Qalyar

Let's see what I can do here: Albedo. There are actually a couple other rare books in this run (#0, #1), but FMV for #2 is so crazy this set is basically just a referendum on that book. Incredible Hulk (1968) #102-#474. So, here's a good example of what REALLY expensive books can do to even a long set, even one with other pricey issues. The first place collection is 29% complete. In the #2 slot is a collection that's a whopping 63% complete. Is the #2 set lower grade across the board? Not really. But the current top of the category has IH181 in 9.8 for 50000 points, while the set with over twice as many slabs "only" has a 9.6 copy, which drops its score all the way down to 31250. Dozen more books worth 50 (or less) points even in 9.8 don't make up the difference. Marvel Spotlight (1971). This is a tough run to assemble, with a couple big books. #2 isn't cheap, but hardly matters, because the first appearance of Ghost Rider in #5 is still nearly half the potential score. A 9.6 copy of #5 plus a 9.4 #2 is good enough for 6th place at the moment, over some much more comprehensive collections. Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars. Short sets with a random key really highlight the problem. A 9.8 copy of #8 is more points than the rest of the set in 9.8. It doesn't help that there's an unusual number of copies of the high-dollar book in 10.0... TMNT (Volume 1). It doesn't look as crazy here because most of the people who own #1 1st printings in high grade also own a ton of the other books in this long run, but its point value is miles higher than anything else in the set. To some extent, any long series of filler with one or more expensive books is weighted very heavily toward the keys. Danger Girl (Complete) is probably a good example. A solo 9.8 copy of #2 Ruby Red Variant would "only" be good enough for 11th place right now, but it's outweighs big stacks of the lesser books. To an appropriate degree? I'm uncertain. In any case, this is also a good example of the random values of fill books with minimal FMV outside of the inherent slab costs. Are those sorts of books worth 90 in 10.0? 75? 60? 45? Werewolf By Night is probably another set to look at in this regard, with #32 dominating value even over several other significant books. Sometimes its the scale that matters. In contrast to the sets above, Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen has a big key, #134 -- the first appearance of Darkseid. But the filler isn't filler score-level filler, and catching up to a 3-4000 point book 400 points at a time is far more realistic than catching up to one 50 points at a time.

To some extent, storing raw books standing up is the only realistic option. We all know that raw books shouldn't be stacked flat (or, if they must be stacked flat, interleaved so that the spines are on alternating sides) because the weight of the staples puts pressure on lower-book spines that can lead to spine rolls. That's less of a problem with bagged and boarded books, but it can still be a concern over long periods of time and big stacks of books. Meanwhile, storing raw books spine-down is... rarely practical. Standing your raw books does place some differential stress on the staples, but honestly the concern is minimal. For slabs, while spine-down is almost certainly the lowest-stress position to store your books, stacking them flat is realistically fine as well. The slabs themselves distribute the pressure instead of placing it disproportionately on the spine. Standing your slabs is unquestionably the third-best option, because the concerns about differential stress are still legitimate -- and, in fact, the degree of freedom involved is often one that has some play inside the case. We don't want to encourage that. Obviously, no books should ever be stored spine-up, but no one is doing that anyway, right? I store my slabs spine down because they fit my storage space better. I wouldn't fault anyone for stacking slabs, though. They're designed to be stackable, after all. This does mean that I can't really easily store raw books alongside the slabs in run order, but generally speaking, I'm either looking to slab entire runs or to not slab entire runs, so in the medium term it works out okay.

The "set scores" thread is an effort to at least brainstorm methods to address this. More input would be great!

So, ideally, I would have gotten back to this before Thursday. Sorry about that, Brian. I for one don't like the idea of excluding books because they're too valuable. Fundamentally, the Registry encourages run collecting, and sharing collections with the community. Those goals aren't well served by excluding books because they become too rare or valuable (and what a nightmare that would be (a book has a record sale at Heritage and now it falls out of competitive sets? yuck). Of these, this is my preferred solution, but see below. What I think is probably the best solution would require a lot more work. In short, stop trying to match point values directly to market prices. Create some arbitrary number of "point levels", each of which represents an approximate tier of value. The top level is open-ended at the top in terms of FMV value (maybe benchmarked at roughly $10k+, I don't know). Condense all existing score options into those preset point levels. This can probably be done algorithmically if the rules are well-defined. You'll still need the "score needs adjustment" thread, but it shouldn't have movement quite as often because books have to cross tier bands to get values changed. Maybe require that their FMV shifts to some percentage of the way through the band before score updates, to prevent a comic wobbling around the breakpoint from needing frequent adjustment.

Connelly on the riding horse was in at least one of the trailers for the movie, which means the trailer is better than the film because there's less of the rest of the film in it.

These images are, sadly, not from copies I own, but here you go. Hickman was a good writer even then. The art has a sort of indie appeal, but I agree that it's a barrier for a lot of people used to more polished works. These were mostly sold mail-order, so unlike indie books with local/regional distribution, they were spread pretty widely, so you don't generally run across a bunch at a time. Not that they're easy books to find regardless. In my experience, the Special #1 (Pin-up Issue) is considerably rarer, by which I mean, I've never owned one. If, someday, people start taking seriously the idea of collecting books based on their writers, these will suddenly be of great interest to Hickman fans. They should be anyway.

That's what she Kang said.

There are many sources for Kang-related nonsense. In fact, given infinitely many Kangs, everyone is indistinguishable from a Kang variant. Thus, everything is Kang-related. QED.

Sandman. Black Hole. Watchmen. In no particular order, although it's tough to beat the best issues of Sandman by most any metric. Honorable mention to Canto. SiKtC is probably my choice for "favorite currently-active book".

For books I don't intend to own forever, whatever is optimal for market value and liquidity. For my personal collection, I prefer slabbed books. I've got the room to keep them, so that's not a problem. I like how they look, both individually and in that they give the collection a unified appearance. Not all the books I collect are, strictly speaking, worth slabbing, but I'm not ever selling them, so that's an issue just between me and my purchase fund.

Just to follow up. This sold for $96,000. I... hope the buyer is happy with it.

Yes, but... PSE is the big name in stamp encapsulation, but the philatelic community has been largely, well, hostile to slabbing. Storage has been a big concern. In comic terms, nearly all stamp collectors collect runs. And for many series, entire series can fit on a single album page. Really expansive categories, like a full collection of WashFranks, might be over a dozen pages, but that represents hundreds of individual stamps. A mature collection of classic US issues, 1847 to, say, 1938, all fits in one album, but is potentially close to a thousand stamps. The cost of slabs adds up, and storage is a nightmare. Plus, just like lots of us want to be able to turn the pages of a comic, there's a strong desire by many philatelists to be able to flip through their albums, seeing how they've filled in the collection and immediately spotting the gaps left to find. Beyond all that, there are several grading orgs that will grade and certify a stamp with a photo-included certificate, but without slabbing. All together, it makes slabbed philately pretty niche. But I do think it might be important in the future if the hobby recovers.

I'm not sure non-factory staples in and of themselves get you a purple label.

It's not as dead as perception, but it's certainly way down from the highs of the 80s. Like many things, much of the business has moved away from brick and mortar to online shopping. Comic shops have held out better because for most people, that's also where new issues come from; I don't think a "back issue only" brick and mortar comic shop would be a wise investment. But there are still stamp shows scheduled almost every weekend somewhere in the US for the next 2-3 months at least, and that's despite contraction in live events due to COVID. They're not as big or as heavily attended, but they're not fading away. What DID utterly collapse was the philatelic equivalent of collecting Moderns. Governments (including the US) decided that stamp collectors were a revenue source, and printed increasingly large volumes of topical stamps, special format stamps, presentation sheets, variants... Somewhere around the mid-90s, the bottom just totally fell out of all of that stuff. But the 19th century US stuff that commanded good prices still does. The rare WashFranks are still plenty rare. The 1938 Presidential are still popular with the stamp equivalent of run collectors, and the 50s Liberty series is still the ultra-specialist playground. And while the VERY top tier of international rarities (like the British Guinea magenta) have underperformed, more achievable high-end pieces are at least holding value. No, it's certainly possible that this is just the winding down of the money and energy invested in a doomed and dying hobby. But it's possible philately will recover from this contraction and at least hold stable. After all, in some ways, comics briefly fell apart when the nonsense of the 90s gave out... but look where we are now. Predicting the future, especially the cultural future, is pretty much impossible.

I'm not sure if it's white out, but the area where the 2 belongs definitely looks different than adjacent white areas. Plus there's some white intruding into the cc and the top box bar. I'd guess either color touch (including white out) or some chemical or abrasive removal process. Any chance of a higher res shot of that corner?

UXM 282 is like Wolverine's cameo and says "1st appearance ... in cameo on last page." UXM 283 says "1st full appearance of Bishop."

Gwenpool is the obvious one. Howard the Duck (2016) #1 is "1st appearance of Gwenpool (Gwen Poole)." The earlier Deadpool's Secret Secret Wars #2 Bachalo Variant Cover instead says: "Gwenpool cover. Predates Hoard the Duck #1 (1/16)." I want to say there are at least one or two others like this but they're not coming to mind immediately.

I love the Labyrinth film. I've been generally pretty happy with the comic book adaptations of that world as well. Boom has done a pretty good job. So I collect them, wacky limited-distribution variants and all. However... No offense to Tula Lotay, but I hate this cover. I've avoided buying one for a long time because I think it's off-theme and, well, ugly. But this one was cheap, so here it is. The desire for completion is a hell of a drug.

Okay, let's try to take this seriously with an eye toward implementation. If there are going to be set completion points added to sets, then we have several big questions, and a few edge issues to address. Warning: post is long. I think it's obvious that any completion bonus has to be determined algorithmically. It cannot be a manually-determined value because there are eleventy zillion sets, and asking Brian to manually create a set value for everyone one of them will cause him to come murder us in our sleep. So that gives us, broadly, two options: Base the score entirely off the books you have and your completion percentage. Base the score off your completion percentage and the total potential value of the set, in some manner. Let's look at a set where a single book dominates. TMNT is probably the better example here, but that set is huge and I'm lazy. Let's look instead at Albedo. That's not a perfect example, not the least of which is because not everything that ought to be in that set has even been graded (the 1st series of Albedo goes to #14), but it is a good example of many of the obstacles this process will face. It's a set with a few mid-value books, several books with minimal-to-zero FMV, and one of the biggest modern keys. For the sake of argument, let's assume our aspiring completionist gets Albedo #14 slabbed (it hasn't been yet) and gets that one and the rest of the first series added to the set (the others exist but aren't in the set yet). When it matters, we'll also assume that Albedo #9-14 all have the same minimal point value that #8 does. That would give us a set with 16 slots (#1-14, #0, and the #1 2nd printing). Currently, all printings of #0 share the same slot. For the moment, we'll retain that because it's important to discuss in the context of some implementations. A collector who accomplishes the Herculean task of owning 9.8 Universal graded copies of almost every book in the set (including the #0 1st printing, because that's the highest scoring option in the slot) but completely lacks any copy of the first appearance of Usagi Yojimbo in #2 has a set worth 1400 points. Without any modifiers, a single copy of Albedo #2, even in a 9.4, beats that entire collection. If we multiply effective scores by (1 + completion percentage), then the nearly-complete set is almost doubled (1 + (15/16) = 1.9375). Its new score is 2712.5. A set that consists solely of Albedo #2 is multiplied by 1.0625 (for its 1/16th completion ratio). But the score differential means not much changes. The nearly-full set now beats a lone copy of #2 in 9.4, but still loses out to a lone copy of #2 in 9.6, with a modified set value of 2921.875. What if the set was larger? Technically, the Albedo set could include the later series also, if anyone cared enough to collect and encapsulate them. The 2nd series has 10 issues. The 3rd series has 4. There are 2 issues each in the 4th and 5th series, plus the Albedo Color Special that reprints part of the original #1. That's 19 additional books. We'll score them all like Albedo #8. The set is now 35 books long. Unmodified, our near-completionist now has 2312 points. His 34-book collection beats out a 9.4 copy of Albedo #2, and loses to one in 9.6. Multiplied by completion percentages, that rockets him up to 4557. Finally, just barely, he squeaks past a 9.8 copy of Albedo #2 (which, counting the 1/35th bonus, is now worth 4525). Although, playing devil's advocate here, one of the 3 9.8 Signature Series copies of #2 still blows past the other 34 books combined. What does this mean? It means when a single book dominates a long run in terms of market value, it takes a lot of other books to catch up, even if you're spotting them a completion bonus. The bigger the gap between a single dominant book and the field, the more books it will take to "catch up". Sometimes -- perhaps often -- there's no way for the filler issues to catch up at all. I said I wasn't going to look at TMNT, but... let's look at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1st series). I'm still too lazy to sum up the 9.8U point value of all the books, but let's look at Icculus308win's ridiculously amazing complete 9.8 set. Now, some of those non-#1 books are Signature Series, so just using his scores actually makes things look a little better for the run than it would be otherwise. Close enough. His entire set is worth 141317 points. But a whopping 112000 of those are the grail-tier 9.8 #1 first printing, leaving a mere 29,317 for the rest of the books. You see where this is going. I believe I count 90 books in the set. A collector with 89/90 in... whatever version of 9.8 that set has, but who owns no copy of the #1 first printing, would see their point total rise to 58308 with a set completion bonus, which still loses (badly) to a single key issue in 9.6 or higher. When one and only one book is worth that much more than the rest of the series, there's no realistic way for the run to compete. More complex options are theoretically possible. We could derive some value for the total set. Let's say, for sake of argument, 10% of the maximum Universal score possible. That's the equivalent to having the full run of a series in 9.2 based on the way scores work. This is probably possible to do from a database standpoint depending on how CGC built the registry to begin with. In this hypothetical, instead of multiplying your completion percentage by your own score, you multiply it by that derived value, and add it to your books' individual scores. Going back to Albedo, the full set in 10.0 is 10875 points, so the completion bonus in this case would be (percentage * 1087). Our original scenario, where we only care about the 1st series, still has the #2-less set in 9.8 worth 1400 base points. But now, it gets (1087 * 1.9375 = 2106) bonus points, for a new score of 3506. A lone copy of Albedo #2 earns 68 bonus points, which doesn't really affect much. You now need a 9.8 copy for the single key to beat the rest of the set combined. But for longer sets, like a hypothetical Albedo (Complete), or the 1st series TMNT, a run collector can actually pass the one-off key book. But is this possible? Remember I said I'd mention that Albedo #0 entry? That's not the only case where there's a single slot that can be filled with multiple different books. Depending on the database structure for the registry, it may not be easy to select the highest point value option there. Basically, how to compute the set completion bonus, if implemented, depends in a large part on how aggressively CGC and the community want to incentivize run collecting over key issue collecting. Plus data structure limitations. Regardless of how a set bonus is implemented, there will be extra work for the Registry Staff (hi again, Brian!). Suddenly, point values become more important, not just for the top-dollar books, but for the supporting issues in the run. Right now, as I understand, score updates are a purely manual process in which a CGC employee must attempt to evaluate FMV based on recent confirmed sales in order to generate a point score that is intended to (but doesn't always) represent a fixed-ish point-to-dollar ratio. How "filler" books are scored in the Registry has varied over time. Is the 10.0 reference score for a book with essentially null FMV 90? 75? 60? 45? In some cases, this will make a lot of difference, so that score adjustment thread would suddenly be the happening place to be. Personally, I'd actually suggest discarding the idea that points are supposed to have a dollar-equivalent value. Create something like 8 to 10 tiers of "value" for books, reassign everything to a tier based on its existing value (which can be done algorithmically) and then books probably only need adjustment if something substantial changes. This would, however, cause a great deal of drama and is more or less outside the scope of this discussion. Finally, creating any sort of completion bonus would essentially mandate more stringent definitions on what is or is not included in a set. The big challenge is going to be the conflict between title sets and character sets when those look like the same thing. For example, the character Spawn is the star of the comic titled Spawn. The registry set called "Spawn" is a title set; it includes exclusively the books in that series (and doesn't include variants, because of the category type). There is also a registry set called "Spawn (Complete with Variants)", but that set is a character set. It does not just include all variant printings of Spawn, it includes all the printings of all the books in which Spawn appears. There is no set -- and I bet such a request would currently be denied -- that includes only the title Spawn, but does include variants; nor is there a set for all books in which Spawn appears (whether or not they are Spawn) but not variant covers and printings thereof. Whew! Also, pre-first-appearances. Hoo boy. For example, the Spawn (Complete with Variants) set includes Malibu Sun #13, Malibu's house advertising periodical, presumably because of the Spawn cover appearance that predates Spawn. Is that different than, say, Robotech II: the Sentinels #13 or Torg #2, which are even earlier than Malibu Sun #13 and feature a two-page centerfold advertisement for Spawn that includes a more-than-full-page image of Spawn? What about Entertainment This Month #31, which mailed the same month as Malibu Sun #13 and also has a Spawn cover? As a somewhat lesser concern, there are "non-competitive" slots in quite a few sets. Some of those are grandfathered TPB slots, but there are also a few oddities like Wizard Authentic Editions that are no longer considered to be competitive set elements. Based on my educated guesses about the database structure here, there's no (easy) way to automatically flag those, and they would still be a "slot" for the purposes of slot counting, which suddenly makes them no longer "non-competitive". The current policy is also to have foreign republications shunted to their own sets, but there's a lot of those grandfathered in as well. Sticking with the theme, Spawn (Complete with Variants) includes the 1996 Japanese edition and the Les Chroniques de Spawn #27 variant. A policy would need to be set for the handling of all these entries (and likely removal from sets).

Make that $72000 now. And with 4+ days left, I bet that's not done. What are we guessing? 90k by the end of this?? Seriously, I don't understand any of that for this book. Frankly, I'm not sure I understand how this kept a 9.0 post-signing, with Stan having smudged that inscription over the title. I can only assume that the quality of the autograph / inscription isn't considered with regard to grade. Personally, I'd view anything that wasn't intentionally done to the cover as a defect, which would mean this ink smear is a defect and that spurious hot pink line on the back of the 10-signature book would be a defect, and neither would have the grade they do. And that's to say nothing of the irony of writing "With great power comes great responsibility" over the top of ASM 1...

I thought it was ... okay, I guess? Maya's an acceptably interesting character, but the rest of the setting feels strangely flat. There are definitely better books out there right now. And better covers than Jo Ratcliffe's Cover A.

It doesn't surprise me that the census record matches the label. In and of itself, that's what I would consider correct behavior for the system. What does surprise me is that the system allows the input of grade values that aren't used in the CGC grading scale.

Relatively harmless, although that variant has a small enough print run than Universal copies are starting to get pretty scarce. Sucks if you, say, like Skottie Young art but don't want signed books. Otherwise, I could certainly wish that he'd made use of the copious whitespace instead of taking a STANLEE to the back of that one kid's head...

This is very silly. But I think we should take it to its logical conclusion. Hear me out, folks! I'll print a 32 page comic. That's 8 folds, right? Except here's the catch. Each individual book only has one fold printed, and the rest are blank. Maybe I make them all just randomly distributed to encourage bulk buys. Or if one of the big stores wants to kick back enough cash, presto! Centerfold exclusive! Trade with your friends! Order more copies online! It's like reading a comic, but more interactive! And later on, there can even be variant folds for extra collectibility! Now all I need is a publishing company to humor me... erm, to make my vision real, I mean. Hmm, the name Terrible Idea isn't taken yet, is it?

I don't hate this one. Sure, yes, over half the 9.8 slabs are yellow labels, so this is... annoying to find in 9.8U, but hardly impossible. And with the list of pretty much all the names in ASM history with a big white background? It's not a "blank cover" variant, but it's clear what was intended here. Plus, Stan actually signed in a sensible place. I still wouldn't want this because I'm generally a non-signature purist, but this doesn't destroy something historically significant or irreplaceably rare, and the sig placement doesn't deface the book. This is miles better than that ASM1 or the Star Wars 1 price variant. They're not all bad. But the bad ones are terrible.