Can somebody please tell me why March of Comics and Peter Wheat sold for $541?

[SOTIcollector]

I was the underbidder by miles on this auction, and I'm stumped as to why. Is anything in this lot is worth multiples of Guide? Were the top bidders assuming there would be some FN and VF books in the lot? Maybe the other bidders are boardies who could clue me in? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

EBay Auction Peter Wheat #16-20, March of Comics 25,34,82, Cinderella giveaway, My Little Margie 4

 

It's an auction of late 40's giveaway comics by a seller who is not a comic book expert. The seller did not grade or describe each book, but provided photos that allow for a ballpark guess on each grade. Assuming VG on each book unless there's evidence to the contraray, this lot sold for more than 2x Guide. On a lot of this type, the buyer most certainly was expecting to flip some or all of these books, so the price they paid would have likely been several multiples of Guide for whatever was in the lot that they wanted.

 

The auction contains some nice Walt Kelly art in Peter Wheat, and some March of Comics, and a Disney giveawy. But in my mind there's nothing that stands out as being particularly high-demand. Granted, the Peter Wheats and the March of Comics books aren't as readily available as some of the other stuff from the late 40's, but I didn't think they were all that scarce. Did I just get left in the dust by a couple bidders who each needed just one or two items in the lot so badly that they were willing to pay multiples of Guide? Or is there something here that's a known scarce/high-demand/multiples-of-Guide book that I'm not aware of?

 

Here's what's in the lot, along with the G/VG/FN list prices and some optimistic grades and Overstreet prices on these books:

 

Cinderella American Dairy Assoc Giveaway $10/$20/$30 Assumed VG $20

March of Comics 25 Gene Autry $20/$40/$60 Assumed VG $40

March of Comics 34 Woody Woodpecker $13/$25/$39 Pc out of cover assumed GD $13

March of Comics 82 Tarzan $15/$30/$45 Assumed VG $30

My Little Margie 4 (complimentary) $12/$24/$36 Sticker on cover, assumed FR $12

Peter Wheat 16 $9/$18/$27 Assumed VG $18

Peter Wheat 17 $9/$18/$27 Assumed GD- FC rip $9

Peter Wheat 18 $9/$18/$27 Assumed VG $18

Peter Wheat 19 $9/$18$/27 Assumed VG $18

Peter Wheat 20 $9/$18/$27 Assumed VG $18

Optimistic total value by Overstreet 2011: $196 .

Actual auction final bid: $541.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ted Knight]

Peter Wheat is super hot right now because of the movie that's coming soon.

[sfcityduck]

"I was the underbidder by miles on this auction"

 

You mean "an" underbidder. Presumably there were at least two bidders that felt this lot was worth $500+. I'm guessing a death match between fanatical My Little Margie collectors after that sticker variant. Sort of like what we saw with the ACC Action lots.

[Scrooge]

Could be a publisher trying to acquire material for Kelly reprints that ran into a die-hard collector.

 

Love the Blue Jay.

 

Btw, I did see that auction and glad I didn't waste time figuring out my bid!!

[SOTIcollector]

Could be a publisher trying to acquire material for Kelly reprints that ran into a die-hard collector.

 

 

I hadn't thought of that. That's a really plausible one.

[MrBedrock]

The Peter Wheat books are very cool and rarely turn up.

[Scrooge]

Look at the bids: There were THREE bidders at $450 on this lot.

 

on the next lot.

 

More Peter Wheat

 

[BOOT]

Can somebody please tell me why March of Comics and Peter Wheat sold for $541?

 

Because someone was willing to pay that much.

 

As Mr. Bedrock said, Peter Wheat comics aren't very common. They were never distributed on newsstands, but only given away to bakeries' customers.

 

These particular issues are imprinted for Mrs. Conkling's, a California bakery. If you check out the scans for this series on the Grand Comics Database, most of the covers are from Krug or Donaldson or Sterling. Only one shows a Mrs. Conkling imprint. Perhaps this variation drove up demand.

 

Of course, that darn internet with blogs like this could be driving demand.

 

In any case, the Overstreet prices are way off on many, if not most giveaways. It's admirable that they have been including a promotional comics section for several years, but they still have a lot of room for adjustment on prices. eBay is a true guide to the market value.

 

 

[SOTIcollector]

Because someone was willing to pay that much.

 

As Mr. Bedrock said, Peter Wheat comics aren't very common. They were never distributed on newsstands, but only given away to bakeries' customers.

 

These particular issues are imprinted for Mrs. Conkling's, a California bakery. If you check out the scans for this series on the Grand Comics Database, most of the covers are from Krug or Donaldson or Sterling. Only one shows a Mrs. Conkling imprint. Perhaps this variation drove up demand.

 

Lots of good points there. Especially the "because somebody was willing to pay that much" response. That's my stock answer when a novice asks me what something is "worth." A figure in a price guide is, to some extent, worthless. What any collectible in the world is "worth" is always "what somebody is willing to pay." I used to try to teach that lesson to kids in my comic book store who thought Wizard told them precisely what their comics were worth. Most weren't receptive to my sermon, but I had to try anyway.

 

I hadn't though of the Conklings being "variants" of a sort that could drive up price. Since the seller's previous batch of Peter Wheats didn't sell for multiples of Guide, I was thinking that they were not the driving force behind this auction, but it's looking like they were.

 

It'll be interesting to see what the next batch goes for. The seller's first batch of Peter Wheat books (early in the run) went for $109, or about $25 each if the buyer was primarily looking for the Peter Wheats.

 

Seller's first batch of Peter Wheat, including PW 12, 13, 14, 15 and March of Comics 36/url]

 

For the second batch, the price went way beyond that (over $100/book if the buyer was looking primarily for the PWs).

 

I'll be watching to see what that third batch goes for. There are 6 hrs left and bidding is up to $124 for a batch of 7 Peter Wheats (three of which are not readily downloadable at the common GA download sites). If bidding really spikes on this lot as well, then I guess we'll attribute it to the Peters (and the added attention from this thread as well) and I'll look elsewhere for some good GA reading.

 

 

It's admirable that they have been including a promotional comics section for several years, but they still have a lot of room for adjustment on prices. eBay is a true guide to the market value.

 

 

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you with regard to breaking out the promotional books separately. I've never thought it was a good idea to create a separate section for them. I feel that this practice unnecessarily alienates new collectors.

 

It wasn't that long ago (well, it was 1976 when I got my first Guide, so I guess it was that long ago...) that Overstreet was a guide that all types of collectors could turn to, whether they be novices or experts. All a person needed to know was the title and issue number of a book and they could look it up alphabetically. Of course, I still find Overstreet easy to use because I've been collecting for years and I usually know how to spot a promotional book or a Victorian book or a Platinum-Age book. However, when somebody is a novice collector, how in the world are they supposed to be able to find things? Look in one place... if you don't find your item there, choose another section and look there. Separating the Promotional and other categories of books from the rest simply makes it tougher for somebody new to the hobby to figure out what the heck's going on. Things are confusing enough for a newbie without making it more confusing. I understand that some collectors focus on Platinum or Promotional books, but there's still a lot of crossover between those items and other comics in the "regular" section of the Guide. And if things are going to be separated into groupings of similar comics, why stop where they did? Why not a Golden Age section, a Silver Age section, and then maybe a section for Annuals, and a section for the issues with an issue number of zero or less... well, you get the idea.

 

Because the Promotional section alienates new collectors and provides little or no benefit that I can see for new or existing collectors, I fail to see why its breakout makes sense. If anybody would care to chime in on why it DOES make sense... I'm all ears.

[sfcityduck]

Because the Promotional section alienates new collectors and provides little or no benefit that I can see for new or existing collectors, I fail to see why its breakout makes sense. If anybody would care to chime in on why it DOES make sense... I'm all ears.

 

[BOOT]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you with regard to breaking out the promotional books separately. I've never thought it was a good idea to create a separate section for them. I feel that this practice unnecessarily alienates new collectors.

 

No disagreement on this point. I also wish the promos, Plats, and "Victorians" were included with the "regular" comics.

 

However, for many years, there was no interest in listing these books at all. I'm glad that Overstreet has included (some of) them in any form.

[tb]

I know several collectors who have almost complete runs of US Disney comics from 1930 to today. They are basically doing the same act that Ian Levine did with DCs but keep a much lower profile. When I look through their want lists, it is oddball books like the Cinderella giveaway that stand out: things you've hardly ever heard of and which never turn up because they are perceived as having no value. I don't know if it was this book that gave it the jump, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

[sfcityduck]

No disagreement on this point. I also wish the promos, Plats, and "Victorians" were included with the "regular" comics.

 

However, for many years, there was no interest in listing these books at all. I'm glad that Overstreet has included (some of) them in any form.

 

I've never really understood the Platinum Age label as having any useful value when applied to publications that are a "comic book" format, especially as applied to titles that begin in the Platinum age and continue, essentially unchanged, into the Golden Age. For example, it sure seems like everyone here views pre-Action 1 DCs as Golden Age books.

 

[Ted Knight]

No disagreement on this point. I also wish the promos, Plats, and "Victorians" were included with the "regular" comics.

 

However, for many years, there was no interest in listing these books at all. I'm glad that Overstreet has included (some of) them in any form.

 

I've never really understood the Platinum Age label as having any useful value when applied to publications that are a "comic book" format, especially as applied to titles that begin in the Platinum age and continue, essentially unchanged, into the Golden Age. For example, it sure seems like everyone here views pre-Action 1 DCs as Golden Age books.

That's because they are.

[lou_fine]

No disagreement on this point. I also wish the promos, Plats, and "Victorians" were included with the "regular" comics.

 

However, for many years, there was no interest in listing these books at all. I'm glad that Overstreet has included (some of) them in any form.

 

I've never really understood the Platinum Age label as having any useful value when applied to publications that are a "comic book" format, especially as applied to titles that begin in the Platinum age and continue, essentially unchanged, into the Golden Age. For example, it sure seems like everyone here views pre-Action 1 DCs as Golden Age books.

That's because they are.

 

I believe the previous poster is simply referring to Overstreet's stated official definition for Golden Age (comics published from 1938 [Action Comics #1] to 1945) and his definition for Platinum Age (comics published from 1883 to 1938).

 

From my point of view and probably most other collectors, the more accurate dividing line for the Platinum Age is really 1933 and more specifically, Funnies on Parade which has historically been acknowledged to be the first Modern comic book. As a result, anything published in a comic book format from Funnies on Parade through to just prior to Action Comics #1 would then be considered as a pre-Golden Age book. Anything published prior to Funnies on Parade would be considered to be a Platinum Age book.

 

The strange thing is that Overstreet himself seemingly contradicts his own stated definitions by using 1933 and Funnies on Parade as his dividing line. This is why Funnies on Parade, all of the pre-hero DC GA books, Centaurs, etc. continues to be listed in the regular part of the guide and not in the Platinum Age portion of the guide.

 

My own personal preference is that he should have left all of the promotional books in with the regular books like how he had originally done it. I believe by segregating the promotional books into a section by themselves has only resulted in decreased interest and decreased demand for these books as many collectors do not view them to be "true" comic books anymore.

 

As for the Platinum Age books, I don't have a problem with Overstreet segregating them into their own section. These books are not in your traditional comic book format and should probably be combined into a section which would also include books from Overstreet's so-called Victorian Age and Pioneer Age, as I really lose interest the further back he goes. I am just surprised that Overstreet hasn't started to talk about the caveman drawings on the walls and defining these as coming from the Neanderthal Age.

[adamstrange]

No disagreement on this point. I also wish the promos, Plats, and "Victorians" were included with the "regular" comics.

 

However, for many years, there was no interest in listing these books at all. I'm glad that Overstreet has included (some of) them in any form.

 

I've never really understood the Platinum Age label as having any useful value when applied to publications that are a "comic book" format, especially as applied to titles that begin in the Platinum age and continue, essentially unchanged, into the Golden Age. For example, it sure seems like everyone here views pre-Action 1 DCs as Golden Age books.

The most recent Guide I have is #39 (and I only have it because I bought it used, cheap) and that lists the Plat Age as running through 38. The early DCs are not in that section but are instead embedded within the core of the modern newsstand comics section.

[SOTIcollector]

Well, that last lot went for $271. If the buyer was primarily interested in the 7 issues of Peter Wheat and didn't care about the March of Comics #35 or the Buster Brown My Dog Tighe book, then the Peter Wheats went for about $39/book.

 

So IF the winning bidders were primarily driven by the Peter Wheats, then we could extrapolate the following rough prices:

 

First auction: four books (#12-15) for $109, or about about $27 each (Overstreet FN is $27 each)

 

Second auction: five books (#16-20) went for $541, or about $108 each (Overstreet FN is $27 each)

 

Third auction: seven books (#23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33) went for $271 or about $39 each (Overstreet FN is $24 each)

 

I'm assuming that most bidders would do what I was doing, determining their bids with a formula that goes something like this:

[amount I'm willing to pay for what I want]

+ [amount I can get reselling the things I don't care about]

= [amount I'm willing to bid].

 

There is, of course, no way to know how bidders valued these "unwanted" items, so in this case I just ignored the non-Peter items to come up with a very rough ballpark figure to indicate how bidders MIGHT have valued these Peter Wheat books.

 

Thanks for all of the input, everybody. I've gotten a number of plausible explanations as to why that auction went for what I thought was crazy money. The bottom line is that there seems to be no self-evident reason for why the bidding went as high as it did. I created this thread in hopes that maybe I'd hear from somebody that "oh, yeah, that Cinderella book is the one with some hidden nudity in it and it actually goes for 100x guide" or something else that all of the serious GA collectors "in the know" are aware of. As it turns out, the only way to know why this auction went so high is by asking the bidders. It's reassuring to me that there's no obvious reason why there were several bidders willing to pay so much, so maybe I'm not as clueless as I thought (for once). And it leaves me hope that the one book I wanted in the lot may yet turn up, as the high bidder unloads the items he doesn't need.

 

It's also reassuring that I'm not the only one who disagrees with Overstreet's methods for grouping comics into somewhat arbitrary sections. Thanks to all who chimed in!

[Ted Knight]

From my point of view and probably most other collectors, the more accurate dividing line for the Platinum Age is really 1933 and more specifically, Funnies on Parade which has historically been acknowledged to be the first Modern comic book.

 

Agreed. This has always been the traditional definition of golden age comic books. I've heard some people suggest that it should probably be the first comic book that had original material instead of strip reprints. I guess I can see the rationale either way.

 

The more recent division is a Robert Beerbohm decision from 2008, isn't it? Everybody seems to want to keep arbitrarily dividing up the history of comic books into these discrete time periods that aren't really that discrete. Calling comics Bronze started in the late 80s / early 90s and was a little shaky but made some sense, Copper has always been goofy along with Platinum to me as the books after 1980 don't have significant points of change to divide upon and most Platinum comics aren't really comic books. They just have early illustration art and comic strips. At which point, yeah, where is the cave painting section? Shouldn't art nouveau illustration be included also? It gets kind of silly.

[SOTIcollector]

Lots of good points on the ages of comics. Comic book "ages" take their cue from societal ages: the bronze age, the iron age, etc. Each of these societal ages is marked by a distinct and significant development that made the new age quite different from the prior one. Therefore, when declaring a certain time period in comics to be an "age", it seems the era should be marked by a natural start/end point. Using that reasoning, Funnies on Parade certainly started an "age". As did Action #1. As did Showcase #4. But what exactly marked the end of the Silver Age? What started those later "ages" like Copper and Bronze? I'm not clear on what fundamental shift occurred in fandom or in the comic book industry to justify the creation of or the end of an "age". An age could have started with the beginning of the direct market. Or an age could have started with TMNT #1, which opened the floodgates for self-publishing in the industry (for good and for ill).* It seems to me that a true "age" should be self-evident. Attempts to create an "age" when none is readily apparent are, in my mind, unnecessary, and will always be the subject of debate.

 

[i apologize for writing this without my Overstreet in hand to review what the precise declarations of "ages" are. ]

[50YrsCollctngCmcs]

I was watching "American Splendour," this weekend and in one of the scenes where Crumb is hanging out with Pekar he picks up a comic and says something like, "Hey this Peter Wheat is by Walt Kelly." Pekar replies, "Is it worth bucks?" and Crumb foreshadowlingly replies, "Not yet!"