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

[AlexanderM]

Jay should be all over that seeming shilling that goes on with Cerebus. And it is a book that would be very prone to shilling given the number of copies.

[HighStakesComics]

Jay should be all over that seeming shilling that goes on with Cerebus. And it is a book that would be very prone to shilling given the number of copies.

 

If a buyer is willing to draw a line in the sand and is willing to support the market for any copy at X dollars, then it technically isn't shilling. It's the equivalent of placing a stop limit buy order in the stock market. Apple might trade at $101, but I can basically put in an order to buy as many shares that are made available at $95 until my cash runs out. This guy might just be bidding guide value on any copy that goes up for auction. Nothing illegal or unethical about it. It's probably just a buying strategy. Shilling is creating a separate account to bid up your own books. It's deceptive since the buyer has no interest in purchasing the book, but is trying to bilk every penny out of prospective bidders. That is dishonest, illegal and unethical. Since the sellers of these copies appear to be different parties, I can't imagine that's what is happening here.

[Gatsby77]

This is true. For awhile I bid on every Gold Key Magnus # 1 that came up for sale. Won some; lost some; ended up with 13 copies eventually.

 

I did the same over a nine month period with Punisher Limited Series sets a decade or so ago - bid on every one under $40 shipped and ended up with a nice handful of copies (again, about a dozen each).

 

"Supporting the market" and/or hoarding a given book =/= shilling, which is far more blatant price manipulation.

[RockMyAmadeus]

but no data was presented

 

This is not true.

 

The data has been posted in this thread multiple times, by both "sides" of the discussion.

 

It's right in front of your eyes.

 

I've done more than enough hand holding and explaining to last a thousand threads; I'm not going to do any more. If you can't see it....that's the end of that.

 

And "downward price trend" is not only not true, it's quite specious.

Perhaps it would be clearer if my summary of the points made by others was quoted in full without edits.

- A downward price trend of "15% for Cerebus 1 over ten year period" was presented by one party with figures - in direct response to a question from the other party; the second party disputed that assessment as wrong but no data was presented nor was any explanation of how the data should be interpreted to rationalize a conclusion that contradicts the simple mathematics used by the first party.

specious - misleading in appearance

 

I can only guess as to why you now refuse to hand-hold, link, quote yourself or simply re-state your reasoning about the ten year thing after posting thousands of words on this topic in general.

 

You do not "play fair" in discussions, so this will be my last response to you. My response was adequately clear, without the need to "quote in full."

 

As far as "only guessing"...again, you fight dirty (see the "backpedal" gif above), which is unfortunate, but any attempt, no matter how reasonable, would be rejected by you, and would be utterly futile.

 

You will draw, as always, any conclusion you wish. Take care.

 

Again...instead of complaining about how I debate, why not confine yourself to methodical, structured reasoning, relying on empirical evidence, to make your points?

 

Is it because you discover that your point doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but you're too proud to admit it, like many around here...?

 

That's simple pride. I am happy to discard concepts, idea, and information that are found to be wrong.

 

Are you...?

 

< clickable smiley for source

 

You do not "play fair" in discussions.

 

 

If Bababooey were interested in a fair, honest discussion, his attempt to use my words against me would be valid.

 

He's not. He is only interested in tearing down those with whom he has problems. It has nothing to do with being unwilling to prove my case...which I quite clearly have, over dozens of posts...it has to do with the fact that Bababooey will never, ever accept anything from me, even if I said that water was wet. So, any attempt is pointless, and I recognize it as such.

 

And that's not a complaint. I am certainly not blameless in contributing to his problem with me, but they are his problems.

 

It would be nice if people didn't nurse their grudges, but that's not how it works.

 

 

[bronze johnny]

An underlying issue is how a scarce BA key like Cerebus will not hold its place against an iconic book like Hulk 181. Look to the earlier ages for examples of where the scarcer book is outranked in significance and value by the iconic keys of that era. The Golden Age has the scarcer Marvel Comics 1 succumbing to Action Comics 1 and Detective Comics 27. The Silver Age provides its best example: Showcase 4 v. AF 15. For years, SC 4 was the major SA key due to its relative scarcity - and Flash is a much more popular character than Cerebus. Look at the SA today - 2 books are more valuable than the much scarcer SC 4 - AF 15, and Hulk 1. As time goes on, the same will happen to BA books (excluding the totally different variant books). Hulk 181, GS X-Men 1, and X-Men 94 will become the most valuable books again and we can already see it beginning to happen in today's market as the recent sales trends show. Books like Cerebus will have their place (the Aardvark's 1st appearance is a significant BA independent key), just not above these awesome books that younger generations with disposable income are going to flock to in huge waves. A few will seek out the Aardvark and that limited degree of demand will keep higher grade copies at a respectable relative value.

 

Hulk 181 has begun leading the way for the Triumvirate's return to the highest ranks of the BA hierarchy.

 

With this Iconic Key, it's only a question of when.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I actually do agree with you, and I applaud your measured style of debate. I actually stated much (much) earlier in this thread something very similar-- that having books like cerebus 1 around and represented was obviously a good thing overall for the hobby. I just so happened to agree with the crux of the OP's original post that questioned which books overstreet "counts" for the the list and the ranking of them. While I don't think overstreet is biased per se, I would say that by specifically creating a list that gives a nod to broader collecting interests outside of marvel and DC, he opens himself up to debates such as these. At the end of the day, "top ten" lists are prone to do that anyway. And that might ultimately be the point. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

The basic problem you have is that the OPG lists are based solely on value in the highest grade. It's not a "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks is cool" or "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks SHOULD be the most valuable" or "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks are important"...which is how you view it, and how bronzejonny views it, and why you have a problem.

 

It is "Top 10 books according to value in our highest grade."

 

That's it.

 

And just about everyone in this thread has been measured with you. You should be very grateful that some of the hotter heads around here haven't seen this thread.

[bronze johnny]

Any national dealer on this board, if given a chance, would buy a Cerebus #1 CGC 9.4 over a Hulk #181 CGC 9.4 - if offered only one or the other - for $500.

 

End of story.

 

Because, thus far, they've seen, they will make MORE MONEY off the book -MEANING that in HIGH GRADE it is more VALUABLE to them.

 

Hence, it's more VALUABLE in HG as reflected in the OSPG, a guide for people who SELL comics.

 

See jaydog, you look at GPA as a novice and a fan would... As what HAS happened. A professional comic book dealer looks at it as what MAY happened, combined with what they HEAR every DAY from people who buy HG books, combined with a decades old knowledge of the marketplace.

 

Real world application vs I fell in love with Wolverine as a boy.

 

You lose.

 

 

Hi Chuck, I notice that you keep making the same point above in regards to 9.4 graded copies. However, since Overstreet's top 10 list is based on value in NM-, what 9.4's sell for is almost (but not quite) as irrelevant as what 8.5's sell for.

 

In regards to 9.2's, IMO, arguments can be made from both sides (as they are) as to which would sell for more today (a lot of which might vary depending on the attractiveness of a particular copy, sales venue, auction vs. fixed price, etc.)

 

 

Irrelevant?

 

As a dealer, getting CGC graded 9.4 Cerebus #1 would NEVER be irrelevant.

 

As far as the 9.2 goes... My GOD, how many times does this have to be repeated???

 

A) One sale from 2005 is all GPA has. So...

 

You mean to tell me, and I expect you to answer this question, that as a dealer - if you got in that Cerebus #1 CGC 9.2 - you'd put it out for sale at - $2136?

 

Is that what you'd do?

 

Of course not. You'd put it up for auction.

 

Gee. What would it go for? What do we have to go by?

 

A 9.4 from March of this year which blew the doors off, and a 9.0 from last year that hit $2500.

 

The logical guess is - it'd do more than $2500. Would it meet half way at about $5000? A quarter of the way at $3750? Let's ask some experts.

 

They agree - it'd rock.

 

See, you can't go by one sale from 9 years ago. You understand that right?

Like, what did 9.2 Hulk 181's sell for in 2005? $1000? $1250? Anyone?

 

One of the other things OSPG uses is the advise and imput from some of the long time dealers who handle these books everyday. They're looking at it, not from a 'I LOVE Wolverine standpoint, but from a BUSINESS standpoint.

 

They know how to use GPA. And they're smart enough not to price ANYTHING by one sale from 9 years ago. They'd have never made it in the business this long if they did that.

 

Hmmmmmmmm.....$3750 is about 60% above guide. I think that's a little ambitious. Whoever bought the last 9.4 might have thought it had 9.6, single highest graded potential, and could have overpaid for the opportunity to find out.

 

I could probably just as easily argue on behalf of the Cerebus #1

 

Like I said, dead heat. We won't figure this out until another 9.2 hits the market. If this goes on for much longer I may have to sniff one out and auction it off myself.

 

Frankly there should be a MINIMUM amount of sales before a book can even be eligible to make the list. And it should be a weighted average of all sales across all the grades. That would create a level playing field regardless of print run and eliminate books with waning or negligible impact on the hobby.

 

Again, the way Overstreet does it it stupid, as books like cerebus 1, with 0 sales in grade for years get cursory, unearned "honorary mentions" based on meaningless hypothetical "what ifs?" While books like hulk 181 is somehow penalized for having people actually buying it in grade on a regular basis which develops a real and actual cost basis. Comparing those real and hard numbers to the mythical, hypothetical unicorn numbers of a book that hasn't sold in a decade is really very stupid not to mention pointless and meaningless.

 

Get with the times overstreet.

 

-J.

 

Agreed. They shouldn't be putting Action Comics 1,, Detective Comics 27, and other books that only sell a single copy every few years in any of these lists. There just isn't enough data to fairly compare those books with other books that have more data.

 

GA ain't BA.

 

-J.

 

You want to put way too many parameters around these simple top valued book for the age list. They are interesting lists for people that might attract attention to a book that might not otherwise get the attention. As a comic collector, I value these lists over a list made up by Marvel and DC fans that would contain the same boring 10 superhero issues year after year after year. (I can get those lists every day of the week just reading these boards.) I don't think there is a comic collector around who doesn't know that IH 181 is a valuable book and is Wolverine's 1st full appearance. But, a list with Cerebus will make a comic collector stop and think. Cerebus hasn't been published in what, 10 years. It is also not a big 2 title. So for it to command the value it does, is pretty remarkable.

 

Should TMNT 1 be dropped from any Copper Age list? Not enough sales in a year to warrant it being on that list too? But taking that stance would be silly, correct?

 

Personally, I think Overstreet is doing a service to the comic collecting community by not pushing the same, tired old superhero year after year. There is a much larger collecting community out there outside the big 2 and they do a very good job of reflecting that.

 

We have a unbiased top 10 list and someone is taking issue with it because a comic which deserves to be in a top 10 list of most valuable BA books does not have enough copies in circulation to be considered.

 

Actually there are plenty of sales a year of cerebus 1 that could be taken into consideration. However a weighted average of those sales would not likely get it anywhere near the list. And ONE sale a year or every ten years in its top grades certainly do not warrant it an "honorary mention" year after year simply because it is a "non super hero comic". Therein lies the fatal flaw in Overstreet's current methodology.

 

-J.

 

This discussion is going off topic, but I'm guessing all the facts that are going to come out on the subject have already been debated, so....

 

Interesting. What you see as a flaw I see as a strength. So, if I were asked the question "is Overstreet irrelevant?", my answer would be no, for the very reasons I see other people arguing why Overstreet is irrelevant. I've noticed every year, the Overstreet book usually has one Marvel cover, one DC cover, and one independent cover. I applaud Overstreet for acknowledging there is a much larger world of comics beyond the big 2. Yearly lists that concentrated on the big 2 would do a huge disservice to the comic collecting community and wouldn't acknowledge the large portion of the market that is not superheroes. I'm okay with an "honorary mention" (I disagree with this, but I can see your point) for a title like Cerebus. The importance of the superheroes books are fairly represented in these lists and throwing a non-big 2 book or two on a list doesn't hurt anyone. Big 2 collectors are not going to lose interest in a book like IH 181 just because Cerebus shows up a ranking higher on a value list one year.

 

Sure, Overstreet has been a yearly publication that prints a "value" for comic books. It has also been a focal point for collectors and dealers over the years to discuss and debate the ages; to highlight collections and books that aren't necessary mainstream; to debate and research other aspects of the hobby like how printing works, Whitman's role, and other obscure information; and for large dealers to advertise which allows collectors to find the big dealers that will have those harder to find comics. I don't know if the owners of Overstreet understand how important their publication has been to the hobby over the years, but I suspect they do. While they have more competition these days in the form of the Internet, I still applaud them for maintaining a level of integrity in reporting on the entire US comic market and not just the current hot books. (We had publications over the years that did that and where are they now?) Are they completely unbiased? I really can't say, but I've never felt they were biased. I think they have been fair over the years and have brought immense knowledge to the market that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

 

I'm a collector who is just now getting into foreign comics. Overstreet provides a huge service to US comic collectors that foreign comic collectors only dream about. For example, I know what Star Wars comics are available in the US, whereas I'm still learning what is out there in the world from a foreign perspective. There is no one publication I can go reference for this information. I look forward to the day that someone publishes a foreign comics yearly that I can reference as much as I have with Overstreet over the years.

 

I actually do agree with you, and I applaud your measured style of debate. I actually stated much (much) earlier in this thread something very similar-- that having books like cerebus 1 around and represented was obviously a good thing overall for the hobby. I just so happened to agree with the crux of the OP's original post that questioned which books overstreet "counts" for the the list and the ranking of them. While I don't think overstreet is biased per se, I would say that by specifically creating a list that gives a nod to broader collecting interests outside of marvel and DC, he opens himself up to debates such as these. At the end of the day, "top ten" lists are prone to do that anyway. And that might ultimately be the point. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

The basic problem you have is that the OPG lists are based solely on value in the highest grade. It's not a "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks is cool" or "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks SHOULD be the most valuable" or "Top 10 books that Overstreet thinks are important"...which is how you view it, and how bronzejonny views it, and why you have a problem.

 

It is "Top 10 books according to value in our highest grade."

 

That's it.

 

And just about everyone in this thread has been measured with you. You should be very grateful that some of the hotter heads around here haven't seen this thread.

 

Now there you go again.

 

Interestingly, there is a SA key that would rank in the OSPG's Top 20 SA books. The book is OAAW 83 and happens to rank higher than the 19th and 20th ranked books. However, even after it was brought to my attention by a well respected boardie that a member of The War Report lobbied Overstreet to place this book on the list, OAAW 83 was excluded. Look at the 9.2 price for the Rock's 1st appearance. You're well aware of my point.

[RockMyAmadeus]

An underlying issue is how a scarce BA key like Cerebus will not hold its place against an iconic book like Hulk 181. Look to the earlier ages for examples of where the scarcer book is outranked in significance and value by the iconic keys of that era. The Golden Age has the scarcer Marvel Comics 1 succumbing to Action Comics 1 and Detective Comics 27. The Silver Age provides its best example: Showcase 4 v. AF 15. For years, SC 4 was the major SA key due to its relative scarcity - and Flash is a much more popular character than Cerebus. Look at the SA today - 2 books are more valuable than the much scarcer SC 4 - AF 15, and Hulk 1. As time goes on, the same will happen to BA books (excluding the totally different variant books). Hulk 181, GS X-Men 1, and X-Men 94 will become the most valuable books again and we can already see it beginning to happen in today's market as the recent sales trends show. Books like Cerebus will have their place (the Aardvark's 1st appearance is a significant BA independent key), just not above these awesome books that younger generations with disposable income are going to flock to in huge waves. A few will seek out the Aardvark and that limited degree of demand will keep higher grade copies at a respectable relative value.

 

Hulk 181 has begun leading the way for the Triumvirate's return to the highest ranks of the BA hierarchy.

 

With this Iconic Key, it's only a question of when.

 

Cerebus hasn't been published in 10 years, and there's still significant demand to sell a copy for $9,000.

 

Granted...books like Single Series #20 (which used to rival Action #1 and Tec #27 in value)...have fallen from great heights. Same with books like Whiz #2, which used to be a solid top 5 book.

 

It depends on what is done with the character, if anything. The future, as ever, determines what will be popular, and what will not.

 

It is certainly conceivable that Wolverine will become "Dad's and Grandpa's favorite character", and be replaced, as odd as that may sound now.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Now there you go again.

 

Is this where you go again, too?

 

 

Interestingly, there is a SA key that would rank in the OSPG's Top 20 SA books. The book is OAAW 83 and happens to rank higher than the 19th and 20th ranked books. However, even after it was brought to my attention by a well respected boardie that a member of The War Report lobbied Overstreet to place this book on the list, OAAW 83 was excluded. Look at the 9.2 price for the Rock's 1st appearance. You're well aware of my point.

 

I cannot speak to that, as I don't have the current OPG.

 

Mind scanning/picturing the pertinent info?

 

Because the lists have to do with the value the OPG reports in its own book.

 

You can't "lobby to place a book on the list" if the numbers don't follow.

 

And, I really need to ask...why are the OPG lists being debated so vociferously at all? Does anyone really look at those as anything OTHER THAN a compilation of information already reported elsewhere in the book? Does anyone look at the list and say "ooo, I have that one, and that one, and oh, I need to get that one!, OPG reports it on a NUMBERS list, so it must be IMPORTANT!!"

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

You tell me if this makes sense:

 

Book Alpha #18 = $450 in 9.2

 

Book Beta #37 = $430 in 9.2

 

Book Delta #473 = $475 in 9.2.

 

Book Gamma #66 = $515 in 9.2

 

Top 10 Epsilon Age Books according to value:

 

1. Book Gamma #66 - $515

2. Book Delta #473 - $475

3. Book Beta #37 - $430

 

And Book Alpha is nowhere to be found? Or was it simply an error, because anyone can plainly see (thanks S.A.!) that Book Alpha belongs in the #3 spot above Book Beta, because it is listed elsewhere for more.

[bronze johnny]

 

Now there you go again.

 

Is this where you go again, too?

 

 

Interestingly, there is a SA key that would rank in the OSPG's Top 20 SA books. The book is OAAW 83 and happens to rank higher than the 19th and 20th ranked books. However, even after it was brought to my attention by a well respected boardie that a member of The War Report lobbied Overstreet to place this book on the list, OAAW 83 was excluded. Look at the 9.2 price for the Rock's 1st appearance. You're well aware of my point.

 

I cannot speak to that, as I don't have the current OPG.

 

Mind scanning/picturing the pertinent info?

 

Because the lists have to do with the value the OPG reports in its own book.

 

You can't "lobby to place a book on the list" if the numbers don't follow.

 

And, I really need to ask...why are the OPG lists being debated so vociferously at all? Does anyone really look at those as anything OTHER THAN a compilation of information already reported elsewhere in the book? Does anyone look at the list and say "ooo, I have that one, and that one, and oh, I need to get that one!, OPG reports it on a NUMBERS list, so it must be IMPORTANT!!"

 

 

- Get a current OSPG.

 

- No need to ask me, since you already answered it in your own mind.

[bronze johnny]

Nothing personal (thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Now there you go again.

 

Is this where you go again, too?

 

 

Interestingly, there is a SA key that would rank in the OSPG's Top 20 SA books. The book is OAAW 83 and happens to rank higher than the 19th and 20th ranked books. However, even after it was brought to my attention by a well respected boardie that a member of The War Report lobbied Overstreet to place this book on the list, OAAW 83 was excluded. Look at the 9.2 price for the Rock's 1st appearance. You're well aware of my point.

 

I cannot speak to that, as I don't have the current OPG.

 

Mind scanning/picturing the pertinent info?

 

Because the lists have to do with the value the OPG reports in its own book.

 

You can't "lobby to place a book on the list" if the numbers don't follow.

 

And, I really need to ask...why are the OPG lists being debated so vociferously at all? Does anyone really look at those as anything OTHER THAN a compilation of information already reported elsewhere in the book? Does anyone look at the list and say "ooo, I have that one, and that one, and oh, I need to get that one!, OPG reports it on a NUMBERS list, so it must be IMPORTANT!!"

 

 

- Get a current OSPG.

 

- No need to ask me, since you already answered it in your own mind.

 

So, you DO mind scanning the pertinent info...?

 

 

That's fairly unsportsmanlike of you.

 

 

No worries, though, the question wasn't directed at you specifically. And while the question is answered for ME in my mind, I certainly don't have the answer from the perspective of others...it wasn't, in other words, a rhetorical question.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Nothing personal (thumbs u

 

Oh, no doubt.

 

It is interesting, though, when people say things that are almost sure to be (designed to be...? ) taken personally, and then quickly follow it up "nothing personal"...

 

 

Like "I'm sure" almost always means "I'm not really completely sure."

 

[bronze johnny]

There you go again.

 

Making accusations of "unsportsmanlike conduct?" For a logical guy, you get personal pretty fast.

 

I don't have access to a scanner.

 

Worries?

 

 

[Gatsby77]

I don't have this year's Overstreet.

 

But in last year's OAAW guides for just $12,000, while FF # 2 and 4 (# 19 & 20 on the Silver Age list) each guide at $12,500.

 

So you're saying that in this year's guide the OAAW now surpasses them in value but is not on the list?

[RockMyAmadeus]

There you go again.

 

Making accusations of "unsportsmanlike conduct?" For a logical guy, you get personal pretty fast.

 

I don't have access to a scanner.

 

Worries?

 

 

You have a very, very odd definition of what is "personal." Much like Alanis Morissette's definition of "ironic", it's not what you think it means.

 

If you say something that is not true, and I know that YOU know it's not true, and I say you are lying...have I made a personal comment?

 

Of course not.

 

But if I call you a LIAR...then now, it has become personal.

 

See?

 

And you have turned this: "that's fairly unsportsmanlike of you"....into an accusation, which it was not, since it immediately followed an unanswered question "so you DO mind scanning the pertinent information?"

 

You know, the way in which we use words really does matter.

 

I asked if you minded scanning the pertinent information.

 

Your answer was "get a current OPG."

 

Not "I don't have a scanner, or I would" or "I don't have a camera, or I would."

 

It was "get a current OPG."

 

However, if you did not mean to be curt, then I have the answer to my question.

 

 

[bronze johnny]

Try not to read into things too much. Sometimes things are as they appear to be.

And where I come from, "unsportsmanlike" is synonymous with the words dishonorable and/or underhanded. Maybe in your world it has little personal meaning, but not in mine.

 

So let me put it in the form of a question:

 

Might be a good idea for you to get an OSPG?

[bronze johnny]

I don't have this year's Overstreet.

 

But in last year's OAAW guides for just $12,000, while FF # 2 and 4 (# 19 & 20 on the Silver Age list) each guide at $12,500.

 

So you're saying that in this year's guide the OAAW now surpasses them in value but is not on the list?

 

Yes.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Try not to read into things too much. Sometimes things are as they appear to be.

 

I think that's wonderful advice, advice I take to heart often, and extend it to you, as well.

 

And where I come from, "unsportsmanlike" is synonymous with the words dishonorable and/or underhanded. Maybe in your world it has little personal meaning, but not in mine.

 

 

Would that be an example of "reading into it too much"...?

 

I dunno, just wondering.

 

So let me put it in the form of a question:

 

Might be a good idea for you to get an OSPG?

 

Orrrrrr...you could just quote the relevant information. We are talking about like 3 or 4 prices, are we not?