DC#

Whatever happened - It was definitely one part carnage 

As kind Boardies pointed me toward http://cgcdata.com/cgc/ recently - thought I would look to see if there were any trends happening with 9.9s/10s.     I only looked at pre-2000 books because the crystal clear reality in looking at the numbers is almost all of the new 9.9s and 10s are in Modern Books.    I would bet the vast majority are 2015 and newer.   

I would say there is no strong evidence of change yet - going back into 2022 or earlier would be helpful just to confirm but no time right now.     Yes, the 1980's and 1990's books seem to be trending ahead of prior year - but it doesn't seem like any difference is statistically significant.   Even doubling the number of Mint/Gem Mint books in 2024 it still likely represents less 1% of all books submitted from that era in the year.    Though I appreciate that might not be much comfort if you paid $10k for a Secret Wars #8 9.9 only to see two more 9.9s and one 10.0 hit at some point.   

My belief remains that the pre-screen option is really geared for the bulk Modern submissions.  And the existence of that pre-screen shouldn't automatically trigger a boom in pre-2000s books.   

By the way - many of these new 9.9s are just random books.   Marvel Fanfare #3, Secret Wars II #5,  Longshot #5, Fantastic Four #337, Spider-man #19.....books that might otherwise be found in the $1 bins.   

On 5/19/2024 at 10:12 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

You're not the first to call Marwood that 

Well played…..

Thanks so much for the quick response.   What a great tool!  

Does anyone know if there is a way to find historical data for the CGC Census?    A YouTuber recently made reference to a title adding 40 copies to census since April.    Got me curious about trends in census count growth for key issues from different eras.   
 

I started a small list to start tracking some but would really love if there was something out there already 

A little burb on the art market from Puck this week.  I took the liberty of bolding some points:  

Sotheby’s Monday blues: Let’s start with the good news: Sotheby’s, the global art auction powerhouse, made just over $267 million on Monday night, with very strong sell-through on the lots offered and only one lot withdrawn due to lack of interest. (In this case, the work was said to have been shopped around privately long enough to alienate potential bidders.) The lone withdrawal—even if the lot had been estimated at $6 million—was an encouraging sign that sellers’ expectations are getting back in line with buyers’ appetites. 

The hammer ratio for the evening tells a different story, however. Calculated by dividing the aggregate hammer price of all the sold lots against the aggregate estimate, the hammer ratio shows us the strength of bidding, and measures whether the estimate level was too high or too low. At .94, the hammer ratio signals estimates are still too high. 

Of course, you wouldn’t have needed an abacus to determine that something was off in the auction room on Monday night. Almost from the beginning of the evening, the Sotheby’s staff seemed somber. One bidder who spoke to me afterward pointed to the very thin bidding as the cause. On most lots, there was only a single bidder, possibly two. That doesn’t give the staff much to do but stand there and stare off into the distance.  

The most obvious signal of the depressed market were the hammer prices of the top two lots, which came in below the estimate level. Francis Bacon’s portrait of his former lover George Dyer, from 1966, sold for a negotiated price of $27.7 million with fees, or 18 percent below the asking price (more if you include the expected fees). Speculation in my channels is that the buyer was Turkish collector Halit Cingillioglu—and Sotheby’s did say the work ended up in a very good collection, yada yada, which would fit the theory. 

The other top lot, Howard Rachofsky’s bright yellow Lucio Fontana painting, came very close to the asking price of $20 million, but still got hammered down at $19.7 million after desultory bidding. The first bid, of $19.5 million, was presumably the third-party guarantor. The second bid, just a sliver more at $19.7 million, should have provoked a response. It didn’t. Clearly, the guarantor was happy to take their fee instead of taking home the painting

On 5/10/2024 at 11:15 AM, Telegan said:

 

I watched it last night and was happy to see he isn't offended by opposing viewpoints.  To me these indexes are kind of fun to look at, but I'm not sure I take them too seriously with the way collectibles are "traded".

And it's always a floor.... until it isn't.

The video Swag references is below (another guy whose channel I enjoy watching) :

 

I understand his points - but there is a difference between indexing and projecting future values.   The Nasdaq and DOW are indexes that provide a view of historic value relevant to current value but those indexes themselves do not speak to the future value.   And those indexes do not represent the entire equity market.   

So an index like Swaggle's - in my view - does provide an interesting view into where his index of books sit today vs where they have been.    And agree the collectibles can't be valued like equities because there is no real underlying stream of value creation.   But an index of commonly traded Silver, Bronze, and Copper comic books should be a good barometer of where things stand at the moment as long as the measurement is consistent.   

On 5/7/2024 at 3:20 PM, Math Teacher said:

Amazing Spider-Man #14 CGC 6.5 from an IG user:

I assume this looks much better in person than in the original IG photo.   Colors look great 

Congrats 

Here is AF chart through April.    

On 4/30/2024 at 6:53 AM, Neo "The One" said:

I mean, ok.  He could have ben losing money - and that is understandable - but honestly he should have just returned the books.  It seems he was a small operation (I hesitate to say 1 man since he had the NJ location) that got in way over his head.  That is understandable.  What is not ok is stealing - which is what this all boils down to.

Absolutely - my comments were not about letting him off the hook in any way.    More questioning if he ever had the business acumen to make this business work in the first place.    And creating necessary cash flow for such long-duration activities through advance payments can quickly turn into a sort of Ponzi scheme if you aren't actually making any money on completed items.    The next person's advance covering the losses for prior work.  

On 4/29/2024 at 11:07 PM, Pat Thomas said:

I used Mike's services for my Avengers 1 and ASM 1 close to a decade ago due to multiple references from others who had first-hand experience with him. After looking over his work on his website and talking to Mike about the process, I sent him the books with a deposit that was supposed to go toward the final bill. At the time he said he had at least a 6-month lead time before he could even begin on the first book, and that the whole process would take about a year. Payment in full got my Avengers 1 in line, and I left him alone for over a year before deciding to check in. I found out then that he was a year behind, but my book would be up soon. Every 3 months I checked status for about a year until it was finally ready to ship back to me. He still had my ASM1 and I considered asking for him to send it back, but I figured I might as well wait another two years to end up with an ASM1 I was happy with (It was in so much worse shape than #2-forward in my collection and really bothered me). But my experience this time was much worse. I had a lot of going on in my life and didn't really think about my comic most of the time, so I went a year without checking on it. When I did, Mike said he was behind and wouldn't give me a lead time anymore, so I would check on it periodically. This went on for 3 years, but I finally got an email that it was ready. I had him send it to a CGC Stan Lee signing (one of the last ones he did) before it eventually came back to me. It had been in his possession for over 5 years, but I guess I'm lucky I got it back at all. I think it was already starting to come apart back then and he was still trying to do right by people.

I don't know how he could have ever accurately priced out his costs like this - dozens if not hundreds of books in various states over the course of months and years.   He could have been losing money on each and every book from the start

Goldin auction - 4/13/24

I try to use the two blue colors of the CGC label as a way to get a read on which picture or scan is truest to color.    I think the WP/IG copy is reading as brighter because the scan is a bit hotter - you can't even really see the CGC text/icon in the light blue section.   And the OW/W copy (right) may be a slightly darker than true color.    I would bet that in hand they are close to the same.

For me - the sales tax difference would put the OWW/Shortboxed sale at about the same price as the WP/IG copy.    I can't really see the staining on the cover of the WP copy and I think the upper left-hand corner of that copy looks slightly less damaged.   But the OW/W copy has better alignment - there is a bit more roll on the WP when you look at the back (but both have a little bit)

Both look great for a 6.5.   If they were within $200 of the same price all in - I would take the WP given the premium some people are willing to pay for white.  

March results from Swagglehaus' index.     Not to give away the punchline - Silver was down 8% vs Feb, Bronze up 5% and Copper up 8%.    If you look at the charts - the aggregate results seem to indicate that we may be in a sort of "flat-ish" phase.   Just bouncing around in a range.   

This is an unanswerable hypothetical but I will ask the question anyway….

There are currently ten, universal 9.9 copies of ASM 300.   There have been five recorded sales - one each in 2005, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2017. 
 

There are nearly 1,600 copies of this book in 9.8 (out of 29k+ total books).   It has traded hands around 100 times a year for past 8 years or so and is still selling for around $3k give or take a few hundred on either side.   
 

If the ten copies in 9.9 did not exist, would the value of the 9.8s be different?    If yes - how much of a discount do you think 9.8s are selling for because of the 9.9s?   If  no - how many copies in 9.9 would it take to alter the price trajectory of 9.8s? 

Again - this is all unknowable but I would love to hear people’s thoughts   

On 4/6/2024 at 5:44 PM, Tom789 said:

I suspect they have a tolerance for declaring a miswrap.  You can't just say zero or nothing would be above a 9.8.  Based on the ToD example, 2mm perhaps?

Seems logical.   Maybe in future editions of the book they will actually state the numerical criteria like they do with spine splits, etc.  

On 4/6/2024 at 7:06 AM, MatterEaterLad said:

I think you're missing a zero on the 2022 average for the AF15 - 7.5 

As always, thank you for putting this together. 

Oops.   Thanks.  Will fix it later 

On 4/5/2024 at 1:55 PM, LDarkseid1 said:

Then you answered the question for me. They didn't consider it a miswrap.

apparently they don’t.   But by the definition from the man himself it would sure seem like a miswrap.    And in the case below. - not even a straight/uniform miswrap is required
 

On 4/3/2024 at 3:49 PM, Math Teacher said:

I definitely have an account with them. I will have to email them to find out what I need to do to start receiving these catalogs. Thank you!

I receive all the Heritage catalogs too as well as their annual recap book covering all their auction categories.   Definitely comic book porn      Great reference material if you want high quality images of rare or special books.   Or if you just want to fantasize…..

 I am a frequent buyer on Heritage - not sure if there is some threshold of activity they look for to be on the list.