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

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Really. Not meant to be insulting but if you want to take it personally, that's your choice. And don't change my original comparison- the same book that's not an 8.0 Church to an 8.0 non Ped. Again, try not to take it personally (thumbs u

 

I didn't take it personally. If you believe "what world do you live in?" is not insulting, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea conveyed by such a sentence. Perhaps that is the reason behind this thread to begin with: a fundamental misunderstanding of the way words and ideas are used and conveyed.

 

I don't know, but it is a compelling argument. Or, you're simply lying. One of the two must be true.

 

Pointing that out is not "taking it personally"...taking it personally would be responding in kind. If I say "that is the most idiotic thing I have ever read, and am dumber for having read it"...but then said "I don't mean that to be insulting, it's just the truth", would you believe me...? And if I then said "well, you can be insulted if you want, but that's your choice", would that be an intellectually honest statement...?

 

 

I didn't "change" your original comparison...I made one of my own. The first sentence of my post answered your question, but I'll repeat it here:

 

It depends entirely on the books being discussed.

 

I try not to make blanket statements without good cause.

 

[AlexanderM]

Some may be a bit offended if someone dares say that OPG is not as precise as GPA... because Overstreet has relations with many dealers and for nostalgic reasons etc.

 

What does "precise" mean, in this context? Does GPA record every sale that occurs? No, and it cannot. Does OPG compile every sale that occurs, to come up with an "average"? No, and it cannot, either.

 

So, while some may be offended when you say that, but that is because those people neither understand the actual natures of both the OPG and GPA, nor are they able to separate their emotions from reason.

 

But not everyone argues from an ulterior motive.

 

But I think the truth should still be ok?

 

Let's try a simple question. Which is more precise - GPA or OPG?

 

All I'm saying is that I find GPA more precise. What do you think?

 

You're trying to compare that which cannot be compared. One is a data compiler. The other is a guide.

 

Garlanda makes this point excellently above.

 

If Precise means that they collect data about all sales?

 

Are you serious? Would that be logical? Collecting all or less than all would be measured by a variable called all-encompassing or similar, but precision is pretty far removed from the meaning of such a variable.

 

Yes, one is a data-compiler and one is a guide (with significant lag on top of all the other sources of error). That is no defense of OPG being precise; in fact it is part of the reason why GPA is usually more precise than OPG.

 

[Dale Roberts]

Which book would you put a higher price tag on, Dale:

 

Hulk 181 CGC 9.2

Cerebus 1 CGC 9.2

 

 

Which book would you pay more for?

 

I would have to believe Cerebus #1 would be considerably higher. I know exactly what a Hulk #181 would sell for. Would be more trial and error with the Cerebus #1.

 

So....you think it would be "considerably higher", yet you are unable to divine a price? What would then be your basis for making such a determination and statement ?

 

-J.

 

There is little to no sales data on one of these books. I know exactly what the other one sells for because I have sold multiples this year (and actually none on line). And I didn't say I didn't know what I would price one. I simply didn't state what I would price it. There is a difference.

 

 

 

 

[Dale Roberts]

 

RMA is the voice of reason. Who'da thunk?

 

I would say, just about anyone who has given me a fair hearing over the last 7-8 years.

 

To those who can't be bothered with things like fair hearings, but instead get "just the gist" from friends and the like, I can definitely appear otherwise.

 

 

You should try it, Dale...giving people a fair hearing, that is. You might be very surprised at what you actually see when you look for yourself.

 

see, this is why people don't give you a fair shake

 

If you ask anyone who knows me, I treat everyone very fairly and generally very well.

[chrisco37]

Which book would you put a higher price tag on, Dale:

 

Hulk 181 CGC 9.2

Cerebus 1 CGC 9.2

 

 

Which book would you pay more for?

 

I would have to believe Cerebus #1 would be considerably higher. I know exactly what a Hulk #181 would sell for. Would be more trial and error with the Cerebus #1.

 

So....you think it would be "considerably higher", yet you are unable to divine a price? What would then be your basis for making such a determination and statement ?

 

-J.

 

There is little to no sales data on one of these books. I know exactly what the other one sells for because I have sold multiples this year (and actually none on line). And I didn't say I didn't know what I would price one. I simply didn't state what I would price it. There is a difference.

 

 

 

 

Yes, and exactly why I didn't ask what you would price and/or pay for either. While I'd love to know, I wouldn't expect you to give out that info.

 

I don't have the inclination to go back thru the 800+/- posts in this thread to see what other dealers have commented.

 

I know Donut said he'd price a Cerebus higher.

And you have said you'd price Cerebus higher.

 

So there's two well-known and respected dealers on this board that would both price Cerebus (considerably) higher. I'm sure Roy has commented here as well, but I don't recall what he said (I'd bet it'd be in line with you and Donut).

 

I'd think Storms would price Cerebus higher. And Ted.

 

But, I guess GPA knows better than you.

 

[Jaydogrules]

Which book would you put a higher price tag on, Dale:

 

Hulk 181 CGC 9.2

Cerebus 1 CGC 9.2

 

 

Which book would you pay more for?

 

I would have to believe Cerebus #1 would be considerably higher. I know exactly what a Hulk #181 would sell for. Would be more trial and error with the Cerebus #1.

 

So....you think it would be "considerably higher", yet you are unable to divine a price? What would then be your basis for making such a determination and statement ?

 

-J.

 

There is little to no sales data on one of these books. I know exactly what the other one sells for because I have sold multiples this year (and actually none on line). And I didn't say I didn't know what I would price one. I simply didn't state what I would price it. There is a difference.

 

 

 

 

You stated your pricing of a cerebus 1 would be more "trial and error", which I interpret as meaning you would not really know how to price it.

 

So tell you what, next time you have a cerebus 1, 9.2 (since you dealers seem to run into and sell so many of these a year outside any and all public forums and you can definitively say what they are "worth" on an annual basis), and a Hulk 181, 9.2....

 

....put them both on your wall for $3k at the same time and see which one you actually sell first, and closest to that price.

 

Wolvie would win, and you know he would. You'd be staring at that cerebus for months, having to explain to most younger and/or casual collectors why the book is "important", justifying its price tag, waiting for that one niche collector to wander in and then haggle you down on your price. Meanwhile everyone and their mother of every generation will automatically know what that Hulk 181 is, and exactly why it has the price tag it does on it. The book would probably sell in two weeks or less.

 

 

 

-J.

 

 

 

[AlexanderM]

I don't think anyone is discussing whether a couple of books (starwars, cerebus etc.) might be worth more in a grade or two. That is possible but in the larger scheme of things those are both relatively insignificant books. Many books could be worth far more if the print runs were just smaller.. that in itself is a technicality and says little about the appeal of the book.

 

So those are two different discussions.

 

Is Hulk 181 more valuable in most grades despite a much larger print run? Yes.

 

Is Cerebus perhaps more valuable in a grade or two? Not to most, but perhaps to a few people (but maybe enough to keep the price up given the small print run).

 

Is Hulk181 the more attractive book to far the majority or comics collectors? Yes, definitely. Many have probably never even heard of Cerebus.

 

Is Wolverine a top 10 Superhero of all time in terms of popularity? Yes.

 

Does Cerebus contain any character that can be seen as a top 10 character? No. Top 20? No. Top 30? No. Top 40? No... and so on.

 

Is the financing of Cerebus a neat little story? Yes.

Edited September 3, 2014 by AlexanderM

[rjrjr]

I don't think anyone is discussing whether a couple of books (starwars, cerebus etc.) might be worth more in a grade or two. That is possible but in the larger scheme of things those are both relatively insignificant books. Many books could be worth far more if the print runs were just smaller.. that in itself is a technicality and says little about the appeal of the book.

 

So those are two different discussions.

 

Is Hulk 181 more valuable in most grades despite a much larger print run? Yes.

 

Is Cerebus perhaps more valuable in a grade or two? Not to most, but perhaps to a few people (but maybe enough to keep the price up given the small print run).

 

Is Hulk181 the more attractive book to far the majority or comics collectors? Yes, definitely. Many have probably never even heard of Cerebus.

 

Is Wolverine a top 10 Superhero of all time in terms of popularity? Yes.

 

Does Cerebus contain any character that can be seen as a top 10 character? No. Top 20? No. Top 30? No. Top 40? No... and so on.

 

Is the financing of Cerebus a neat little story? Yes.

 

What I just read is "if you ignore supply and demand, fundamentals of a market, the book I like is more valuable."

 

And why is it so important to you and jaydog that we acknowledge wolverine is a popular character?

 

Edited September 3, 2014 by rjrjr

[Prince Namor]

 

And why is it so important to you and jaydog that we acknowledge wolverine is a popular character?

 

This is both the funniest and best question of the whole thread.

[AlexanderM]

I don't think anyone is discussing whether a couple of books (starwars, cerebus etc.) might be worth more in a grade or two. That is possible but in the larger scheme of things those are both relatively insignificant books. Many books could be worth far more if the print runs were just smaller.. that in itself is a technicality and says little about the appeal of the book.

 

So those are two different discussions.

 

Is Hulk 181 more valuable in most grades despite a much larger print run? Yes.

 

Is Cerebus perhaps more valuable in a grade or two? Not to most, but perhaps to a few people (but maybe enough to keep the price up given the small print run).

 

Is Hulk181 the more attractive book to far the majority or comics collectors? Yes, definitely. Many have probably never even heard of Cerebus.

 

Is Wolverine a top 10 Superhero of all time in terms of popularity? Yes.

 

Does Cerebus contain any character that can be seen as a top 10 character? No. Top 20? No. Top 30? No. Top 40? No... and so on.

 

Is the financing of Cerebus a neat little story? Yes.

 

What I just read is "if you ignore supply and demand, fundamentals of a market, the book I like is more valuable."

 

And why is it so important to you and jaydog that we acknowledge wolverine is a popular character?

 

Probably because more vauable often equates to more attractive and popular. The musical album that is more popular usually sells more and demands higher prices.

 

However, this mechanism is not at play here.

 

Cerebus might have a higher price individually (in a grade or two) but the total amount of money comics collectors are willing to pay to get a H181 is far far far higher. So in that sense H181 is clearly more valuable. The market value is the price for each book sold times the number of books sold - is far far far greater for H181 than for Cerebus.

 

So only in a very very specific (almost ridiculously narrow) understanding of 'value' is Cerebus (perhaps) more valuable.

 

Therefore we obviously object to someone claiming that "Cerebus is more valuable than H181".

[Dale Roberts]

Which book would you put a higher price tag on, Dale:

 

Hulk 181 CGC 9.2

Cerebus 1 CGC 9.2

 

 

Which book would you pay more for?

 

I would have to believe Cerebus #1 would be considerably higher. I know exactly what a Hulk #181 would sell for. Would be more trial and error with the Cerebus #1.

 

So....you think it would be "considerably higher", yet you are unable to divine a price? What would then be your basis for making such a determination and statement ?

 

-J.

 

There is little to no sales data on one of these books. I know exactly what the other one sells for because I have sold multiples this year (and actually none on line). And I didn't say I didn't know what I would price one. I simply didn't state what I would price it. There is a difference.

 

 

 

 

You stated your pricing of a cerebus 1 would be more "trial and error", which I interpret as meaning you would not really know how to price it.

 

So tell you what, next time you have a cerebus 1, 9.2 (since you dealers seem to run into and sell so many of these a year outside any and all public forums that you can definitively say what they are "worth" on an annual basis), and a Hulk 181, 9.2....

 

....put them both on your wall for $3k at the same time and see which one you actually sell first, and closest to that price.

 

Wolvie would win, and you know he would. You'd be staring at that cerebus for months, having to explain to most younger and/or casual collectors why the book is "important", justifying its price tag, waiting for that one niche collector to wander in and then haggle you down on your price. Meanwhile everyone and their mother of every generation will automatically know what that Hulk 181 is, and exactly why it has the price tag it does on it. The book would probably sell in two weeks or less.

 

 

 

-J.

 

 

 

You're confused. To start with, I am not going to price a Hulk #181 9.2 at 3K, unless it is a major upgrade candidate, and then I would probably just bust it out and do it myself. Its not worth that. You can go to any major comic show and find 5 - 10 in the room.

 

On the other hand, there are 6 Cerebus #1s in 9.0 or above all together. I know 1 person right now that would buy one if I had it. And there currently is no 9.2, but since a 9.0 has sold for $2500, I would have to believe a 9.2 would sell for more than 3K.

[Jaydogrules]

Which book would you put a higher price tag on, Dale:

 

Hulk 181 CGC 9.2

Cerebus 1 CGC 9.2

 

 

Which book would you pay more for?

 

I would have to believe Cerebus #1 would be considerably higher. I know exactly what a Hulk #181 would sell for. Would be more trial and error with the Cerebus #1.

 

So....you think it would be "considerably higher", yet you are unable to divine a price? What would then be your basis for making such a determination and statement ?

 

-J.

 

There is little to no sales data on one of these books. I know exactly what the other one sells for because I have sold multiples this year (and actually none on line). And I didn't say I didn't know what I would price one. I simply didn't state what I would price it. There is a difference.

 

 

 

 

You stated your pricing of a cerebus 1 would be more "trial and error", which I interpret as meaning you would not really know how to price it.

 

So tell you what, next time you have a cerebus 1, 9.2 (since you dealers seem to run into and sell so many of these a year outside any and all public forums that you can definitively say what they are "worth" on an annual basis), and a Hulk 181, 9.2....

 

....put them both on your wall for $3k at the same time and see which one you actually sell first, and closest to that price.

 

Wolvie would win, and you know he would. You'd be staring at that cerebus for months, having to explain to most younger and/or casual collectors why the book is "important", justifying its price tag, waiting for that one niche collector to wander in and then haggle you down on your price. Meanwhile everyone and their mother of every generation will automatically know what that Hulk 181 is, and exactly why it has the price tag it does on it. The book would probably sell in two weeks or less.

 

 

 

-J.

 

 

 

You're confused. To start with, I am not going to price a Hulk #181 9.2 at 3K, unless it is a major upgrade candidate, and then I would probably just bust it out and do it myself. Its not worth that. You can go to any major comic show and find 5 - 10 in the room.

 

On the other hand, there are 6 Cerebus #1s in 9.0 or above all together. I know 1 person right now that would buy one if I had it. And there currently is no 9.2, but since a 9.0 has sold for $2500, I would have to believe a 9.2 would sell for more than 3K.

 

Hulk 181 9.2 has sold for more than $3k, verifiably very recently. One cerebus 9.0 sold for 2500 more than a year ago (how do you know it wasn't bought at that price as an "upgrade candidate"?). What we have far more recently for cerebus 1 is it taking a dump at just 850 in an 8.5 as well as plenty of other similarly high graded copies languishing on the market for months/years.

 

Remind me again why you think it has a higher FMV than a Hulk 181? Because you "know a guy" who would buy one now if you had one? Is this the kind of dealer data I'm supposed to take as being more reliable than GPA? Not to sound too sarcastic here, but come on guys.

 

-J.

[Garlanda]

Probably because more vauable often equates to more attractive and popular. The musical album that is more popular usually sells more and demands higher prices.

 

However, this mechanism is not at play here.

 

Cerebus might have a higher price individually (in a grade or two) but the total amount of money comics collectors are willing to pay to get a H181 is far far far higher. So in that sense H181 is clearly more valuable. The market value is the price for each book sold times the number of books sold - is far far far greater for H181 than for Cerebus.

 

So only in a very very specific (almost ridiculously narrow) understanding of 'value' is Cerebus (perhaps) more valuable.

 

Therefore we obviously object to someone claiming that "Cerebus is more valuable than H181".

 

Please open your 2014 OPG, or turn back to page 58 of this train wreck, and note that the difference in price is only $100, which is less than 5% of the overall value of each. Last year, Hulk #181 was $100 over Cerebus #1, and this year Cerebus #1 was $100 over Hulk #181. Both increased, but Cerebus #1 increased a bit more, in this particular timeframe, in this particular grade.

 

I don't think I understand your explanation of market value above, "the price for each book sold times the number of books sold," but it seems like you agree with what Chuck Gower, RMA, and others have been saying:

 

So only in a very very specific (selling price in US dollars on average throughout the year 2013 in NM-/9.2 condition) understanding of 'value' is Cerebus (perhaps) more valuable.

[AlexanderM]

Probably because more vauable often equates to more attractive and popular. The musical album that is more popular usually sells more and demands higher prices.

 

However, this mechanism is not at play here.

 

Cerebus might have a higher price individually (in a grade or two) but the total amount of money comics collectors are willing to pay to get a H181 is far far far higher. So in that sense H181 is clearly more valuable. The market value is the price for each book sold times the number of books sold - is far far far greater for H181 than for Cerebus.

 

So only in a very very specific (almost ridiculously narrow) understanding of 'value' is Cerebus (perhaps) more valuable.

 

Therefore we obviously object to someone claiming that "Cerebus is more valuable than H181".

 

Please open your 2014 OPG, or turn back to page 58 of this train wreck, and note that the difference in price is only $100, which is less than 5% of the overall value of each. Last year, Hulk #181 was $100 over Cerebus #1, and this year Cerebus #1 was $100 over Hulk #181. Both increased, but Cerebus #1 increased a bit more, in this particular timeframe, in this particular grade.

 

I don't think I understand your explanation of market value above, "the price for each book sold times the number of books sold," but it seems like you agree with what Chuck Gower, RMA, and others have been saying:

 

So only in a very very specific (selling price in US dollars on average throughout the year 2013 in NM-/9.2 condition) understanding of 'value' is Cerebus (perhaps) more valuable.

 

Yes, I don't think you understood it. Maybe I did not explain it clearly enough.

 

This is how market value is usually calculated in financial markets. Take for example the New York stock exchange... the market value of any company there... is the value of each share times the numbers of shares.

 

Right?

 

Similarly, the total market value of a comic book (the total amount of money the combined comic collectors have in terms of value of the issue) is the number of books in exsistence times the price per book.

 

If you are still with me, I am sure you can see that the value put on H181 by the entire market is many many many times the value of Cerebus,

 

Even if we take a simplistic notion of value as the value for one book in one grade - then there are only one or two grades where Cerebus is even close.

 

So in order for Cerebus to be more 'valuable' we would have to not look at the value in the total market, not look at the value in grade 8.0, 6.5 and so on...

 

We can only look at one understanding of value and even within this understanding we can only look at a little fraction of the grades.

 

Such selectivity makes the notion that Cerebus should be "more valuable than H181" hard to take seriously.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Discussions about which is "more important," or "king of the Bronze Age," or which would sell for higher in 9.9, are not questions that can be determined factually because they are personal preference or because the copies are not known to exist.

 

This.

 

Again.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Let me assure you, no offense, that I feel Jay's posts have generally been more logical than yours. And I obviously don't think you are more logical than me.

 

That you believe that, I have no doubt. You both reason from emotion, and like attracts like. Many of Jay's posts are classic examples of "arguing from emotion", yet you feel (note that word, there) that they have been "more logical."

 

But be assured: logic and reason are not subject to personal opinion. They simply are. Your very words give you away: I don't need to say, as you have done here, that I think so and so is more logical than you, and you are not as logical as me, because logic stands on its own. And why would I be offended? Offense is the very calling card of emotionalism.

 

No one is inherently "more logical" than another, because logic is not an attribute, like intelligence or talent or height, etc. It is a tool. And just like any other tool, it can be used, and misused, but it is not a part of the person using (or misusing) it. A person must be TRAINED to use any tool correctly, and logic and reason are no different.

 

You keep mentioning 'logical' I don't know how many times in this thread...so I'm guessing you think you are more logical, I certainly don't.

 

That is, again, because you reason by emotion, rather than by logic.

 

If you made multiple spelling and grammar errors, and I corrected those errors, would that lead you to think that I feel I am "more grammatical" than you? Despite the evidence in front of everyone's eyes that you had misspelled and misused grammar...?

 

Logically, no. Emotionally, yes.

 

That you repeat I argue using emotion doesn't make it so.

 

That is correct. Repeating something merely makes it propaganda.

 

The actual question, then, is whether or not the argument I have laid out, and the evidence I have presented, make it so.

 

That's where the proverbial rubber meets the road.

 

In fact, it is so far out I didn't think it worthy of a reply. But just so you have no illusions that I agree with you I'll let you know that I don't.

 

And you little grammar example is far off the mark and irrelevant. I did not feel or think you were being logical... I merely noticed you use the word 'logical' a lot despite not being very logical. So it stood out.

 

Again...we can let the evidence and weight of the arguments presented speak for themselves.

 

By the way...just by way of explanation, when someone uses a dismissive...in this case, "you (sic) little grammar example" (and a fairly ironic example itself)...the word "little" being the phrase here...it conveys a tone of annoyance and irritation.

 

"Your little comment there was quite amusing."

 

It's meant to dismiss, and diminish, the other person and their comments.

 

So, by the way, is the statement "I didn't think it worthy of a reply"...and then making one anyways.

 

It's an attempt to diminish the other person, and speaks of irritation on the part of the poster. Mind you, I've done it a ton, myself. We all have.

 

But it is a smoking gun for emotion overcoming reason, as all such little digs are.

 

Something to keep in mind.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Some may be a bit offended if someone dares say that OPG is not as precise as GPA... because Overstreet has relations with many dealers and for nostalgic reasons etc.

 

What does "precise" mean, in this context? Does GPA record every sale that occurs? No, and it cannot. Does OPG compile every sale that occurs, to come up with an "average"? No, and it cannot, either.

 

So, while some may be offended when you say that, but that is because those people neither understand the actual natures of both the OPG and GPA, nor are they able to separate their emotions from reason.

 

But not everyone argues from an ulterior motive.

 

But I think the truth should still be ok?

 

Let's try a simple question. Which is more precise - GPA or OPG?

 

All I'm saying is that I find GPA more precise. What do you think?

 

You're trying to compare that which cannot be compared. One is a data compiler. The other is a guide.

 

Garlanda makes this point excellently above.

 

If Precise means that they collect data about all sales?

 

Are you serious? Would that be logical? Collecting all or less than all would be measured by a variable called all-encompassing or similar, but precision is pretty far removed from the meaning of such a variable.

 

The word "precision" doesn't mean everything. It means that what is has is accurate to a high degree.

 

Yes, one is a data-compiler and one is a guide (with significant lag on top of all the other sources of error). That is no defense of OPG being precise; in fact it is part of the reason why GPA is usually more precise than OPG.

 

Again, that depends on what you mean by the word "precise." "Precise" doesn't have much to do with "comprehensive", which is probably the better word to use.

 

Is GPA absolutely precise about the data recorded? Of course, it's simply raw data. If something sells for $543.21 on eBay, that's what is recorded. Precisely.

 

But if GPA only records tiny amounts of the market, it is not "precise" in a comprehensive meaning of the term...that is, it doesn't "precisely" reflect the market as a whole, and the OPG is far more "precise" by that measure.

[AlexanderM]

Let me assure you, no offense, that I feel Jay's posts have generally been more logical than yours. And I obviously don't think you are more logical than me.

 

That you believe that, I have no doubt. You both reason from emotion, and like attracts like. Many of Jay's posts are classic examples of "arguing from emotion", yet you feel (note that word, there) that they have been "more logical."

 

But be assured: logic and reason are not subject to personal opinion. They simply are. Your very words give you away: I don't need to say, as you have done here, that I think so and so is more logical than you, and you are not as logical as me, because logic stands on its own. And why would I be offended? Offense is the very calling card of emotionalism.

 

No one is inherently "more logical" than another, because logic is not an attribute, like intelligence or talent or height, etc. It is a tool. And just like any other tool, it can be used, and misused, but it is not a part of the person using (or misusing) it. A person must be TRAINED to use any tool correctly, and logic and reason are no different.

 

You keep mentioning 'logical' I don't know how many times in this thread...so I'm guessing you think you are more logical, I certainly don't.

 

That is, again, because you reason by emotion, rather than by logic.

 

If you made multiple spelling and grammar errors, and I corrected those errors, would that lead you to think that I feel I am "more grammatical" than you? Despite the evidence in front of everyone's eyes that you had misspelled and misused grammar...?

 

Logically, no. Emotionally, yes.

 

That you repeat I argue using emotion doesn't make it so.

 

That is correct. Repeating something merely makes it propaganda.

 

The actual question, then, is whether or not the argument I have laid out, and the evidence I have presented, make it so.

 

That's where the proverbial rubber meets the road.

 

In fact, it is so far out I didn't think it worthy of a reply. But just so you have no illusions that I agree with you I'll let you know that I don't.

 

And you little grammar example is far off the mark and irrelevant. I did not feel or think you were being logical... I merely noticed you use the word 'logical' a lot despite not being very logical. So it stood out.

 

Again...we can let the evidence and weight of the arguments presented speak for themselves.

 

By the way...just by way of explanation, when someone uses a dismissive...in this case, "you (sic) little grammar example" (and a fairly ironic example itself)...the word "little" being the phrase here...it conveys a tone of annoyance and irritation.

 

"Your little comment there was quite amusing."

 

It's meant to dismiss, and diminish, the other person and their comments.

 

So, by the way, is the statement "I didn't think it worthy of a reply"...and then making one anyways.

 

It's an attempt to diminish the other person, and speaks of irritation on the part of the poster. Mind you, I've done it a ton, myself. We all have.

 

But it is a smoking gun for emotion overcoming reason, as all such little digs are.

 

Something to keep in mind.

 

You are grasping at straws. Little was descriptive. It was a little example - wasn't it?

 

Not all things are worthy of replies. Wouldn't you agree? and can you not make such judgment very objectively. If I tell you my car is red 20 times and 1 minute later you ask me what color it is... then I might conclude that your question is not a real question or for whatever other reason does not merit an answer. You don't need to see emotion in everything like you tend to do.

[HighStakesComics]

Probably because more vauable often equates to more attractive and popular. The musical album that is more popular usually sells more and demands higher prices.

 

However, this mechanism is not at play here.

 

Cerebus might have a higher price individually (in a grade or two) but the total amount of money comics collectors are willing to pay to get a H181 is far far far higher. So in that sense H181 is clearly more valuable. The market value is the price for each book sold times the number of books sold - is far far far greater for H181 than for Cerebus.

 

So only in a very very specific (almost ridiculously narrow) understanding of 'value' is Cerebus (perhaps) more valuable.

 

Therefore we obviously object to someone claiming that "Cerebus is more valuable than H181".

 

Please open your 2014 OPG, or turn back to page 58 of this train wreck, and note that the difference in price is only $100, which is less than 5% of the overall value of each. Last year, Hulk #181 was $100 over Cerebus #1, and this year Cerebus #1 was $100 over Hulk #181. Both increased, but Cerebus #1 increased a bit more, in this particular timeframe, in this particular grade.

 

I don't think I understand your explanation of market value above, "the price for each book sold times the number of books sold," but it seems like you agree with what Chuck Gower, RMA, and others have been saying:

 

So only in a very very specific (selling price in US dollars on average throughout the year 2013 in NM-/9.2 condition) understanding of 'value' is Cerebus (perhaps) more valuable.

 

Yes, I don't think you understood it. Maybe I did not explain it clearly enough.

 

This is how market value is usually calculated in financial markets. Take for example the New York stock exchange... the market value of any company there... is the value of each share times the numbers of shares.

 

Right?

 

Similarly, the total market value of a comic book (the total amount of money the combined comic collectors have in terms of value of the issue) is the number of books in exsistence times the price per book.

 

If you are still with me, I am sure you can see that the value put on H181 by the entire market is many many many times the value of Cerebus,

 

Even if we take a simplistic notion of value as the value for one book in one grade - then there are only one or two grades where Cerebus is even close.

 

So in order for Cerebus to be more 'valuable' we would have to not look at the value in the total market, not look at the value in grade 8.0, 6.5 and so on...

 

We can only look at one understanding of value and even within this understanding we can only look at a little fraction of the grades.

 

Such selectivity makes the notion that Cerebus should be "more valuable than H181" hard to take seriously.

 

Market capitalization, Alex. That is the terminology you are looking for.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

RMA is the voice of reason. Who'da thunk?

 

I would say, just about anyone who has given me a fair hearing over the last 7-8 years.

 

To those who can't be bothered with things like fair hearings, but instead get "just the gist" from friends and the like, I can definitely appear otherwise.

 

 

You should try it, Dale...giving people a fair hearing, that is. You might be very surprised at what you actually see when you look for yourself.

 

see, this is why people don't give you a fair shake

 

If you ask anyone who knows me, I treat everyone very fairly and generally very well.

 

So you say. My mileage quite obviously varies. You come right out of the gate and question my ability to reason, a written boot to the head, and then complain when I apparently mischaracterize you for mischaracterizing me...? THAT'S why people don't give me a fair shake...?

 

 

I don't believe you have given *me* a fair shake at all, or you wouldn't say things like "RMA is the voice of reason. Who'da thunk?" I don't know whether you treat others very fairly; I was using a figure of speech to make my point.

 

I have been "the voice of reason" many times, in many ways, on this board.

 

Not that I haven't been a condescending ...I have, much to my discredit. But you have judged me as the one, while ignoring the other.

 

That's the way life goes. I made my bed. Hopefully, you and others won't make me lie in it forever.