mysterio 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro. Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 He'll find a way to refute that. He rejects our reality and substitutes his own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 He'll find a way to refute that. He rejects our reality and substitutes his own Yep, but some truths are self-evident. That is, unless you're blind to truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisco37 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 "Debating" with Jaydog can be exhausting. Rick has the right approach to it. 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. 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 I have no "hypothesis" that I am attempting to prove, unless you believe that I am attempting to prove a negative (which, as you likely know, is impossible). The "hypothesis" has actually been set forth by the other side- that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more. I provided a significant data sampling which pulls from a multitude of sales sources. It is not "all" sources, but it is certainly more than one or two dealers who post on these boards. That does not imply any disrespect toward those dealers or their opinions or what they observe in the field. However the amalgam of data cited is significant and cannot be lightly dismissed simply because you or others disagree with what it reveals. What it does reveal, with regards to "this" book, is an inconsistent and unreliable correlation between the "PQ" on the label and final sales price- and that books with different "PQ" on the label sell for higher amounts not only sometimes, but more than half the time. Some have come into the thread and essentially said, "well of course, there are 'other' factors that come into play which can cause the 'PQ' on the label to in fact not matter so much anymore". And I agree! So then what does that mean? If the hypothesis is that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more, and then someone provides you with nearly two dozen examples of the same book, in seven different grades over a span of two years, where that in fact did not happen, I would say that said hypothesis (ie, myth) has been busted. You want to provide me some examples when the "PQ" on the label made a positive difference? Great, I never said those weren't out there. But there is overwhelming contravening data, for this book (and probably every similar book that you could think of) that also proves the exact opposite. That would be the very definition of "inconsistent", "random", and "unquantifiable", which is essentially makes the attempt to draw any correlation futile and meaningless. If you want to call that my "hypothesis" then it has indeed been readily "proven". (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 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 I have no "hypothesis" that I am attempting to prove, unless you believe that I am attempting to prove a negative (which, as you likely know, is impossible). The "hypothesis" has actually been set forth by the other side- that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more. I provided a significant data sampling which pulls from a multitude of sales sources. It is not "all" sources, but it is certainly more than one or two dealers who post on these boards. That does not imply any disrespect toward those dealers or their opinions or what they observe in the field. However the amalgam of data cited is significant and cannot be lightly dismissed simply because you or others disagree with what it reveals. What it does reveal, with regards to "this" book, is an inconsistent and unreliable correlation between the "PQ" on the label and final sales price- and that books with different "PQ" on the label sell for higher amounts not only sometimes, but more than half the time. Some have come into the thread and essentially said, "well of course, there are 'other' factors that come into play which can cause the "PQ" on the label to in fact not matter so much anymore". And I agree! So then what does that mean? If the hypothesis is that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more, and then someone provides you with nearly two dozen examples of the same book, in seven different grades over a span of two years, where that in fact did not happen, I would say that said hypothesis (ie, myth) has been busted. You want to provide me some examples when the "PQ" on the label made a positive difference? Great, I never said those weren't out there. But there is overwhelming contravening data, for this book (and probably every similar book that you could think of) that also proves the exact opposite. That would be the very definition of "inconsistent", "random", and "unquantifiable", which is essentially makes the attempt to draw any correlation futile and meaningless. If you want to call that my "hypothesis" then it has indeed been readily "proven". (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u -J. I don't disagree that your hypothesis is a counter hypothesis to the idea that PQ positively influences price. Arguing against it is not disproving a negative (that'd be like saying you can't disprove that lowering speed prevents road deaths). Nor does showing there isn't a 1:1 correlation demonstrating that there is not a significant influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namisgr Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 If the hypothesis is that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more... -J. Uh oh, the goal post is moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.tor Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I for one am happy I didn't sell my bb28 copies earlier this year. Seems they are on a hard rise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules 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'. My "goal posts" aren't moving. Please review my posts going back to the beginning, I have quite literally been saying the same thing since Post One. While I appreciate someone even attempting to use actual publicly available data to buttress their opinion, I have to say that your example is apples and oranges, in essentially every way possible. We're talking about B&B 28 here- a relatively tough book in any grade, let alone high grade, not an ultra common BA book. Again, I provided data and analysis 24 different examples of "this" book in seven different grades (the most commonly traded ones), over a nearly two year period. This is not a "small" sampling. This is nearly every grade the book has traded in publicly with more than a few sales in grade over an extended period of time. Dealers may come on here and say "well my experiences have been different", and they may very well be different. But that does not render the publicly sale data meaningless. If anything, it only further proves the point. My point is that the cumulative data is wholly inconsistent which it is. And absolutely nothing absolute can be concluded from inconsistent data. In the case of Hulk 181, obviously if there are several hundreds of copies in grade to choose from, certain people, for whatever reason, may be more inclined to hold off on their bidding on copies that say "ow/w" on the label. However even you concede that your "hypothesis" only applies to just two essentially "mint" grades even for that book, and not the lower and mid grade examples that would be more applicable to the grades that B&B 28 is more typically traded in. If you would like to see how big of a difference the "PQ" on the label actually makes on the totality of grades for Hulk 181 (as I have done with B&B 28) I will happily meet you over in the Hulk 181 thread because I have already examined that as well so I'm ready. Back to B&B 28 however, as ttfitz I believe noted, there are far fewer opportunities to own the book in any grade, let alone mint grade (where the "PQ" on the label, regardless of the book, tends to be "better" anyway), thus creating much greater urgency among buyers who "just want to own the book", and will pay what it takes to own the book regardless of the "PQ" on the label because, let's face it, there are only so many "perfect" books for only so many choosy people to pay a "premium" for out there. Inevitably, as we have seen, books with other "PQ" labels will sell, and, as we have seen, the weighted effect of the market activity is that the alleged "premium" evaporates and/or is rendered meaningless by the sheer inconsistency of the data of what people have been shown to be willing to pay for all those other copies. (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namisgr Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 If you think evaluating 24 copies of a single comic across a large number of grades gives you any objective and well-powered understanding of the influence of page quality on sale price, then you don't appreciate how to apply data to address the question at hand. Personally, I'd listen to what the dealers in the thread are telling you that, when taken as a whole and with eye appeal being equal, copies with better page quality tend to sell for more money and sell faster than those with lesser page quality. For BB28, Hulk181, or just about any SA or BA comic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules 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. You don't know me, who I am, what I do, or who I've done business with on these boards (that may or may not be posting in this thread). What's "laughable" is that the one post you have "contributed" to this otherwise (mostly) civil discussion is this single, inflammatory and offensive post. So how is the view from the peanut gallery? Grow up man. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 If you think evaluating 24 copies of a single comic across a large number of grades gives you any objective understanding of the influence of page quality on sale price, then you don't appreciate how to apply data to address the question at hand. Personally, I'd listen to what the dealers in the thread are telling you, that when taken as a whole copies with better page quality tend to sell for more money and sell faster than those with lesser page quality. That's not what I'm saying. B&B is not a common book. Those two dozen sales just so happen to represent a significant swath of sales from a large cross-section of dealers, websites, auction house (which dealers consign to), etc. It isn't "all sales" but it is certainly enough to establish a major counter-point to the notion that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more, because the publicly available sales data tells us that they do not. (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namisgr Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 From what I've read of the thread, you're the only one using the phrase 'always sell for more'. It's a red herring. The point also stands that comparative analysis of 24 sales across a wide spectrum of numerical grades is insufficiently powered to draw any meaningful conclusion or interpretation whatsoever. Over and out, and sorry for the digression to those interested in BB28 price trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbanner Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 If the hypothesis is that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more... -J. Uh oh, the goal post is moving. Who's that man in black? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VintageComics 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. You don't know me, who I am, what I do, or who I've done business with on these boards (that may or may not be posting in this thread). What's "laughable" is that the one post you have "contributed" to this otherwise (mostly) civil discussion is this single, inflammatory and offensive post. So how is the view from the peanut gallery? Grow up man. -J. Knowing Jive, it was meant as a tongue in cheek post but there's a lot of truth in it. And your goal posts have moved. And you have a hard time admitting you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hulksdaddy1 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Here's a little more food for thought: Avengers 57 CGC 9.2 W - $1855 http://www.ebay.com/itm/321751855160?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT Avengers 57 CGC 9.2 OW/W - $1675 http://www.ebay.com/itm/321751855160?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT Ended within 4 hours of each other. Both books look structurally similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules 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. You don't know me, who I am, what I do, or who I've done business with on these boards (that may or may not be posting in this thread). What's "laughable" is that the one post you have "contributed" to this otherwise (mostly) civil discussion is this single, inflammatory and offensive post. So how is the view from the peanut gallery? Grow up man. -J. Knowing Jive, it was meant as a tongue in cheek post but there's a lot of truth in it. And your goal posts have moved. And you have a hard time admitting you are wrong. No, they have not, and there will not be a single post of mine that you can quote in context that will demonstrate otherwise. I set out to prove a lack of consistent correlation or "premium" between the "PQ" on the label and sales price, and that's what I did by citing the litany of publicly available sales data. If it had actually proven me "wrong" I would be more than happy to acknowledge such. But of course, I would never have made my statements in the first place without already knowing what the publicly available sales data would illustrate. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namisgr Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Heh. 'The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is knowledge of our own ignorance.' - Benjamin Franklin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaSealed Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 So then what does that mean? If the hypothesis is that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more, and then someone provides you with nearly two dozen examples of the same book, in seven different grades over a span of two years, where that in fact did not happen, I would say that said hypothesis (ie, myth) has been busted. You want to provide me some examples when the "PQ" on the label made a positive difference? Great, I never said those weren't out there. But there is overwhelming contravening data, for this book (and probably every similar book that you could think of) that also proves the exact opposite. That would be the very definition of "inconsistent", "random", and "unquantifiable", which is essentially makes the attempt to draw any correlation futile and meaningless. No, they have not, and there will not be a single post of mine that you can quote in context that will demonstrate otherwise. I set out to prove a lack of consistent correlation or "premium" between the "PQ" on the label and sales price, and that's what I did by citing the litany of publicly available sales data. If it had actually proven me "wrong" I would be more than happy to acknowledge such. But of course, I would never have made my statements in the first place without already knowing what the publicly available sales data would illustrate. ;\) -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydogrules Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Heh. 'The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is knowledge of our own ignorance.' - Benjamin Franklin. What am I "ignorant" of? It's not my fault that the publicly available sales data does not reflect the results that you want them to. You may say that there are "reasons" for that. We can only speculate on what those may be. But it does not alter the data. -J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
