HULK #1 CLUB : THE PUNY LITTLE MAN LEAGUE

[gadzukes]

Shameless Plus alert:

 

I have a Hulk 1 2.5 restored ending on ebay in 9 hours.

 

(The 3 zero feedback bidders in the bid history have been blocked from bidding anymore)

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/400865018699?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

[drbanner]

[G.A.tor]

I know one of the people responding to J is an actuary and the other is an accountant.

 

GAtor is just really smart with numbers. I've seen him count past 10. Once.

 

 

 

I generally stop at 7, why tax myself

[G.A.tor]

there are a myriad of reasons why books get submitted for grading...we don't know how many are resubs, we don't know how many are out in the wild, raw, waiting for that plastic suit, we don't know the intentions of those that are subbing and those that are not...

 

all we can do is look at empirical data and try to draw conclusions.... and those conclusions should be pretty black and white (from a data standpoint)... obviously, there is still room to interpret and "manipulate" the results to support varying opinions (none of which are "wrong" since an opinion is just that....)

 

two sides of the same equation are often times differing in appearance, yet support the same result...

[*Bronze age fan*]

Hulk head hurt from too many numbers.

 

Me just like comic book.

 

 

[jaja-mon12]

Hulk head hurt from too many numbers.

 

Me just like comic book.

 

[Jaydogrules]

Percentages can be skewed and changed to try to make a point. But the number of "26" is fixed and cannot be manipulated.

 

26 is not a big increase in submissions year over year after such a big jump in value.

 

-J.

 

The only skewing and changing of percentages was your erroneous claim that the increase in Hulk 1 submissions was 36%.

 

You are right. My math was correct but incorrectly applied (as to the percentage net difference ).

I still remain of the opinion however that the 26 additional lower grade copies submitted over the comparable time frame is not particularly significant, and especially as compared to other SA books that got hot and experienced a similar price spike.

 

-J.

[GAMBIT]

[drbanner]

I still remain of the opinion however...

 

[roulette44]

I know one of the people responding to J is an actuary and the other is an accountant.

 

GAtor is just really smart with numbers. I've seen him count past 10. Once.

 

 

 

 

Actually, two actuaries (and an accountant), not one. And yes, 2 is 100% more than 1, making it bigger relatively speaking and in absolute terms Actually, two actuaries (and an accountant), not one. And yes, 2 is 100% more than 1, making it bigger relatively speaking and in absolute terms

[Hulksdaddy1]

I know one of the people responding to J is an actuary and the other is an accountant.

 

GAtor is just really smart with numbers. I've seen him count past 10. Once.

 

 

 

 

Actually, two actuaries (and an accountant), not one. And yes, 2 is 100% more than 1, making it bigger relatively speaking and in absolute terms Actually, two actuaries (and an accountant), not one. And yes, 2 is 100% more than 1, making it bigger relatively speaking and in absolute terms

 

A thought so nice, he said it twice!

 

[roulette44]

Hi all,

 

Thanks to www.gregholland.com/cgc/ , applying some simple queries using the data available on such website as close as possible to June 7th of each year (as the big 9.2 sale for $320K took place on 6/7/2014), we have the following:

 

Incredible Hulk #1

 

Graded_______Universal__________________Annualized_____Yr over Yr

Thru__________Count __________Incr_________Incr_______Incr in Ann'd Diff

7/1/2001________63

1/27/2002_______78_____________15__________26

7/17/2003______166_____________88__________60____________130%

7/12/2004______207_____________41__________41____________-31%

7/7/2005_______241_____________34__________34____________-17%

6/20/2006______278_____________37__________39____________13%

6/5/2007_______323_____________45__________47____________21%

7/1/2008_______378_____________55__________51____________9%

6/24/2009______417_____________39__________40____________-22%

6/7/2010_______455_____________38__________40____________0%

6/6/2011_______504_____________49__________49____________23%

6/4/2012_______558_____________54__________54____________10%

6/8/2013_______626_____________68__________67____________24%

6/10/2014______693_____________67__________67____________-1%

2/17/2015______769_____________76__________110___________65%

 

At a glance, this appears to suggest that the $320K 9.2 sale on 6/7/2014 may have been a driver in more raw copies getting graded &/or causing more copies to be CPR'd than might have otherwise been the case, both in % terms (FN1) and in terms of total count of new/re-submissions (FN2)

 

FN1: The annualized % increase is tracking along at a clip of 65%, compared to a high of 24% over any other annualized period in the past 10 years,

 

FN2: The annualized increase in count is tracking along at a clip of 110, compared to a high of 67 in any other annualized period in the past 10 years

 

I think it would be interesting to see how the numbers look for another historically relatively "comparable" book in terms of Value and Copies, say JIM #83... I'll take a look at that book next... If anyone else wants to look at another book, or slice the data in another way, have at it... >

 

 

Thanks Lorin - appreciate your posting this!

 

While this is only loosely applied statistical theory, I think it's good enough for our purposes. Looking at the statistic equal to the number of net new hulk 1s per equal-length time period the census data provided (over about a dozen increments), we see:

 

Mean - 51.79 (average of 52 new hulk 1 submissions per year)

StDev - 20.56 (standard deviation of 21 in the number of new hulk 1 submissions per year)

 

Generally speaking, statistics expect 68% of data to be within 1 standard deviation, 95% of data to be within two standard deviations and 99.8% of data to be within three standard deviations.

 

The most recent data point of 110 new submissions is over 2.8 standard deviations away from the mean, meaning that this data point is well past the 99.5 percentile of the potential distribution of new hulk slabs per year. Is that significant?

Statistics say yes.

Optics say yes.

Logic says yes too, I would say

Most boardies who have commented so far think so (and suspect this subsequent data will only help)

Jaydog says no ..... he's entitled to his opinion, too.....

 

As an aside, Superman2006's post also made me think more about the number of outstanding raw copies out there. I would have guessed that there's only 5-7 raw copies out there for every 10 slabbed copies (in other words about 60%-65% of the universe of copies are already slabbed.

 

I argued that the number of expected new submissions should actually decrease over time, and I think the question is when this will actually happen. If i'm right on the number of raw copies out there, it will decrease rather quickly. On the other hand, if there are many more raw copies out there, then this "decay" feature will be deferred --- ironically, this makes my statistical calculation even more accurate (see the spoiler if you care why)*

 

Some come here for the Comics

I come here for the Comics and Probability/Statistics (new character idea, call the trademark/patent office: STATISTICS MAN!

 

*

This is because for the statistics I used to be 100% justified, we have to assume that the distribution of new slabbed hulks year are independent and identically distributed random variables. Of course, the number of slabs in year x depends on the number of slabbed copies in year before x, but if there are enough copies out there still, it's reasonable to assume the independent property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[roulette44]

I know one of the people responding to J is an actuary and the other is an accountant.

 

GAtor is just really smart with numbers. I've seen him count past 10. Once.

 

 

 

 

Actually, two actuaries (and an accountant), not one. And yes, 2 is 100% more than 1, making it bigger relatively speaking and in absolute terms Actually, two actuaries (and an accountant), not one. And yes, 2 is 100% more than 1, making it bigger relatively speaking and in absolute terms

 

A thought so nice, he said it twice!

 

 

you like that, eh?

[blazingbob]

Hard four, always a good craps number

[Superman2006]

Percentages can be skewed and changed to try to make a point. But the number of "26" is fixed and cannot be manipulated.

 

26 is not a big increase in submissions year over year after such a big jump in value.

 

-J.

 

The only skewing and changing of percentages was your erroneous claim that the increase in Hulk 1 submissions was 36%.

 

You are right. My math was correct but incorrectly applied (as to the percentage net difference ).

I still remain of the opinion however that the 26 additional lower grade copies submitted over the comparable time frame is not particularly significant, and especially as compared to other SA books that got hot and experienced a similar price spike.

 

-J.

 

The original question was whether the spike in this book of late has resulted in a dramatic increase to census numbers, to which, you responded "Not really...". However, evidence appears to suggest otherwise (as seen by the eyeball test of the census figures that I provided and in roulette44's statistical analysis).

 

The original question didn't ask whether or not the spike was more dramatic than for other SA books that got hot and experienced a similar price spike - that is an entirely different question.

[Jaydogrules]

Percentages can be skewed and changed to try to make a point. But the number of "26" is fixed and cannot be manipulated.

 

26 is not a big increase in submissions year over year after such a big jump in value.

 

-J.

 

The only skewing and changing of percentages was your erroneous claim that the increase in Hulk 1 submissions was 36%.

 

You are right. My math was correct but incorrectly applied (as to the percentage net difference ).

I still remain of the opinion however that the 26 additional lower grade copies submitted over the comparable time frame is not particularly significant, and especially as compared to other SA books that got hot and experienced a similar price spike.

 

-J.

 

The original question was whether the spike in this book of late has resulted in a dramatic increase to census numbers, to which, you responded "Not really...". However, evidence appears to suggest otherwise (as seen by the eyeball test of the census figures that I provided and in roulette44's statistical analysis).

 

The original question didn't ask whether or not the spike was more dramatic than for other SA books that got hot and experienced a similar price spike - that is an entirely different question.

 

And in my opinion, 26 additional slabs year over year warranted a "not really" response. Because percentages, and SD's, etc. aside (although interesting in their own right), it's still just a difference of 26 slabs. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[Hulksdaddy1]

I know one of the people responding to J is an actuary and the other is an accountant.

 

GAtor is just really smart with numbers. I've seen him count past 10. Once.

 

 

 

 

Actually, two actuaries (and an accountant), not one. And yes, 2 is 100% more than 1, making it bigger relatively speaking and in absolute terms Actually, two actuaries (and an accountant), not one. And yes, 2 is 100% more than 1, making it bigger relatively speaking and in absolute terms

 

A thought so nice, he said it twice!

 

 

you like that, eh?

 

Absolutely brother!

[namisgr]

 

And in my opinion, 26 additional slabs year over year warranted a "not really" response. Because percentages, and SD's, etc. aside (although interesting in their own right), it's still just a difference of 26 slabs. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

[G.A.tor]

6-7 raw for every 10 slabbed. No way

 

Maybe 6-7 raw for every one slabbed

[Sqeggs]

6-7 raw for every 10 slabbed. No way

 

Maybe 6-7 raw for every one slabbed

 

Something like that would be my guess as well. On the boards we not only overestimate how many collectors slab their books, we underestimate how many collectors only have a vague idea of what CGC is.