Pantodude

Late to this party. Boy this thread took a couple of detours to this point! Interesting stuff. But going back to the OP's topic, just wanted to chime in regarding Bugs Bunny and the original Looney Tunes in general (i'm referring to the 1940s/1950s fare) as an exception. I generally moved on to superheros as I became a teenager, like most, but Bugs Bunny never took a back seat to anyone, even as I got older. As a young'n, I spent my Saturday mornings watching Bugs, Elmer, Daffy, etc., and it was very good fun. I (and thankfully, my mom) was oblivious to the fact that it was meant for more mature (or just mature!|) audiences. It's like the PCH and war comics that should never have been accessible to children (but thank goodness they were!). Hard to believe that Elmer Fudd used a gun for soooo long (only removed relatively recently), unless you appreciate that the intended audience was actually adults from day one. I came across this interesting article: https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2020/6/12/21287067/hbo-max-looney-tunes-elmer-fudd-gun-violence#:~:text=The original 'Looney Tunes',were absolutely made for adults.” Here's an excerpt: The book ”Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation,” by Kevin S. Sandler, explains that creator Tex Avery said he “leaned more toward the adult audience.” And animator Chuck Jones said the cartoons “were absolutely made for adults.” So those 1940s “Looney Tunes” shorts that aired? They “were absolutely not for children,” said Kyra Hunting, an assistant professor of media and arts studies at the University of Kentucky. Mature or not, those cartoons were also very clever and often accompanied by great music. Rossini's Barber of Seville overture, Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, the list goes on and on. Perhaps not surprising because I was so young, but I honestly don't recall listening to classical music before Bugs Bunny! Watching those cartoons, especially as a child, was a loaded (excuse the pun) experience. Unavoidably memorable, in a good way. Many collectors gravitate toward comic book versions of things they like (Star Trek #1 (Gold Key 1967) and Scooby Doo #1 (Gold Key, 3/1970) have been gaining traction for years now). So I'm not surprised at the pretty penny commanded by Bugs Bunny's first comic book appearance in Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Comics #1 (Dell Publishing, 1941) due to nostalgia and/or the enduring appeal of the high-quality, mature enterainment. Bugs remains popular is the point. A cartoon character need not have many dimensions to have the staying power of superheroes or human characters among a maturing audience, just the right dimensions (however few, yeah, here's looking at you Scooby Doo!) done well. But, in the Looney Tunes family, that might apply more to Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck than to Bugs. Arguably, Bugs was at least as sophisticated as any cartoon portrayal of a superhero or human character, with all the seemingly endless role-playing and cross-dressing we saw with Bugs! One thing's for sure: however many dimensions Bugs did have in those classic shorts, they were done exquisitely well. All that said, Peanuts #1 (United Features Syndicate, 1953) is another cartoon comic book that has done just fine (i.e., it's a pricey book), but this time without mature content. And I mentioned Scooby Doo #1. So for the good stuff, nostalgia alone and/or appreciation of historical significance could maintain a book's popularity across generations without being superhero-related.

[edit] Did you see the whole video? [had to watch it again in case I missed something] It's actually the complete opposite. He's going all-in on his comic book business and selling his PC (turns out not all, just most) to fund the business during these leaner times.

Wow. Again, Robin overlooked. This time Batman #1. Robin is significant enough to have his third appearance noted in Batman 1, too. The Bat1 label currently notes "Hugo Strange appearance. Batman & Robin pin-up on back cover," so before those mentions? Or instead of either of those if space is an issue?

Detective Comics #39 should mention it is the 2nd-ever appearance of Robin ( Grayson).

Surprised to see that Detective Comics #38 says "Origin & 1st appearance of Robin, ( Grayson)., 3rd 'A DC Publication' logo." But no mention of "First superhero sidekick" (or something along those lines) which should come between those two. Batman having a sidekick was an innovation that took the whole GA by storm, so a big deal!

You guys are just joking, right (pun intended)? Because Tec40 is the first joker cover, and there's no doubt about it, as recognized by third-party graders, Overstreet, big auction houses like Heritage, and anyone who read Bat 1 (on-sale date April 24, 1940) followed by Tec40 (on-sale date May 3, 1940) just nine (9!) days later (they were essentially on the newsstand simultaneously). Easy enough to demonstrate using the covers and panels in the pertinent books (Bat1, Tec40) themselves. One should place himself at the time Bat 1 and Tec 40 were issued. If you do, it is clear that -- regardless of the story contained within Tec40 -- it was the Joker, and could only be interpreted as the Joker, on the cover when Tec 40 came out, especially considering how the Joker had looked up until THAT point (pre-Tec62, Bat11, Tec69,etc). The evidence is in Bat 1 itself. Here is the key scene from Bat1: In case it is not clear WHO that is chopping away at the pole, it's the Joker. After readers digested the above key scene, they were treated to THIS preview of Tec40 on the last page of Bat1 itself: Having seen that pole-chopping scene in Bat 1, followed immediately by that ad in the same Bat 1, readers could only have construed Tec40's cover to depict the Joker: So in real time, back in the day, upon reading the key book Bat 1, readers could only have construed the axe-wielding figure on Tec40 as the Joker. And just to be clear, the Tec40 cover's Joker does look very much like the Joker as drawn in Bat1 panels, when the Joker was still less colorfully drawn. Look at Bat1 page 7 front: And Bat1 page 7 rear: You can see Tec40 cover's Joker had the same hat, coat, and vest, and even the same ribbon-like tie, but sans the gloves, as in Bat1. Even had a similar pale face, although in Bat1 it was whiter. Joker's turned face in the key scene on the roof in Bat1 has no makeup! Just like in Tec40's cover, where the Joker also has his face turned while on the roof with no makeup. If you want to say that in Tec 62, the Joker looked more like he did post-Tec40, that's fine. That's true. All good. And that is why I LOVE Tec62's cover, balloons and all. But in Tec62, he looks different than in his intro book Bat1 and intro cover Tec40: A great cover. But the Joker on the Tec40 cover looked more like the Joker in the Bat1 panels than the Joker on the Tec62 cover. Unless my eyes are failing me, which is possible. Anyway, that how it played out historically. So Tec40 is the Joker's 1st cover appearance. Both Tec40's and Tec62's covers are awesome in their own right. And they are both also essential because they show the evolution of Joker's appearance.

This "problem" you outline would be a non-issue for me, as I have decent quantities of many US paper and coin series issued since day one (I'm talking colonial times, too). A benefit to being a multi-faceted collector, sure to come in handy when time travel becomes a reality in a few years.

Fixed that for you.

Right. Without knowing the books included, his indexes are mostly useless to me, especially after figuring out they likely don't include my books anyway. But I'll likely remain curious, becaues I like data-driven discussions.

Right. I referred to early SA keys, to start the discussion. But the vid likely also does not track any high-grade SA, BA, and CA books, key or not, as they are just too uncommon to make any sales-volume-based cut.

Some info is better than no info, so I'm not knocking the vid. Just trying put the referenced vid in perspective. Isn't that Swag "comic book index" video above supposed to track the most recent GPA sale of the top 100 SOLD (by volume) books in each of the SA, BA and CA? It's a bit silly that the video does not identify the 100 books relied upon for the graphs, but we can figure out what's NOT included. Unless I am misinterpeting his model, his data cannot possibly track most, if any, of what collectors/dealers/buyers tradionally consider the top 50 or top 100 books in the SA. Because the top books of the SA are typically the early SA keys, they are significantly less common than mid- to late-SA books and thus unlikely to make Swag's cut, which is based on highest volume of sales. ASM#73 sells more often than IH#1, for example. They are also more expensive than non-key and/or later SA books, so Swag can't possibly have included them in what he refers to top-100 sold for the SA. Swag's version of top 100 SA books totaled $46,500 for ALL 100 books. That's just one low-mid grade AF15, or one mid-grade IH#1 or FF#1, so we know he can't be talking about THOSE books or anything close to those, like XM1, TOS39, FF5, etc. The big SA keys have seen better days, but this vid is not using their data. That said, the vid is informative, in the right context.

I have sent multiple items by registered mail this year and they all took longer than the original expected date, most by 2-5 business days. One took a lot longer than that. Only one arrived a day later than expected. But i prefer the peace of mind, so all good.

What makes it even weirder is that the original certification 270blah is up on CGC, so I don't know what Goldin could have been referring to about a new cert#, or why you couldn't pull it up before. Here's the original cert. https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/2707935001/

The Flash #105 (D.C. Comics, 2-3/1959). Raw coverless. NOT SOLD

Star Wars #42 (Marvel, 1980). 9.6 W [SOLD]

Savage She-Hulk #1 (Marvel, 1980). NOT SOLD

The Avengers #2 (Marvel, 1963) NOT SOLD

[withdrawn]

Rules: NO Probation List or Hall of Shame members, or other unsavory sorts! Unequivocal "I'll take it" or the like in a thread will trump any negotiations in PM, emails, etc. Payment: PayPal, check or money order. Will ship as soon as payment clears. Shipping: Per box: $15.00 USD for first slab and $5 each slab after that (3 slab max in a box) via USPS to continental USA. $10 for a raw book. Return Policy: No returns on CGC graded books. Raw books can be returned but buyer responsible for return shipping; just let me know within 5 days of receipt.

Couldn't resist the urge to correct that misstatement, even if it was in jest.

Sometimes you need to just stop and take a good look around, smell the roses. Collectors are lucky to have a source of fun that is not a consumable, but rather a true asset (alternative or not!) that persists for unlimited enjoyment. And to this day, at least over longer terms, true vintage comics remain a good investment vehicle to boot. Even attributing a modest valuation to that enjoyment (presumably across many books and for however many years), I expect many books would have paid for themselves (or at least made having them well worth the venture in light of even current valuations). I hope it's not about a particular book in a vacuum. I hope most are experiencing the breadth and depth of the experience that is this hobby, and that has real value. Although difficult to quantify, enjoyment of the hobby should put market volatility in its proper place. Hopefully.

Yup, they sure do. The price guides themselves provide estimated values for their prior editions (in NM condition) at the back. Keep in mind though, that as with Oversreet's chronic under-estimation of value of NM comic books, the books are likely worth signifnicantly more than Overstreet's estimates. A universal 5.0 of the 2nd printing of the 1st edition (1970) sold for like $800 in 2021. Apparently, due to their thickness, only the 1970 edition, both its 1st and 2nd printings, have been slabbed so far, and both printings have reported GPA sales. The 2nd printing of the 1st ed. actually had a lower print run than its 1st printing, FWIW. That 1970 edition was already 1/2 inch thick, the published limit for CGC slabs, back when the price guides only included GA and SA books. Subsequent editions became too thick to slab at some point (perhaps as early as the 2nd edition in 1972, which could explain the zero slabs after 1970?).

It's actually "Oldbuck"

I don't see any brittleness, and the interior page quality looks pretty good, so not sure why someone is discussing worst case scenario as if your pix warranted it. If it's just that quite small right top corner stain throughout book (and rest of book was not ever submerged in water), I expect a significantly higher grade than 2.0, and CGC will note presence of some water damage to the corner of whole book. Nice book!