Improve the Overstreet

[shrunkenhead]

 

This is actually an inaccurate statement. For the longest time, the standard grade to which everything was measured against in the OS guide was Mint condition. This was later changed to the 9.4 NM standard before changing once again to the 9.2 NM- standard for this year's edition of the guide.

 

True, but the switch from Mint to NM was, to my mind anyway, largely a semantic change. I mean really, who had "mint" comics for sale? I think what instead happened is that people wised up a little and tightened their grading standards, and thus started to change the language to reflect what they were actually selling in the first place (i.e. near mint comics instead of mint comics).

[lou_fine]

No new columns will be added. The same columns that have been there will still be there. But there might be an..."adjustment"...that might begin to address some of the concerns people have had since the 9.2 switch.

 

And I stress "begin."

 

Well Arnold;

 

If they move the post SA books back to the 9.4 NM standard, that's a start at least.

 

Why don't we head straight to the finish line instead and have the GA books at 9.0, and the CA and MA books at 9.6, with possibly the pre-hero GA books at 8.0 where some of them are already.

[rjpb]

And now we have 6 varieties of NM to M, with the visible difference between grades so dramatic that it is a wonder that previous generations of collectors were unable to discern them, how could they not see that two copies of a book that might have been casually labeled as Mint in the past should have had a 50 fold difference in value. The fools!

[heinlein99]

Point well taken, rjpb. shrunkenhead said: "I mean really, who had "mint" comics for sale?" Well, up until about 2000, 'mint' was still a fairly broad definition, so nearly everybody did. And judging by past criteria, most of them were correct. It wasn't until CGC 'redefined' (by fiat) the new&improved Mint that everybody looked at their collections with a newly critical eye.

 

And before that, up until the early 70's, there were only three grades - Coverless, Pretty Good, and Mint.

 

9.5, forsooth!

[FlyingDonut]

Point well taken, rjpb. shrunkenhead said: "I mean really, who had "mint" comics for sale?" Well, up until about 2000, 'mint' was still a fairly broad definition, so nearly everybody did. And judging by past criteria, most of them were correct. It wasn't until CGC 'redefined' (by fiat) the new&improved Mint that everybody looked at their collections with a newly critical eye.

 

And before that, up until the early 70's, there were only three grades - Coverless, Pretty Good, and Mint.

 

9.5, forsooth!

 

Well, there was the elusive "Tasty" grade.

[mrwoogieman]

Point well taken, rjpb. shrunkenhead said: "I mean really, who had "mint" comics for sale?" Well, up until about 2000, 'mint' was still a fairly broad definition, so nearly everybody did. And judging by past criteria, most of them were correct. It wasn't until CGC 'redefined' (by fiat) the new&improved Mint that everybody looked at their collections with a newly critical eye.

 

And before that, up until the early 70's, there were only three grades - Coverless, Pretty Good, and Mint.

 

9.5, forsooth!

 

Well, there was the elusive "Tasty" grade.

 

Forget all those, I was just interested in the 'killer copies'!!

[Zanarkand]

Based on Arnold's comments, I think OS is moving on the right track. There's nothing wrong with having all the columns there, except that the gives false impressions for rare, rare-in-grade, and high end books.

 

Stop reporting values for Gold over VF, and Silver over VF/NM. Insert some kind of generic comment in the beginning about VF/NM typically going for 50% above VF, etc.

 

Remember when the used to have comments like "prices vary widely on this book"? This is essentially the same thing, and acknowledgment that for some books, the guide isn't particularly guiding.

[fantastic_four]

True, but the switch from Mint to NM was, to my mind anyway, largely a semantic change. I mean really, who had "mint" comics for sale? I think what instead happened is that people wised up a little and tightened their grading standards, and thus started to change the language to reflect what they were actually selling in the first place (i.e. near mint comics instead of mint comics).

 

So prior to CGC, dealers selling "near mint" comics were indeed selling actual, tightly-graded NM books? That's the other reason I've always argued the top-of-the-guide shouldn't be NM--the average dealer, particularly LCS and regional con dealers, can't accurately determine which books are NM and which are really in the 8.0 to 9.2 range, so if you take the 9.4 column out of the guide, it forces them to learn more about the market and grading than looking at the rightmost column in the guide can provide them.

[Rob]

The problem with lowering the guide values on the many books that routinely sell for 30-70% of guide, is that informed buyers often use the current guide values to figure out what they should pay, even if it more or less a fixed percentage of guide for a given tile, era, genre or publisher.

 

If the guide were to more accurately reflect the true FMV of these books, many buyers might still balk at paying "full guide" for fairly common books. Even though the "great deal" that one gets when paying 50% of guide for a book is often an illusion, as that "discounted" price is more reflective of FMV than the guide value, it is an illusion that helps increase the comfort level buyers have with many purchases.

 

I agree. If collectors are willing to pay $700 for a comic that lists for $1000 in OS, what will happen when OS adjusts the value to $700? Will collectors adjust their willing-to-buy percentage to 100%, or did the book just drop in market value to $500?

 

However, shouldn't OS strive to improve their value estimates, rather than continue to print incorrect values to maintain a balance with collectors' post-guide adjustments?

[the blob]

lowering OPG prices will simply result in lowering of real world prices, not a convergence of real world and guide -- or demand at a given price at least .... and a destruction of my rainy day fund!

 

some people aren't going to pay more than 50% of guide for anything in a given low/mid grade. if you make the price $8 instead of $10, those people will simply only be willing to pay $4 instead of $5.

 

case in point, the 1998 (? I forget the year) downward revision on low grade silver age books. what did that result in? -- of course, that price-drop coincided perfectly with the rise of ebay, so dealers simply kept the prices the same, graded the books a little higher and sold them online ... but if they weren't overgrading, it's not like people started saying "well, now i'm willing to pay 70% of guide"

 

obviously there are situations where a downward revision is necessary for the integrity of the hobby -- crashing valiants, etc.

 

as for people who won't negotiate off guide -- don't buy from them! they've probably overgraded their books as well (which is another thing.... dealers will simply grade even looser on these now devalued books)

 

moreover, i wonder how big a discount on the lower grades there is when the books are slabbed. no doubt there are some discounts to be had, but probably not too many at 30% of guide in a slab on silver age material. sure, the slabs cost money, but it shows that there is a willingness to spend money on these books in the market if they've been certified.

[lou_fine]

The problem with lowering the guide values on the many books that routinely sell for 30-70% of guide, is that informed buyers often use the current guide values to figure out what they should pay, even if it more or less a fixed percentage of guide for a given tile, era, genre or publisher.

 

If the guide were to more accurately reflect the true FMV of these books, many buyers might still balk at paying "full guide" for fairly common books. Even though the "great deal" that one gets when paying 50% of guide for a book is often an illusion, as that "discounted" price is more reflective of FMV than the guide value, it is an illusion that helps increase the comfort level buyers have with many purchases.

 

I agree. If collectors are willing to pay $700 for a comic that lists for $1000 in OS, what will happen when OS adjusts the value to $700? Will collectors adjust their willing-to-buy percentage to 100%, or did the book just drop in market value to $500?

 

However, shouldn't OS strive to improve their value estimates, rather than continue to print incorrect values to maintain a balance with collectors' post-guide adjustments?

 

Interesting analysis and unfortunately, probably quite accurate. Just wanted to point out that this phenomenon actually works both on the downside and the upside.

 

For classic covers and in-demand books in high grade, dealers are usually more than willing to pay over guide for these books. As evident in the past, if Overstreet raises the price on these books, they still seem to continue to move at higher than guide prices.

 

I guess this phenomenon is the primary reason why prices don't really seem to move for low and mid grade books, yet the spread keeps increasing on the plus side for high grade books.

[PovertyRow]

No new columns will be added. The same columns that have been there will still be there. But there might be an..."adjustment"...that might begin to address some of the concerns people have had since the 9.2 switch.

 

And I stress "begin."

 

Hey Arnold!

 

I mailed (US Post Office) a fairly lengthy letter regarding the use of Horror, Supernatural, Weird and the confusion over what constitutes Horror vs Sci-Fi (as in Frankenstein is technically a Sci-Fi and not horror story).

 

Any idea if it was received? Please let me know. I have real isues with things like Eerie #1 ('47) being termed "Supernatural", thereby giving leeway to EC for the first "Horror" comic.

 

Thanks, Arnold. You take a lot of guff here on ocassion but I have to say you handle it with aplomb!

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Did you send it to anyone's attention specifically or just to our address in general? I have to admit I have not seen it, but it may be with our Pricing Coordinator, Mark Huesman. I can check.

 

Arnold

[Forbush-Man]

Hey Arnold,

I have a question for you about the Market Report: If it's possible for you folks to delete the Market Report from the Big, Big Book (BBB), couldn't you, just as easily, delete the Victorian section in future issues to make room in the BBB for the Market Report?

 

I believe the majority of collectors (the majority who buy the OSPG) want to have the Market Report, and would be more satisfied to have the Victorian section be the omitted section in the BBB.

 

Care to start a Poll?

 

Maybe put the Poll in the Victorian Forum, just to make it fair?

[Forbush-Man]

Poll started !

 

Had to put it HERE because I couldn't find the Victorian Forum.

[*paull*]

So Mark Huesman is the guy I can blame for the same certain books selling for 3x-5x guide for years? Maybe Mark needs to get on the phone and talk to collectors and dealers instead of playing Solitaire at work!

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

No. All pricing decisions are made by Bob as always. Mark collates data in addition to working on layout, photo and file management and a million other things. He makes no pricing decisions.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

OK, here we go again:

 

Some of you don't appreciate the Victorian section. Fine. Some readers *do*, and to them it would be a glaring omission to leave it out. Just because some of you think a certain bit of content is a waste of space doesn't mean we're going to cut out valuable historical information that helps to complete the picture of the story of comic books and that does indeed inform many readers who like to have that information there. And don't start asking "How many people really collect that stuff anyway?" They do, they exist, and they like it a lot. It's part of the full picture of comics; it belongs there.

 

Having said that, it's true that the market reports are a valuable resource, and if we didn't have the page count limitations we have with the BIG BIG edition, then we should have it in there. But the fact is that just about everyone who gets the BIG BIG book gets or has access to the regular edition, so they can read the market reports. And another fact is that the market reports run around *50-60 pages* every year. Even if we took out every extraneous bit of content from the BIG BIG book, we *still* couldn't fit them all in. Yes, even if we cut sections of listings that a percentage of you really can't seem to turn past and ignore though it's in your power to do so.

 

Next question I anticipate is: "So why don't you cut everything you can and put in *some* of the market reports?" And whose should we choose to include? Do you think there's any logical way we can select a specific cross-section of contributors without someone somewhere saying "How could you leave out Frank Schlub's brilliant insightful commentary? Couldn't you cut all the Bronze and Copper garbage and put more market reports in?" And that guy complaining might be Frank Schlub himself.

 

It's a slippery slope, and we can't make everybody happy 100%. So we choose to make the best book we can, balance the needs of *all* the readers with our intention to produce the most comprehensive price and reference guide every year, and that's the way it is.

 

Whew, lot of typing.

 

Arnold

[the blob]

arnold - i get the regular edition and enjoy the market reports, even if i take them with a pound of salt so to speak

 

some space can get saved by not listing so much on some of the moderns. "Cover price or less" should suffice on 98% of the material printed since 1990. granted, one may lose info on 1st appearance that way (artists could still be listed at the bottom). but if a first appearance hasn't gotten the book past cover price value, maybe it's not worth listing?

 

the victorian section is interesting, even though i've only spent 2 minutes looking at it. honestly though, didn't pulps have more impact on comics as we know them than many of these victorian era books? i understand a certain someone has a warehouse full of platinum era books that he'd like there to be more interest in, but I'd think he also likely has a warehouse full of pulps. i understand there's another, albeit infrequently published, pulp guide, but most occasional pulp buyers, like myself, will never buy it. maybe 10-20 pages of the OPG guide could be devoted to a very generalized pulp guide? cutting down on the number of lines devoted to quarter bin moderns would easily open up 10-20 pages.

[Forbush-Man]

arnold - i get the regular edition and enjoy the market reports, even if i take them with a pound of salt so to speak

 

some space can get saved by not listing so much on some of the moderns. "Cover price or less" should suffice on 98% of the material printed since 1990. granted, one may lose info on 1st appearance that way (artists could still be listed at the bottom). but if a first appearance hasn't gotten the book past cover price value, maybe it's not worth listing?

This part just tickled me, Arnold, after your long-long typed response!

 

 

the victorian section is interesting, even though i've only spent 2 minutes looking at it. honestly though, didn't pulps have more impact on comics as we know them than many of these victorian era books? i understand a certain someone has a warehouse full of platinum era books that he'd like there to be more interest in, but I'd think he also likely has a warehouse full of pulps. i understand there's another, albeit infrequently published, pulp guide, but most occasional pulp buyers, like myself, will never buy it. maybe 10-20 pages of the OPG guide could be devoted to a very generalized pulp guide? cutting down on the number of lines devoted to quarter bin moderns would easily open up 10-20 pages.

 

The answer to that question is: YES! Pulps are the direct parents to the Comic Book. Many Pulps were published by companies who would ,soon after Superman's apperance, begin publishing thier own comics. Many a writer or artist from the Pulp world would cross-over or end up in the Comic Book business (Frank Paul, Alex Schomburg,Edmond Hamilton,..). Many Pulp characters would be reborn in Comics (Tarzan, Shadow, Green Lama,,...) just to name a few comparisons. I'd be happy to do research and write a full article, but they wouldn't be able to use it anyway, as there's no room!

 

We have been told for many years that the first TRUE comic book was published in 1933 (Funnies on Parade). Why are we being force-fed Victorian?

 

At least find a way to include, seperatley if need be, the market report for those of us who support The Big Big Book. Or make The Market Report available online.

 

As for The Ultimate Guide to the Pulps (the Pulp Price Guide I believe you are refering to) : Buy it if you can get a copy! It's a great Pulp resource and just all round interesting Guide ! Two