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

[bababooey]

Ten years earlier (going into, what, CGC's fourth year?) and it was the highest graded copy EVER. There were no other UHG copies around.

(According to GPA, a 7.0? was the next highest?)

You DO realize how that would impact it's value and demand...right? RIGHT?

So it sold big.

That's how the market works. It was a white whale. It sold big.

There was A LOT of that going on in the early days.

Comparing a 2004 Bronze 9.4 sale to a 2014 Bronze 9.4 sale, in just about anything, is going to give you some weird numbers because of how the market has changed.

But if you understood the market, you'd know that.

Universals on top; Sig series are lower down to see the actual shape of the census at the time of the ten year old SS sale, not a lot of change in the census over the past ten years for sig series.

 

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/search/comicid/39931

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Once again...

For a book with so few 9.0 and up copies in blue label, it's appeal in that blue label increases for HG collector.

 

IT becomes the white whale. The pretty girl who is unavailable.

It's enchantment will draw a bigger game hunter.

 

You simply do not understand the marketplace.

 

....and there you go, arguing out of both sides of your mouth again.

 

No, he's arguing out of one side. The same side he's been arguing this whole time.

 

Your "white whale" theory is junk. In fact, it only makes the fact that the 9.4 blue cerebus 1 sold for 15% LESS than the 9.4 SS 10 years earlier look even more sad.

 

By your own unfounded and speculative

 

"Arguments made with data and context" when you say it.

 

"Unfounded and speculative" when others say it.

 

"logic" buyers should have been lining up out the door

 

Chuck didn't make this characterization at all. That's all you.

 

You can't invent positions, attribute them to your debate opponents, and then argue against them. That's called a "straw-man" argument.

 

for the unique opportunity to obtain an elusive example of a blue label 9.4, and that it should have gone for MORE than the SS copy ten years earlier.

 

That's not what he said. At all.

 

When in reality, and unfortunately to your own "argument" the book tanked in its very top grade, failing even to reach the heights of its "less desirable" yellow label copy from a decade earlier.

 

You make this argument based on TWO SALES IN TEN YEARS.

 

Let me say that again, in case anyone is unclear at all on this point:

 

Your entire argument is based on TWO SALES...in TEN YEARS.

 

How does anything "tank" when it is premised on TWO SALES in TEN YEARS?

 

And yet, if we look at the last FIVE years, sales are UP!

 

Do you not see that your canvas is mostly empty, and thus no clear picture can be discerned in ANY direction?

 

Factoring in inflation, and the "blue label bump" that you claim exists, how much would you say that 15% drop in value actually was?

 

How about the last FIVE years....?

 

Yet you and your compadres still attempt to argue (now counter even to OPG I might add), that a 9.2 would somehow scale the heights of GPA record books and shatter the $3k mark in a blue label, in spite of the fact that the last recorded sale of the 9.2 label SS sold for $2100 (nine years ago) and would more likely than not follow its 9.4 counterpart into a 10-15% price slide in a worst case scenario, or, in a better case scenario, equal the sales price of that SS copy, which also would be, not coincidentally, its OPG value.

 

You have no reasonable basis to make this claim. None.

 

Your statements are generally spurious, and borderline offensive in your attempts to be condescending and personal.

 

There was nothing personal or condescending about Chuck's post to which you responded. You don't understand the market. That's not condescending. Condescending would be "....and you're incapable of understanding it."

 

THAT would be condescending.

 

No one's said that.

 

I would recommend that you compare crib notes with your compadres before you click "submit" on your next post so that you are at least walking in the same chorus line in your cerebus 1/OPG apologist parade.

 

-J.

 

Again, you're projecting. You like that there are people who agree with you, and support your arguments, unreasonable though they may be, so you assume everyone else is like that, too.

 

But I respect Chuck enough to tell him outright if he's wrong, and he's mature enough to admit it when he is. Likewise, I hope Chuck respects me enough to tell me when I'm wrong, and that I would accept it, as I have in the past.

 

And...your entire post has a snarky, ubercondescending tone ("the same chorus line in your cerebus 1/OPG apologist parade", "I recommend that you compare crib notes"..and that's just the last paragraph.)

 

So, I would recommend thinking twice about complaining about others being condescending, when you find it impossible to refrain yourself.

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's probably my cue to bow out.

 

-J.

 

Would that it were so easy....

[RockMyAmadeus]

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

[bronze johnny]

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me?

[bronze johnny]

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me?

 

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual.

[Gatsby77]

Has anyone mentioned how most of the high-grade Bronze market has tanked since 2004?

 

It's not that the books have "tanked," it's that, in general, the CGC census has matured since then. 10 years ago a bunch of books were rare (1/1 or 1/2) in high grade; now? not so much.

 

Marvel Spotlight 5, CGC 9.6: 2004 - $4,250. 2014: $3,250

 

Werewolf by Night 32, CGC 9.6: 2004 lone sale: $1,125. 2014 low sale: $900

 

Green Lantern 76, CGC 9.4: 2004 lone sale: $3,761. 2014 high sale: $3,585

 

X-Men 94, CGC 9.6: 2004 average: $4,500. 2014 average: $2,500

 

Even ASM 129 in CGC 9.6 is off more than 25% from its 2004 averages

 

Were a comparison even possible between blue label & yellow labels, you'd also have to benchmark it against the average decline in high-grade bronze key prices over that same period.

 

And from that courtesy, 5 minute check on examples above, -15% is on the good side relative to some other Marvel/DC keys.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me?

 

Right here:

 

It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion?

 

You are wrong. It is a simple list of "The Top X Age Books", and they are ranked according to their value in the OPG.

 

Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

In fact, from the 2010 OPG: "The place in rank is given for each comic, with its corresponding value in highest known grade."

 

See that? That means the lists are organized according to their price in the OPG.

 

Therefore, if a book is MISSING from the list that would otherwise be there, it is either A. an oversight, or B. a purposeful decision by Bob Overstreet to exclude particular books that otherwise would be in the list according to the value given elsewhere in the pages of the same guide, and Bob Overstreet is LYING (that is what is called a CONSPIRACY.)

 

I'm going to Occam's Razor that biz, and go with A.

 

Again...how are we even HAVING this discussion?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me?

 

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual.

 

When you state that Overstreet...contrary to his own printed words...is purposely excluding books that belong in a "Top X Age Books" list, lists that are ordered according to their values, then yes, that is the very definition of a conspiracy.

 

How are we even HAVING this discussion??

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

And from that courtesy, 5 minute check on examples above, -15% is on the good side relative to some other Marvel/DC keys.

 

...cursory...?

 

[HighStakesComics]

Has anyone mentioned how most of the high-grade Bronze market has tanked since 2004?

 

It's not that the books have "tanked," it's that, in general, the CGC census has matured since then. 10 years ago a bunch of books were rare (1/1 or 1/2) in high grade; now? not so much.

 

Marvel Spotlight 5, CGC 9.6: 2004 - $4,250. 2014: $3,250

 

Werewolf by Night 32, CGC 9.6: 2004 lone sale: $1,125. 2014 low sale: $900

 

Green Lantern 76, CGC 9.4: 2004 lone sale: $3,761. 2014 high sale: $3,585

 

X-Men 94, CGC 9.6: 2004 average: $4,500. 2014 average: $2,500

 

Even ASM 129 in CGC 9.6 is off more than 25% from its 2004 averages

 

Were a comparison even possible between blue label & yellow labels, you'd also have to benchmark it against the average decline in high-grade bronze key prices over that same period.

 

And from that courtesy, 5 minute check on examples above, -15% is on the good side relative to some other Marvel/DC keys.

 

I would buy the ugliest WBN 32 9.6 on the planet for $1000. That book is moving up the charts like Casey Kassum after a pot of coffee.

[AlexanderM]

Its not unreasonable to say that non signed copies will likely sell for more than SS copies based on the sales data.

A 9.0 Blue sold for $2500 last year. A 9.2 yellow sold for $1,434 in 2012 and a signed file copy sold for $1725 in 2010.

A lot less buyers and sellers make the book a more questionable investment but, I'd take the Cerebus 1 for 9.0 and above in a Blue Label. And if a Cerebus 1 got a 9.2, it would be the only one, so yes I believe it would go for more than a Hulk 181 in 9.0-9.4, at least in blue.

 

 

It was your post quoted above, bother.

 

Although, ironically, it does not actually affect the analysis or conclusions in the least about the book's lackluster performance over the last ten years. *sorry*

 

-J.

 

Actually that part is true I made the error first then caught it.

 

Despite that it would most certainly effect the performance and analysis.

 

Define lackluster performance?

 

It wouldn't, because as I said the outlier sale of the blue label 9.0 cerebus 1 is the only bright spot that you have been hanging your hat on the entire time. The 8.0 and 8.5 sales this year kill you, the book does not triple in value from an 8.5-9.0, there has been no 9.2 sale recorded in years, and in its highest grade (9.4), there has been price deflation. This is not a book where there is any evidence that a blue label would command a premium over an SS file copy. That is merely speculation on your part. SS copies routinely sell for more than blue (right or wrong), take for example the Hulk 181 9.2 SS copy going for $3700 in march.

 

Lackluster performance means a book that has seen either stagnant and/or declining sales figures over a ten year period from its top grade down, with waning collector interest, in a book that was already niche to begin with.

 

Granted you may still have some old school collectors who want one of the handful of copies of it available in its top one or two grades, but the book obviously has its best days behind it, and barring some mainstream media push caused by a cartoon or something, that is unlikely change. And while I don't necessarily disagree with Overstreet's value of it placed at $2100, I do vehemently disagree with the value placed on an IH 181 of $2,000, because the book cannot be had for that price in a 9.2. Overstreet got it wrong, hence the original point of this thread.

 

-J.

 

I've already addressed your claims regarding the 9.0 being the only bright spot numerous times. Please do not keep stating this.

The 9.4 sale is not a price drop, its a price raise from the 2010 sale.

Why are we to only count the high sale of 2004, and why not address the 2009, and 2010 sales for 7.7K And its a blue not a yellow. A 2014 sale is a more current sale which better establishes its current value. So even if its a price drop from 2004, the point is moot regarding current values.

 

I've already addressed your circular statement regarding the 8.5 sales as well.

Third time posting this, I'll just cut and paste.

"But how could the recent 8.5 price drag the price down if the 8.5 went up from last year when the 8.5 sold for $820 and the 9.0 sold for $2500 within a two month time period?

Can we agree this statement is false where you claim:

"Going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that. I would argue that the 8.5 sale of cerebus 1 that just sold for $850 a few weeks ago drags down the current value of that 9.0 to more in the $1500 range. "

 

Also if we add the Comiclink sale, then there was also a $1050 sale this year. Does that not count, even after the sale is no longer on the site?

 

I have already addressed the blue label staements as well.

There are fewer HG Blue labels so its not unheard of to have Blues go for more than Yellow when this happens. In this case the Blues have seemed outperformed the Yellows.

The last Yellow sale was 2012 9.0 at $1434. The following year it was $2500 in Blue and in 2005 it was $1750. Now I can say these are the reasons the book has been going up. But there seems to be more than one sale that seems to suggest that the blue label may have something to do with this.

 

Lackluster according to you? But what if the book has gone down then up in between your arbitrary timeline of 10 years, then what? At what point does it not become lackluster?

 

I make no claims of Overstreet values and how he comes to his conclusions.

I have already addressed all of your claims ad nauseum. You consider a $33 increase in price over a year's period in an 8.5 is something other than "flat", "stagnant", "menial", or "meaningless"? Good for you, you're entitled to your opinion. But I disagree.

 

False claim regarding "addressed all of your claims ad nauseum".

You believe that a book that sold for $10.6K in 2004 and then $9k in 2014, with some zig zags in between that still left the book with a net loss of about 15% from 10 years ago is a book that's hot, in demand, and on the move? Good for you, you're entitled to your opinion. But I disagree.

Never made any claims of hot, But I did state you were incorrect regarding a drop in value. So indeed your claims regarding only a 9.0 sale to support claims was incorrect.

You want to use an unverified "pending sale" on Comic Link as a "comp", and pretend the other 5 books or so in similar grades haven't been languishing on there for months with nothing but low ball offers that are in line with last year's prices or below? Good for you, you're entitled to your opinion. But I disagree.

 

I have already shown why pending is meaningless on Comiclink, and by the way, it is no longer pending. Similar grades is a moot point. Low ball offers, moot. Glad I don't need to quote myself another time (thumbs u

You want to believe that a blue label book is more valuable than a file copy SS signed by the creator of the book? Good for you, you're entitled to your opinion. But I disagree.

That's fine. You can disagree here. Clearly since there are limited sales.

Basically, you can go right on ahead believing whatever you need to believe, and studying that lone sale of 9.0 so you can feel good about a book that the market at large forgot about a long time ago. Because without that random, outlier 9.0 sale there would be a very insignificant price change in even that grade from 2005-2012. Which, again, is why I say that 9.0 is the one and only sale that even remotely helps you. (thumbs u

 

-J.

But its wrong everytime you state that only the 9.0 sale helps. The 9.4 at 9K in addition of a recent 9.0 sales helps determine the price of a high grade copy. If I only had the recent 9.0, then I would have a harder time making claims regarding current values.

 

A) You don't know if that sale on comic link ever closed or consummated either way. Further, (and regardless) it would not be a publicly available sale and will never be reported by GPA, even if it happened. And oh yeah, current offers on the same book in grade do kinda matter, as they are suggestive and representative of market trends and where the book is actually headed, don't-cha think?

 

B) The 9.0 is obviously an outlier since the book never showed an annual appreciation of more than about 2.5% the ten years prior in that grade. Take out that one outlier sale and the book is a complete dud for the last decade in pretty much all grades, top down.

 

C) I have never actually disputed Overstreet's value of 2100 in a 9.2. That is probably correct and what one would go for now. But a Hulk 181 in the same grade goes for more. So overstreet got that part wrong.

 

D) You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I for one certainly would not suggest investing your money into a short box of cerebus 1's anytime soon. As there seems to be very few interested buyers for the inordinately large amount of copies that are already available on the market. (thumbs u

 

-J.

A. Moving the goal posts. Your claim earlier "the sale is consummated when it no longer appears as "pending" on the site and the listing poofs." But we also know this is incorrect as well as sales are finished far before. Why are we now to add yet another extra scrutiny on this sale? So only GPA sales now? Do I have to call Comiclink now?

Ever sell a book before?

JDog, meet Comiclink.

http://www.comiclink.com/ You'll find low ball offers are common.

But since you begged the question the current offer is $850.

 

B. But if we look at the 9.4 sale then it seems to fall in line nicely.

 

C. Don't care what Overstreet claims.

 

D. Lots of rare books are on the MKT.

 

"Moving the goal posts"? Come on. I have always referred to "publicly available sales data". And again, even if the 8.5 sale happened, it would be bookended by TWO other sales in 8.5 that are $850 (assuming the next one ever actually happens as well), highlighting what I have been saying once again...that the book has been either stagnant or declining in value for the better part of a decade. *On a side note....It sure is coincidental how that sale on comic link suddenly vanished after my original points, and how you seem to have such an intimate knowledge of the inner working of the goings on with the copies of cerebus 1 on there. Perhaps you're the one who has some of his copies on the market right now. Along with the other guy on the boards who couldn't even unload his early back issues for more than 25% of OPG.

 

And I never referred to the 9.4 sale as an outlier, only the 9.0 sale. If a book isn't even keeping up with inflation for nearly a 10 year period in grade, and then suddenly gets a random increase in price, in just that one single book, in that one single grade, that would be considered an "outlier". The 9.4 sale is actually 15% below the peak price paid for the grade ten years ago, and if you look at all the sales in between, the needle hasn't moved in that grade since GPA started keeping records. Like I said, your one high outlier 9.0 sale does not save your book, and it obviously has not reversed the downward/sluggish price trends or revived demand/collector interest, as subsequent sales have demonstrated.

 

So let's recap all the facts that the pro-cerebus 1 folks have either forgotten or ignored:

 

1) The original point of the thread: To dispute/mock Overstreet for ranking the book above Hulk 181 in like grade;

 

2) The highest price ever paid for a Cerebus 1, 9.2 SS is $2132 (approximately the value assigned to it in OPG), and I have gone on the record as saying I concur with this value estimation;

 

3) The highest price paid for a Hulk 181 9.2 is $3200....$1200 more than OPG, and I have gone on the record calling that demonstrably low;

 

4) The highest price paid for a Hulk 181 9.2 SS is $3700.....also a whole lot more than OPG (and only cited here for the purposes of comparing the books in value SS to SS);

 

5) Hulk 181's 9.2, 90 day average ($2507) is more than anything paid for a Cerebus 1 9.2 SS, and higher than OPG;

 

6) Hulk 181's 9.2, 12 month average ($2310) is more than anything paid for a Cerebus 1 9.2 SS, and higher than OPG;

 

7) Hulk 181's 9.2, 21 last year average ($2054) is only about $80 less than the highest price ever publicly realized for a Cerebus 1, 9.2, and still higher than OPG;

 

This is what makes OPG so very, very wrong with its list. Somehow, someway, the cerebus 1 fans have turned this into a relentless defense and justification for the book's lone positive sale in the last ten years. The have tried to use that one, lone sale to extrapolate a fantastically high, purely hypothetical "what if" price for a 9.2, even as the grade in the other direction (8.5) in fact drags it down, and there has been a 15% net drop in value in its highest grade over the same 10 year period. Yet they have then turned around and stated that the "one" recent 9.2 Hulk 181 sale of $3200 should be ignored, because.....well because I guess it's just a little "too high" for them, and essentially steamrolls anything ever paid for a Cerebus 1 and is inconvenient to their position..... while failing to acknowledge that even the 90 day and 12 month averages on the book are still about 15-20% higher than anything a cerebus 1 has sold for in a 9.2, even at its peak when people cared more about it.

 

There is clearly some denial going on here when it comes to this book. I am not trying to change anyone's minds here, but seriously, take off the rose coloured glasses already, if OPG has ever gotten something wrong (and he has), this would certainly qualify as a prime example.

 

And PS ....I only post in this thread when someone mis-states, perverts my position, or deliberately cites me out of context. I present my arguments with data and context, unlike most have been posting nothing more on here than "you're wrong", or "that is incorrect", and then disappearing back into cyberspace.

 

-J.

 

 

The above is a key post in this thread.

 

I will now go check the facts on GPA myself..

 

Average of last 10 copies sold (going back to max 2012).

 

This are the facts:

 

In 9.0:

 

 

H181ss (3,000) > Cerebus1 (2,500) > H181 (2,048) > Cerebus ss (1,434)

 

 

9.2

 

H181ss (3,050) > H181 (2,750) > Cerebus ss (2,136) > Cerebus 1

 

 

9.4

 

Cerebus1 (9,000) > Cerebus ss (7,768) > H181ss (4,110) > H181 (3,150)

 

 

Value of the best copy in exsistence:

 

H181ss (21,250) > H181 (10,600) > Cerebus1 (9,000) > Cerebus ss (7,768)

 

In addition to the averages, looking at the highest copy in each grade sold, H181 has sold for higher in all grades except 9.4. 9,.4 is the highest Cerebus grade so it (just like all issues) gets a highest grade bonus.

 

Looking at the trends there is an overweights of downward trends in Cerebus (as recorded by GPA) of net 4 red downward indicators across all grades. For H181 there is an extreme overweight of upwards trends across all grades of net 55 greens upward arrows.

 

________

 

So what can we learn from this? We can see that H181 is trending strongly upwards while Cerebus is trending downwards across grades. We can also see that H181 is the highest valued issue in all grades except for 9.4. 9.4 however is a special case that does not make much sense to compare because as we all know there is a significant bonus for being "highest grade on record", and the Cerebus 9.4 gets that bonus while H181 does not get that. When comparing highest grade with highest grade in exsistence, however, collectors still value H181 higher.

 

So it would seem that there are most arguments for H181 being the more valuable of the two.

 

However, because cerebus 9.4 gets the bonus, and because one Cerebus sold in 9.0 for 2,500 (and while this seems out of line with the Cerebus market since there are no other sales this is the average we have to use) - because of these two issues, Cerebus has at least a few arguments that can be used.

 

And it also seems that some people think prices are what they were 3 or 5 years back. This will also help Cerebus because H181 has seen a stronger growth than Cerebus.

 

My concusion is that H181 is the more valuable book overall. There is no possible argument in any grade except 9.0 and 9.4. The argument for Cerebus in 9.0 is a very weak one and only based on one book whick seems out of line with the rest of the Cerebus market. The argument in 9.4 is stronger. The value of Cerebus in 9.4 is actually higher than for H181. There are reasons and the comparison might not be fair, but nevertheless the price is higher in that particular grade. Finally, if OS uses 9.2 only then (barring a Cerebus fan making a single high purchase before the end of the year just to rattle the cage) H181 certainly has a clear upper hand to get ranked above Cerebus 1 it seems.

Edited September 10, 2014 by AlexanderM

[bronze johnny]

Forgot to add:

 

I have no doubt IH 181 will be listed higher on the most valuable BA comics list that Cerebus 1 next year. It has gone up this year and I don't have any reason to believe that will change in the next 4-5 months.

 

One thing I want to add and it goes back to my bringing attention to OAAW 83 being excluded from the top 20 Silver Age books even after the well respected writers of the War Report lobbied Overstreet to have the Rock's 1st app. included (see the War Report where they mention this). I also want to bring attention to the fact that Fantastic Four 4 was also excluded from the list when it has the same current value as Fantastic Four 2. It was not an oversight to exclude OAAW 83 from the list since it was publicly announced that such lobbying with Overstreet took place. Nor was it a conspiracy. Perhaps it's just Overstreet using his discretion? This is the most plausible explanation for me and I don't have a problem with it since it's Bob's book and he has his reasons (editorial discretion?) and it's his right. Now if there's room for discretion to decide which books go or stay on the list, why would it be unreasonable to make discretionary decisions about other books and whether they belong on a particular list?

 

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

Yes, it was an oversight. You have to use plain, basic common sense. There's no conspiracy, as you are suggesting (despite your claim that you are not.)

 

The numbers are what they are. OOAW #83 is $15,000 in the OPG.

 

Either the lists ARE a simple "this is what the numbers are" or they are not. There is no "discretion" involved. The numbers are what they are.

 

Now, in the 2010 OPG, it was $5500, which means it was way down on the list. The leap from $5500 to $15000 happened in four years, which means it's a new book in the list.

 

It's not a conspiracy. It's an oversight.

 

How are we even discussing this?

 

Where did I say it was a conspiracy? Show me?

 

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy in any way. You're once again reading into this the way you want to. Another ridiculous conclusion, as usual.

 

When you state that Overstreet...contrary to his own printed words...is purposely excluding books that belong in a "Top X Age Books" list, lists that are ordered according to their values, then yes, that is the very definition of a conspiracy.

 

How are we even HAVING this discussion??

 

Your conclusions are as always, an excellent example of reductio ad absurdum.

 

[chrisco37]

Also, if you look at Gator's thread over in CG about Baltimore Comic Con, he mentions selling 70 copies of Hulk 181!

 

 

 

No one's debating the popularity of Hulk 181.

 

It's a hot book. It's a seller. No one's questioning that.

 

 

I'd say selling 70 copies at one Con says it's a special book. But we are not debating the uniqueness of this book either?

 

He didn't sell 70 copies at one con.

 

Correct- my mistake - for the year.

 

No one is surprised that it's a huge seller for him. It's a huge seller for anyone.

 

No special insight of the marketplace needed to see that.

 

Right. I don't think that anyone on "Team Cerebus" has made a statement that it's a hotter book than Hulk 181. The liquidity has never been an issue. It's one of the most, if not THE, most liquid book in the hobby right now.

 

A major character first appearance with a relatively low price entry point (in comparison to other major keys).

 

That has never been in question. Ever.

 

 

[Garlanda]

I didn't bother to discuss Cerebus v Hulk 181 at the Baltimore Con last weekend, because I had high hopes that most people here would realize that virtually no one is debating the same points toward the same goal while considering the actual source of the disagreement. Of course that didn't happen.

 

I did happen to come across a Cerebus 1 in one booth. It was a raw copy graded by the dealer Fine and priced at $1200. I don't know if it sold or if he carried it home. I also expect that he would have negotiated from there, but I do think that $1200 is a much higher point to start negotiations from than where you'd start pricing your Hulk 181 in Fine condition. Just an anecdote, take it for what it's worth.

 

Can we possibly take a step back and establish the facts vs assumptions?

 

Fact: the OPG list has Cerebus #1 valued over Hulk #181 by only $100, a very slim margin, only about 5%.

 

Fact: the OPG list is based on a compilation of last year's info and cannot reflect the plethora of sales of Hulk #181 that have occurred in the last 30, 60, 90, 180 days.

 

Fact: there are drastically fewer copies of Cerebus #1 than Hulk #181, so market forces are at work differently on the two books.

 

Assumption: OPG is informed by a network of dealers whose experience and integrity has made OPG the accepted industry standard for decades. Is it 100% accurate in every case across the country all the time? No, because there are regional concentrations of comic fans and disparities in income that shift the market locally, as well as individual seller abilities to market, display, and negotiate their sale prices. A well-crafted Heritage auction may net more money than a dubious Craigslist ad for the exact same comic.

 

Points that both sides appear to be willing to concede as "granted:"

1. Wolverine is more popular than Cerebus.

2. Hulk 181 is a "hotter" book than Cerebus 1.

3. Hulk 181 sells more copies on any given week than Cerebus 1.

4. Hulk 181 seems to be on a sharper upward trend than Cerebus 1, and will likely surpass Cerebus 1 on next year's list.

5. Hulk 181 is more "liquid," and is an easy sell at nearly any comic show/store/auction.

6. Cerebus 1 is incredibly hard to find in 9.0 and better.

 

 

I would also assert that:

1. No new Cerebus material will likely reduce demand for Cerebus 1 in the future, as fewer fans are searching for the book.

2. Wolverine has been the lead in a major marketing event this year that has inspired the same speculators who drove up prices of Marvel Superheroes 18 despite the fact that those weren't the same Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Sorry about the wall of text, but is there anything here that most people don't agree with? None of it changes the fact that, based on data from 2013, Cerebus 1 in 9.2 was valued by the industry standard price guide as worth $100 more than Hulk 181 in 9.2, and no sale for any amount in September 2014 will change that. This is in the past. Obviously there are enough people who support that for it to not be an outlandish claim. Again, this is all analysis based on available data and provided as a guideline; the OPG was never intended to be a binding document that guaranteed prices at certain levels every time. You want to price your Hulk 181 9.2 higher than your Cerebus 1 9.2? By all means, go ahead. You're free to disagree with OPG, but you should also recognize that there are people who are free to agree with OPG and who would price their Cerebus 1 9.2 higher than their Hulk 181 9.2.

[bronze johnny]

I didn't bother to discuss Cerebus v Hulk 181 at the Baltimore Con last weekend, because I had high hopes that most people here would realize that virtually no one is debating the same points toward the same goal while considering the actual source of the disagreement. Of course that didn't happen.

 

I did happen to come across a Cerebus 1 in one booth. It was a raw copy graded by the dealer Fine and priced at $1200. I don't know if it sold or if he carried it home. I also expect that he would have negotiated from there, but I do think that $1200 is a much higher point to start negotiations from than where you'd start pricing your Hulk 181 in Fine condition. Just an anecdote, take it for what it's worth.

 

Can we possibly take a step back and establish the facts vs assumptions?

 

Fact: the OPG list has Cerebus #1 valued over Hulk #181 by only $100, a very slim margin, only about 5%.

 

Fact: the OPG list is based on a compilation of last year's info and cannot reflect the plethora of sales of Hulk #181 that have occurred in the last 30, 60, 90, 180 days.

 

Fact: there are drastically fewer copies of Cerebus #1 than Hulk #181, so market forces are at work differently on the two books.

 

Assumption: OPG is informed by a network of dealers whose experience and integrity has made OPG the accepted industry standard for decades. Is it 100% accurate in every case across the country all the time? No, because there are regional concentrations of comic fans and disparities in income that shift the market locally, as well as individual seller abilities to market, display, and negotiate their sale prices. A well-crafted Heritage auction may net more money than a dubious Craigslist ad for the exact same comic.

 

Points that both sides appear to be willing to concede as "granted:"

1. Wolverine is more popular than Cerebus.

2. Hulk 181 is a "hotter" book than Cerebus 1.

3. Hulk 181 sells more copies on any given week than Cerebus 1.

4. Hulk 181 seems to be on a sharper upward trend than Cerebus 1, and will likely surpass Cerebus 1 on next year's list.

5. Hulk 181 is more "liquid," and is an easy sell at nearly any comic show/store/auction.

6. Cerebus 1 is incredibly hard to find in 9.0 and better.

 

 

I would also assert that:

1. No new Cerebus material will likely reduce demand for Cerebus 1 in the future, as fewer fans are searching for the book.

2. Wolverine has been the lead in a major marketing event this year that has inspired the same speculators who drove up prices of Marvel Superheroes 18 despite the fact that those weren't the same Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Sorry about the wall of text, but is there anything here that most people don't agree with? None of it changes the fact that, based on data from 2013, Cerebus 1 in 9.2 was valued by the industry standard price guide as worth $100 more than Hulk 181 in 9.2, and no sale for any amount in September 2014 will change that. This is in the past. Obviously there are enough people who support that for it to not be an outlandish claim. Again, this is all analysis based on available data and provided as a guideline; the OPG was never intended to be a binding document that guaranteed prices at certain levels every time. You want to price your Hulk 181 9.2 higher than your Cerebus 1 9.2? By all means, go ahead. You're free to disagree with OPG, but you should also recognize that there are people who are free to agree with OPG and who would price their Cerebus 1 9.2 higher than their Hulk 181 9.2.

 

Well stated (thumbs u

[vaillant]

I would also assert that:

1. No new Cerebus material will likely reduce demand for Cerebus 1 in the future, as fewer fans are searching for the book.

2. Wolverine has been the lead in a major marketing event this year that has inspired the same speculators who drove up prices of Marvel Superheroes 18 despite the fact that those weren't the same Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Cerebus is somewhat "rare" for a Bronze book, Hulk #181 isn’t but they are of interest to different audiences and I just think they should not be compared directly.

[chrisco37]

I didn't bother to discuss Cerebus v Hulk 181 at the Baltimore Con last weekend, because I had high hopes that most people here would realize that virtually no one is debating the same points toward the same goal while considering the actual source of the disagreement. Of course that didn't happen.

 

I did happen to come across a Cerebus 1 in one booth. It was a raw copy graded by the dealer Fine and priced at $1200. I don't know if it sold or if he carried it home. I also expect that he would have negotiated from there, but I do think that $1200 is a much higher point to start negotiations from than where you'd start pricing your Hulk 181 in Fine condition. Just an anecdote, take it for what it's worth.

 

Can we possibly take a step back and establish the facts vs assumptions?

 

Fact: the OPG list has Cerebus #1 valued over Hulk #181 by only $100, a very slim margin, only about 5%.

 

Fact: the OPG list is based on a compilation of last year's info and cannot reflect the plethora of sales of Hulk #181 that have occurred in the last 30, 60, 90, 180 days.

 

Fact: there are drastically fewer copies of Cerebus #1 than Hulk #181, so market forces are at work differently on the two books.

 

Assumption: OPG is informed by a network of dealers whose experience and integrity has made OPG the accepted industry standard for decades. Is it 100% accurate in every case across the country all the time? No, because there are regional concentrations of comic fans and disparities in income that shift the market locally, as well as individual seller abilities to market, display, and negotiate their sale prices. A well-crafted Heritage auction may net more money than a dubious Craigslist ad for the exact same comic.

 

Points that both sides appear to be willing to concede as "granted:"

1. Wolverine is more popular than Cerebus.

2. Hulk 181 is a "hotter" book than Cerebus 1.

3. Hulk 181 sells more copies on any given week than Cerebus 1.

4. Hulk 181 seems to be on a sharper upward trend than Cerebus 1, and will likely surpass Cerebus 1 on next year's list.

5. Hulk 181 is more "liquid," and is an easy sell at nearly any comic show/store/auction.

6. Cerebus 1 is incredibly hard to find in 9.0 and better.

 

 

I would also assert that:

1. No new Cerebus material will likely reduce demand for Cerebus 1 in the future, as fewer fans are searching for the book.

2. Wolverine has been the lead in a major marketing event this year that has inspired the same speculators who drove up prices of Marvel Superheroes 18 despite the fact that those weren't the same Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Sorry about the wall of text, but is there anything here that most people don't agree with? None of it changes the fact that, based on data from 2013, Cerebus 1 in 9.2 was valued by the industry standard price guide as worth $100 more than Hulk 181 in 9.2, and no sale for any amount in September 2014 will change that. This is in the past. Obviously there are enough people who support that for it to not be an outlandish claim. Again, this is all analysis based on available data and provided as a guideline; the OPG was never intended to be a binding document that guaranteed prices at certain levels every time. You want to price your Hulk 181 9.2 higher than your Cerebus 1 9.2? By all means, go ahead. You're free to disagree with OPG, but you should also recognize that there are people who are free to agree with OPG and who would price their Cerebus 1 9.2 higher than their Hulk 181 9.2.

 

Well stated (thumbs u

 

Yep. (thumbs u

[bronze johnny]

I would also assert that:

1. No new Cerebus material will likely reduce demand for Cerebus 1 in the future, as fewer fans are searching for the book.

2. Wolverine has been the lead in a major marketing event this year that has inspired the same speculators who drove up prices of Marvel Superheroes 18 despite the fact that those weren't the same Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Cerebus is somewhat "rare" for a Bronze book, Hulk #181 isn’t but they are of interest to different audiences and I just think they should not be compared directly.

 

Collectors compare the much rarer Showcase 4 to AF 15. I'm of the opinion that while we may not agree on the conclusions, we can learn things about collecting by comparing these books. (thumbs u

[vaillant]

I would also assert that:

1. No new Cerebus material will likely reduce demand for Cerebus 1 in the future, as fewer fans are searching for the book.

2. Wolverine has been the lead in a major marketing event this year that has inspired the same speculators who drove up prices of Marvel Superheroes 18 despite the fact that those weren't the same Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Cerebus is somewhat "rare" for a Bronze book, Hulk #181 isn’t but they are of interest to different audiences and I just think they should not be compared directly.

 

Collectors compare the much rarer Showcase 4 to AF 15. I'm of the opinion that while we may not agree on the conclusions, we can learn things about collecting by comparing these books. (thumbs u

 

I look at books in term of content. I know each and every book can be compared in terms of collecting market, but I look at the content, and thus I don’t think it’s only hype to determine the true importance of a book.

Cerebus remains also an important book in terms of "independent" comics history, even if, as a Wolverine or Hulk reader, I might prefer to buy a #181. Both important, in different ways, for content. That’s what I meant.