Amazing Spiderman # 5 hammers at $97,000

[Aman619]

yes it was undervalued. We will have to wait for the next copy to see if it was an anomaly. I fnd teh trouble with our new auction buying format is that you never really know what things are worth, or rather, will sell for. And afterwards, you have to guess and calculate why prices are reached.

 

And we don't really know what's going on.. as in the 2 Superman's that may not have sold for record prices. Who's to say the Spidey really sold? I get wistful sometimes for the days when dealers priced books. There was more order in the universe. The dealer told you a number and you accepted it, negotiated it, or walked. But nobody stepped in offered the dealer MORE than his number!

[tylerdurden-migration]

yes it was undervalued. We will have to wait for the next copy to see if it was an anomaly. I fnd teh trouble with our new auction buying format is that you never really know what things are worth, or rather, will sell for. And afterwards, you have to guess and calculate why prices are reached.

 

And we don't really know what's going on.. as in the 2 Superman's that may not have sold for record prices. Who's to say the Spidey really sold? I get wistful sometimes for the days when dealers priced books. There was more order in the universe. The dealer told you a number and you accepted it, negotiated it, or walked. But nobody stepped in offered the dealer MORE than his number!

 

I kinda like the auction format for price discovery

 

 

[Aman619]

yeah. but imagine a world today without auctions. You could discover prices by checking other dealer websites. So you woulnt be acting in an information vacuum as I think you are saying.

[tylerdurden-migration]

yeah. but imagine a world today without auctions.

 

Thats not a world I would want to live in

[homerwannabee]

 

PPS: by the way, this highlights why there will eventually be a 9.7, 9.5, 9.3, 9.1....it's only a matter of time.

 

Sorry that will never happen.

 

Never is an illogical response. Given enough time almost anything can happen. Whether it is in a time period of 5 years, or 50,000 years almost anything can happen. If this company, and world survive another 1,000 years I am positive that CGC would at least experiment with the 9.7, 9.5, 9.3 grades. Tradition is a strong thing, but change can happen even with tradition.

[Monstro]

If there was any doubt that Spider-man is the TOP super hero

 

These sales eliminate any such thoughts

 

Yeah you're right, no Superman related, Batman related, Cap, Flash (GA & SA) books ever sold for more at auction

 

Maybe so, but has a "Superman related, Batman related, Cap, Flash (GA & SA) book" # 5 ever sold for that much at auction?

 

That's because those books don't exist in that grade.

 

If an Action Comics #5 showed up in 9.8 condition, it would smash this result to pieces. The Mile High Action #5 has not been graded (and is not likely to obtain a 9.8, but if it did...watch out.)

 

The Action #7 in 8.0 sold almost 2 years ago for $143,000+. The Mile High #7 would easily, easily triple that. Easily.

 

If a Detective #31 showed up in this grade, it would destroy that result. If a Tec #31 showed up in 9.0, it would destroy that result. I suspect the 8.0 would easily top the 9.8 Spidey #5.

 

If even a Superman #5 or Batman #5 showed up in 9.8...yes, quite easily, they'd beat that result.

 

Let's not get silly. There are dozens...yes, dozens...of Golden Age books that smash an Amazing Spiderman #5 in 9.8, without even needing to attain that lofty grade.

 

Spidey #1? Not so much.

 

#5? Easily.

 

Come on, learn your history before saying silly things like this.. (thumbs u

 

You are probably right, but considering the number of ASM #5’s (that could potentially reach 9.8) vs. Sups, Bats, Cap, etc. I don’t think my point is to off the mark.

 

Certainly not silly.

 

[fantastic_four]

 

PPS: by the way, this highlights why there will eventually be a 9.7, 9.5, 9.3, 9.1....it's only a matter of time.

 

Sorry that will never happen.

 

Sorry, it will.

 

But out of morbid curiosity, why do you believe this?

 

You're generally right that we all would like to use a grading scale with more assignable points, but the reality of grading is that it isn't likely to happen. The current history of commonly used grading scales is as follows:

 

• 1970s - Overstreet popularizes the Poor to Mint scale. I forget exactly how many notches this had, but it was around 10.
• 1990s - Overstreet widens the scale with his ONE system, which assigns a grade of 1 to 100.
• Circa 1999 - CGC polls the industry to decide which grading scale to use. Many competant graders note that the ONE scale of 100 points is far too large to be at all reliable given the wide disparity in grade deductions that graders assign to defects. Given that nobody has ever attempted to create a standard taxonomy of defects with standard deductions for varying defects with varying severities, no two graders show much accuracy on the 100-point scale. Stephen Fishler proposes the 1 to 10 scale with half grades yielding a total of 25 unique grade notches, and CGC decides to adopt this scale. Overstreet ditches his ONE scale as well and adopts the same one CGC uses.

If comics back-issue collecting were to thrive indefinitely, you'd be right, eventually standards will develop and tighten and we'd increase the number of assignable grades. However, given that comics are a bit of a ticking time bomb due to the lack of new readers flowing into the hobby, the odds are that the CGC 25-notch scale will be the last widely accepted one. Certainly it shouldn't get any bigger until someone finds a way to get dealers and collectors--or for that matter, professional graders--to be a lot more accurate on this 25-notch scale, because as we all are painfully aware, even CGC varies by one notch on this scale with regularity. Widening the scale at this point would just lead to an even wider margin of error.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

PPS: by the way, this highlights why there will eventually be a 9.7, 9.5, 9.3, 9.1....it's only a matter of time.

 

Sorry that will never happen.

 

Sorry, it will.

 

But out of morbid curiosity, why do you believe this?

 

You're generally right that we all would like to use a grading scale with more assignable points, but the reality of grading is that it isn't likely to happen. The current history of commonly used grading scales is as follows:

 

• 1970s - Overstreet popularizes the Poor to Mint scale. I forget exactly how many notches this had, but it was around 10.
   
  
• 1990s - Overstreet widens the scale with his ONE system, which assigns a grade of 1 to 100.
• Circa 1999 - CGC polls the industry to decide which grading scale to use. Many competant graders note that the ONE scale of 100 points is far too large to be at all reliable given the wide disparity in grade deductions that graders assign to defects. Given that nobody has ever attempted to create a standard taxonomy of defects with standard deductions for varying defects with varying severities, no two graders show much accuracy on the 100-point scale. Stephen Fishler proposes the 1 to 10 scale with half grades yielding a total of 25 unique grade notches, and CGC decides to adopt this scale. Overstreet ditches his ONE scale as well and adopts the same one CGC uses.

 

There are two differences between the ONE scale and CGC's scale...

 

The first is merely practical - they moved the decimal point. The ONE system was modeled after the coin system, and Warren and Overstreet thought a 100 point system would be accepted. It wasn't, so CGC simply moved the decimal point over, and made it a 1 to 10 scale. It's still a decimal scale, whether it's 1 to 10, 1 to 100, or 1 to 1000.

 

Fishler may get credit, but he's certainly not the first person who thought of the idea.

 

The second is philosophical - again, going back to the coin model, where there is no such thing as "half grades" and "quarter grades", but instead there are numeric differeces within a grade level. For example, Very Fine is numbered from 20 to (in theory) 39, though in practice, only 20, 25, 30, and 35 are used. There is no such thing as "VF+" or "VG/F" in coin grading nomenclature, despite popular use.

 

Looking at that model, Overstreet tried to emulate it. His VF grades were 75 to 89, with the designation of "VF" applying to all of them.

 

Unfortunately, despite this perfectly logical system, the hobby had been using the "in between" grades for quite some time, and, unlike coins, had grown used to the system...I watched some very respectable dealers state quite eloquently that there's "no such thing as VF+ or VF/NM, there's VF78 and VF88", but, in the end, the half grade system is the system that won out.

 

Now, of course, the nomenclature has been abandoned almost entirely, and we are left with a wholly numeric system of grading.

 

If comics back-issue collecting were to thrive indefinitely, you'd be right, eventually standards will develop and tighten and we'd increase the number of assignable grades. However, given that comics are a bit of a ticking time bomb due to the lack of new readers flowing into the hobby, the odds are that the CGC 25-notch scale will be the last widely accepted one. Certainly it shouldn't get any bigger until someone finds a way to get dealers and collectors--or for that matter, professional graders--to be a lot more accurate on this 25-notch scale, because as we all are painfully aware, even CGC varies by one notch on this scale with regularity. Widening the scale at this point would just lead to an even wider margin of error.

 

While I appreciate your view here, it completely ignores precedent in other fields, as well as the current market in uber high grades, which shows very little sign of slowing or weakening at this time. Far from widening the margin of error, it would, in fact, decrease it substantially. Wouldn't it have been far better for the hobby to have that Spidey #5 sitting in the 9.7 case it actually belongs in? I mean, except for the flipper, of course.

 

After all, why should a book that got a 9.6, 9.8, with the third grader teetering in between, result in either a "gift grade" that we see so often, or a greatly disappointed customer? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if it was 9.6, 9.7, 9.7? Wouldn't that mean the book was much more accurately assessed, and its resulting market value more accurate a reflection of the book's grade? The slabber would be happier, the market would be more stable, and the grade on the label would be a more accurate representation of the grade of the book.

 

It would certainly serve to LESSEN the crack, press, and resubmit game. Right now, the chances of getting a, say, 9.8 out of a 9.6 greatly magnifies the practice, whereas, if the chance was only for a 9.7, there would be less reward for the risk.

 

It is the radical instability of values "between grades" which will demand the issue be addressed.

 

It's true, there were people saying the exact same thing in the 1980's about "MS61" and "MS66", asking why we would ever need such a thing...

[Moondog]

45K for the book as a 9.6 OW

 

97K for the SAME book as a 9.8 OW/W

 

 

To some people its all about buying the label.

 

B

 

I agree with you whole heartedly. How can an extra 45k be generated on somebodies opinion?? Thats ridiculous IMO

 

(thumbs u

[Moondog]

45K for the book as a 9.6 OW

 

97K for the SAME book as a 9.8 OW/W

 

 

To some people its all about buying the label.

 

B

 

I agree with you whole heartedly. How can an extra 45k be generated on somebodies opinion?? Thats ridiculous IMO

 

What's ridiculous is that an extra 45K can be generated by a CHANGE of opinion.

 

CGC's original opinion was that the book was a 9.6 OW

 

It was their change of opinion that made it a 9.8 OW/W

 

 

Don't get me started!

[Moondog]

Does anyone else think it seems a little suspicious? I mean, a CGC grader is in a postion to make a big chunk of $$$ with that kind of power.

(thumbs u