Cerebus 1 a more valuable key than Hulk 181? Really Overstreet? Poll on Page 87 3 3

[RockMyAmadeus]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

Here's a great example of the foundational unsoundness of your arguments: You don't know what Overstreet uses, so you cannot possibly make this claim. You cannot claim it is "selective", because you do not know what information it selects, and what it discards (if anything), to arrive at its prices. You have no way of knowing if and how it is "limited", because you are not privy to the methods that Overstreet uses to compile prices

 

But it sure makes for a good sound bite!

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Not sure how this is supposed to be a "game changer." Do you have any recent sales of Cerebus #1 in 9.2 to compare t with?

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with wildly_fanciful_statement

 

[Jaydogrules]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

Here's a great example of the foundational unsoundness of your arguments: You don't know what Overstreet uses, so you cannot possibly make this claim. You cannot claim it is "selective", because you do not know what information it selects, and what it discards (if anything), to arrive at its prices. You have no way of knowing if and how it is "limited", because you are not privy to the methods that Overstreet uses to compile prices

 

But it sure makes for a good sound bite!

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Not sure how this is supposed to be a "game changer." Do you have any recent sales of Cerebus #1 in 9.2 to compare t with?

 

 

 

So NOW you want to use the limited print run and lack of any real sales data for cerebus 1 to make your point ? Talk about trying to have things both ways. Sheeesh.

 

And to answer your question: No. And neither does Overstreet. Which is why cerebus being ranked higher than Hulk 181 on his list is silly and meaningless.

 

-J.

[Lazyboy]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Except that now you're trying to use a case where one sale or a handful of sales is actually irrelevant. If there are only a handful of sales, but they are consistent, that is the value. If there are a large quantity of sales and a handful that fall outside the range of the majority, the majority is the value, not the outliers.

 

Of course, that may actually be the value for Hulk 181 in 9.2 going forward, but that remains to be seen.

[Jaydogrules]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Except that now you're trying to use a case where one sale or a handful of sales is actually irrelevant. If there are only a handful of sales, but they are consistent, that is the value. If there are a large quantity of sales and a handful that fall outside the range of the majority, the majority is the value, not the outliers.

 

Of course, that may actually be the value for Hulk 181 in 9.2 going forward, but that remains to be seen.

 

Again, now everyone is trying to use the "but it's scarce" argument to their advantage, and hulk 181's greater numbers in grade to its potential disadvantage (other sales at 9.2 possibly diluting this high sale), when that is in fact the problem in the first place, per the OP's original post. No, three sales in ten years don't tell me anything definitive. But that Hulk 181 sale just happened. If two more like it happen in the next nine years would that prove a "trend" to you like it evidently does for Cerebus 1?

 

-J.

[bronze johnny]

 

I really don't understand how any reasonable person can't understand the simple facts you stated. If they haven't gotten it by now, its not going to get through.

 

I agree, but it does help me by keeping my rhetorical skills sharp, and giving me opportunities to approach a topic from many different angles, to see if any of them might stick.

 

Unfortunately, logic and reason have been overtaken by emotionalism and irrationality, which only does harm. People come to conclusions based on how they feel, rather than by a structured examination of the evidence, and this has led to untold suffering, both large scale and small, for humanity.

 

Aristotle was right.

 

Quoting Aristotle are we? It's actually simpler than that. Anyone who disagrees with you is illogical and emotional. Your pseudo-apologies and subsequent bragging about applying rhetorical skills to invoke a logical argument is comical.

 

Oh, I apologize if I offended you.

 

Hilarious, a braggart who sites Aristotle! As this thread moves along we can see how you apply Russell's Theory of Description to your rhetorical skills to further enhance your logic.

 

I'm sorry if this offended you but I too am keeping my skills sharp.

[PeterPark]

For years, Overstreet would not include TMNT 1 in its top copper books citing wildly varying prices.

 

Not sure this needs to be said, but just because a book is rare does not mean it is not valuable.

[bronze johnny]

For years, Overstreet would not include TMNT 1 in its top copper books citing wildly varying prices.

 

Not sure this needs to be said, but just because a book is rare does not mean it is not valuable.

 

No one's going to take issue with that.

[Lazyboy]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Except that now you're trying to use a case where one sale or a handful of sales is actually irrelevant. If there are only a handful of sales, but they are consistent, that is the value. If there are a large quantity of sales and a handful that fall outside the range of the majority, the majority is the value, not the outliers.

 

Of course, that may actually be the value for Hulk 181 in 9.2 going forward, but that remains to be seen.

 

Again, now everyone is trying to use the "but it's scarce" argument to their advantage, and hulk 181's greater numbers in grade to its potential disadvantage (other sales at 9.2 possibly diluting this high sale), when that is in fact the problem in the first place, per the OP's original post. No, three sales in ten years don't tell me anything definitive. But that Hulk 181 sale just happened. If two more like it happen in the next nine years would that prove a "trend" to you like it evidently does for Cerebus 1?

 

-J.

 

You can't solely rely on GPA data, especially in a discussion about a list found in the Overstreet Price Guide. GPA has only been referenced because it is the most obvious available data.

[PeterPark]

For years, Overstreet would not include TMNT 1 in its top copper books citing wildly varying prices.

 

Not sure this needs to be said, but just because a book is rare does not mean it is not valuable.

 

No one's going to take issue with that.

 

Ok, well Cerebus 1 is a very expensive book. Is it more than Hulk 181? I don't know, even Overstreet is saying last year, no, this year, yes. The point is it on the level. Might Hulk 181 overtake it next year? Sure. Hulk 181 has been on fire. It isn't unreasonable for a GUIDE to value them similarly.

 

Shouldn't you be more upset that Gobbledygook 1 is worth more than any bronze book?

 

And what is everyone's problem with price variants? If there were a rare version of Action 1, it would be the most valuable even more than the more common non-variant first appearance of Superman. If Iron Fist 14 35 cent variant sells for more in grade than Hulk 181 (it does), why shouldn't it be in the conversation? :shrug:

 

Personally, I wish Overstreet would list top 50-100 for non Golden ages as well, but that is their prerogative.

[Lazyboy]

Quoting Aristotle are we? It's actually simpler than that. Anyone who disagrees with you is illogical and emotional. Your pseudo-apologies and subsequent bragging about applying rhetorical skills to invoke a logical argument is comical.

 

Oh, I apologize if I offended you.

 

Hilarious, a braggart who sites Aristotle! As this thread moves along we can see how you apply Russell's Theory of Description to your rhetorical skills to further enhance your logic.

 

I'm sorry if this offended you but I too am keeping my skills sharp.

 

Where?

[Prince Namor]

RMA, you have a way with words, no doubt. The gpa data of both books in 9.2, however, seems for the moment at least to favor the #181. No 9.2 Cerebus #1, per gpa, SS or Universal, has ever breached $3000. Assuming the last Hulk #181 in 9.2 was legit, it just sold for almost $700 more than any copy, SS or otherwise, of Cerebus #1 in any grade 9.2 or below. No Cerebus #1, aside from the highest graded, has ever breached $3k. By analyzing the sparse data availible on Cerebus #1 in 9.2, an appraisal of $2300-$2800 for a Universal 9.2 seems reasonable. This may even be generous since most recorded sales are SS or a file copy. The most recent sale of 181, drug induced or not, would give that book an edge based strictly on the data.

 

Your making the same mistake many dealers did in the old days of using the OSPG.

Assuming that if a vg is $5 and a fn is a $10, then a NM must be $20. It's wrong.

 

Please elaborate, good sir. I'm not sure I follow you.

 

You said:

 

By analyzing the sparse data availible on Cerebus #1 in 9.2, an appraisal of $2300-$2800 for a Universal 9.2 seems reasonable.

 

You came to that conclusion using what data is there and assuming it would go up in price exponentially. It doesn't work that way in the actually market place.

 

Chuck Rozanski proved it 37 years ago when he found the Mile High Collection and all of those HG collectors came out of the woodwork and paid multiples of guide for those harder to find books in THOSE grades.

 

He realized, having those books, in THAT condition, was more valuable than Overstreet was aware of. And he was right. Overstreet had always priced things exponentially - vg is $5, next up is $10, next is $20... and Chuck R. proved it doesn't work that way, and almost ANY dealer in comics knows it doesn't work that way and the whole concept of how CGC made a handful of people millionaires is based upon that understanding.

 

It's not surprising to most that a HARDER to find (i.e. lower print run/scarce/hoarded), sought after, rare, important comic in HG is worth MORE sometimes than a popular easy to find important comic in the same grade.

 

Doesn't matter how many more the popular book has proven to sell over time or what anyone thinks or believes or how few sales you can compare (that's actually part of what MAKES it more valuable, see?)... when it happens, it works that way.

 

It's been going on for almost 40 years like that.

 

Wolverine is still popular and cool or whatever. The market just works that way.

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

Here's a great example of the foundational unsoundness of your arguments: You don't know what Overstreet uses, so you cannot possibly make this claim. You cannot claim it is "selective", because you do not know what information it selects, and what it discards (if anything), to arrive at its prices. You have no way of knowing if and how it is "limited", because you are not privy to the methods that Overstreet uses to compile prices

 

But it sure makes for a good sound bite!

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Not sure how this is supposed to be a "game changer." Do you have any recent sales of Cerebus #1 in 9.2 to compare t with?

 

 

 

So NOW you want to use the limited print run and lack of any real sales data for cerebus 1 to make your point ? Talk about trying to have things both ways. Sheeesh.

 

Oh boy. You argue like a smart teenager.

 

Yes, because I am making different (if related) points.

 

For example: if I said "Apples are abundant this year in Walla Walla" and then said "Apples are scarce this year nationwide, due to blight", am I contradicting myself? Or am I making two different points that happen to share the same basic subject?

 

You must compare like with like. Your claim that TODAY, a Hulk #181 in 9.2 sold for $X, which is greater than what a 9.2 Cerebus #1 sold for in 2005, and therefore Hulk #181 should be higher on the list, is NOT VALID.

 

That is NOT a "well, then, you want it both ways!" situation, because you're not comparing like to like.

 

If you want to compare a SINGLE sale to a SINGLE sale, you need to compare like with like. That means, a SINGLE sale from the same time period...not a single sale, 9 years apart.

 

When I say "Cerebus #1 is higher valued than Hulk #181 in higher grades", I do not rely, and have never relied, on a SINGLE SALE from 2005. That would be foolish.

 

Instead, I rely on several OTHER sales, including one within the last six months, that happened to be a 9.4.

 

It is the TOTALITY of this information that is used to draw this conclusion, not a single sale. There is a difference between SPARESNESS of sales, and SINGLE sales.

 

And to answer your question: No. And neither does Overstreet. Which is why cerebus being ranked higher than Hulk 181 on his list is silly and meaningless.

 

-J.

 

Except that, again, you don't have any real idea what information Overstreet uses to arrive at its prices.

 

It is silly and meaningless to you, because you conclude based on feelings, rather than evidence and empiricism.

 

Help me understand something....how was the OPG able to compile prices for these books prior to the advent of CGC and GPA...?

 

 

You keep settin' 'em up, I'll keep knockin' 'em down.

 

[bronze johnny]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

Here's a great example of the foundational unsoundness of your arguments: You don't know what Overstreet uses, so you cannot possibly make this claim. You cannot claim it is "selective", because you do not know what information it selects, and what it discards (if anything), to arrive at its prices. You have no way of knowing if and how it is "limited", because you are not privy to the methods that Overstreet uses to compile prices

 

But it sure makes for a good sound bite!

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Not sure how this is supposed to be a "game changer." Do you have any recent sales of Cerebus #1 in 9.2 to compare t with?

 

 

 

So NOW you want to use the limited print run and lack of any real sales data for cerebus 1 to make your point ? Talk about trying to have things both ways. Sheeesh.

 

Oh boy. You argue like a smart teenager.

 

Yes, because I am making different (if related) points.

 

For example: if I said "Apples are abundant this year in Walla Walla" and then said "Apples are scarce this year nationwide, due to blight", am I contradicting myself? Or am I making two different points that happen to share the same basic subject?

 

You must compare like with like. Your claim that TODAY, a Hulk #181 in 9.2 sold for $X, which is greater than what a 9.2 Cerebus #1 sold for in 2005, and therefore Hulk #181 should be higher on the list, is NOT VALID.

 

That is NOT a "well, then, you want it both ways!" situation, because you're not comparing like to like.

 

If you want to compare a SINGLE sale to a SINGLE sale, you need to compare like with like. That means, a SINGLE sale from the same time period...not a single sale, 9 years apart.

 

When I say "Cerebus #1 is higher valued than Hulk #181 in higher grades", I do not rely, and have never relied, on a SINGLE SALE from 2005. That would be foolish.

 

Instead, I rely on several OTHER sales, including one within the last six months, that happened to be a 9.4.

 

It is the TOTALITY of this information that is used to draw this conclusion, not a single sale. There is a difference between SPARESNESS of sales, and SINGLE sales.

 

And to answer your question: No. And neither does Overstreet. Which is why cerebus being ranked higher than Hulk 181 on his list is silly and meaningless.

 

-J.

 

Except that, again, you don't have any real idea what information Overstreet uses to arrive at its prices.

 

It is silly and meaningless to you, because you conclude based on feelings, rather than evidence and empiricism.

 

Help me understand something....how was the OPG able to compile prices for these books prior to the advent of CGC and GPA...?

 

 

You keep settin' 'em up, I'll keep knockin' 'em down.

 

 

Knock-in what down?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I really don't understand how any reasonable person can't understand the simple facts you stated. If they haven't gotten it by now, its not going to get through.

 

I agree, but it does help me by keeping my rhetorical skills sharp, and giving me opportunities to approach a topic from many different angles, to see if any of them might stick.

 

Unfortunately, logic and reason have been overtaken by emotionalism and irrationality, which only does harm. People come to conclusions based on how they feel, rather than by a structured examination of the evidence, and this has led to untold suffering, both large scale and small, for humanity.

 

Aristotle was right.

 

Quoting Aristotle are we? It's actually simpler than that. Anyone who disagrees with you is illogical and emotional.

 

Well, that's a shame. You've resorted to absolutes statements that cannot be reasonably claimed based on the evidence. That's the heart of arguing from emotion.

 

No, the reality is, anyone who makes illogical and emotional arguments is making illogical and emotional arguments. If that describes you, that is what I'm going to state.

 

Plenty of people around here are perfectly capable of disagreeing with me (and others) without resorting to silly absolute statements about the people with whom they disagree. It's hardly the case that they disagree with me only because I think they are illogical and emotional.

 

That's not a reasonable conclusion to make.

 

 

You still haven't answered my question: do you dispute the sales prices as recorded at GPA? Those are the facts that *I* (NOT Overstreet) am using to make my point. If you dispute their validity, say so already.

 

You are offended, because you argue from emotion, rather than reason. If you argued from reason, you would not be offended.

 

You don't offend me at all.

 

Your pseudo-apologies and subsequent bragging about applying rhetorical skills to invoke a logical argument is comical.

 

Oh, I apologize if I offended you.

 

Hilarious, a braggart who sites Aristotle! As this thread moves along we can see how you apply Russell's Theory of Description to your rhetorical skills to further enhance your logic.

 

I'm sorry if this offended you but I too am keeping my skills sharp.

 

Why apologize for anything, when you clearly don't mean it? You call my apology "pseudo", because you react from emotion, not reason. I was, and am, genuinely sorry you misunderstood my meaning. I clarified it. That should have ended it.

 

Instead, you reply with a volley of mocking offendedness.

 

And this is not emotionalism on display....?

 

 

I didn't quote Aristotle, nor did I "site" him.

 

I simply said he was right.

 

He was.

[whetteon]

[HighStakesComics]

RMA, you have a way with words, no doubt. The gpa data of both books in 9.2, however, seems for the moment at least to favor the #181. No 9.2 Cerebus #1, per gpa, SS or Universal, has ever breached $3000. Assuming the last Hulk #181 in 9.2 was legit, it just sold for almost $700 more than any copy, SS or otherwise, of Cerebus #1 in any grade 9.2 or below. No Cerebus #1, aside from the highest graded, has ever breached $3k. By analyzing the sparse data availible on Cerebus #1 in 9.2, an appraisal of $2300-$2800 for a Universal 9.2 seems reasonable. This may even be generous since most recorded sales are SS or a file copy. The most recent sale of 181, drug induced or not, would give that book an edge based strictly on the data.

 

Your making the same mistake many dealers did in the old days of using the OSPG.

Assuming that if a vg is $5 and a fn is a $10, then a NM must be $20. It's wrong.

 

Please elaborate, good sir. I'm not sure I follow you.

 

You said:

 

By analyzing the sparse data availible on Cerebus #1 in 9.2, an appraisal of $2300-$2800 for a Universal 9.2 seems reasonable.

 

You came to that conclusion using what data is there and assuming it would go up in price exponentially. It doesn't work that way in the actually market place.

 

Chuck Rozanski proved it 37 years ago when he found the Mile High Collection and all of those HG collectors came out of the woodwork and paid multiples of guide for those harder to find books in THOSE grades.

 

He realized, having those books, in THAT condition, was more valuable than Overstreet was aware of. And he was right. Overstreet had always priced things exponentially - vg is $5, next up is $10, next is $20... and Chuck R. proved it doesn't work that way, and almost ANY dealer in comics knows it doesn't work that way and the whole concept of how CGC made a handful of people millionaires is based upon that understanding.

 

It's not surprising to most that a HARDER to find (i.e. lower print run/scarce/hoarded), sought after, rare, important comic in HG is worth MORE sometimes than a popular easy to find important comic in the same grade.

 

Doesn't matter how many more the popular book has proven to sell over time or what anyone thinks or believes or how few sales you can compare (that's actually part of what MAKES it more valuable, see?)... when it happens, it works that way.

 

It's been going on for almost 40 years like that.

 

Wolverine is still popular and cool or whatever. The market just works that way.

 

 

 

I've read your posts before, and for the most part you make sense, but it doesn't seem like you realize the low end of my range is roughly 10% higher than OPG guide value. In other words, you didn't just tell me anything I didn't already know. I wasn't sure where you were going with this.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Except that now you're trying to use a case where one sale or a handful of sales is actually irrelevant. If there are only a handful of sales, but they are consistent, that is the value. If there are a large quantity of sales and a handful that fall outside the range of the majority, the majority is the value, not the outliers.

 

Of course, that may actually be the value for Hulk 181 in 9.2 going forward, but that remains to be seen.

 

Again, now everyone is trying to use the "but it's scarce" argument to their advantage, and hulk 181's greater numbers in grade to its potential disadvantage (other sales at 9.2 possibly diluting this high sale), when that is in fact the problem in the first place, per the OP's original post. No, three sales in ten years don't tell me anything definitive. But that Hulk 181 sale just happened. If two more like it happen in the next nine years would that prove a "trend" to you like it evidently does for Cerebus 1?

 

-J.

 

Alright...let's compare like with like.

 

Mar of 2014. One sale. Cerebus #1, CGC 9.4. $9,000.

 

No Hulk #181 in 9.4 Universal has sold for more than $3600, ever.

 

What conclusion(s) do you draw from this?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Jaydog;

 

I think you guys should just take a look at the OS guide for these 2 listings and admit that Overstreet got it right, based upon the following:

 

1) Hulk 181 is signficantly more valuable than Cerebus 1 in the lower grades, with this differential decreasing on a percentage basis as we move up the grading scale, which actually reflects the rising price of Cerebus 1 in the real world as it becomes more scarce in nicer condition;

 

2) Cerebus 1 is more valuable than Hulk 181 in the HG 9.2 condition, as clearly evident by comparable historical sales in 9.2 and above;

 

3) Overstreet does not attempt to place a valuation for uber HG copies, and in particular, not for CGC 9.9 copies of any book;

 

4) The prices in the OS guide are reflective of comic book valuations, as opposed to comic book popularity; and

 

5) These valuations are not based upon the quantities of a particular book sold, otherwise the latest newstand issue of Action Comics would be worth more than Action Comics #1.

 

I know and completely understand that it must be hard for you to accept the above facts, but it's totally okay and actually healthy for you to admit that you are wrong every now and then.

 

...and even in the world of Overstreet, using its own limited and selective methodology this is your game changer:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INCREDIBLE-HULK-181-WHITE-PAGES-CGC-GRADED-9-2-NOVEMBER-1974-/400755267796?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item5d4ee018d4

 

-J.

 

Except that now you're trying to use a case where one sale or a handful of sales is actually irrelevant. If there are only a handful of sales, but they are consistent, that is the value. If there are a large quantity of sales and a handful that fall outside the range of the majority, the majority is the value, not the outliers.

 

Of course, that may actually be the value for Hulk 181 in 9.2 going forward, but that remains to be seen.

 

Again, now everyone is trying to use the "but it's scarce" argument to their advantage, and hulk 181's greater numbers in grade to its potential disadvantage (other sales at 9.2 possibly diluting this high sale), when that is in fact the problem in the first place, per the OP's original post. No, three sales in ten years don't tell me anything definitive. But that Hulk 181 sale just happened. If two more like it happen in the next nine years would that prove a "trend" to you like it evidently does for Cerebus 1?

 

-J.

 

You can't solely rely on GPA data, especially in a discussion about a list found in the Overstreet Price Guide. GPA has only been referenced because it is the most obvious available data.

 

+1

[bronze johnny]

 

I really don't understand how any reasonable person can't understand the simple facts you stated. If they haven't gotten it by now, its not going to get through.

 

I agree, but it does help me by keeping my rhetorical skills sharp, and giving me opportunities to approach a topic from many different angles, to see if any of them might stick.

 

Unfortunately, logic and reason have been overtaken by emotionalism and irrationality, which only does harm. People come to conclusions based on how they feel, rather than by a structured examination of the evidence, and this has led to untold suffering, both large scale and small, for humanity.

 

Aristotle was right.

 

Quoting Aristotle are we? It's actually simpler than that. Anyone who disagrees with you is illogical and emotional.

 

Well, that's a shame. You've resorted to absolutes statements that cannot be reasonably claimed based on the evidence. That's the heart of arguing from emotion.

 

No, the reality is, anyone who makes illogical and emotional arguments is making illogical and emotional arguments. If that describes you, that is what I'm going to state.

 

Plenty of people around here are perfectly capable of disagreeing with me (and others) without resorting to silly absolute statements about the people with whom they disagree.

 

You still haven't answered my question: do you dispute the sales prices as recorded at GPA? Those are the facts that *I* (NOT Overstreet) am using to make my point. If you dispute their validity, say so already.

 

You are offended, because you argue from emotion, rather than reason. If you argued from reason, you would not be offended.

 

You don't offend me at all.

 

Your pseudo-apologies and subsequent bragging about applying rhetorical skills to invoke a logical argument is comical.

 

Oh, I apologize if I offended you.

 

Hilarious, a braggart who sites Aristotle! As this thread moves along we can see how you apply Russell's Theory of Description to your rhetorical skills to further enhance your logic.

 

I'm sorry if this offended you but I too am keeping my skills sharp.

 

Why apologize for anything, when you clearly don't mean it? You call my apology "pseudo", because you react from emotion, not reason. I was, and am, genuinely sorry you misunderstood my meaning. I clarified it. That should have ended it.

 

Instead, you reply with a volley of mocking offendedness.

 

And this is not emotionalism on display....?

 

 

I didn't quote Aristotle, nor did I "site" him.

 

I simply said he was right.

 

 

 

He was.

 

Now there you go again with the "I'm right" and "everyone else who disagrees with your position is "emotional" and "irrational." The rhetorician going on the attack.

 

Why don't you stop beating a dead horse? People disagree with you. Is that hard for you to accept?

 

The rhetorician apologizing? I was making fun of your insincere apology to me. Look who's getting emotional while concurrently hiding behind the "mask of logic?"

 

Do you have the ability to read people's minds? I find you to be funny throughout this incorrigible attempt to defend the value of an aardvark's comic book when compared to that of one of the 4 iconic characters in comic book history. Lighten up. Am I being emotional?