RockMyAmadeus

Great! So let's keep everything professional, and avoid personal comments going forward, shall we? If I call your POSITION emotional and irrational, I am not (necessarily) calling YOU emotional and irrational. Separate the two, and you'll do well.

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer: http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4 -J. Except that now you're trying to use a case where one sale or a handful of sales is actually irrelevant. If there are only a handful of sales, but they are consistent, that is the value. If there are a large quantity of sales and a handful that fall outside the range of the majority, the majority is the value, not the outliers. Of course, that may actually be the value for Hulk 181 in 9.2 going forward, but that remains to be seen. Again, now everyone is trying to use the "but it's scarce" argument to their advantage, and hulk 181's greater numbers in grade to its potential disadvantage (other sales at 9.2 possibly diluting this high sale), when that is in fact the problem in the first place, per the OP's original post. No, three sales in ten years don't tell me anything definitive. But that Hulk 181 sale just happened. If two more like it happen in the next nine years would that prove a "trend" to you like it evidently does for Cerebus 1? -J. Alright...let's compare like with like. Mar of 2014. One sale. Cerebus #1, CGC 9.4. $9,000. No Hulk #181 in 9.4 Universal has sold for more than $3600, ever. What conclusion(s) do you draw from this? RMA I love you man but your arguments have completely fallen apart. So you say... No. That is not the single highest sale figure. Details, Jaydog, details. That is nothing but speculation. No one has any way to prove, or disprove, this. It is pure speculation, and therefore cannot be a reasonable position to take. Not the point (at this particular junction.) I am asking you what conclusion(s) you draw from this recent sale. NO. Stop making me repeat myself. Seriously, Jaydog, stop it. I have already stated, MULTIPLE TIMES, that a SINGLE sale does not prove ANYTHING. I simply asked YOU what conclusion(s) YOU draw from this. You're making me repeat myself. 9.9 is a FREAK GRADE, and CANNOT be used to make ANY argument about ANYTHING except in comparison to other 9.9s, and the other freak grade, 10. So...what conclusion(s) do you draw from the sale of the Cerebus #1 9.4 for $9,000?

No, especially when "the way you see it" is easily disproven (such as "anyone who disagrees with you is emotional and irrational.") You are quite obviously very offended by what I've said. I am genuinely sorry that you feel that way, but it is a feeling, and it will pass. Reason should always triumph over emotion.

If you don't take it personally, you should refrain (well, you should refrain, regardless) from calling my apologies "pseudo", "insincere", and making erroneous absolute statements like "anyone who disagrees with you is irrational and emotional", and other such inflammatory statements, whether the recipient is inflamed by them or not. Fair enough?

I don't think you read what I wrote. I *just* told you that there is disagreement, and there is emotional and irrational, and the two are not the same. Because you want to continue beating it with me? :shrug: Did you know that asking others why they "won't stop arguing" while they, themselves, continue to argue is irrational....? Not at all. It is the reason WHY you disagree that is the issue. Who...? However, my apology was not insincere. I always strive for basic understanding, without which, dialogue is impossible. If you don't understand what I said, everything after that is just noise. Yes. Do you recognize that? Your very words betray you. Despite the fact...proven, demonstrable, recorded, unavoidable fact...that a Cerebus #1 9.4 has sold on four different occasions for substantially more than a Hulk #181 9.4 has ever sold, you stubbornly hold on to the notion that that simply isn't true, and shouldn't be. In one sentence, you dismiss Cerebus and vaunt Wolverine, and complain that it's not fair that Cerebus #1 in the highest grades is more valuable than Hulk #181. That is the basis of your argument: you don't think it's fair that Cerebus #1 is more valuable, because you like Wolverine better. Supply, demand, scarcity in high grade, these things mean nothing to you, because it's not fair that ANY copy of Cerebus should be worth more than Hulk #181. This is the heart of emotional irrationalism. But please, don't take it personally. None of this has been personal. I have been irrational before; we all have. It's part of life. It's how we deal with it that really determines who we are. I am not offended by your statements, nor should you be mine.

Where? BEHIND YOU! LOOK OUT!!!! ZOMBIE ARISTOTLE MUST EAT BRAINS. YUMMY, SMART BRAINS!!! (Phew. At least I'm safe!)

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer: http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4 -J. Except that now you're trying to use a case where one sale or a handful of sales is actually irrelevant. If there are only a handful of sales, but they are consistent, that is the value. If there are a large quantity of sales and a handful that fall outside the range of the majority, the majority is the value, not the outliers. Of course, that may actually be the value for Hulk 181 in 9.2 going forward, but that remains to be seen. Again, now everyone is trying to use the "but it's scarce" argument to their advantage, and hulk 181's greater numbers in grade to its potential disadvantage (other sales at 9.2 possibly diluting this high sale), when that is in fact the problem in the first place, per the OP's original post. No, three sales in ten years don't tell me anything definitive. But that Hulk 181 sale just happened. If two more like it happen in the next nine years would that prove a "trend" to you like it evidently does for Cerebus 1? -J. You can't solely rely on GPA data, especially in a discussion about a list found in the Overstreet Price Guide. GPA has only been referenced because it is the most obvious available data. +1

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer: http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4 -J. Except that now you're trying to use a case where one sale or a handful of sales is actually irrelevant. If there are only a handful of sales, but they are consistent, that is the value. If there are a large quantity of sales and a handful that fall outside the range of the majority, the majority is the value, not the outliers. Of course, that may actually be the value for Hulk 181 in 9.2 going forward, but that remains to be seen. Again, now everyone is trying to use the "but it's scarce" argument to their advantage, and hulk 181's greater numbers in grade to its potential disadvantage (other sales at 9.2 possibly diluting this high sale), when that is in fact the problem in the first place, per the OP's original post. No, three sales in ten years don't tell me anything definitive. But that Hulk 181 sale just happened. If two more like it happen in the next nine years would that prove a "trend" to you like it evidently does for Cerebus 1? -J. Alright...let's compare like with like. Mar of 2014. One sale. Cerebus #1, CGC 9.4. $9,000. No Hulk #181 in 9.4 Universal has sold for more than $3600, ever. What conclusion(s) do you draw from this?

I agree, but it does help me by keeping my rhetorical skills sharp, and giving me opportunities to approach a topic from many different angles, to see if any of them might stick. Unfortunately, logic and reason have been overtaken by emotionalism and irrationality, which only does harm. People come to conclusions based on how they feel, rather than by a structured examination of the evidence, and this has led to untold suffering, both large scale and small, for humanity. Aristotle was right. Quoting Aristotle are we? It's actually simpler than that. Anyone who disagrees with you is illogical and emotional. Well, that's a shame. You've resorted to absolutes statements that cannot be reasonably claimed based on the evidence. That's the heart of arguing from emotion. No, the reality is, anyone who makes illogical and emotional arguments is making illogical and emotional arguments. If that describes you, that is what I'm going to state. Plenty of people around here are perfectly capable of disagreeing with me (and others) without resorting to silly absolute statements about the people with whom they disagree. It's hardly the case that they disagree with me only because I think they are illogical and emotional. That's not a reasonable conclusion to make. You still haven't answered my question: do you dispute the sales prices as recorded at GPA? Those are the facts that *I* (NOT Overstreet) am using to make my point. If you dispute their validity, say so already. You are offended, because you argue from emotion, rather than reason. If you argued from reason, you would not be offended. You don't offend me at all. Why apologize for anything, when you clearly don't mean it? You call my apology "pseudo", because you react from emotion, not reason. I was, and am, genuinely sorry you misunderstood my meaning. I clarified it. That should have ended it. Instead, you reply with a volley of mocking offendedness. And this is not emotionalism on display....? I didn't quote Aristotle, nor did I "site" him. I simply said he was right. He was.

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer: Here's a great example of the foundational unsoundness of your arguments: You don't know what Overstreet uses, so you cannot possibly make this claim. You cannot claim it is "selective", because you do not know what information it selects, and what it discards (if anything), to arrive at its prices. You have no way of knowing if and how it is "limited", because you are not privy to the methods that Overstreet uses to compile prices But it sure makes for a good sound bite! Not sure how this is supposed to be a "game changer." Do you have any recent sales of Cerebus #1 in 9.2 to compare t with? So NOW you want to use the limited print run and lack of any real sales data for cerebus 1 to make your point ? Talk about trying to have things both ways. Sheeesh. Oh boy. You argue like a smart teenager. Yes, because I am making different (if related) points. For example: if I said "Apples are abundant this year in Walla Walla" and then said "Apples are scarce this year nationwide, due to blight", am I contradicting myself? Or am I making two different points that happen to share the same basic subject? You must compare like with like. Your claim that TODAY, a Hulk #181 in 9.2 sold for $X, which is greater than what a 9.2 Cerebus #1 sold for in 2005, and therefore Hulk #181 should be higher on the list, is NOT VALID. That is NOT a "well, then, you want it both ways!" situation, because you're not comparing like to like. If you want to compare a SINGLE sale to a SINGLE sale, you need to compare like with like. That means, a SINGLE sale from the same time period...not a single sale, 9 years apart. When I say "Cerebus #1 is higher valued than Hulk #181 in higher grades", I do not rely, and have never relied, on a SINGLE SALE from 2005. That would be foolish. Instead, I rely on several OTHER sales, including one within the last six months, that happened to be a 9.4. It is the TOTALITY of this information that is used to draw this conclusion, not a single sale. There is a difference between SPARESNESS of sales, and SINGLE sales. Except that, again, you don't have any real idea what information Overstreet uses to arrive at its prices. It is silly and meaningless to you, because you conclude based on feelings, rather than evidence and empiricism. Help me understand something....how was the OPG able to compile prices for these books prior to the advent of CGC and GPA...? You keep settin' 'em up, I'll keep knockin' 'em down.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with wildly_fanciful_statement

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer: Here's a great example of the foundational unsoundness of your arguments: You don't know what Overstreet uses, so you cannot possibly make this claim. You cannot claim it is "selective", because you do not know what information it selects, and what it discards (if anything), to arrive at its prices. You have no way of knowing if and how it is "limited", because you are not privy to the methods that Overstreet uses to compile prices But it sure makes for a good sound bite! Not sure how this is supposed to be a "game changer." Do you have any recent sales of Cerebus #1 in 9.2 to compare t with?

+1. This. So to use RMA's own logic, this one sale of Hulk 181 in a 9.2 should be enough to propel it past Cerebus #1 in next year's overstreet. -J. You are using your own logic, not mine, as explained at length previously. Not really. That hulk 181 9.2 beats the two sales of cerebus in a 9.2. By YOUR logic (and Overstreet) the hulk 181 will be more "valuable" on the list next year. Done and done. Though I am sure you will continue on with a whole new set of qualifiers. -J. No. This is not my logic, it is solely your own, as already stated. You continuing to state that it is my logic doesn't make it any less so. See "further" post above. As far as "a whole new set of qualifiers"...Jaydog, I have to ask, are you used to talking in circles around the people in your life? Because you're a very good rhetorician, and the way you present your arguments, even though they don't rest on a foundation of logic, I imagine are quite compelling to people not used to dealing in a structured examination of details. You are quite a cut above the usual incoherent ramblings of many. Bravo! Part of me thinks you don't really believe the statements you make, but are instead making them for effect. If that's the case, bravo! It's very, very difficult to fake that convincingly or consistently. However...as has been said by others, you shouldn't try to wildly_fanciful_statement wildly_fanciful_statement_makers. You've more than met your rhetorical match with this board, I'm afraid.

I agree, but it does help me by keeping my rhetorical skills sharp, and giving me opportunities to approach a topic from many different angles, to see if any of them might stick. Unfortunately, logic and reason have been overtaken by emotionalism and irrationality, which only does harm. People come to conclusions based on how they feel, rather than by a structured examination of the evidence, and this has led to untold suffering, both large scale and small, for humanity. Aristotle was right.

+1. This. So to use RMA's own logic, this one sale of Hulk 181 in a 9.2 should be enough to propel it past Cerebus #1 in next year's overstreet. -J. You are using your own logic, not mine, as explained at length previously. Further...following your line of reasoning above, Hulk #181 should already be above Cerebus #1, and should have been from 2008, the year of the first sale of a 9.2 Hulk #181 over the Cerebus #1 9.2. "Exactly! Now you're getting it! We shouldn't even be HAVING this conversation!" Except that you started with a flawed premise...that current sales of Hulk #181 can be directly compared to 9 year old sales of Cerebus #1, with no valuation estimates or extrapolations occurring for the Cerebus #1.

+1. This. So to use RMA's own logic, this one sale of Hulk 181 in a 9.2 should be enough to propel it past Cerebus #1 in next year's overstreet. -J. You are using your own logic, not mine, as explained at length previously.

Always love a person who makes his own interpretation out to be facts. Facts: Cerebus #1 sales, as recorded at GPA... ( 9.4 ) - - (1) $9,000 - $9,000 Mar-2014 ( 9.4 ) Sgnt series/Signed by Dave Sim (Dave Sim File Copy) - - - - $7,768 Feb-2010 2009 (1) $7,754Hi 2004 (1) $10,600Hi Total books sold: 3. Hi/Low price recorded: $10,600/$7,754 ( 9.2 ) Sgnt series/Signed by Dave Sim (Dave Sim File Copy) - - - - $2,136 Nov-2005 These are facts, established and recorded. Do you dispute these facts? Because these are the facts to which I refer, not my opinion. Please try not to be so easily offended, and ask before assuming an incorrect interpretation of what someone else has written. My "no" was not about Jaydog's understanding of your original post, but rather that it is "only in Overstreet" that such a conclusion can be reached. My apologies for not cutting out the phrase " I think that's in line with the OP's original point too;" which led to your misunderstanding my post. You make the mistake of assuming I am arguing out of passion...perhaps because that is all you know? I do not argue out of passion, but out of reason, regardless of my personal feelings about both books. When you change the parameters of the original premise, and then use that to argue that the original premise is therefore wrong, that's irrational. That's precisely what has happened here. I'm sorry that you are offended by this, but that doesn't change the fact that your position...that Cerebus #1 is only more valuable according to Overstreet, and that itself is an unreasonable conclusion for Overstreet to draw...is invalid. Five sales in 10 years? Hulk 181 will sell that many in grade this week. RMA, I think you have inadvertently validated the OP's original point with the cited GPA data you have provided. -J. He's never going to get it. No, because your conclusions aren't reasonable, and aren't supported by either logic or data. I don't "get" unreasonable conclusions. Sorry.

Always love a person who makes his own interpretation out to be facts. Facts: Cerebus #1 sales, as recorded at GPA... ( 9.4 ) - - (1) $9,000 - $9,000 Mar-2014 ( 9.4 ) Sgnt series/Signed by Dave Sim (Dave Sim File Copy) - - - - $7,768 Feb-2010 2009 (1) $7,754Hi 2004 (1) $10,600Hi Total books sold: 3. Hi/Low price recorded: $10,600/$7,754 ( 9.2 ) Sgnt series/Signed by Dave Sim (Dave Sim File Copy) - - - - $2,136 Nov-2005 These are facts, established and recorded. Do you dispute these facts? Because these are the facts to which I refer, not my opinion. Please try not to be so easily offended, and ask before assuming an incorrect interpretation of what someone else has written. My "no" was not about Jaydog's understanding of your original post, but rather that it is "only in Overstreet" that such a conclusion can be reached. My apologies for not cutting out the phrase " I think that's in line with the OP's original point too;" which led to your misunderstanding my post. You make the mistake of assuming I am arguing out of passion...perhaps because that is all you know? I do not argue out of passion, but out of reason, regardless of my personal feelings about both books. When you change the parameters of the original premise, and then use that to argue that the original premise is therefore wrong, that's irrational. That's precisely what has happened here. I'm sorry that you are offended by this, but that doesn't change the fact that your position...that Cerebus #1 is only more valuable according to Overstreet, and that itself is an unreasonable conclusion for Overstreet to draw...is invalid. Five sales in 10 years? Hulk 181 will sell that many in grade this week. RMA, I think you have inadvertently validated the OP's original point with the cited GPA data you have provided. -J. I guess we should remove Detective Comics 27 and Action Comics 1 from the Overstreet top GA lists too since they sell very few copies over the years. I get your point but it's not really an apples to apples comparison since those books' rarity is due to attrition and not a deliberately small original print run. Therefore it is a more level playing field as they are measured against most of the other GA titles on the list. -J. So, Cerebus #1 hasn't been subject to attrition? What does "deliberately small" mean? Did Sim only want to print 2,000 copies, and no more, or was he forced to only print 2,000 copies, by economic concerns? Does it really matter the cause of a book's rarity? Does the law of supply and demand work differently, based on how many were originally made? What does "more level playing field" mean? The only difference between the GA list in OPG and the other ages, is that OPG considers the top grade for many GA book to be very fine. Otherwise, you can compare them, across the board, with any book from any other age, because the lists are based on their value in the highest grade, as reported by Overstreet.

Always love a person who makes his own interpretation out to be facts. Facts: Cerebus #1 sales, as recorded at GPA... ( 9.4 ) - - (1) $9,000 - $9,000 Mar-2014 ( 9.4 ) Sgnt series/Signed by Dave Sim (Dave Sim File Copy) - - - - $7,768 Feb-2010 2009 (1) $7,754Hi 2004 (1) $10,600Hi Total books sold: 3. Hi/Low price recorded: $10,600/$7,754 ( 9.2 ) Sgnt series/Signed by Dave Sim (Dave Sim File Copy) - - - - $2,136 Nov-2005 These are facts, established and recorded. Do you dispute these facts? Because these are the facts to which I refer, not my opinion. Please try not to be so easily offended, and ask before assuming an incorrect interpretation of what someone else has written. My "no" was not about Jaydog's understanding of your original post, but rather that it is "only in Overstreet" that such a conclusion can be reached. My apologies for not cutting out the phrase " I think that's in line with the OP's original point too;" which led to your misunderstanding my post. You make the mistake of assuming I am arguing out of passion...perhaps because that is all you know? I do not argue out of passion, but out of reason, regardless of my personal feelings about both books. When you change the parameters of the original premise, and then use that to argue that the original premise is therefore wrong, that's irrational. That's precisely what has happened here. I'm sorry that you are offended by this, but that doesn't change the fact that your position...that Cerebus #1 is only more valuable according to Overstreet, and that itself is an unreasonable conclusion for Overstreet to draw...is invalid. Five sales in 10 years? Hulk 181 will sell that many in grade this week. RMA, I think you have inadvertently validated the OP's original point with the cited GPA data you have provided. -J. I guess we should remove Detective Comics 27 and Action Comics 1 from the Overstreet top GA lists too since they sell very few copies over the years. It's difficult to escape that conclusion using that line of reasoning, is it not...?

You must compare apples to apples. The sale of Cerebus #1 in 9.2 was in 2005....it handily beat Hulk #181. In fact, it would not be until 2008 that a Hulk #181 would sell for more than that 2005 sale of Cerebus #1 in 9.2. We can only go by what is available. Would Cerebus #1 9.2 sell for more than a Hulk #181 9.2 today? Don't know, but looking at the sales of 9.4, it's not outside of the realm of reason. I disagree that it is reasonable to conclude a $2300-$2800 price for a 9.2 copy now.

Point of clarification: do you mean that "Hulk 181 will sell that many in those grades this week"...? As to validating the OP's point, please see the post above.

Because 9.9 is a freak grade, and cannot be used to establish an argument. And please do try to not use your words loosely. This discussion isn't about "all time most valuable BA comic status." The discussion is about the OPG's valuing of the book above Hulk #181 in the highest grade it uses. Your conclusion is flawed. Here's why: First, you are assuming that Overstreet is ONLY using GPA data to value Cerebus #1 over Hulk #181. This is incorrect. GPA data SUPPORTS Overstreet's conclusion, but it is not the "sole basis" for that conclusion. Second, every single sale of Cerebus #1, as recorded at GPA, in grades 9.2 and higher (five as of today), has been greater than Hulk #181 in the same grade...in 9.4, substantially more. How many more sales would you say there needs to be to establish Cerebus #1's value, high grade for high grade, over Hulk #181? 10? 15? 50? Are all five of those sales outliers, or shilled, or fantasy sales that don't really exist?

Always love a person who makes his own interpretation out to be facts. Facts: Cerebus #1 sales, as recorded at GPA... ( 9.4 ) - - (1) $9,000 - $9,000 Mar-2014 ( 9.4 ) Sgnt series/Signed by Dave Sim (Dave Sim File Copy) - - - - $7,768 Feb-2010 2009 (1) $7,754Hi 2004 (1) $10,600Hi Total books sold: 3. Hi/Low price recorded: $10,600/$7,754 ( 9.2 ) Sgnt series/Signed by Dave Sim (Dave Sim File Copy) - - - - $2,136 Nov-2005 These are facts, established and recorded. Do you dispute these facts? Because these are the facts to which I refer, not my opinion. Please try not to be so easily offended, and ask before assuming an incorrect interpretation of what someone else has written. My "no" was not about Jaydog's understanding of your original post, but rather that it is "only in Overstreet" that such a conclusion can be reached. My apologies for not cutting out the phrase " I think that's in line with the OP's original point too;" which led to your misunderstanding my post. You make the mistake of assuming I am arguing out of passion...perhaps because that is all you know? I do not argue out of passion, but out of reason, regardless of my personal feelings about both books. When you change the parameters of the original premise, and then use that to argue that the original premise is therefore wrong, that's irrational. That's precisely what has happened here. I'm sorry that you are offended by this, but that doesn't change the fact that your position...that Cerebus #1 is only more valuable according to Overstreet, and that itself is an unreasonable conclusion for Overstreet to draw...is invalid.

I agree. If anyone wants to sell me their high grade non-key Cerebus 1, please let me know. IH 181 I have and can get more copies of whenever I want. Cerebus 1, not so much. And all the money in the world won't conjur up a 9.8, if none truly exist in that grade. A shame, too. Sim's file copies yielded many ultra high grade early copies...but no #1s above 9.4. If....IF...a 9.8 Cerebus #1 showed up, I don't think $30-$40K would be out of the question. ....and in the real world the one single sale of that one single book in that one single grade STILL would not make cerebus more "valuable" than hulk 181. -J. Only in fantasy land, where documented sales figures don't matter. It's easily possible that...you know, actually comparing grade for grade...that a Cerebus #1 in 9.8 would sell for more than Hulk #181 in 9.8 ever has. Your real issue is that Overstreet didn't do a "most popular" list, which is what you want. The OPG is a price guide, not a popularity guide. Their job is to report prices, not rank characters according to popularity. Wanting the OPG to do a popularity list isn't rational. Untrue. And yet you want to use a hypothetical "single highest graded" copy of cerebus 1 to rationalize its misguided positioning on overstreet's flawed list but ignore the real world sale of hulk 181's "single highest graded" copy for $150k, which was four years ago, and could just as likely be over $200k if it happened today. Makes no sense. Nor does it make sense that you disregard the fact that cerebus sells at about one-half hulk 181 does in an 8.5, (and even lower percentages on down the grading scale) even though there are literally only 6 blue label copies graded higher, while there are hundreds and hundreds hulk 181's graded higher. Nor does it make sense that Overstreet (and you apparently) think that the same 5 or 6 copies of cerebus 1 that have exchanged hands over the last 15 years or so over a 9.0 grade, are in any way, shape or form an appropriate way to determine the actual "value" of the book as compared to the thousands of sales of hulk 181 that have occurred over the same amount of time. Nor does it make sense that you could possibly believe this book is more "valuable" than hulk 181 in real life simply because those five or six highest graded examples of cerebus 1 in a whopping two grade and one or two sale comparison have sold for more than hulk 181's in comparable grade. How convenient it is for cerebus 1 that Overstreet has decided to compare books in that one grade that he does. So yes, in the land of Overstreet at least, cerebus 1 is a mega key that's more "valuable" than hulk 181. But in the real world it's a small niche indy book from the 70's with a low print run, and few high grade copies on the census that get a few specialty book collectors excited when they come to market. Definitely not in hulk 181's league, "value"-wise or otherwise, but certainly in a league of its own. And no, "price variant" books shouldn't be on that list either. -J. If you think that price variants are overvalued, sell them to me cheap There are many price variants that will for a lot more than Cerebus 1 or Hulk 181 in lower grades. However, the price variant market doesn't usually go outlandish multiples for single highest graded... Although, I bet a 9.8 Star Wars 1 35 cent would fetch quite a bit... All that said, they are bronze age comics too so no reason why they shouldn't be there. Because it is substantively identical to the regular issue and (as with cerebus 1) the sampling size/sales data is far too small to make an accurate or adequate apples to apples comparison. -J. It's not an opinion poll, which requires a sampling of a certain size to draw a reasonable idea of what the average person believes. As you, yourself, have stated repeatedly with your Hulk #181 9.9 example, a single sale is sufficient to establish a fact, if not necessarily a fact pattern. Thankfully, in the case of Cerebus #1, we have multiple data points in the 9.2+ grades to demonstrate a fact pattern.

Touche! I think that's in line with the OP's original point too; that "only in Overstreet" and by Overstreet's particular criterion could such a result be reached. No. Yes. The facts dispute you. What else can be said?