VintageComics Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yet they continue to try to do so, without a lick of any supporting hard data to back it up. Old, stale, debunked ideas die hard indeed. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already do that. Deal with it. -J. What is silly is that this is a well known, well observed phenomenon and the Clink auctions bore this out because their auction results are well known to favor White paged copies, all other things (including grade, time of sale and type of venue) being equal. The fact that they don't report to GPA is irrelevant only because you either can't remember or didn't see the results. But the reason they discontinued the practice is proof enough. You're just never wrong. Ever. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yet they continue to try to do so, without a lick of any supporting hard data to back it up. Old, stale, debunked ideas die hard indeed. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 You're just never wrong. Ever. Ever. At some point you have to wonder, am I wrong, or is every other single person out there wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accessndx Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 Given the right mix of circumstances and conditions can't we ALL be right? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roulette44 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 so tired of his nonsense. if we all put him on ignore, it'll probably go away......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.tor Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yet they continue to try to do so, without a lick of any supporting hard data to back it up. Old, stale, debunked ideas die hard indeed. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.tor Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 so tired of his nonsense. if we all put him on ignore, it'll probably go away......... you have to look at it from a humorous perspective. Then it's entertaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accessndx Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 so tired of his nonsense. if we all put him on ignore, it'll probably go away......... Well, on the other hand this entire discussion did resuscitate the thread from the brink of obscurity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Given the right mix of circumstances and conditions can't we ALL be right? :wink: +1 One would imagine. Ironically, I am not the one attempting to speak in absolutes. My statements allow for wiggle room. Problem is, (some of) the detractors "have" to speak in absolutes, because if they allow that what they are attempting to say is even "sometimes wrong" then they essentially concede the point that it is impossible to quantify what (if any) effect "PQ" has on a final price because results are indeed inconsistent and also contingent upon a litany of other factors that can never be equal in the real world. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yet they continue to try to do so, without a lick of any supporting hard data to back it up. Old, stale, debunked ideas die hard indeed. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceman399 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8634900#Post8634900 don't think there were any absolutes ever discussed. please J go and post in the other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunsicker Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 The easy way to think of this is as follows. Some people are willing to pay a premium for better page quality. Some aren't. However, unless there are people out there actively seeking lower page qualities and paying a premium for them the people who are willing to pay a premium for better page quality means that overall better page quality means higher price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.tor Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yet they continue to try to do so, without a lick of any supporting hard data to back it up. Old, stale, debunked ideas die hard indeed. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J. Everything?? Does gpa detail : What specific venue the book was sold? What perspective buyers/bidders participated ? How the book was marketed ? How the book was presented within the sales venue and to whom? (Detailed scans , small Blurry , written description, pic etc etc) What payment options were available to perspective bidders/buyers What the defects were to differentiate it from a comparable copy If a comparable copy with different pq was even available in same venue or at same time to offer buyer/bidder alternative The image of the book is incredibly important in determining desirability and assessing value Etc etc Gpa tells us virtually nothing. It is really only good at establishing general pricing and trends. Nothing specific can be concluded from gpa outside of what that one copy sold for on that one particular date. Everything else is speculation unless you were the buyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryAllen Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I am the buyer on 70% of GPA sales when a new high is set on mid-grade books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Yet they continue to try to do so, without a lick of any supporting hard data to back it up. Old, stale, debunked ideas die hard indeed. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J. Everything?? Does gpa detail : What specific venue the book was sold? What perspective buyers/bidders participated ? How the book was marketed ? How the book was presented within the sales venue and to whom? (Detailed scans , small Blurry , written description, pic etc etc) What payment options were available to perspective bidders/buyers What the defects were to differentiate it from a comparable copy If a comparable copy with different pq was even available in same venue or at same time to offer buyer/bidder alternative The image of the book is incredibly important in determining desirability and assessing value Etc etc Gpa tells us virtually nothing. It is really only good at establishing general pricing and trends. Nothing specific can be concluded from gpa outside of what that one copy sold for on that one particular date. Everything else is speculation unless you were the buyer Everything you stated and all the hypothetical scenarios you just presented are, conversely, precisely why no one can reasonably make the statement (let alone prove) that the "PQ" on the label actually affects the final prices of books in any significant or consistent manner. (thumbs u (thumbs u (the second thumbs up is for Joey D. ) -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryAllen Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (thumbs u That one is for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (thumbs u That one is for me. Plenty to go around ! (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysterio Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Yet they continue to try to do so, without a lick of any supporting hard data to back it up. Old, stale, debunked ideas die hard indeed. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J. Everything?? Does gpa detail : What specific venue the book was sold? What perspective buyers/bidders participated ? How the book was marketed ? How the book was presented within the sales venue and to whom? (Detailed scans , small Blurry , written description, pic etc etc) What payment options were available to perspective bidders/buyers What the defects were to differentiate it from a comparable copy If a comparable copy with different pq was even available in same venue or at same time to offer buyer/bidder alternative The image of the book is incredibly important in determining desirability and assessing value Etc etc Gpa tells us virtually nothing. It is really only good at establishing general pricing and trends. Nothing specific can be concluded from gpa outside of what that one copy sold for on that one particular date. Everything else is speculation unless you were the buyer Everything you stated and all the hypothetical scenarios you just presented are, conversely, precisely why no one can reasonably make the statement (let alone prove) that the "PQ" on the label actually affects the final prices of books in any significant or consistent manner. (thumbs u (thumbs u (the second thumbs up is for Joey D. ) -J. What you've apparently missed is that they likewise prevent you from saying that PQ hasn't impacted the final prices of books in a significant or consistent manner. If your premise was that PQ was the #1 most important factor then you might be onto something. But your data doesn't provide the clarity on this question in any way that would illuminate buying preferences or motivations. In any good hypothesis you need to find data that support it. If your hypothesis is that PQ is not influencing final purchase price then you need positive data to support the idea. As it stands, you have nothing of the sort. You simply show a lack of correlation between the few data points you have, which are an unknown (not to mention small and skewed) segment of the market, and interpret that lack of correlation as meaning only one thing. There are dozens of alternative hypotheses that are equally (and probably more) likely. PQ could easily represent a significant influence on purchase price that is swamped by other influences in different circumstances. The problem is that you lack the clarity to either support or refute any hypothesis with these data. Here's one for you. I teach, and this occupation brings me into contact with folks that are sick every day of the week. If I don't get sick from being around them, does this disprove the germ theory? This is an admittedly silly example that doesn't much differ from your interpretation of thin data as suggesting only the one possible explanation. You can personally believe whatever you want. Just don't pretend that these data support that belief any more than they do any number of alternatives. If you'd like to persist in pushing your belief please explain precisely how a lack of correlation in the numbers you've presented supports your hypothesis, and start with your explanation for how every other variable Gator mentioned is magically controlled for and known, leaving PQ as the only culprit. Also define what you mean by significant, because that's another crucial but very fuzzy key to your argument. Until you can do these things, please let the thread get back to B&B #28 pricing trends. Sorry, almost forgot. (thumbs u Edited May 28, 2015 by mysterio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiveTurkeyMoFo Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Gator arguing with some random newb forumite on the validity of GPA pricing data is like God arguing with a gnat over the creation of the Universe. Its so absurd, it's laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namisgr Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. You make it sound as though you've investigated exhaustively the influence of page quality on sale prices by datamining through GPA. Here is a real datamining experiment I ran this morning over coffee that contradicts your opinion on what the hard data and actual facts show. To render enough data points to be potentially meaningful, I ran the sale prices as a function of page quality on Hulk 181 in either 9.4 or 9.2 condition. I focused on all sales recorded in GPA with a verifiable page quality designation from 2014 and 2015. In addition to the average sale price, I also determined the median sale price, which is a better measure than an average that potentially could be skewed by a single outlier sale of a book intended to be upgraded. There are too few sales recorded of copies with other page qualities, and so the focus is on comparing white with ow/w pages. For 9.4 sales: White pages (n=16).....average=3371; median=3350 OW/W pages (n=12)....average=3192; median=3227 For 9.2 sales: White pages (n=8)......average=2705; median=3000 OW/W pages (n=14)...average=2554; median=2500 According to this datamining of GPA, copies of Hulk #181 with white pages attain higher overall sale prices than those with ow/w pages. In fact, white paged 9.2 copies fetched nearly 85% of the sale price of 9.4 ow/w copies. I suspect that for low grade comics, the influence of page quality on average and median sale prices is less pronounced, as with an abundance of defects the nature of those defects will carry more weight on the sale prices than page quality alone. Only a data set much larger than the one used above could evaluate this for low grade comics. I also suspect that comics with c/ow pages do considerably worse overall than those with white or ow/w pages. Personally, I'd always go with what the dealers are saying about the influence of page quality, since they've got the decades of real world experience that just can't be captured in a small data set from one or a small handful of books, or from using GPA alone as a source of information. Indeed, at least 3 dealers have weighed in already in this thread alone that page quality matters to sale prices. The datamining described above backs this up with (and I quote) 'hard numbers and actual facts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
