HULK #1 CLUB : THE PUNY LITTLE MAN LEAGUE

[mysterio]

Nothing is "lost" on me, I just disagree with your interpretation of the numbers. (thumbs u

 

Speaking of numbers, here's a few more for you:

 

In the comparable period between July 2013-Feb 2014 (before the price spike), a total of 46 blue labels were added to the census.

 

That's just 26 less than the 72 that was added between July 2013-Feb 2015 (after the spike). 26. That's it. A grand total of 26 more books were added to the census than the prior year at the same time.

 

I would hardly call that a "dramatic" increase in numbers. At least not in the absolute sense. Because it isn't. I understand Gator's point, in terms of "percentages", but even by that measure that is only a 36% increase in submissions, not the 100, 200% or what have you.

 

-J.

 

How is going from 46 to 72 "only a 36% increase in submissions"? If you look at the increase year over year 72 is 152% of 46. Any time you have an increase, the number naturally has to be larger than 100% (i.e. 101 is 101% of 100). Yes, 26 submissions is 36% of 72, but that way of measuring (by looking backwards, not forewards) it doesn't really help in illustrating the increase. Instead, look at it like 26 is 56% more than 46, meaning that there were 56% more subs than the period prior. When you go from having 46 subs to having 72 that is a 156% increase from timeframe A to timeframe B.

 

You can debate about whether or not that increase is dramatic, but at least use the correct numbers when doing so.

 

 

I work with numbers all day. You may want to re-check yours. (thumbs u

 

46 (last year's submissions) is not 100% more than 72 (this year's submissions). 92 is. Ergo, 72 cannot be 100%+ more than 46.

 

46 is 64% of 72. 26 (the difference in submissions) is 36% of 72. That is why it it a 36% increase.

 

And regardless of all that noise, the actual numerical difference in submissions remains just 26, which can hardly nor reasonably be considered a deluge of submissions after the price spike.

 

-J.

 

If you work with numbers all day you should know that 72 is more than 46, which means that increasing from 46 to 72 means that the rise would be over 100%. In this case, with the difference (26) between those numbers being 56%, that means there is a 156% increase from 46 to 72. I thought that was fairly clear from my math. You can continue to dispute that if you'd like (though I don't know how), but others can draw their own conclusions.

[Jaydogrules]

Nothing is "lost" on me, I just disagree with your interpretation of the numbers. (thumbs u

 

Speaking of numbers, here's a few more for you:

 

In the comparable period between July 2013-Feb 2014 (before the price spike), a total of 46 blue labels were added to the census.

 

That's just 26 less than the 72 that was added between July 2013-Feb 2015 (after the spike). 26. That's it. A grand total of 26 more books were added to the census than the prior year at the same time.

 

I would hardly call that a "dramatic" increase in numbers. At least not in the absolute sense. Because it isn't. I understand Gator's point, in terms of "percentages", but even by that measure that is only a 36% increase in submissions, not the 100, 200% or what have you.

 

-J.

 

How is going from 46 to 72 "only a 36% increase in submissions"? If you look at the increase year over year 72 is 152% of 46. Any time you have an increase, the number naturally has to be larger than 100% (i.e. 101 is 101% of 100). Yes, 26 submissions is 36% of 72, but that way of measuring (by looking backwards, not forewards) it doesn't really help in illustrating the increase. Instead, look at it like 26 is 56% more than 46, meaning that there were 56% more subs than the period prior. When you go from having 46 subs to having 72 that is a 156% increase from timeframe A to timeframe B.

 

You can debate about whether or not that increase is dramatic, but at least use the correct numbers when doing so.

 

 

I work with numbers all day. You may want to re-check yours. (thumbs u

 

46 (last year's submissions) is not 100% more than 72 (this year's submissions). 92 is. Ergo, 72 cannot be 100%+ more than 46.

 

46 is 64% of 72. 26 (the difference in submissions) is 36% of 72. That is why it it a 36% increase.

 

And regardless of all that noise, the actual numerical difference in submissions remains just 26, which can hardly nor reasonably be considered a deluge of submissions after the price spike.

 

-J.

 

If you work with numbers all day you should know that 72 is more than 46, which means that increasing from 46 to 72 means that there is a more than 100% increase. In this case, with the difference (26) between those numbers being 56%, that means there is a 156% increase from 46 to 72. I thought that was fairly clear from my math. You can continue to dispute that if you'd like (though I don't know how), but others can draw their own conclusions.

 

Your numbers are impossible mysterio. Something does not have to go up "more than 100 percent" for it to be an increase. If something doubles it has gone up 100%. The difference in submissions did not double so it is impossible for that increase to be 100%+.

 

-J.

[mysterio]

Nothing is "lost" on me, I just disagree with your interpretation of the numbers. (thumbs u

 

Speaking of numbers, here's a few more for you:

 

In the comparable period between July 2013-Feb 2014 (before the price spike), a total of 46 blue labels were added to the census.

 

That's just 26 less than the 72 that was added between July 2013-Feb 2015 (after the spike). 26. That's it. A grand total of 26 more books were added to the census than the prior year at the same time.

 

I would hardly call that a "dramatic" increase in numbers. At least not in the absolute sense. Because it isn't. I understand Gator's point, in terms of "percentages", but even by that measure that is only a 36% increase in submissions, not the 100, 200% or what have you.

 

-J.

 

How is going from 46 to 72 "only a 36% increase in submissions"? If you look at the increase year over year 72 is 152% of 46. Any time you have an increase, the number naturally has to be larger than 100% (i.e. 101 is 101% of 100). Yes, 26 submissions is 36% of 72, but that way of measuring (by looking backwards, not forewards) it doesn't really help in illustrating the increase. Instead, look at it like 26 is 56% more than 46, meaning that there were 56% more subs than the period prior. When you go from having 46 subs to having 72 that is a 156% increase from timeframe A to timeframe B.

 

You can debate about whether or not that increase is dramatic, but at least use the correct numbers when doing so.

 

 

I work with numbers all day. You may want to re-check yours. (thumbs u

 

46 (last year's submissions) is not 100% more than 72 (this year's submissions). 92 is. Ergo, 72 cannot be 100%+ more than 46.

 

46 is 64% of 72. 26 (the difference in submissions) is 36% of 72. That is why it it a 36% increase.

 

And regardless of all that noise, the actual numerical difference in submissions remains just 26, which can hardly nor reasonably be considered a deluge of submissions after the price spike.

 

-J.

 

If you work with numbers all day you should know that 72 is more than 46, which means that increasing from 46 to 72 means that there is a more than 100% increase. In this case, with the difference (26) between those numbers being 56%, that means there is a 156% increase from 46 to 72. I thought that was fairly clear from my math. You can continue to dispute that if you'd like (though I don't know how), but others can draw their own conclusions.

 

Your numbers are impossible mysterio. Something does not have to go up "more than 100 percent" for it to be an increase. If something doubles it has gone up 100%. The difference in submissions did not double so it is impossible for that increase to be 100%+.

 

-J.

 

I see what you mean now, and in my haste I did misspeak. You're correct, it isn't a 156% increase, but one number is simply 156% of the previous number. So it is a 56% increase, not 156% as I mistakenly said because I shouldn't try to do math at the end of the day on a Friday.

 

Still, it is a 56% increase looking forward, not the 36% number you'd get looking backward.

[Jaydogrules]

Nothing is "lost" on me, I just disagree with your interpretation of the numbers. (thumbs u

 

Speaking of numbers, here's a few more for you:

 

In the comparable period between July 2013-Feb 2014 (before the price spike), a total of 46 blue labels were added to the census.

 

That's just 26 less than the 72 that was added between July 2013-Feb 2015 (after the spike). 26. That's it. A grand total of 26 more books were added to the census than the prior year at the same time.

 

I would hardly call that a "dramatic" increase in numbers. At least not in the absolute sense. Because it isn't. I understand Gator's point, in terms of "percentages", but even by that measure that is only a 36% increase in submissions, not the 100, 200% or what have you.

 

-J.

 

How is going from 46 to 72 "only a 36% increase in submissions"? If you look at the increase year over year 72 is 152% of 46. Any time you have an increase, the number naturally has to be larger than 100% (i.e. 101 is 101% of 100). Yes, 26 submissions is 36% of 72, but that way of measuring (by looking backwards, not forewards) it doesn't really help in illustrating the increase. Instead, look at it like 26 is 56% more than 46, meaning that there were 56% more subs than the period prior. When you go from having 46 subs to having 72 that is a 156% increase from timeframe A to timeframe B.

 

You can debate about whether or not that increase is dramatic, but at least use the correct numbers when doing so.

 

 

I work with numbers all day. You may want to re-check yours. (thumbs u

 

46 (last year's submissions) is not 100% more than 72 (this year's submissions). 92 is. Ergo, 72 cannot be 100%+ more than 46.

 

46 is 64% of 72. 26 (the difference in submissions) is 36% of 72. That is why it it a 36% increase.

 

And regardless of all that noise, the actual numerical difference in submissions remains just 26, which can hardly nor reasonably be considered a deluge of submissions after the price spike.

 

-J.

 

If you work with numbers all day you should know that 72 is more than 46, which means that increasing from 46 to 72 means that there is a more than 100% increase. In this case, with the difference (26) between those numbers being 56%, that means there is a 156% increase from 46 to 72. I thought that was fairly clear from my math. You can continue to dispute that if you'd like (though I don't know how), but others can draw their own conclusions.

 

Your numbers are impossible mysterio. Something does not have to go up "more than 100 percent" for it to be an increase. If something doubles it has gone up 100%. The difference in submissions did not double so it is impossible for that increase to be 100%+.

 

-J.

 

I see what you mean now, and in my haste I did misspeak. You're correct, it isn't a 156% increase, but one number is simply 156% of the previous number. So it is a 56% increase, not 156% as I mistakenly said because I shouldn't try to do math at the end of the day on a Friday.

 

Still, it is a 56% increase looking forward, not the 36% number you'd get looking backward.

 

At least we're getting closer.

 

Still though, just 26 copies difference. I actually expected to see more in the year over year analysis, considering the price increases. The 6.5 and 4.5 on heritage just demolished GPA today so it's clear those 26 extra copies did little to satisfy demand for this awesome book.

 

-J.

[namisgr]

GPA has been and continues to be a trailing indicator for major keys. Demolishing GPA happens nearly constantly on them. It certainly doesn't indicate that prices are continuing to rise above and beyond sale prices realized for major keys but more recent than any recorded on GPA.

[VintageComics]

GPA has been and continues to be a trailing indicator for major keys. Demolishing GPA happens nearly constantly on them. It certainly doesn't indicate that prices are continuing to rise above and beyond sale prices realized for major keys but more recent than any recorded on GPA.

 

Most dealers would buy keys all day long at some of those GPA prices.

[drbanner]

Nothing is "lost" on me, I just disagree with your interpretation of the numbers. (thumbs u

 

Speaking of numbers, here's a few more for you:

 

In the comparable period between July 2013-Feb 2014 (before the price spike), a total of 46 blue labels were added to the census.

 

That's just 26 less than the 72 that was added between July 2013-Feb 2015 (after the spike). 26. That's it. A grand total of 26 more books were added to the census than the prior year at the same time.

 

I would hardly call that a "dramatic" increase in numbers. At least not in the absolute sense. Because it isn't. I understand Gator's point, in terms of "percentages", but even by that measure that is only a 36% increase in submissions, not the 100, 200% or what have you.

 

-J.

[namisgr]

Nothing is "lost" on me, I just disagree with your interpretation of the numbers. (thumbs u

 

Speaking of numbers, here's a few more for you:

 

In the comparable period between July 2013-Feb 2014 (before the price spike), a total of 46 blue labels were added to the census.

 

That's just 26 less than the 72 that was added between July 2013-Feb 2015 (after the spike). 26. That's it. A grand total of 26 more books were added to the census than the prior year at the same time.

 

I would hardly call that a "dramatic" increase in numbers. At least not in the absolute sense. Because it isn't. I understand Gator's point, in terms of "percentages", but even by that measure that is only a 36% increase in submissions, not the 100, 200% or what have you.

 

-J.

 

 

Besides the unusual logic, the submission rate increased by 57%. It's almost certainly the highest submission rate for this comic of any 7 month time period since CGC began grading it 15 years ago. That's tangible evidence that a record sale price in one grade brings out submissions across the board.

 

If the facts don't match your expectations, then consider the possibility that your expectations were too grand.

[Jaydogrules]

Nothing is "lost" on me, I just disagree with your interpretation of the numbers. (thumbs u

 

Speaking of numbers, here's a few more for you:

 

In the comparable period between July 2013-Feb 2014 (before the price spike), a total of 46 blue labels were added to the census.

 

That's just 26 less than the 72 that was added between July 2013-Feb 2015 (after the spike). 26. That's it. A grand total of 26 more books were added to the census than the prior year at the same time.

 

I would hardly call that a "dramatic" increase in numbers. At least not in the absolute sense. Because it isn't. I understand Gator's point, in terms of "percentages", but even by that measure that is only a 36% increase in submissions, not the 100, 200% or what have you.

 

-J.

 

 

Besides the unusual logic, the submission rate increased by 56%. It's almost certainly the highest submission rate for this comic of any 7 month time period since the advent of CGC. That's tangible evidence that a record sale price in one grade brings out submissions across the board.

 

I don't know where you're pulling this "56%" from, but I disagree with it.

 

And regardless of how you spin the percentages, the real number is only 26 more submissions year over year during the same time frame, and this is a pittance in the grand scheme of things, especially considering the dollars that are involved now with this book.

 

-J.

[namisgr]

72/46 = 1.565. It's a 56.5% increase in the number of submissions over a comparable time frame. Disagreeing with it most certainly won't help your argument, or the notion that the teaching of math in the US is adequate.

 

I suspect it's the highest submission rate for Hulk #1 in the 15 year history of CGC. While you might not consider it dramatic, others certainly could.

[Jaydogrules]

72/46 = 1.565. It's a 56.5% increase in the number of submissions. Disagreeing with it most certainly won't help your argument.

 

I suspect it's the highest submission rate for Hulk #1 in the 15 year history of CGC. While you might not consider it dramatic, others certainly could.

 

Again, what I'm disagreeing with is your hyperbolic analysis and statements.

 

Sorry, but 26 extra copies of a book being submitted after a fairly sizable price spike is chump change, and did little to impact the demand for the book or to arrest the continued price increases we are still seeing.

 

-J.

[G.A.tor]

and keep in mind, the 72 copies is not for a year, but a 7-8 month period...so I personally, would annualize that number , which puts it over 100 extrapolated copies...that is 100%+ "extrapolated" increase...that's "big"...

 

when we are only averaging 46 copies a year, 26 is "big" by comparison...

 

now, 26 out of 700+ is not, but to have more than 50% more submissions so far (with more of the year to go), is indicative of an increase of some substance...

[Jaydogrules]

and keep in mind, the 72 copies is not for a year, but a 7-8 month period...so I personally, would annualize that number , which puts it over 100 extrapolated copies...that is 100%+ "extrapolated" increase...that's "big"...

 

when we are only averaging 46 copies a year, 26 is "big" by comparison...

 

now, 26 out of 700+ is not, but to have more than 50% more submissions so far (with more of the year to go), is indicative of an increase of some substance...

 

Gator, the 26 copies is the difference between a comparable time frame between July 2013-Feb 2014 and July 2014-Feb 2015. I am looking at an apples to apples comparison.

There were only 26 more copies submitted during the latter time frame after the spike versus the former when there was no spike.

I posit that that is actually quite modest in the grand scheme of things, particularly relative to the intensity of the price spike.

Others are calling it "dramatic" and "unheard of" etc. In fact, 26 more copies is really not that big of a deal.

 

-J.

[namisgr]

This isn't Hulk #271, with a zillion unslabbed copies laying around in people's collections and store back issue stock.

 

When Hulk #1 hits an all-time high in sale price, then an all-time high in submission rate, it's not unreasonable to consider the phenomena dramatic (or whatever adjective you prefer to describe a singular set of events).

 

As for the notion that prices are continuing to rise, I once again urge caution in using the lagging indicator that is GPA to draw such conclusions. For instance, I am unaware if a 7.0 copy has sold for more than my copy did (through a venue not reporting to GPA) last fall.

[Jaydogrules]

This isn't Hulk #271, with a zillion unslabbed copies laying around in people's collections and store back issue stock.

 

When Hulk #1 hits an all-time high in sale price, then an all-time high in submission rate, it's not unreasonable to consider the phenomena dramatic (or whatever adjective you prefer to describe a singular set of events).

 

I appreciate where you're coming from, I do. I suppose it's just a matter of opinion. There are certainly other SA books that have seen what I would actually call a "dramatic" increase in subs. Somebody mentioned FF 45 earlier.

 

But hulk 1 has been a high dollar, blue chip SA key for years. It's also not like hulk 271 which was worthless one day and then selling for $900 the next.

 

My only point is that 26 more subs after such a big price spike is rather tame in the greater context of other SA marvels. Hulk 1 didn't suddenly get expensive. It just got more expensive. And then only 26 more mostly lower grade copies shook from the trees compared to the previous year. I find it remarkable that the number is actually so small.

 

-J.

[Aman619]

math is math!!

 

if 72 versus 46 is a 56% increase t you, your broker must get flattered when you quote how well he has done for you!

 

Using the numbers in an investment analogy… if your investments were 46000 last year, and now they are at $72000, what would you calculate your profit %??

 

Since you stared with 46K and are now at 72K, you are up 26K

since you started with 46K, that 26K you are up is 36% more than what you started with.

 

 

How about a salary analogy:

 

your old salary was 46K, bumped to 72K, did you get a 56% raise or a 36% raise?

[drbanner]

math is math!!

 

if 72 versus 46 is a 56% increase t you, your broker must get flattered when you quote how well he has done for you!

 

Using the numbers in an investment analogy… if your investments were 46000 last year, and now they are at $72000, what would you calculate your profit %??

 

Since you stared with 46K and are now at 72K, you are up 26K

since you started with 46K, that 26K you are up is 36% more than what you started with.

 

How about a salary analogy:

 

your old salary was 46K, bumped to 72K, did you get a 56% raise or a 36% raise?

Yes, we all agree (well, most of us) that the increase is 56% (actually, it's 57% but who's counting). (thumbs u

 

The real question is, is 56% considered "dramatic"?

 

If you got a 56% raise, or your investment portfolio gained 56%, or the size of your (foot) increased by 56%, is that dramatic? I think we all agree (well, most of us), that the answer is a resounding "yes".

[Jaydogrules]

math is math!!

 

if 72 versus 46 is a 56% increase t you, your broker must get flattered when you quote how well he has done for you!

 

Using the numbers in an investment analogy… if your investments were 46000 last year, and now they are at $72000, what would you calculate your profit %??

 

Since you stared with 46K and are now at 72K, you are up 26K

since you started with 46K, that 26K you are up is 36% more than what you started with.

 

How about a salary analogy:

 

your old salary was 46K, bumped to 72K, did you get a 56% raise or a 36% raise?

Yes, we all agree (well, most of us) that the increase is 56%. (thumbs u

 

The real question is, is 56% considered "dramatic"?

If you got a 56% raise, or your investment portfolio gained 56%, or the size of your (foot) increased by 56%, is that dramatic? I think we all agree (well, most of us), that the answer is a resounding "yes".

 

I think he is saying that the difference is actually only a 36% increase.

 

And no, those 26 additional copies that represent that difference are not a "dramatic" sum. Just because two is 100% more than one, doesn't make 2 a big number. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[namisgr]

math is math!!

 

 

How about a salary analogy:

 

your old salary was 46K, bumped to 72K, did you get a 56% raise or a 36% raise?

 

Indeed, math is still math. You got a 56.5% raise. A 50% raise from your current salary of $46K would be a $23K increase. This raise of $26K is even larger. Similarly, an account valued at $46K increases in value by 56.5% when it rises to $72K. To have to review this math for non-believers is more than a little surprising. No wonder at my age I can still win at poker.

 

The increase in submission rate is also 56.5%. While one may quibble over whether this increase in subs is 'dramatic' or not, there's no disputing the fact of the magnitude of the rate increase.

[Sam I am]

56.52% raise.