HULK #1 CLUB : THE PUNY LITTLE MAN LEAGUE

[Bomber-Bob]

For what it's worth, here is the book that got the Purple label for glue alone. Note, there is no mention of spine split, tear seal or anything else. I no longer have the book but at the time I could not find any 'repairs' ?

 

Title: Justice League of America

Issue: 15

Issue Date: 11/62

Issue Year: 1962

Publisher: D.C. Comics

Grade: 8.5

Page Quality: OFF-WHITE

Label Text: Restoration includes: small amount of glue on spine of cover.

Grade Date: 09/17/2007

Category: Apparent SA

[Magneto]

Remember when the Hulk thread was about our man love for our Hulk #1 books? Those were the days!

[roulette44]

Jaydog.......stop already, man. You've got something to offer here, but you don't know all the answers. A little humility.........

 

Like Roy, I haven't looked at many restored books, but you have studied far less than either of us. Getting Matt or Kenny to weigh in on this book would provide more credibility than you or me.

 

*****

 

There are a few things going on with this particular hulk, complicating the issues. But jaydog's personal biases (stated over and over again as fact) are wrong.

 

my following comments make the assumption that the owner of the book wants to maximize resale value, and isn't just buying the book to enjoy, g-d forbid

 

1) Restored books are not all created equal. Conserved versus restored, trimmed versus not, amateur/pro, slight/extensive, etc, etc. There are endless data points that show a slightly conserved (i'm using the current generally accepted definition) book is worth a multiple of a extensively restored copy of the same book. you can not lump them all together (if you're talking value). Not even close. The value spread is 3, 4, 5x or more!

 

2) If the book can be unrestored (very likely possible with this book), then the fact that it's restored/conserved now shouldn't matter to you (or any other "purists" out there), only what the grade WOULD BECOME be unrestored

 

3) Then, the value of this book can be computed as:

 

V(Hulk1) = Sum across grades(X) of P(X)*G(X) - C

 

Where

X = all possible grades (0.5 blue, 0.5 blurple, 0.5 purple, 1.0 blue, 1.0 blurple, etc)

P(X) = probability the book comes out grade X

G(X) = value of the book coming out in grade X

C = costs to attempt to remove the restoration, and regrade the book

 

Note that the value of a 5.0 restored book (i.e., the two copies you keep clamoring about which sold for $5K) is of only limited value in the calculation. We care about the potentiation, not what the book is, in this case. Moreover, if the book were to come back as a 3.0 blurple or purple (because the resto/cons failed to be successfully removed) for example, it would be an even less "handled" book, and would price even closer to same grade blue label.

 

Now, my opinion is that using a reasonable set of probabilities and market values, this book has an expected grade of 3.0 with a standard deviation of a little under half a grade.

 

I could go on with statistics and probabilities if anyone wants, but the bottom line is that this book was NOT a rip off at the price paid. For the record, I don't think it was a steal either (i'd probably be a buyer all things considered around $6,500), but it WAS unequivocally a better buy than either of the other 2 hulks Jaydog keeps mentioning, because they can't be unrestored.

 

 

[Hulksdaddy1]

Jaydog.......stop already, man. You've got something to offer here, but you don't know all the answers. A little humility.........

 

Like Roy, I haven't looked at many restored books, but you have studied far less than either of us. Getting Matt or Kenny to weigh in on this book would provide more credibility than you or me.

 

*****

 

There are a few things going on with this particular hulk, complicating the issues. But jaydog's personal biases (stated over and over again as fact) are wrong.

 

my following comments make the assumption that the owner of the book wants to maximize resale value, and isn't just buying the book to enjoy, g-d forbid

 

1) Restored books are not all created equal. Conserved versus restored, trimmed versus not, amateur/pro, slight/extensive, etc, etc. There are endless data points that show a slightly conserved (i'm using the current generally accepted definition) book is worth a multiple of a extensively restored copy of the same book. you can not lump them all together (if you're talking value). Not even close. The value spread is 3, 4, 5x or more!

 

2) If the book can be unrestored (very likely possible with this book), then the fact that it's restored/conserved now shouldn't matter to you (or any other "purists" out there), only what the grade WOULD BECOME be unrestored

 

3) Then, the value of this book can be computed as:

 

V(Hulk1) = Sum across grades(X) of P(X)*G(X) - C

 

Where

X = all possible grades (0.5 blue, 0.5 blurple, 0.5 purple, 1.0 blue, 1.0 blurple, etc)

P(X) = probability the book comes out grade X

G(X) = value of the book coming out in grade X

C = costs to attempt to remove the restoration, and regrade the book

 

Note that the value of a 5.0 restored book (i.e., the two copies you keep clamoring about which sold for $5K) is of only limited value in the calculation. We care about the potentiation, not what the book is, in this case. Moreover, if the book were to come back as a 3.0 blurple or purple (because the resto/cons failed to be successfully removed) for example, it would be an even less "handled" book, and would price even closer to same grade blue label.

 

Now, my opinion is that using a reasonable set of probabilities and market values, this book has an expected grade of 3.0 with a standard deviation of a little under half a grade.

 

I could go on with statistics and probabilities if anyone wants, but the bottom line is that this book was NOT a rip off at the price paid. For the record, I don't think it was a steal either (i'd probably be a buyer all things considered around $6,500), but it WAS unequivocally a better buy than either of the other 2 hulks Jaydog keeps mentioning, because they can't be unrestored.

 

 

Math nerd.

 

[roulette44]

 

Math nerd.

 

 

 

Yep - have the T-shirt and everything. Says "Math nerds do it with Models"

 

or, my personal favorite "Math Nerds do it with Frequency and Severity"

[Jaydogrules]

 

I could go on with statistics and probabilities if anyone wants, but the bottom line is that this book was NOT a rip off at the price paid. For the record, I don't think it was a steal either (i'd probably be a buyer all things considered around $6,500), but it WAS unequivocally a better buy than either of the other 2 hulks Jaydog keeps mentioning, because they can't be unrestored.

 

 

This conversation wasn't about "which the better buy" is. This conversation was that the buyer who paid $8k for THIS book was ripped off by a misleading label and a deceitful seller.

 

This book would never, ever, ever be a 3.0 blue label. That's just wrong. I know enough to know that at least half the back cover is shot and would have to be stripped from the book to get rid of ALL of the glue, foreign material, or whatever was used to "seal" the huge 4" tear.

 

Furthermore the bottom left corner of the book would have to either be completely scraped off or removed to get rid of all of the glue there.

 

With all that done to it, the book would be significantly less attractive, missing half the back cover and possibly part of the spine. It "might" get a 1.8 and be a $4-$5k book.

 

By any objective measure, this buyer got suckered. This has nothing to do with a "bias". I don't own restored books so I have no "bias". If anything it is those who own and sell restored books that are attempting to so vociferously defend the indefensible that would have a bias.

 

-J.

[fishbone]

Here is my membership card

 

 

FISH

[Mongkorn]

Nice copy Fish!

[Primetime]

Here is my membership card

 

 

FISH

you've got a lot of membership cards C . Your GA membership cards are even better

[Jaydogrules]

Here is my membership card

 

 

FISH

 

Nice copy.

 

Harvey where are you bud?

 

-J.

[roulette44]

 

I could go on with statistics and probabilities if anyone wants, but the bottom line is that this book was NOT a rip off at the price paid. For the record, I don't think it was a steal either (i'd probably be a buyer all things considered around $6,500), but it WAS unequivocally a better buy than either of the other 2 hulks Jaydog keeps mentioning, because they can't be unrestored.

 

 

This conversation wasn't about "which the better buy" is. This conversation was that the buyer who paid $8k for THIS book was ripped off by a misleading label and a deceitful seller.

 

This book would never, ever, ever be a 3.0 blue label. That's just wrong. I know enough to know that at least half the back cover is shot and would have to be stripped from the book to get rid of ALL of the glue, foreign material, or whatever was used to "seal" the huge 4" tear.

 

Furthermore the bottom left corner of the book would have to either be completely scraped off or removed to get rid of all of the glue there.

 

With all that done to it, the book would be significantly less attractive, missing half the back cover and possibly part of the spine. It "might" get a 1.8 and be a $4-$5k book.

 

By any objective measure, this buyer got suckered. This has nothing to do with a "bias". I don't own restored books so I have no "bias". If anything it is those who own and sell restored books that are attempting to so vociferously defend the indefensible that would have a bias.

 

-J.

 

You throw around know-it-all (and frankly, a few defamatory) statements like they're nothing, jaydog.

 

I am providing an estimate based on probabilities. you make absolute statements like "this book would never, ever, ever grade 3.0" and "This book is worth $5,000 because two restored 5.0s sold for the same amount". You can't know this, and it doesn't become true, no matter how many times you repeat the same thing (with no logic or support to back them, I might add). That book could grade 3.0. it could grade 4.0. It could grade 0.5, it could grade 6.0®, 6.0©, or many other things. We don't have the book in hand, we're merely looking at a scan.

 

And a 4" tear does not make a book fall below 3.0 by itself. Maybe we'll get lucky and Matt or Kenny will weigh in here.

 

I have no skin in this game, other than to offer an unbiased opinion. And you keep treating restoration like it's all the same, which is plain wrong. I'm referring to other threads here, of course, so this is about more than this hulk.

 

Again, I'm not saying the seller of that hulk wasn't acting shady (I think it's quite possible) - but the bottom line is that the book's valuation might be reasonable relative to what was paid. And most importantly, there was nothing wrong with how the book was graded.

 

[cujobyte]

Definitely don't mean to derail this particular thread, just didn't know where else to post.

 

Jay, since you've been bringing up "shilling" in the BA 12 and SW #1 threads, what about the Silver books being shilled as of late, this one in particular. I've been wanting a copy for 2 yrs now, and refuse the fact that a lot of the sales are accurate.

 

Case in point:

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=291370811313&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565

 

I've also asked that seller to comment on the other "bin" sale that just happened with another Hulk 1.

 

Whatcha think Jay? Not calling you out, just want your opinions.

[october]

Definitely don't mean to derail this particular thread, just didn't know where else to post.

 

Jay, since you've been bringing up "shilling" in the BA 12 and SW #1 threads, what about the Silver books being shilled as of late, this one in particular. I've been wanting a copy for 2 yrs now, and refuse the fact that a lot of the sales are accurate.

 

Case in point:

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=291370811313&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565

 

I've also asked that seller to comment on the other "bin" sale that just happened with another Hulk 1.

 

Whatcha think Jay? Not calling you out, just want your opinions.

 

That's a respected board member's auction, and the zero feedback bidder had only 16% activity with him.

 

Those bids might be fake, but be careful who you accuse of what.

[roulette44]

The hulk 1 in the link was mine. I really don't like auctioning books, and so I very rarely do.......one of the reasons is because ebay doesn't let us block 0 feedback bidders. Listen to this - the guy who won the cgc 2.5 auction had the userid "fuc-u17" and I looked him up, name was "FUC U". SERIOUSLY, that's his userid and name, and it somehow gets through....

 

Anyways, the bid was clearly fraudulent and my ebay settings process the non-paying bidder after a few days. I ended up selling the book to another interested party for $6700, FYI.

 

Then, my cgc 6.0 hulk (which had already sold and I just forgot to take it down ) gets "accidentally" BIN'd by an ebayer that sent an apology letter almost immediately and so I submitted the cancellation right away.

 

GPA should be updated soon as George always picks up erroneous sales, but please beware in the interim.

 

The CGC 6.0 copy sold for a little over 10% below what was the BIN.

 

Joey

[gadzukes]

fuc-u17 put a bid on the Hulk 1 2.5 I have up on ebay right now. I am NOT selling to a guy named fuc-u with 0 feedback. I just put him on my block list.

 

Btw.... I had my Hulk1 as a Buyitnow and someone bought it then contacted me to say he made a mistake. I'm really getting sick of that kind of stuff. Big pain in the butt.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

Definitely don't mean to derail this particular thread, just didn't know where else to post.

 

Jay, since you've been bringing up "shilling" in the BA 12 and SW #1 threads, what about the Silver books being shilled as of late, this one in particular. I've been wanting a copy for 2 yrs now, and refuse the fact that a lot of the sales are accurate.

 

Case in point:

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=291370811313&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565

 

I've also asked that seller to comment on the other "bin" sale that just happened with another Hulk 1.

 

Whatcha think Jay? Not calling you out, just want your opinions.

 

PM sent. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[cujobyte]

Definitely don't mean to derail this particular thread, just didn't know where else to post.

 

Jay, since you've been bringing up "shilling" in the BA 12 and SW #1 threads, what about the Silver books being shilled as of late, this one in particular. I've been wanting a copy for 2 yrs now, and refuse the fact that a lot of the sales are accurate.

 

Case in point:

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=291370811313&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565

 

I've also asked that seller to comment on the other "bin" sale that just happened with another Hulk 1.

 

Whatcha think Jay? Not calling you out, just want your opinions.

 

That's a respected board member's auction, and the zero feedback bidder had only 16% activity with him.

 

Those bids might be fake, but be careful who you accuse of what.

 

I'm very aware who the seller is Andy, and Roulette I shouldn't have used "Shiller" as much as I should have stated "dead beat buyer". This is been happening a LOT on silver age and bronze age books as of late. Ruins it for the rest of us buyers though.

 

My apologies to you Roulette, never meant to insinuate you shilled but rather were the victim of another dead beat buyers as of late.

[mysterio]

Definitely don't mean to derail this particular thread, just didn't know where else to post.

 

Jay, since you've been bringing up "shilling" in the BA 12 and SW #1 threads, what about the Silver books being shilled as of late, this one in particular. I've been wanting a copy for 2 yrs now, and refuse the fact that a lot of the sales are accurate.

 

Case in point:

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=291370811313&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565

 

I've also asked that seller to comment on the other "bin" sale that just happened with another Hulk 1.

 

Whatcha think Jay? Not calling you out, just want your opinions.

 

That's a respected board member's auction, and the zero feedback bidder had only 16% activity with him.

 

Those bids might be fake, but be careful who you accuse of what.

 

I'm very aware who the seller is Andy, and Roulette I shouldn't have used "Shiller" as much as I should have stated "dead beat buyer". This is been happening a LOT on silver age and bronze age books as of late. Ruins it for the rest of us buyers though.

 

My apologies to you Roulette, never meant to insinuate you shilled but rather were the victim of another dead beat buyers as of late.

 

You could always edit the earlier post, just to reduce the use of the "s-word" even more and clarify your point...

[roulette44]

I appreciate the support guys. And Cujo, it's all good, I realize you didn't intend to say anything negative about me. For the record, anyone who wants all the information provided by this fuc-u17 person

 

There really needs to be a way to limit this nonsense!

 

I debated changing all my listings to requiring the buyer to pay for the item right away.....but for four- and five-figure books, it seemed a bit harsh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hulksdaddy1]

I have a real problem with these recent posts here.

 

Someone called Joey a respected board member.