You cannot make an argument based on 4 sales in 10 years, no matter how you wish to try. Take care. 2 sales in 3 years. Pedigree copies. I can make a pretty good argument. If you don't want to hear it then you should not have said it belongs on the list. This book is the Four Color #9 of the Bronze Age There are nationwide traveling comic book dealers, right here on this board, that have sold more copies of that book raw than GPA will ever have to show. Why don't you ask them what they've seen? If I want to know what the REAL value of a book is, I would rather ask someone who actually sells the books for a living and has seen multiple copies of it over the years, than rely solely on something like GPA, that takes a SMALL percentage of sales (specific auctions), from a SMALL percentage of type books (3rd party graded). Okay I think we get it now...The "good" sales are the ones that are only happening privately. You have that wrong. The VAST MAJORITY of the sales are the ones that are happening privately. And who is "we"? You have more than one person posting with you? If not, you should probably let everyone else speak for themselves, like they have been. Oh, they count. They count about as much as the small percentage of the market that they actually are. Like individual raindrops in a spring shower. That is a bit like saying "the western medical scientists in their surveys and experiments only use as subjects a tiny fraction of the people in the world. I think it's better to rely on some of the most respected medicine men in our great tribes. Their joint experiences are vast". Surely we don't really think anecdotes and stories from 'respected medicine men..ups. . dealers) are a better proof of sales prices? It's nothing like saying that. Your analogy doesn't work at all. It is a completely illogical comparison. I have asked this question multiple times, but it doesn't seem to be making a difference: where do you think the OPG got its prices prior to CGC and GPA...?

Perhaps you should reconsider what you say, and why you say it. You are getting the same reaction from different sources, BJ. Perhaps it's time for some self-analysis? You are incorrect about pedigrees as selling points. You are incorrect about pedigrees as selling points for their entire history. The people buying Church copies could not care less about Chuck's story, and Edgar's story, and I doubt most of them could even recount anything but the most major details. The reason the Church copies became THE Church copies was because, in the late 70's, these high grade copies of these books simply didn't exist on the market. Many, many, many collectors had to content themselves with VG copies, *at best*, if they could find a copy at all. When the books were brought to market by Chuck, it was a feeding frenzy, because here were copies that hadn't seen the light of day in 30-40 years, and were magnificent. Absolutely magnificent. But these buyers didn't care why they were magnificent, or how they got that way. They simply cared that they WERE magnificent, and THAT was the function of a "pedigree" prior to the advent of CGC. Customers purchase Church copies because they are some of the highest, if not THE highest, graded Golden Age books that exist. The history is not relevant to these buyers. The NAME is important. But the story BEHIND the name...? They don't really care. SOME buyers, of course. Most buyers? No. They want the name, and they want the grade. And that's where their interest ends.

There is a slight premium for the run of the mill pedigrees. There's a couple auctions Ive been watching where they seem to command 10-25%. The FP 1 Twin Cities 9.8 commanded a premium to the 9.8 that sold on connect. $1675 vs $1400 roughly. The Dr Strange 172 BG pedigree in the comiclink summer feature has already set the all time high for the book with 7 days left in the auction. They do add some value. How much is up for debate. In these two cases the pedigree copy is also the highest graded, which probably makes it the most desirable. Not all of them add value. It exists for some, but for all intents and purposes, it's been replaced by the slab, outside of the "famous" Peds. You are an intelligent man. If the pedigree commands a premium in these two examples, it certainly doesn't detract from the marketability of a scarce, yet heralded, Bronze Age book that was auctioned as a second highest graded copy. That $879 sale of the 100 Page #5 is an embarrassment. You are about to witness several books surpass the Danielle Steele novel, as IM 55 very clearly already has. Once again, there is no defense here. There is enough data to show this is an easy easy easy easy call yet you continue to defend the #5. Let it go, man. If you want romance study French, drink wine, watch Eat Pray Love and read poetry. A better case could be made for the ASM 129, which surprisingly is showing some recent strength due to the first appearance of the Jackal. Take it up with Overstreet. No need for flattery. You cannot make an argument based on 4 sales in 10 years, no matter how you wish to try. Take care. 2 sales in 3 years. Pedigree copies. I can make a pretty good argument. If you don't want to hear it then you should not have said it belongs on the list. This book is the Four Color #9 of the Bronze Age There are nationwide traveling comic book dealers, right here on this board, that have sold more copies of that book raw than GPA will ever have to show. Why don't you ask them what they've seen? If I want to know what the REAL value of a book is, I would rather ask someone who actually sells the books for a living and has seen multiple copies of it over the years, than rely solely on something like GPA, that takes a SMALL percentage of sales (specific auctions), from a SMALL percentage of type books (3rd party graded). Okay I think we get it now...The "good" sales are the ones that are only happening privately. You have that wrong. The VAST MAJORITY of the sales are the ones that are happening privately. And who is "we"? You have more than one person posting with you? If not, you should probably let everyone else speak for themselves, like they have been. Oh, they count. They count about as much as the small percentage of the market that they actually are. Like individual raindrops in a spring shower.

A "price variant" of a regular issue cannot be the "king" of the BA. Maybe the star wars 1 issue ( a comic book adapted from a movie) can be considered the "King of price variants", sure. But not all of the BA. That title is deservedly and indisputably hulk 181- the book that trades on a daily basis, and is one of the primary engines (if not THE primary engine) of the BA market. Just because something is more "expensive" the few times it sells in a year does not automatically make it the "king". It just makes it more expensive. Whether or not there is any rational basis why it actually is, is a whole other discussion. -J. Sure, if you are talking about the most important character - it's Wolverine. No other Bronze Age creation comes close. If we are excluding variants and discussing the most important book, then I agree with RMA. I'd go with GSXM #1. I thought we were discussing value, and if so, I was simply stating that Star Wars #1 deserves to be where it is. What I like about Star Wars is that demand and desirability play such a large part in it's value. If not for the fact that they originally printed ten copies for every man, woman and child in North America, the regular edition would be worth more than it is as well. At five years old I had multiples of this issue. It was everywhere. I wouldn't make the mistake of underestimating how many people want this book in their collections. It's a different beast than the other variants, and it is a beast. Agreed about Star Wars 1 variant. It is the indisputable top valued comic of the BA. Star Wars 1 had over 1 million copies printed (roughly 4 times Amazing Spider-Man) across the various prints. (So, not quite 10 for everyone in NA ) It is a common book, for sure, but like NM 98, ASM 300, etc. for a book with such a large print run, Star Wars 1 has demand. It has been slowly rising in price for the past couple of years now. You know a book is in demand when it routinely sells for guide or more. Couple of points... First, New Mutants #98 had a print run of about 250-300k, while Spidey #300 had a print run of about 450-500k (with surviving rates of about 175-200k and 250-300k, respectively.) Second, Star Wars #1 is only worth money as a first print. There are oddball uber high grade reprints that are worth something, but it is the first prints that hold the value, and there weren't that many first prints printed...maybe 250,000, and while they were saved in far greater numbers than, say, Amazing Spiderman #168, they were also read to death, and are not especially common in high grade (first prints, that is.) Yeah, that's what happened, despite concerted efforts to keep focused.