RockMyAmadeus

I believe Overstreet did not conveniently use this top of guide valuation comparison for the sole purpose of singling out Cerebus 1 as compared to Hulk 181. I know you would find this very hard to believe, but Overstreet has been using this top of guide valuation for his Top 10 / 20 / 100 charts for decades and even before there was a Hulk 181. If you want to compare relative values for other grades, it is a simple matter of flipping to the appropriate listing for each book. This too. To suggest that Overstreet is conspiratorily "selecting data (to the express exclusion of other data, despite that other data being readily available elsewhere in the book)" to "advance an idea" that Cerebus #1 is "more important" than Hulk #181 is simply not rational. It's simply not a rational position to take. We must use our reason, gentlemen.

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.

That's not what "straw-man argument" means. Your argument is not reasonable. I have exhaustively demonstrated why. "All other data points" aren't relevant to this discussion, because the discussion is not about, and never has been, the comparative values of Cerebus #1 to Hulk #181 throughout all grades...and no one disputes your claims in this regard. I didn't achieve, and don't need to believe in, a particular result. The data plainly speaks for itself, with no need for my opinion on the matter. It is not "selective" simply by virtue of being sparse. SELECTIVE data means that data relevant to the premise isn't included. The value of 7.5/6.0/2.5/8.5 Hulk #1 vs. Cerebus #1 isn't relevant to this discussion, because it's not Overstreet's premise. Come on, jaydog, it's been fun, but you really can't be serious with some of these arguments. :shrug: The position is very simple: in the highest grade the OPG uses (9.2), Cerebus #1 is worth more money than Hulk #181, in the same grade. These are the parameters the OPG sets. More importantly, the sales data...regardless of how sparse it is (remember, you keep bringing up the single 9.9 Hulk #181 as part of this argument)...supports Overstreet's opinion. Overstreet makes no claims as to values in lower grades. That is not Overstreet's goal. Nor does the exclusion of such information warrant speculation about OPG's relevance or accusations about Overstreet's motives. If YOU want to publish a competing list that includes all grades, there's nothing stopping you. I told you I was waiting for it earlier, and I still am...yet...nothing so far. I would happily welcome such research and data.

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. That's because, as before, you keep "forgetting" to mention that that $150k sale was for a NINE POINT NINE (9.9) copy. You keep trying to force a 9.9....which is a freak no matter WHAT book it is...into a discussion about averages (and yes, that includes averages of highest graded copies.) I don't want to use a hypothetical "single highest graded" copy of Cerebus #1 at all. That's your invention. I am perfectly fine with there being 3, 4, 5 copies in 9.8, and the value will still stand. Again, this is your invention, and as Fingh said earlier, a classic straw man. No one is disregarding anything except you. No one is disputing that Hulk, in lower grades, sells for more than Cerebus #1. So? So what? What bearing does that have on the HIGHEST PRICED issue, as reported by the OPG (and supported by sales data?) Just because you want something a certain way doesn't mean the OPG is therefore wrong. But by all means, please keep throwing up straw-man arguments. It keeps me sharp. Sales data is sales data. The sparsity of sales data does not therefore make said data "anecdotal", as you claimed earlier. Why do you think little sales data means nothing? (And would you please directly answer my question this time? You haven't done that in any of these conversations, as far as I can see.) What part of "this book sells for more in this grade" is unclear to you? That is the reason why Cerebus #1 is more valuable than Hulk #1. You keep saying "in real life"...where did these sales take place? Candyland? More straw-man arguing. OPG didn't call it a "mega key." And there's no need for quotation marks: by the OPG's parameters, the book is ACTUALLY more valuable. So? The only thing that matters is this: does the book sell for more, in high grade, IN THE SAME GRADE, as Hulk #181? Yes/no. Pretty simple. Why you keep fighting this is truly beyond me. You either have issues being rational, or you're a genius who can fake irrationality realllly well.

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.

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.

Why, thank you, kind sir!

You can't be serious here......are you really saying that the Overstreet valuations should be based upon relative rankings of graded copies of a particular book. Would anybody be able to figure out the real world valuations from the guide if this were the case. BTW: Did you notice that OS has Hulk 181 valued substantially higher than Cerebus 1 in all condition grades except for the 9.2 top of valuation which is the one used for their Top 10 list. No, I'm saying that one should be careful to conclude that the value of a book at a specific grade will tell the whole story. What part of the story is it not telling? You can't figure that out yourself? Oh, no, I'm clearly a numbskull, and need these things carefully explained, or they go right over my head. Please, by all means, explain away! No, it's okay. You not a numbskull and you don't need someone like me to explain it to you. RMA you're not a numbskull and I actually think you're just entertaining yourself in this thread at this point. I'm fairly certain that you understand quite well that the OP's point that Overstreet comparing books in only one grade leads to one or two anomalous sales (ie Cerebus in a 9.2) queering the list and giving a completely false impression (ie that Cerebus is a more "valuable" BA book than Hulk 181, when it obviously is not by a mile). -J. Well stated (thumbs u A poorly reasoned position is a poorly reasoned position, regardless of how well it is stated.

You can't be serious here......are you really saying that the Overstreet valuations should be based upon relative rankings of graded copies of a particular book. Would anybody be able to figure out the real world valuations from the guide if this were the case. BTW: Did you notice that OS has Hulk 181 valued substantially higher than Cerebus 1 in all condition grades except for the 9.2 top of valuation which is the one used for their Top 10 list. No, I'm saying that one should be careful to conclude that the value of a book at a specific grade will tell the whole story. What part of the story is it not telling? You can't figure that out yourself? Oh, no, I'm clearly a numbskull, and need these things carefully explained, or they go right over my head. Please, by all means, explain away! No, it's okay. You not a numbskull and you don't need someone like me to explain it to you. RMA you're not a numbskull and I actually think you're just entertaining yourself in this thread at this point. I'm fairly certain that you understand quite well that the OP's point that Overstreet comparing books in only one grade leads to one or two anomalous sales (ie Cerebus in a 9.2) queering the list and giving a completely false impression (ie that Cerebus is a more "valuable" BA book than Hulk 181, when it obviously is not by a mile). -J. It is a more valuable book than Hulk #181, by the parameters given by Overstreet. Sales data proves this. You are being disingenuous when you claim that the OPG is "comparing one grade." They're not comparing any random grade. They are comparing *the most valuable* to *the most valuable*, by the parameters of the OPG. In the highest grade (a decades honored practice) in the OPG, Cerebus #1 is worth more than Hulk #181. This is not supposition, this is confirmed by sales data. And you cannot call the sales data "anomalous" simply because it doesn't fit your narrative.

In what way is this view "one dimensional"? How and in what way can this information be misinterpreted? Simple - Someone reads the list and sees that Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181, therefore leading that person to conclude it must be a more valuable book, period. It IS a more valuable book, by the parameters given by Overstreet in his article. Do you dispute this? Read my earlier post about comparing a non-mainstream book to one that is. I'm not quite sure I understand. Why is this comparison a problem? Are they both not comic books? Does the OPG provide prices for most comic books? How does comparing the value of one book to another create a problem, and what, exactly, IS that problem? That doesn't answer my question. That list very clearly describes itself as the Top 10 BA in terms of value. There's nothing in that list, or the section in which it is contained, that says anything about popularity. What do you think is the answer to your last question? Quite obviously, the answer is true, based on sales data alone. What do YOU think is the answer to this question? Already stated my position. You don't agree. That's okay with me. So, you think that Hulk #181 is more valuable than Cerebus #1 in the highest grades? Despite sales data that says otherwise? That's an interesting position to adopt.

You can't be serious here......are you really saying that the Overstreet valuations should be based upon relative rankings of graded copies of a particular book. Would anybody be able to figure out the real world valuations from the guide if this were the case. BTW: Did you notice that OS has Hulk 181 valued substantially higher than Cerebus 1 in all condition grades except for the 9.2 top of valuation which is the one used for their Top 10 list. No, I'm saying that one should be careful to conclude that the value of a book at a specific grade will tell the whole story. What part of the story is it not telling? You can't figure that out yourself? Oh, no, I'm clearly a numbskull, and need these things carefully explained, or they go right over my head. Please, by all means, explain away! No, it's okay. You not a numbskull and you don't need someone like me to explain it to you. Sooooo....what part of the story is it not telling? I mean, if you're going to say something, you gotta be prepared to back it up.

In what way is this view "one dimensional"? How and in what way can this information be misinterpreted? Simple - Someone reads the list and sees that Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181, therefore leading that person to conclude it must be a more valuable book, period. It IS a more valuable book, by the parameters given by Overstreet in his article. Do you dispute this? Read my earlier post about comparing a non-mainstream book to one that is. I'm not quite sure I understand. Why is this comparison a problem? Are they both not comic books? Does the OPG provide prices for most comic books? How does comparing the value of one book to another create a problem, and what, exactly, IS that problem? It's the OSPG Top 10 BA List for the 44th Edition. That doesn't answer my question. That list very clearly describes itself as the Top 10 BA in terms of value. There's nothing in that list, or the section in which it is contained, that says anything about popularity. What do you think is the answer to your last question? Quite obviously, the answer is true, based on sales data alone. What do YOU think is the answer to this question?

You can't be serious here......are you really saying that the Overstreet valuations should be based upon relative rankings of graded copies of a particular book. Would anybody be able to figure out the real world valuations from the guide if this were the case. BTW: Did you notice that OS has Hulk 181 valued substantially higher than Cerebus 1 in all condition grades except for the 9.2 top of valuation which is the one used for their Top 10 list. No, I'm saying that one should be careful to conclude that the value of a book at a specific grade will tell the whole story. What part of the story is it not telling? You can't figure that out yourself? Oh, no, I'm clearly a numbskull, and need these things carefully explained, or they go right over my head. Please, by all means, explain away!

This seems like an interesting game. Let's play. Hulk #181 in CGC 9.9 sold for $150,000. Never mind if it was "one sale", and "one sale" doesn't tell the whole story (as you stated yourself earlier.) Let's consider it an actual sale, rather than "purported" or "so sparse as to be anecdotal, at best", even though it has only occurred once. The Cerebus #1 in CGC 9,4 sold for $9,000 Both of these are the current highest grade for these books. I have one for you...the highest graded Detective Comics #38 sold for a mere $107k, while the highest graded Hulk #181 sold for $150k. Therefore, Hulk #181 is worth more than Detective Comics #38. Ooo, this is fun! Let's do some more! The highest graded copy of Showcase #4 sold for $179k. That means that Hulk #181 is worth just a little less than Showcase #4. The highest graded copy of Tales to Astonish #27 sold for $75,000. That means that Hulk #181 is worth more than TTA #27. The highest graded copy of More Fun Comics #52 sold for $89k. That means that Hulk #181 is worth more than More Fun #52. ....right? Interestingly enough, these lists have been featured in the OPG for decades. That sounds like a wonderful project! I eagerly await your results!

You can't be serious here......are you really saying that the Overstreet valuations should be based upon relative rankings of graded copies of a particular book. Would anybody be able to figure out the real world valuations from the guide if this were the case. BTW: Did you notice that OS has Hulk 181 valued substantially higher than Cerebus 1 in all condition grades except for the 9.2 top of valuation which is the one used for their Top 10 list. No, I'm saying that one should be careful to conclude that the value of a book at a specific grade will tell the whole story. What part of the story is it not telling?

In what way is this view "one dimensional"? How and in what way can this information be misinterpreted? What is it about the Cerebus #1, Hulk #181 scenario that demonstrates the problem you describe? What about the list leads anyone to believe that Cerebus #1 is more popular than Hulk #181? Is it true or false that, at the highest grades, Cerebus #1 is more valuable than Hulk #181?

Evidently overstreet says what the OP states in his subject line. But there's at least two grades where hulk 181 is about 2X the "value" of cerebus. Let the qualifiers commence! -J. ~ ahem ~ The "Top 10/20" lists in the OPG are according to the top price, top grade listed in the OPG: NM- (9.2.) This is clearly stated, both in the introduction to said lists, and in the charts themselves. The lists aren't based on value in every grade. At least, that's how it is in my 2010 OPG (the latest one I have.) I imagine nothing has changed in this respect, but I'm willing to be corrected on that.

And you would be incorrect. You can argue with the OPG, which is fine. You cannot argue with sales data. Sale: Cerebus #1, 9.4, $9.000. Someone actually was willing to pay $9,000 for this book. That is indisputable. Yeah, but that book is so rare that I'm not sure that is the market price or the coked up Nick Cage after a pint of Courvasier price, RMA? Maybe it was the same lunatic that piled 30 large into that 9.6 GL 76. Either way, everyone wants to avoid the 300 lb gorilla in the room. That's right, I'm talking DC 100 Page Super Spectacular #5. There's been an 8.0 on ebay for $565 for 3 years. If you want romance, buy a bottle of Johnson & Johnson's grab the iPad and lock yourself in a closet. Don't blow $500 on a comic. exactly. One or two sales doesn't make a book "worth" something. The hundreds and hundreds of hulk 181 transactions in any given year provide us with plenty of actual and factual sales that definitely tell us the "value" of a hulk 181. The purported sales of the occasional high grade cerebus are so sparse as to be anecdotal, at best. -J. So, let me see if I understand this: Actual sales recorded at GPA = "purported sales." The 11 sales recorded at GPA in 9.0 and above = "anecdotal." What someone is willing to pay does NOT = "what something is worth" I'm not sure you understand the basic terms and principles of economics. :shrug: I could be wrong, but the way in which you use economic terms and principles is at odds with the accepted definitions of those terms and principles.

And you would be incorrect. You can argue with the OPG, which is fine. You cannot argue with sales data. Sale: Cerebus #1, 9.4, $9.000. Someone actually was willing to pay $9,000 for this book. That is indisputable.

Cerebus #1. No contest. But that is based on individual taste, and is therefore invalid as a means of establishing an average. As has been stated over and over again, no one is disputing the appeal of Wolverine. He is, arguably, the fourth more popular superhero in the world, after Supes, Bats, and Spidey. But it's not about who is more popular. The list is about what is more valuable. And the answer is Cerebus #1. I'm really not quite sure why there's controversy about this, folks.

BJ; You have presented us with the perfect scenario and definitive argument here for both cases which will clear up this issue once and for all. (thumbs u If there was only 1 single highest graded Hulk 181 and Cerebus 1 at CGC 9.9 and I was given no other copies to buy, I would most definitely without a doubt pay more for the Hulk 181. This is because in your particular imaginery world, the supply for both is equal, so the money would definitely go for the Hulk 181 since we all know that the demand for this book far exceeds the demand for Cerebus 1. Now let's change it to a much more realistic world scenario. Suppose you are at a convention and you see both a CGC 9.2 copy of Hulk 181 and also a CGC 9.2 copy of Cerebus 1, but only have enough money for just one of them. Which one would you buy? Without a doubt and faster than the Flash, one hand would be reaching for my wallet while my other hand would be reaching for the Cerebus 1. Do you know why.....because you might not see another one in similar condition for years to come and after travelling to countless cons. The Hulk 181.....not a problem as it'll probably show up at the next con the following weekend or on any number of eBay websites or auction listings if you care to look, even at higher grades than CGC 9.2. My gawd, and as financially irresponsible and unbelieveable as it may sound, I would even be willing to pay more for a Cerebus 1 Over a Hulk 1 in this particular condition. With respect to the OS price guide, you should remember that they are not there to report on valuations for single highest CGC 9.9 copies of a book. Their highest valuation listing is only for 9.2 NM- books, and when you are down in this shallow end of the pool, the Cerebus 1 clearly wins out over the Hulk 181. BTW: When did the Overstreet Top 100 and Top 10 rankings become a popularity ranking as opposed to a valuation ranking?

So you're saying the value of the book is based on the low supply and the demand for the book? That's an interesting idea. I think you may have something there. Another fun, out of context quote. Yaaaaay. -J. There was nothing out of context about that. I'm not quite sure you know what "out of context" means. In this case, Lazyboy completely understood your statement, and doesn't need to have the rest of your post to comment on that particular point. If a point stands on its own, it's fairly difficult to "take it out of context." The meaning is neither altered not lost by quoting only that line. Here's some advice: pulling out individual points does not mean something has been "taken out of context", especially if those points are fairly unrelated. For instance...you could reply only to the sentence above, without quoting the rest of this post, and it wouldn't be "taken out of context", because it is a point that stands on its own merits. Here's an example of "taking things out of context": "The action in this fast-paced, hysterically overproduced and surprisingly entertaining film is as realistic as a Road Runner cartoon." "Hysterically...entertaining."

That's the white elephant in the room that has been ignored. Folks like RMA would rather point out the merits of another poster's auto correct ("Cerberus" vs. "Cerebus", my phone doesn't care either, my man) or how they choose to abbreviate "Overstreet", than the fact that about the only thing Overstreet is good for at this point is maintaining the status quo for old school collectors and giving local dealers something to low ball you with when you try to sell your books. I'm pretty sure your premise is false. I'm fairly certain I am equally willing to discuss the difference between Cerebus and Cerberus AND the relevance, or lack thereof, of the OPG, even considering your foregone "fact" about it, which is self-evidently not true. Here's some advice: don't talk ABOUT me, talk TO me. Talking ABOUT me is a dismissive technique, and has no place in legitimate dialogue. You have brought this point up before, and I feel I must tell you once again: no one is disputing this. You are making an argument that everyone is already in agreement with. Do you want someone to dispute it, so you have something to argue against...? :shrug: In economics, this principle is called "supply and demand." The word "intrinsic" means "the substance of, the properties of the thing itself, essential." The intrinsic value of Hulk #181 is two-fold: first, it has entertainment value as story and art. Second, it has negligible value as a recycled paper product. That's it. The "value" of the book beyond those two things is entirely based on EXtrinsic properties, like perception. And "real"? So, there's NO demand for Cerebus #1? It's all fake? No one who has one wants one, and no one who desires one actually does? If ifs and buts were candy and nuts... And yet, their bewilderment is unfounded and without merit. The data is what it is. The list isn't a popularity contest. It's a "what's worth more?" list. And, in that respect, it's mostly accurate.

99%, huh...? I wish that were true...I'd like to buy a few more copies. It is the granddaddy of all independent books.

The character is called "Cerebus." "Cerberus" is a creature from greek mythology. And you are free to play "What If?" all you desire, but that doesn't change facts. Cerebus #1 is more expensive than Incredible Hulk #181, grade for grade. No one is disputing the difference in popularity.