RockMyAmadeus

Oh, no doubt. It is interesting, though, when people say things that are almost sure to be (designed to be...? ) taken personally, and then quickly follow it up "nothing personal"... Like "I'm sure" almost always means "I'm not really completely sure."

Is this where you go again, too? I cannot speak to that, as I don't have the current OPG. Mind scanning/picturing the pertinent info? Because the lists have to do with the value the OPG reports in its own book. You can't "lobby to place a book on the list" if the numbers don't follow. And, I really need to ask...why are the OPG lists being debated so vociferously at all? Does anyone really look at those as anything OTHER THAN a compilation of information already reported elsewhere in the book? Does anyone look at the list and say "ooo, I have that one, and that one, and oh, I need to get that one!, OPG reports it on a NUMBERS list, so it must be IMPORTANT!!" - Get a current OSPG. - No need to ask me, since you already answered it in your own mind. So, you DO mind scanning the pertinent info...? That's fairly unsportsmanlike of you. No worries, though, the question wasn't directed at you specifically. And while the question is answered for ME in my mind, I certainly don't have the answer from the perspective of others...it wasn't, in other words, a rhetorical question.

You tell me if this makes sense: Book Alpha #18 = $450 in 9.2 Book Beta #37 = $430 in 9.2 Book Delta #473 = $475 in 9.2. Book Gamma #66 = $515 in 9.2 Top 10 Epsilon Age Books according to value: 1. Book Gamma #66 - $515 2. Book Delta #473 - $475 3. Book Beta #37 - $430 And Book Alpha is nowhere to be found? Or was it simply an error, because anyone can plainly see (thanks S.A.!) that Book Alpha belongs in the #3 spot above Book Beta, because it is listed elsewhere for more.

Is this where you go again, too? I cannot speak to that, as I don't have the current OPG. Mind scanning/picturing the pertinent info? Because the lists have to do with the value the OPG reports in its own book. You can't "lobby to place a book on the list" if the numbers don't follow. And, I really need to ask...why are the OPG lists being debated so vociferously at all? Does anyone really look at those as anything OTHER THAN a compilation of information already reported elsewhere in the book? Does anyone look at the list and say "ooo, I have that one, and that one, and oh, I need to get that one!, OPG reports it on a NUMBERS list, so it must be IMPORTANT!!"

Cerebus hasn't been published in 10 years, and there's still significant demand to sell a copy for $9,000. Granted...books like Single Series #20 (which used to rival Action #1 and Tec #27 in value)...have fallen from great heights. Same with books like Whiz #2, which used to be a solid top 5 book. It depends on what is done with the character, if anything. The future, as ever, determines what will be popular, and what will not. It is certainly conceivable that Wolverine will become "Dad's and Grandpa's favorite character", and be replaced, as odd as that may sound now.

The basic problem you have is that the OPG lists are based solely on value in the highest grade. It's not a "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks is cool" or "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks SHOULD be the most valuable" or "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks are important"...which is how you view it, and how bronzejonny views it, and why you have a problem. It is "Top 10 books according to value in our highest grade." That's it. And just about everyone in this thread has been measured with you. You should be very grateful that some of the hotter heads around here haven't seen this thread.

This is not true. The data has been posted in this thread multiple times, by both "sides" of the discussion. It's right in front of your eyes. I've done more than enough hand holding and explaining to last a thousand threads; I'm not going to do any more. If you can't see it....that's the end of that. And "downward price trend" is not only not true, it's quite specious. Perhaps it would be clearer if my summary of the points made by others was quoted in full without edits. specious - misleading in appearance I can only guess as to why you now refuse to hand-hold, link, quote yourself or simply re-state your reasoning about the ten year thing after posting thousands of words on this topic in general. You do not "play fair" in discussions, so this will be my last response to you. My response was adequately clear, without the need to "quote in full." As far as "only guessing"...again, you fight dirty (see the "backpedal" gif above), which is unfortunate, but any attempt, no matter how reasonable, would be rejected by you, and would be utterly futile. You will draw, as always, any conclusion you wish. Take care. Again...instead of complaining about how I debate, why not confine yourself to methodical, structured reasoning, relying on empirical evidence, to make your points? Is it because you discover that your point doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but you're too proud to admit it, like many around here...? That's simple pride. I am happy to discard concepts, idea, and information that are found to be wrong. Are you...? < clickable smiley for source If Bababooey were interested in a fair, honest discussion, his attempt to use my words against me would be valid. He's not. He is only interested in tearing down those with whom he has problems. It has nothing to do with being unwilling to prove my case...which I quite clearly have, over dozens of posts...it has to do with the fact that Bababooey will never, ever accept anything from me, even if I said that water was wet. So, any attempt is pointless, and I recognize it as such. And that's not a complaint. I am certainly not blameless in contributing to his problem with me, but they are his problems. It would be nice if people didn't nurse their grudges, but that's not how it works.

You will be informed in many ways,from many sides,and see the great RMA enjoying himself like crazy. People are going to think you're being sarcastic....

Hi Chuck, I notice that you keep making the same point above in regards to 9.4 graded copies. However, since Overstreet's top 10 list is based on value in NM-, what 9.4's sell for is almost (but not quite) as irrelevant as what 8.5's sell for. In regards to 9.2's, IMO, arguments can be made from both sides (as they are) as to which would sell for more today (a lot of which might vary depending on the attractiveness of a particular copy, sales venue, auction vs. fixed price, etc.) Irrelevant? As a dealer, getting CGC graded 9.4 Cerebus #1 would NEVER be irrelevant. As far as the 9.2 goes... My GOD, how many times does this have to be repeated??? A) One sale from 2005 is all GPA has. So... You mean to tell me, and I expect you to answer this question, that as a dealer - if you got in that Cerebus #1 CGC 9.2 - you'd put it out for sale at - $2136? Is that what you'd do? Of course not. You'd put it up for auction. Gee. What would it go for? What do we have to go by? A 9.4 from March of this year which blew the doors off, and a 9.0 from last year that hit $2500. The logical guess is - it'd do more than $2500. Would it meet half way at about $5000? A quarter of the way at $3750? Let's ask some experts. They agree - it'd rock. See, you can't go by one sale from 9 years ago. You understand that right? Like, what did 9.2 Hulk 181's sell for in 2005? $1000? $1250? Anyone? One of the other things OSPG uses is the advise and imput from some of the long time dealers who handle these books everyday. They're looking at it, not from a 'I LOVE Wolverine standpoint, but from a BUSINESS standpoint. They know how to use GPA. And they're smart enough not to price ANYTHING by one sale from 9 years ago. They'd have never made it in the business this long if they did that. Hmmmmmmmm.....$3750 is about 60% above guide. Above guide? Above guide. We just switch from GPA to the guide when it suits us in the conversation. Do you guys work for Kevin Smith or what? As opposed to what Bob Overstreet thinks, who's been doing it for 44+ years, and pools his information, not JUST from GPA, but from raw sales reported by national dealers from all over the country and, ok... yeah. Yeah, that's what people do with $9000. Just throw it up there, maybe I'll get lucky. That's exactly how it works. Ok. People who's opinion I respect a lot more than yours think otherwise. You'd auction it? Why? You seem to already know what the price would be... If you were to get your home appraised you would need a few comparable sales to justify the value. There isn't a single 9.2 sale we can find anywhere that indicates the book would breach $3k, let alone $3750. Neither GPA or OPG can be used to state your case. By the same token, there is a sale that you have not mentioned once that does not help your cause one bit. In 2/2012 an SS 9.0 copy sold for a little over $1430. Nothing about this sale, which is as good a comp as any we have, would demonstrate any reason to estimate a value of $3750. There was a 9.0 before that which had hit roughly $1750, but the book was a file copy and SS. 2 out of the 3 best comparables did not even reach $2k. $3750 is a reach. That number is simply unrealistic. As far as the 9.4 sale that you are in love with, yes, people whose opinion you respect more than mine have probably bought a book for no other reason than they thought it was a strong upgrade candidate. I've done it. Potentializing is part of the game. It just made a guy >$1,000,000 doing exactly that on an Action #1 tonight. If you don't think this occurs in less expensive books like the Cerebus #1, you could possibly be experiencing some naïveté. Careful blaze....lest you be accused of "intellectual dishonesty" for having the audacity to quote actual publicly available facts and figures. Hulk SMASH! -J. No need to play the martyr. You have been accused of intellectual dishonesty...no quotes needed...for your consistent and stubborn mischaracterizing during this entire conversation.

There isn't a single 9.2 sale we can find anywhere that indicates the book would NOT breach $3k, let alone $3750. You don't know. No one knows. Just like you have a problem with people saying it WOULD break this and such price, SO CAN those people have a problem with you saying it wouldn't.

I do not believe you understand what a "weighted average" really is. When asked previously in this thread for a "weighted analysis", you completely refused to give one, and called an essay on why Hulk #181 is better than Cerebus #1 that analysis, which is no analysis of Hulk #181 at all. Do a dollar/cost average. Do a basis point analysis. For every $10 worth of Cerebus #1 in all grades, Hulk #181 is worth $X. Distribution of Hulk #181 prices over all grades. Distribution of sales over all grades. A bell curve. Things like that. Opinions aren't analyses.

Hi Chuck, I notice that you keep making the same point above in regards to 9.4 graded copies. However, since Overstreet's top 10 list is based on value in NM-, what 9.4's sell for is almost (but not quite) as irrelevant as what 8.5's sell for. In regards to 9.2's, IMO, arguments can be made from both sides (as they are) as to which would sell for more today (a lot of which might vary depending on the attractiveness of a particular copy, sales venue, auction vs. fixed price, etc.) Irrelevant? As a dealer, getting CGC graded 9.4 Cerebus #1 would NEVER be irrelevant. As far as the 9.2 goes... My GOD, how many times does this have to be repeated??? A) One sale from 2005 is all GPA has. So... You mean to tell me, and I expect you to answer this question, that as a dealer - if you got in that Cerebus #1 CGC 9.2 - you'd put it out for sale at - $2136? Is that what you'd do? Of course not. You'd put it up for auction. Gee. What would it go for? What do we have to go by? A 9.4 from March of this year which blew the doors off, and a 9.0 from last year that hit $2500. The logical guess is - it'd do more than $2500. Would it meet half way at about $5000? A quarter of the way at $3750? Let's ask some experts. They agree - it'd rock. See, you can't go by one sale from 9 years ago. You understand that right? Like, what did 9.2 Hulk 181's sell for in 2005? $1000? $1250? Anyone? One of the other things OSPG uses is the advise and imput from some of the long time dealers who handle these books everyday. They're looking at it, not from a 'I LOVE Wolverine standpoint, but from a BUSINESS standpoint. They know how to use GPA. And they're smart enough not to price ANYTHING by one sale from 9 years ago. They'd have never made it in the business this long if they did that. Hmmmmmmmm.....$3750 is about 60% above guide. I think that's a little ambitious. Whoever bought the last 9.4 might have thought it had 9.6, single highest graded potential, and could have overpaid for the opportunity to find out. I could probably just as easily argue on behalf of the Cerebus #1 Like I said, dead heat. We won't figure this out until another 9.2 hits the market. If this goes on for much longer I may have to sniff one out and auction it off myself. Frankly there should be a MINIMUM amount of sales before a book can even be eligible to make the list. And it should be a weighted average of all sales across all the grades. That would create a level playing field regardless of print run and eliminate books with waning or negligible impact on the hobby. Again, the way Overstreet does it it stupid, as books like cerebus 1, with 0 sales in grade for years get cursory, unearned "honorary mentions" based on meaningless hypothetical "what ifs?" While books like hulk 181 is somehow penalized for having people actually buying it in grade on a regular basis which develops a real and actual cost basis. Comparing those real and hard numbers to the mythical, hypothetical unicorn numbers of a book that hasn't sold in a decade is really very stupid not to mention pointless and meaningless. Get with the times overstreet. -J. Agreed. They shouldn't be putting Action Comics 1,, Detective Comics 27, and other books that only sell a single copy every few years in any of these lists. There just isn't enough data to fairly compare those books with other books that have more data.

Hi Chuck, I notice that you keep making the same point above in regards to 9.4 graded copies. However, since Overstreet's top 10 list is based on value in NM-, what 9.4's sell for is almost (but not quite) as irrelevant as what 8.5's sell for. In regards to 9.2's, IMO, arguments can be made from both sides (as they are) as to which would sell for more today (a lot of which might vary depending on the attractiveness of a particular copy, sales venue, auction vs. fixed price, etc.) Irrelevant? As a dealer, getting CGC graded 9.4 Cerebus #1 would NEVER be irrelevant. As far as the 9.2 goes... My GOD, how many times does this have to be repeated??? A) One sale from 2005 is all GPA has. So... You mean to tell me, and I expect you to answer this question, that as a dealer - if you got in that Cerebus #1 CGC 9.2 - you'd put it out for sale at - $2136? Is that what you'd do? Of course not. You'd put it up for auction. Gee. What would it go for? What do we have to go by? A 9.4 from March of this year which blew the doors off, and a 9.0 from last year that hit $2500. The logical guess is - it'd do more than $2500. Would it meet half way at about $5000? A quarter of the way at $3750? Let's ask some experts. They agree - it'd rock. See, you can't go by one sale from 9 years ago. You understand that right? Like, what did 9.2 Hulk 181's sell for in 2005? $1000? $1250? Anyone? One of the other things OSPG uses is the advise and imput from some of the long time dealers who handle these books everyday. They're looking at it, not from a 'I LOVE Wolverine standpoint, but from a BUSINESS standpoint. They know how to use GPA. And they're smart enough not to price ANYTHING by one sale from 9 years ago. They'd have never made it in the business this long if they did that. Hmmmmmmmm.....$3750 is about 60% above guide. I think that's a little ambitious. Whoever bought the last 9.4 might have thought it had 9.6, single highest graded potential, and could have overpaid for the opportunity to find out. I could probably just as easily argue on behalf of the Cerebus #1 Like I said, dead heat. We won't figure this out until another 9.2 hits the market. If this goes on for much longer I may have to sniff one out and auction it off myself. Frankly there should be a MINIMUM amount of sales before a book can even be eligible to make the list. And it should be a weighted average of all sales across all the grades. That would create a level playing field regardless of print run and eliminate books with waning or negligible impact on the hobby. Again, the way Overstreet does it it stupid, as books like cerebus 1, with 0 sales in grade for years get cursory, unearned "honorary mentions" based on meaningless hypothetical "what ifs?" While books like hulk 181 is somehow penalized for having people actually buying it in grade on a regular basis which develops a real and actual cost basis. Comparing those real and hard numbers to the mythical, hypothetical unicorn numbers of a book that hasn't sold in a decade is really very stupid not to mention pointless and meaningless. Get with the times overstreet. -J. Then stop complaining and publish your own price guide. Then everyone can complain about it, too. What I don't understand is why you are so incredibly stubborn. I don't understand it. You keep harping over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that "we can't go by ONE sale!!!" And you have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that GPA and slabbed books are merely ONE AVENUE through which Overstreet gets his information. Yet, you keep ignoring that, as you ignore every other fact that doesn't support your position. When are you going to stop mischaracterizing every single damn aspect of this conversation...? Hmm?

Finally! Jaydog says something TRUE! RMA, can I ask your opinion on a completely unrelated, off-topic question? Kamala Harris, your state AG is 27:1 for the 2016 election. You like that play or throwing money away? I'm not a fan of Kamala Harris, and she obtained the office corruptly.

Hi Chuck, I notice that you keep making the same point above in regards to 9.4 graded copies. However, since Overstreet's top 10 list is based on value in NM-, what 9.4's sell for is almost (but not quite) as irrelevant as what 8.5's sell for. In regards to 9.2's, IMO, arguments can be made from both sides (as they are) as to which would sell for more today (a lot of which might vary depending on the attractiveness of a particular copy, sales venue, auction vs. fixed price, etc.) The issue is "why is Cerebus #1 worth more than Hulk #181 in ANY grade???" This is the problem people have, but as we see, Cerebus #1 is clearly more valuable in 9.4 AND ABOVE (if "above" existed for Cerebus #1.) In 9.6 and 9.8, Cerebus #1 would blow Hulk #181 out of the water. OPG doesn't go beyond 9.2 That's the only reason it is based on the value in NM-. And arguments CAN'T be made from both sides...they can't be made from ANY side, because we only have a single sale from 2005. Based on GPA, we don't know. But here's the key: OPG doesn't just use GPA. Why everyone is hung up on GPA as it relates to OPG is anyone's guess. GPA and slabbed sales on simply one avenue that OPG uses. The bottom line is simple: people who are hyperfans of Wolverine are offended that a book they think is mess is worth more. That's what this entire thread has been about. That's it.

Finally! Jaydog says something TRUE! RMA, can I ask your opinion on a completely unrelated, off-topic question? Sure.

Finally! Jaydog says something TRUE!

PS...do you own any of the books in your sigline, Jaydog? They're all different scans. Just curious.

That is correct. What you just typed is poppycock. Neither Overstreet nor anyone who is seeking the truth has "cleaved" to a single sale of Cerebus #1 in 9.2 from 2005. I, myself, stated that very thing the post right above yours. This is not true. Such data has already been posted, by you. You don't recognize it. Who brought up TMNT #1.........? When did TMNT #1 enter into this discussion? How did TMNT #1 become involved in this? Your post is filled with the typical unreasoning, irrational posturing of a dedicated fan (see the origin of the word "fan"), rather than an honest desire for the truth, wherever it may lie. That's not a problem, except that you do not tell the audience that you are posting as a partisan, and are posing as a sincere seeker of the truth.

Exactly. If each book was offered for "$500 less than market value," the Cerebus would go for more money. Because, in 9.2 and up, it's worth more (grade for grade) than IH 181. The market value has been established. The current CGC 9.2 value for Cerebus 1 might be theoretical due to lack of recent GPA-verified data, but Overstreet's not wrong to state that Cerebus 1 in 9.2 is worth more than IH 181 in 9.2. That's what it's Top 10 Bronze List means; that's the parameters of the "value" discussion. And on that score, it's the Cerebus. Every time. 9.2 is a statistical dead heat. Cerebus #1 has commanded sales greater than the 181's 90 DMA (day moving average), but 181 has had a recent sale in 9.2 higher than Cerebus #1 has in any grade south of 9.4. It would probably come down to venue. 181 might win a battle of the 9.2's on ebay, Cerebus #1 may win on Link, HA or Metro. You have no way of making these claims. There is simply no way to know. There is only a single sale, from 9 years ago. The 9.4 sales, both SS and the single Universal (a clue!), suggest that a 9.2 would sell for more than the 2005 sale, but it's only a suggestion. The highest sale price among all recorded data points for a 181 9.2 took place this month on ebay. That is not a claim, it's a fact. I wonder what a 9.4 would have gone for? You have misunderstood. I wasn't disputing the sale of the Hulk #181 in 9.2. It cannot be disputed. I am disputing the comparison of the single 9.2 sale of Cerebus #1 from 9 years ago to the AVERAGE value of a Hulk #181 9.2 as essentially unknowable.

This is not true. The data has been posted in this thread multiple times, by both "sides" of the discussion. It's right in front of your eyes. I've done more than enough hand holding and explaining to last a thousand threads; I'm not going to do any more. If you can't see it....that's the end of that. And "downward price trend" is not only not true, it's quite specious. Perhaps it would be clearer if my summary of the points made by others was quoted in full without edits. specious - misleading in appearance I can only guess as to why you now refuse to hand-hold, link, quote yourself or simply re-state your reasoning about the ten year thing after posting thousands of words on this topic in general. You do not "play fair" in discussions, so this will be my last response to you. My response was adequately clear, without the need to "quote in full." As far as "only guessing"...again, you fight dirty (see the "backpedal" gif above), which is unfortunate, but any attempt, no matter how reasonable, would be rejected by you, and would be utterly futile. You will draw, as always, any conclusion you wish. Take care.

Exactly. If each book was offered for "$500 less than market value," the Cerebus would go for more money. Because, in 9.2 and up, it's worth more (grade for grade) than IH 181. The market value has been established. The current CGC 9.2 value for Cerebus 1 might be theoretical due to lack of recent GPA-verified data, but Overstreet's not wrong to state that Cerebus 1 in 9.2 is worth more than IH 181 in 9.2. That's what it's Top 10 Bronze List means; that's the parameters of the "value" discussion. And on that score, it's the Cerebus. Every time. 9.2 is a statistical dead heat. Cerebus #1 has commanded sales greater than the 181's 90 DMA (day moving average), but 181 has had a recent sale in 9.2 higher than Cerebus #1 has in any grade south of 9.4. It would probably come down to venue. 181 might win a battle of the 9.2's on ebay, Cerebus #1 may win on Link, HA or Metro. You have no way of making these claims. There is simply no way to know. There is only a single sale, from 9 years ago. The 9.4 sales, both SS and the single Universal (a clue!), suggest that a 9.2 would sell for more than the 2005 sale, but it's only a suggestion.

This is not true. The data has been posted in this thread multiple times, by both "sides" of the discussion. It's right in front of your eyes. I've done more than enough hand holding and explaining to last a thousand threads; I'm not going to do any more. If you can't see it....that's the end of that. And "downward price trend" is not only not true, it's quite specious.

"Eva....."