census updated as of 10/13

[drbanner]

Any possibility in seeing how this data compares to previous periods?

 

Here are the interesting numbers...

 

CGC Census Counts - As of 08/27/2003

1930s - 1,560

1940s - 25,714

1950s - 18,107

1960s - 86,266

1970s - 73,600

1980s - 55,418

1990s - 31,456

2000s - 47,726

Total - 339,847

 

CGC Census Counts - As of 10/13/2003

1930s - 1,579

1940s - 26,183

1950s - 18,631

1960s - 89,660

1970s - 76,601

1980s - 57,604

1990s - 32,396

2000s - 50,001

Total - 352,655

 

CGC Census Growth From 08/27/2003 to 10/13/2003

1930s - 19 - 1.2%

1940s - 469 - 1.8%

1950s - 524 - 2.9%

1960s - 3394 - 3.9%

1970s - 3001 - 4.1%

1980s - 2186 - 3.9%

1990s - 940 - 3.0%

2000s - 2275 - 4.8%

Overall - 12808 - 3.8%

 

So...the submissions for the 1960s and 1970s are not slowing down...

In fact... they are outpacing the growth of any other decade (except for brand new comics)

 

Also note... The CGC census has grown 3.8% in about 47 days.

(The CGC census overall would double in 2.5 to 3.5 years... if the pace was maintained.)

 

Not quite what I was looking for...can you dig back into the Census stats for the update before 08/27/2003, and the one before that, etc.,.? In other words, has the number of 50/60/70's books submitted per month declined since summer '02, fall '02, winter '03, spring, etc.,.

 

If the theory of "all the books available for slabbing have been slabbed" holds water, then CGC should be seeing fewer and fewer gold/silver/bronze books per month...

[valiantman]

Not quite what I was looking for...can you dig back into the Census stats for the update before 08/27/2003, and the one before that, etc.,.? In other words, has the number of 50/60/70's books submitted per month declined since summer '02, fall '02, winter '03, spring, etc.,.

My first compilation of the CGC numbers was 7/17/2003...

so I know I can't go further back than that.

 

If the theory of "all the books available for slabbing have been slabbed" holds water, then CGC should be seeing fewer and fewer gold/silver/bronze books per month...

 

I think that we pretty much have our answer...

Submissions for 1960s and 1970s books are equaling the pace for CGC's growth,

therefore we're only seeing fewer Silver & Bronze books if CGC is seeing

fewer books overall. While I doubt we're still in an "explosion of slabbing"...

I don't think CGC's business is declining either.

[valiantman]

Specifically, the argument I've been hearing for sharp increases in prices paid between a 9.4 or 9.6 or 9.8 copy seems to be based more upon the 'finite quantity in existence' scenario rather than the 'only a limited number have come to market' scenario.

 

Here's a partial answer to that statement...

 

We know that CGC copies of books from the 1960s have increased

by 3.9% from 08/27/2003 to 10/13/2003.

 

Therefore... if the "high grade copies" are drying up...

we would expect that the growth of individual high grades

would be less than 3.9% and growth of lower grades would be

more than 3.9%...

 

Growth of 1960s Submissions By Grade

1960s Overall Growth +3.9%

1960s CGC 9.8s +6.09%

1960s CGC 9.6s +5.46%

1960s CGC 9.4s +4.51%

1960s CGC 9.2s +3.32%

1960s CGC 9.0s +3.56%

1960s CGC 8.5s +3.49%

 

It doesn't look like the "high grades" are drying up...

This is either because the submissions are

undeclared re-subs of high grade copies,

or they are actually newly slabbed high grade copies.

Neither scenario is beneficial to the person paying multiples...

And either way... the census doesn't reflect any "drying up",

**but we'll know better after a year or two of historical data***

[drbanner]

I think that we pretty much have our answer...

Submissions for 1960s and 1970s books are equaling the pace for CGC's growth,

therefore we're only seeing fewer Silver & Bronze books if CGC is seeing

fewer books overall. While I doubt we're still in an "explosion of slabbing"...

I don't think CGC's business is declining either.

 

Not if the 60's/70's pop reports were increasing by 5-6% per "update" prior to 7/03...but since you don't have the historical data we can't tell. Maybe over the next year we'll be able to identify the trend.

 

Thanks for the help!!

[mrwoogieman]

Yes, thanks Valiantman!

[valiantman]

I think that we pretty much have our answer...

Submissions for 1960s and 1970s books are equaling the pace for CGC's growth,

therefore we're only seeing fewer Silver & Bronze books if CGC is seeing

fewer books overall. While I doubt we're still in an "explosion of slabbing"...

I don't think CGC's business is declining either.

 

Not if the 60's/70's pop reports were increasing by 5-6% per "update" prior to 7/03...but since you don't have the historical data we can't tell. Maybe over the next year we'll be able to identify the trend.

 

Thanks for the help!!

 

That's partially true...

If there were 200,000 books in the census at some time in the past...

and some period saw a 5-6% growth.. that means 10,000 to 12,000 new submissions.

 

Today there were 340,000 copies in the census,

and we saw a growth of 3.8%... that is... 12,000 to 13,000 new submissions.

 

The percentage may be declining...

but the "raw counts" could be identical or higher.

 

(Again, we can't know without historical data...

but it's something that's not readily apparent in percentages.)

[sckao]

...can show a percentage of MODERNS submitted Vs. other ages submitted?

 

Breakdown of the CGC Submissions 08/27/2003 to 10/13/2003

Decade

1930s - 21

1940s - 445

1950s - 403

1960s - 3,329

1970s - 2,856

1980s - 2,005

1990s - 804

2000s - 1,587

 

 

Any possibility in seeing how this data compares to previous periods? In other words, are the number of 30/40/50/60's books being submitted (say, per month) going down? As postulated above, I would imagine that most of the gold/silver/bronze books available for slabbing have been slabbed or will be soon ("Not enough good stuff left worth submitting").

 

 

I'm not so sure about that... I've been hesitant to slab my books because of the additional size and weight of the slabs (plus the cost). Actually, cost is probably the #1 reason. Slabbing 100+ SA books could cost $2500 or more with some HG SA books only having a NM guide value of less than $50. Bronze books would guide even less. Storing hundreds of slabbed books in addition to tens of thousands of normal books is also a problem.

 

Unless they're being graded for selling, I'm speculating that a lot of collectors aren't slabbing what they have. There's also the concern (on my end) that slabbing may actually damage the books (which is one of the reasons the slabs are continually being redesigned to hold the books better.)

 

A lot of people/companies won't buy version 1.0 of a software release until all bugs are worked out. I'd imagine some people are doing the same thing with slabbing their comics.

 

 

 

 

[garthgantu]

Valiantman (and anyone else who may know):

 

Any way of determining how many of the latest submissions are re-subs? Is anyone else on these boards concerned that the accuracy of the census continues to decline based on the fact that at least some percentage of new books reflected in the census updates are re-subs?

 

This may not be a big problem for many titles at the moment - if 20 of the Hulk 181s are re-subs, that's still a small fraction - but if 3 of the copies of Pep Comics 22 or World's Finest 4 are re-subs, that's a more significant problem...

[valiantman]

Any way of determining how many of the latest submissions are re-subs?

Unfortunately not.

 

"Official" re-subs will result in a removal of the previous entry

and the addition of the new entry. The net result is "no change"

from the census point of view...

Unless that was the "only copy" officially re-subbed...

in which case we might be able to find a counter that went down by 1,

and the other counter which went up by 1.

 

"Unofficial" re-subs (where CGC doesn't know it's a re-sub) will make the

census numbers artificially inflate... since there will be two entries for

the same book. In a perfect world, even when people re-sub "secretly",

they should pick which of the two grades they want to "keep" on the slab,

and turn in the label for the other grade... that way it can be removed from

the census. But, re-subbers probably don't/won't do that.

 

Even with some error (which should be small in most cases) in the CGC census

due to re-subs... it's still more information than we had before CGC...

where we might not have had any idea that Thor 156 was... "plentiful"...

at least compared to 155 and 157.

 

The "nature" of the situation actually has two "safe-guards" built right in.

If there are plenty of books, then the re-subs are a very small percent.

But if there are very few books, people should be very hesitant to re-sub a book

because it will make the book appear "less rare".

 

Your example of Pep Comics #22 is perfect...

If I owned a slabbed copy of Pep Comics #22 (only two universal copies graded),

I would only LOSE if I secretly resubbed it and made the census say "3 copies".

It's much better to have one of two copies than one of three...

so even the most extreme examples shouldn't be as prone to "re-sub worries".

 

(There's always a joker in the bunch, though... and if there truly were only

two copies of Pep Comics #22, and you owned one of them... you could re-sub

it a dozen times... find out who has the other "real copy" and buy it "cheaper"...

then send in a dozen worthless labels and get the census back to two.

But, that would be hard to do without incurring the wrath of all that you call "peers".)

[BronzeBruce13]

I don't think so. If they are "Resubs" that are identified... then they were re-submitted with the label and the census would then be adjusted.

 

It seems as if there will always be "margin of error" with the census due to "Census Ghosts and Poltergeists". I would think the variances would be the highest in heavily submitted and/or valuable books. Maybe some "math-wiz" could come up with a reasonable forumla that weighed overall submission numbers, upside of resubbing, etc.?

 

"Census Ghost" (Ghost): when there is a "Missing" item from the data due to a resubmit that "changed" (with no label given to CGC to modify totals) (coined by forumite MrHighGrade). >Only the submitter knows though<

 

"Census Poltergeist" (Poltergiest): when there is an "Extra" item in the data due to a resubmit that returned the "same grade" (with no label given to CGC to modify totals) (coined by forumite BB13) >Only the submitter knows though<

[BronzeBruce13]

(There's always a joker in the bunch, though... and if there truly were only

two copies of Pep Comics #22, and you owned one of them... you could re-sub

it a dozen times... find out who has the other "real copy" and buy it "cheaper"...

then send in a dozen worthless labels and get the census back to two.

But, that would be hard to do without incurring the wrath of all that you call "peers".)

 

 

..plus you'd spend so much in CGC/shipping fees, you may not save very much

[garthgantu]

Interesting...but to use part of your own point, what if Thor 156 only appears "plentiful" because someone *cough* Chuck Ro...*cough* has resubmitted the same copy 125 times, in order to purchase the 'deflated' copies and then corner the market? I realize this is a more or less ridiculous example, but...

- I don't think it's safe to assume that most people submitting books to CGC are necessarily aware of the census and how it's used by others in the community

 

- there are clearly other reasons why a person might re-sub a book - even a scarce book like Pep # 22, and *not* alert CGC to the fact that it's a re-sub

 

- over time, it would seem that the CGC numbers could, at least in specific, isolated examples, become skewed to the point of being misleading. If after 5 or 10 years 50% of the copies of Thing! # 12 are re-subs that weren't acknolwedged as such, the perceived scarcity of that book is altered pretty dramatically...no?

[valiantman]

Maybe some "math-wiz" could come up with a reasonable forumla that weighed overall submission numbers, upside of resubbing, etc.?

Without "the facts", it's hard to say what the impact is...

 

Realistically, though, CGC will probably never slab more than 10% to 20%

of the existing copies of any comic 1960 to 1990...

Therefore any fractional "resub" variances are greatly outweighed by

the 80% to 90% of all existing copies not being in a slab at all,

even though all would have the potential to be slabbed at some point.

 

(Does that sufficiently avoid the issue?)

[valiantman]

- over time, it would seem that the CGC numbers could, at least in specific, isolated examples, become skewed to the point of being misleading. If after 5 or 10 years 50% of the copies of Thing! # 12 are re-subs that weren't acknolwedged as such, the perceived scarcity of that book is altered pretty dramatically...no?

Possibly... sure.

 

Which is worse? (or... which is more misleading?)

 

1) Believing that a truly scarce book is not scarce.

People might be able to buy a scarce book for less money.

(CGC resubs could cause this...hypothetically.)

 

2) Believing that a "not scarce" book is scarce.

People pay too much for a book due to believed scarcity.

(Reference pre-CGC information for Silver Surfer #4.)

[BronzeBruce13]

- over time, it would seem that the CGC numbers could, at least in specific, isolated examples, become skewed to the point of being misleading. If after 5 or 10 years 50% of the copies of Thing! # 12 are re-subs that weren't acknowledged as such, the perceived scarcity of that book is altered pretty dramatically... no?

 

This is a real "con" of the census and it may not really take that long. There could be a determined fan that is "sure in his mind" that a specific book should be a certain grade and tries resubbing multiple times. Overall though, the census gives us pretty accurate indication of what CGC numbers are out there. We can only hope that its really a low percentage of issues that have a serious amount of "Ghosts and/or Poltergeists".

 

It is a good idea for those that resubmit to keep all their labels if they prefer to submit without them. At some point they could send in a bunch and the census could be adjusted. I bet many would do this after they accumulated several.

 

>CGC could definitely increase the amount of returned labels and census accuracy IF they left the "$5 Label Bounty" on indefinitely... not just when you resubmit with one. I bet almost everyone would keep them ready for their next submission if so.

[BronzeBruce13]

Of course... but that's a different point than I was trying to make. I'm only speaking about the accuracy of what "has been" submitted... actual CGC copies. Obviously, there is great potential for adjustments in supply based on new submissions.

 

Keep up the good work Greg!

 

 

Maybe some "math-wiz" could come up with a reasonable forumla that weighed overall submission numbers, upside of resubbing, etc.?

Without "the facts", it's hard to say what the impact is...

 

Realistically, though, CGC will probably never slab more than 10% to 20%

of the existing copies of any comic 1960 to 1990...

Therefore any fractional "resub" variances are greatly outweighed by

the 80% to 90% of all existing copies not being in a slab at all,

even though all would have the potential to be slabbed at some point.

 

(Does that sufficiently avoid the issue?)

[Mister_Comics]

Breakdown of the CGC Submissions 08/27/2003 to 10/13/2003

Decade

1930s - 19

1940s - 469

1950s - 524

1960s - 3,394

1970s - 3,001

1980s - 2,186

1990s - 940

2000s - 2,275

 

 

 

Another thing that surprises me is that the 90's has less of an amount then the 2000's. And the 2000's consists of about 4 years compare to ten years. Thats a big difference in subs when comparing the 90's and 2000's. Is this due to the signature series? Or chrome cover books?

 

Another thing I think should be brougt up is when we say 30's, are we talking ten full years of comics? Or when Superman first appeared? Again that makes for a difference.

 

Not sure were I'm going with this but I thought I'd mention the total year diffeences.

[valiantman]

Another thing that surprises me is that the 90's has less of an amount then the 2000's. And the 2000's consists of about 4 years compare to ten years. Thats a big difference in subs when comparing the 90's and 2000's. Is this due to the signature series? Or chrome cover books?

Most books from the 1980s aren't worth slabbing.

Very, very few 1990s books are worth slabbing at this point.

And these books from 2003 are even LESS worth slabbing...

but that's not stopping the thousands of submissions of brand new books.

 

The "big difference" for brand new books being CGC'd is simply... greed.

 

There's nothing exciting about a slabbed copy of a book that's brand new,

and I mean literally brand new... one month old.

It's not a classic story...it's not a classic cover... it's nothing special.

Except of course... it's got the opportunity to make an immediate profit.

 

Why net $2 per book (as a dealer) when you could net $20 per book

if they only had that magic number on the slab?

 

Blame Wolverine: Origin...

Blame Ultimate Spiderman...

Blame the dealers who automatically submit dozens or hundreds...

Blame the option to "pre-Screen" for certain grades...

 

But don't forget to blame the buyers of CGC graded 2003 books...

for without them... no one would spend those slabbing fees.

[sckao]

 

The people slabbing new books are probably of the mindset that it's easier to get a 9.8 right now than five-ten years from now. That's the lure of that person offering a guaranteed subscription of CGC 9.8's of a particular series. They're either anticipating flipping it right now, or maintaining an impossibly high grade set for the future. There aren't that many copies of recent books floating around right now due to low print runs although most if not all are being bagged/boarded. I'm sure it would be possible to amass 9.8 graded sets.. but it would probably cost more in terms of time and effort.

 

In twenty years, if say the comic industry was actually stronger than ever... would we still call these people crazy? What if someone slabs a current book at 9.8 or higher and it turns out to be the next Hulk 181. (The service is offering to hold a drawing for any 9.9 or 10.0 copies that arise from their CGC grading subscription... so that's an additional incentive.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Darthdiesel]

Blame Wolverine: Origin...

Blame Ultimate Spiderman...

Blame the dealers who automatically submit dozens or hundreds...

Blame the option to "pre-Screen" for certain grades...

 

But don't forget to blame the buyers of CGC graded 2003 books...

for without them... no one would spend those slabbing fees.