FF Price Surge....what will the Guide say?

[fantastic_four]

Having said all that, why would people even be submitting FF 17 & 18?

 

Because they have them in high grade and want to sell them. Your reasoning would make sense if the census wasn't so high on non-key issues like FF #44 and #59, both of which were in the Mile High 2 run. The population counts on non-key issues rise slowly as the Silver Age progresses...if they were out there, a lot more copies of #17 and #18 would have been submitted as compared to non-key issues printed in the late 1960s. Of course it's always possible somebody has a boxfull of them out there somewhere...I kinda hope that's the case and that he doesn't take FOREVER to sell them! I'd rather have these issues in 9.4/9.6 condition than 9.0/9.2.

 

I figure the real-world counts are triple or quadruple the current CGC census counts, but that's still not enough to go around and probably won't be for quite a while.

[joe_collector]

I figure the real-world counts are triple or quadruple the current CGC census counts

 

Come on, do you really believe that 1/3 to 1/4 of all HG Silver comics have already been submitted?

 

And I thought making a 2004 Comic Crash prediction was risky...

[uclapeterg]

That number sounds low to me too. Some people out there aren't selling their books anytime soon so there is no reason to use CGC. I think it's more like 10% graded, if that.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

That number sounds low to me too. Some people out there aren't selling their books anytime soon so there is no reason to use CGC. I think it's more like 10% graded, if that.

 

Personally, I disagree. For high grade, unrestored, 1961-1963 Marvels that have a legitimate shot at 9.0 or better, I would say at least 40-50% have been submitted already.

 

From 1964-1965, the percentage is probably around 25%, and from 1966-1969 (the peak of the late Silver Age glut), I would say its closer to 15%.

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

Personally, I disagree. For high grade, unrestored, 1961-1963 Marvels that have a legitimate shot at 9.0 or better, I would say at least 40-50% have been submitted already.

 

You should tell the guy holding the Curator FF's that he's missing the boat.

 

Seriously, people used to say that kind of stuff about extremely old, vintage cards and coins, but they kept appearing and drove the Census up. In fact, there was recently a large lot of NM tobacco cards (equivalent to GA) sent in to PSA and auctioned off. They're not common, but those who echoed your comments early on are eating a lot of crow.

 

Conventional wisdom states that you won't even have even a rough idea on high-grade supply until 10+ years of certified grading.

[murph0]

Conventional wisdom states that you won't even have even a rough idea on high-grade supply until 10+ years of certified grading.

 

Then after 10 years if/when the supply doesn't shoot up thousands, then you meant in 20 years right? This is an endless line of reasoning. It's like me stating that someday Santa Claus will prove himself to exist. There's no proof he does but there's also no proof that he doesn't.

 

Brian

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

You should tell the guy holding the Curator FF's that he's missing the boat.

 

Its these type of raw pedigree runs that I am referring to in the remaining 50-60% of my assessment.

 

Besides, many, if not most, of the known pedigree runs (which are considered to be the creme de la creme of high grade books), have already been slabbed.

 

I'm also basing my percentage on the fact that grading criteria has changed so much in recent years hobbywide. A guy who bought "Mint" copies of early Marvels in the mid 80s might be surprised to get them back as VFs from CGC today.

 

Another note....the census, as it is, is very misleading since it does not account for resubs.

 

 

 

 

[garthgantu]

 

Then after 10 years if/when the supply doesn't shoot up thousands, then you meant in 20 years right? This is an endless line of reasoning. It's like me stating that someday Santa Claus will prove himself to exist. There's no proof he does but there's also no proof that he doesn't.

 

Brian

 

Brian, I'm arranging for the post office to drop off a few letters addressed to Santa at your place... is the driveway okay for the first 20,000 ? hehe

[garthgantu]

I think OS is being very circumspect re: CGC and its effect on high grade comic prices, and is for the most part doing its best to reflect a rapidly changing landscape...

 

Did paying multiples of guide start with the advent of CGC? No...my research to date indicates it started back when "file" copies and pedigrees began as popular concepts back in the 1970s. When Borock posted last week he was paying 10 times guide back in the 1990s for the rarer Gold and Silver books and still turning them for a profit, did you disbelieve him? Would it surprise you to discover that many more of the people with the top collections today were paying multiples of guide to get the best copies long before CGC started?

 

My conversations with various long-time collectors indicates Overstreet NM prices being behind actual market value is not a new phenomenon, the Internet and CGC just made a lot more people aware of it.

 

I'm sure people occasionally paid multiples of guide 10, 20, or even more years ago. But you are as familiar as I am with Chuck R.'s account of how he was vilified for charging 1.5x to 3x for the BEST copies in existence of many GA books following the discovery of the Church collection. If it was as common a practice as you make it out to be, Chuck wouldn't have gotten so much flak for doing it.

 

I don't believe that more than a handful of "precogs" were paying multiples of guide, even as recently as 1990. Steve Borock may well have been one of them, but he was in elite company. Before CGC started, paying multiples of guide for a book must have seemed even riskier than it does now. I say 'seemed' because in hindsight, even multiples of the 1985 guide prices would look awfully smart today. I think this is part of the reason that you see more people claiming to have paid multiples of guide back in the day - it makes them out to be MORE astute collectors/dealers, not less astute. Where were all these people before CGC? I don't remember many folks standing up and saying "yeah, I paid 3x guide for this copy of ASM #3, but I'm confident it's in true NM and therefore as good as gold."

 

Again, I'm not disputing that Borock and a handful of others were paying multiples of guide (probably for the same books over and over again, back and forth), but the vast majority of collectors and dealers were not. Multiples of guide as a commonplace pricing scheme is a very recent phenomenon, attributable in large part to CGC.

[sfilosa]

Again, I'm not disputing that Borock and a handful of others were paying multiples of guide (probably for the same books over and over again, back and forth), but the vast majority of collectors and dealers were not. Multiples of guide as a commonplace pricing scheme is a very recent phenomenon, attributable in large part to CGC.

 

I'm reading Gerber's Photo Journal published in 1989 and while referring to the Mile High Collection he says "Currently in the comic book market, a mint comic book without pedigree or known origin will sell for 2 to 2.5 times Guide".

 

Now I know he uses the term Mint, but I think we all would agree that a Mint book back in 1989 does not necessarily mean a CGC 9.8 book today. Many of the supposed Mint books in the Mile High collection don't even grade CGC 9.4.

 

 

Point: Significantly overguide prices have been paid for high-grade key (or rare) books for decades.

 

I would agree that CGC was added multiples to high-grade (9.4 or better) non-key, non-rare books that might not have received barely any premium in the past.

[panhandlefool]

That number sounds low to me too. Some people out there aren't selling their books anytime soon so there is no reason to use CGC. I think it's more like 10% graded, if that.

 

Personally, I disagree. For high grade, unrestored, 1961-1963 Marvels that have a legitimate shot at 9.0 or better, I would say at least 40-50% have been submitted already.

 

From 1964-1965, the percentage is probably around 25%, and from 1966-1969 (the peak of the late Silver Age glut), I would say its closer to 15%.

 

Let's not forget that unless someone returns the CGC slips to CGC after cracking open a book, it's forever recorded as a CGC book even when it's been unslabbed. And if someone cracks it open and resubmits it, then you have a duplication. So there's a reason to believe the CGC database actually overreports actual CGC books. Not really sure how to put that into an equation, as most people wouldn't break open a slab, especially on a big book, but there are those who regularly crack open slabs.

[garthgantu]

 

I'm reading Gerber's Photo Journal published in 1989 and while referring to the Mile High Collection he says "Currently in the comic book market, a mint comic book without pedigree or known origin will sell for 2 to 2.5 times Guide".

 

Now I know he uses the term Mint, but I think we all would agree that a Mint book back in 1989 does not necessarily mean a CGC 9.8 book today. Many of the supposed Mint books in the Mile High collection don't even grade CGC 9.4.

I wouldn't be so sure, SFilosa... there were people using the term "Mint" to designate books "better than NM" back in those days. Further, Gerber is one of those people traveling the highest strata of the community. He was one of the few who saw people shelling out multiples of guide well before 98% of the rest of the collecting community.

 

Totally agree re: your point about the grade scale shifting over time - but by the same token, many many books from the Church collection are slabbed in NM 9.4 or better - who knows what those books looked like 20 years before CGC showed up? They may well have been .2 or more higher in grade before changing hands five times.

 

Point: Significantly overguide prices have been paid for high-grade key (or rare) books for decades.

 

I would agree that CGC was added multiples to high-grade (9.4 or better) non-key, non-rare books that might not have received barely any premium in the past.

This is really my point... at what stage would you expect the OS Guide to reflect this trend? After the Church collection was discovered and Chuck started asking 2x guide for "Mint" GA keys? That's an abberation, not a market trend. I just don't see how the OS Guide can be criticized for responding slowly to the current market conditions. It's not as though the OS Guide writers and editors are denying that high grade books often sell for multiples of guide - they acknowledge this several times at several different points in the book. If the OS Guide added a NM+ 9.6 column, and a 9.8 column, etc., what would you do with all the instances where no copy of a given book has been slabbed at that grade, or has been slabbed but not sold?

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

If the OS Guide added a NM+ 9.6 column, and a 9.8 column, etc., what would you do with all the instances where no copy of a given book has been slabbed at that grade, or has been slabbed but not sold?

 

Perhaps then what other posters have suggested is indeed the best course of action; Overstreet should stop trying to price Golden Age & early Silver Age above 9.0.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Multiples of guide as a commonplace pricing scheme is a very recent phenomenon, attributable in large part to CGC.

 

That's an awfully sweeping statement...you sure you've been around long enough or done enough research to attempt to document the history of the hobby like you just did in that statement?

 

Paying multiples is STILL not "commonplace"; ever seen a local comic shop charge multiples of guide? I haven't, nor do I see it at conventions on books sold by regional dealers. National dealers--those who invest the time and expense to travel around--usually they do charge multiples because they KNOW true NM books and higher are harder to find. This knowledge still isn't "commonplace." The type of collector who posts in these forums isn't "common"...the LARGE majority of comic collectors can't tell a VF from a NM, and a smaller majority can't even tell Fine from NM...definitely none of those people are going to pay multiples for the difference between a 9.4 and a 9.8!

 

However, I would agree with you that the population of "precogs"--I prefer to think of them as "tight graders" myself--is bigger today due to E-Bay and CGC combined, but not THAT much bigger. The EXTREMELY similar parallel to the CGC multiples is the multiples people have paid for pedigree and file copies for several decades. Yes, people complained about Chuck charging multiples of guide for Mile Highs...but it's STILL commonplace for people to complain about dealers charging multiples for CGC books because knowledge of just how rare true NM Gold and Silver books can be ISN'T commonplace. Here's my current hypothesis about the recent changes to the paying-multiples phenomenon--the Internet is primarily responsible for increasing the number of multiples-payers due to its ability to carry information more efficiently than ever before, and CGC is primarily responsible for the increase in multiples paid due to the safety they've brought to sinking money into uncommon comics with their more reliable grading and restoration check. And both the Internet and CGC combined have enhanced the dollars and the awareness more than either one would have alone. (As an aside, it just occurred to me that the Internet is the new and unknown factor which complicates comparisons of comics certification to coin certification...it's hard to say whether coins would have dipped like they did if the Internet would've been available to hook buyers and sellers together as efficiently as it does.)

 

If you've looked at the multiples of guide comics fetched at the Sotheby's and Christie's auctions in the early 1990s...or looked at the sales figures on pedigree and file comics in the 70s and 80s...how can you continue to argue the point that Overstreet is being "overwhelmed" by this "new multiples phenomenon" that CGC has "all of a sudden" created in the comics marketplace? The scope of it has become clearer now than it was in the past, but is the knowledge that you're only going to come across certain books in true NM shape every 6 months to 6 years new? No--that's the exact reason pedigrees have always sold for more, and it's the reason people are calling CGC the "new pedigree" that has severely eroded the multiples paid for comics just because they're from an original owner collection.

[fantastic_four]

This is really my point... at what stage would you expect the OS Guide to reflect this trend? After the Church collection was discovered and Chuck started asking 2x guide for "Mint" GA keys? That's an abberation, not a market trend. I just don't see how the OS Guide can be criticized for responding slowly to the current market conditions. It's not as though the OS Guide writers and editors are denying that high grade books often sell for multiples of guide - they acknowledge this several times at several different points in the book.

 

The aberration is not just the existence of collectors willing to pay multiples, but it's also the existence of many 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s comics in NM or better. Is THAT a new phenomenon--has there been a great fire which wiped them all out since price guides began in the 1970s? It was the people who understood how uncommon high grade, vintage comics are that led to the multiples-paying to begin with.

 

And this knowledge is still not commonplace...it might have increased from 1% of the collector base to 5% of it, but it's not a huge percentage. I wouldn't get the deals I do at shops and conventions when collections get sold if it were.

[garthgantu]

Multiples of guide as a commonplace pricing scheme is a very recent phenomenon, attributable in large part to CGC.

 

That's an awfully sweeping statement...you sure you've been around long enough or done enough research to attempt to document the history of the hobby like you just did in that statement?

 

We ALL make sweeping comments on a regular basis on these boards - if we all pussyfoot around the subject, what's the point? And I don't really think it's that sweeping anyway - it's qualified with the "as a commonplace pricing scheme." So unless we're holding up Chuckie R. as our shining example, yes, I'd say that as a commonplace pricing scheme, multiples of guide is a very recent phenomenon.

 

Paying multiples is STILL not "commonplace"; ever seen a local comic shop charge multiples of guide? I haven't, nor do I see it at conventions on books sold by regional dealers. National dealers--those who invest the time and expense to travel around--usually they do charge multiples because they KNOW true NM books and higher are harder to find. This knowledge still isn't "commonplace." The type of collector who posts in these forums isn't "common"...the LARGE majority of comic collectors can't tell a VF from a NM, and a smaller majority can't even tell Fine from NM...definitely none of those people are going to pay multiples for the difference between a 9.4 and a 9.8!

But FF, you're the one who's been saying in this thread that the OS Guide is out of touch, and using the "multiples of guide trend" as the leading illustration of this. Now you're saying it's not commonplace - which is it? If it's not commonplace, why should the OS Guide shift its stance? Further, I'd argue there are plenty of people who can't tell a FN from a NM who are still paying multiples of guide...last time I checked they were referred to as 'speculators'.

 

However, I would agree with you that the population of "precogs"--I prefer to think of them as "tight graders" myself--is bigger today due to E-Bay and CGC combined, but not THAT much bigger.

Actually, I was using the term "pre-cogs" to refer to those rare few who were willing shelling out 3x guide for NM books 10+ years ago. I meant it from the standpoint that you'd have to be more or less prescient in order to "overpay" by so much.

 

If you've looked at the multiples of guide comics fetched at the Sotheby's and Christie's auctions in the early 1990s...or looked at the sales figures on pedigree and file comics in the 70s and 80s...how can you continue to argue the point that Overstreet is being "overwhelmed" by this "new multiples phenomenon" that CGC has "all of a sudden" created in the comics marketplace? The scope of it has become clearer now than it was in the past, but is the knowledge that you're only going to come across certain books in true NM shape every 6 months to 6 years new? No--that's the exact reason pedigrees have always sold for more, and it's the reason people are calling CGC the "new pedigree" that has severely eroded the multiples paid for comics just because they're from an original owner collection.

 

I know you love hard data, FF, and you know I'm lazy, so we're even But I think it's safe to say that the number of individual comic books that sold for above guide between 1975 and 1999 has been dwarfed by the number of books that have sold for over guide since the beginning of 2000. Would you accept this at face value? When you can watch hundreds, if not thousands, of books sell for over guide every week on eBay? (With probably 95% of those being slabbed.) This, to me, is a "new phenomenon." If in five years the OS Guide is still proceeding in the same direction at the same pace, I'll probably be on your side of the fence. At the moment I'm still on the fence.

[Timely]

Obviously you have never been to my local comic store. They think their VG copy of Fantastic Four # 20 is worth $200 (5 times guide is that!?!). Of course it is their best piece!

 

Timely

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

As long as I have collected high grade comics, there have been multiples. From the "big" books of the 80s (TMNT # 1, ASM # 129, Hulk # 181, X-Men # 94, etc.), to the run-up of Silver Age in the late 80s/early 90s, to the big rush on golden age in the early/mid 90s, to the current CGC market. As long as I wanted to be picky, and demand the best, there was a dealer who would be happy to accomodate my requests with multples of Guide for asking prices.

 

Its also fair to say that I have bought very nice books for fractions of Guide through the same timeframes, most all of the time from those who weren't as market savy as I. Its not that they didn't have a price guide, its just that they were satisfied with 50% of Guide instead of the 200% the book may have been worth in the open market.

 

That's what makes the market so dynamic, and why any one source of pricing information will be hopelessly inadequate in providing an all encompassing perspective on the market.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fantastic_four]

So unless we're holding up Chuckie R. as our shining example, yes, I'd say that as a commonplace pricing scheme, multiples of guide is a very recent phenomenon.

 

Who said the Mile High collection is the only one to command multiples of guide? Is that what you're arguing--it's the only one?

 

 

But FF, you're the one who's been saying in this thread that the OS Guide is out of touch, and using the "multiples of guide trend" as the leading illustration of this. Now you're saying it's not commonplace - which is it? If it's not commonplace, why should the OS Guide shift its stance?

 

It's not a single variable, it's multiple variables--sales volume is low because supply is low. The NM pool on many old books is shallow, and the number of people who realize it is shallow. This isn't new. The Guide should change to report the multiples paid, or it should drop the pricing on NM altogether to stop misleading the people who don't realize how rare vintage high grade is so they stop making bad decisions regarding those books. Original owners selling too cheaply is one scenario, claims adjusters undervaluing books is another, and smaller shops and con dealers selling too cheaply is yet another.

 

 

Actually, I was using the term "pre-cogs" to refer to those rare few who were willing shelling out 3x guide for NM books 10+ years ago. I meant it from the standpoint that you'd have to be more or less prescient in order to "overpay" by so much.

 

Or you'd have to realize what most people on this forum do--that most of the books people call NM really aren't and the supply is low. That's why "tight graders" is more accurate; they weren't predicting the future, they were evaluting more criteria than most people in the present.

 

 

But I think it's safe to say that the number of individual comic books that sold for above guide between 1975 and 1999 has been dwarfed by the number of books that have sold for over guide since the beginning of 2000. Would you accept this at face value? When you can watch hundreds, if not thousands, of books sell for over guide every week on eBay?

 

I'm not saying you're incorrect, but I absolutely wouldn't take that assertion at face value without fact. The ONLY reason we know how often things are sold now is because of the web. The Comics Buyer's Guide wouldn't be able to report the multiples paid without scraping the data from E-Bay. But because it's happening now, that doesn't mean it didn't happen in the past; the natural bias of any generation is to think that things are happening in the world for the first time, to them.

 

 

If in five years the OS Guide is still proceeding in the same direction at the same pace, I'll probably be on your side of the fence. At the moment I'm still on the fence.

 

If it takes 5 years for the guide to reflect reality...why do they put it out every year? It appears it should be a bi-decadely publication. I'm exaggerating quite a bit there, but not with respect to Gold/Silver NM prices--I'm dead-on with that. It is a useful guide everywhere except that NM column on the Gold and Silver ages...they should just drop it entirely, the automated pricing services reflect reality more closely than Overstreet does on that.

 

I'm still really interested in hearing Timely's full opinion on why services like GPA and ComicSheet will kill the market...he's voiced opinion specifically once before, and voiced the idea earlier in this thread that Overstreet keeps prices low to keep the market from crashing. Could he be right--if the comics marketplace has more accurate pricing data available to them, will that in itself cause a drop? If so, I don't see why.

[fantastic_four]

You should tell the guy holding the Curator FF's that he's missing the boat.

 

He's almost unique in what he's done...most comics creators could care less about grade. Who knows, he might have even gotten the books for less than guide because he was well-known to the seller and/or the curator herself--he bought them from a local comic shop the curator had them consigned through.

 

I am curious as to how many of the known Silver Age pedigrees are still raw. I know many Curators and Western Penns are still raw. I tried to get Haspel to give me all their data to do a statistical analysis on slabbed pedigrees, but he said that if the census counts on pedigrees were known then it would become easier to identify who had what books and that many owners of pedigrees don't want to be identified.