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

[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

 

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.

 

I don't disagree with you. Just pointing out my opinion that comparing these 2 important books gave me greater insight.

[Jaydogrules]

Bravo to the last 9 or so posts guys. Finally an objective, substantive discussion on the actual facts/data points without a bunch of meaningless conclusory statements, condescension, and name calling.

 

-J.

[Comix4Sale]

Which one at 9.2 would I want in my collection? Cerebus 1. I would be very happy with that grade on the book but would want a higher grade on Incredible Hulk 181 because they are out there above 9.2.

 

James

[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??

 

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

 

Ok.

 

Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting?

 

And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true.

 

In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.")

 

Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this?

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

 

There is no such thing as "Team Cerebus." That mischaracterizes the discussion completely.

[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.

 

 

There is no such thing as "Team Cerebus." That mischaracterizes the discussion completely.

 

It was faster than typing out "those that think OSPG has correctly placed Cerebus 1 in 9.2 ahead of Hulk 181 in 9.2".

 

Which, in hindsight, I should have done from the get go so that I wouldn't have to type this silly response.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

That's not true at all...I mean, at all...but ok.

 

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.

 

This is not an assumption, this is an established fact, by the words of the OPG itself:

 

"With input from a network of experienced advisors including well established collectors, dealers, and historians of popular culture, we have undertaken significant effort to assemble this pricing information."

 

- Overstreet Price Guide, 40th Edition, page 64

 

And we need not take Overstreet's word for it, either. We have the direct testimony OF those advisors that they have, in fact, informed the OPG.

 

Is it 100% accurate in every case across the country all the time?

 

This isn't a valid question to ask. Not only can't it be "100% accurate in every case across the country all the time", it doesn't even pretend to be such a thing, It is a price guide, not a price record.. Asking "is it 100% accurate" necessarily assumes that it is not only possible to be so, but that it probably should be so.

 

And that has never been its function.

 

Some may think this is picking nits, but it's the underpinning of this entire discussion. And you may think it is adequately addressed by what you said following, but I'm saying the question itself is not valid.

 

As a price guide. it gives a reasonable retail value (not price...price is what the individual seller and buyer agree to) for any given book in any given grade. It does not pretend to say "this is what X-Men #47 is worth in VF" (even though that is precisely what it appears to do)...it says "this is ABOUT what it is worth, according to previous sales of this book in this grade."

 

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.

 

There is no new EC material, and yet Crime Suspenstories #22 has been on a tear recently.

 

 

I do not disagree with you assertion (and have said as much in this thread.) However, lack of new material isn't necessarily going to mean reduced demand in the future (and I hope it does mean that, because I would like to buy them for little money.)

 

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.

 

This is what several people have said, at various points in this thread.

 

The issue has been the people who think that the OPG is wrong to value Hulk #181 below Cerebus #1, in any grade.

 

That's it. That's the entire crux of the debate.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

 

There is no such thing as "Team Cerebus." That mischaracterizes the discussion completely.

 

It was faster than typing out "those that think OSPG has correctly placed Cerebus 1 in 9.2 ahead of Hulk 181 in 9.2".

 

Which, in hindsight, I should have done from the get go so that I wouldn't have to type this silly response.

 

Probably, though I disagree with the silliness of said response.

 

You clearly don't agree, but "Team Cerebus" characterizes the discussion as Cerebus vs. Wolverine, and that's never been the case (though that does accurately characterize those arguing for Hulk #181 being "more valuable", which is the heart of the disagreement.)

[bronze johnny]

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.

 

 

There is no such thing as "Team Cerebus." That mischaracterizes the discussion completely.

 

It was faster than typing out "those that think OSPG has correctly placed Cerebus 1 in 9.2 ahead of Hulk 181 in 9.2".

 

Which, in hindsight, I should have done from the get go so that I wouldn't have to type this silly response.

 

Probably, though I disagree with the silliness of said response.

 

You clearly don't agree, but "Team Cerebus" characterizes the discussion as Cerebus vs. Wolverine, and that's never been the case (though that does accurately characterize those arguing for Hulk #181 being "more valuable", which is the heart of the disagreement.)

 

His response is silly? Now who's insulting?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Bravo to the last 9 or so posts guys. Finally an objective, substantive discussion on the actual facts/data points without a bunch of meaningless conclusory statements, condescension, and name calling.

 

-J.

 

Can you please point me to a post where anyone was called a name? Can you please point me to any "meaningless conclusory statements"? Can you please point me to "condescension"?

 

Disagreeing with you, and laying out an argument why, is not "condescension."

 

Jay, the only thing you think is objective is that with which you agree. That isn't objectivity.

 

I need only use your own words: your arguments are made using "publicly available data points"...those who disagree are merely speculating, even though those same data points are used.

 

This is not objectivity. This is the very definition of subjectivity.

 

Look at this very post: "finally, an objective, substantive discussion"...thereby condescendingly dismissing everything else as subjective and insubstantial.

 

You are doing the very thing you're complaining about..

 

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

There is no such thing as "Team Cerebus." That mischaracterizes the discussion completely.

 

It was faster than typing out "those that think OSPG has correctly placed Cerebus 1 in 9.2 ahead of Hulk 181 in 9.2".

 

Which, in hindsight, I should have done from the get go so that I wouldn't have to type this silly response.

 

Probably, though I disagree with the silliness of said response.

 

You clearly don't agree, but "Team Cerebus" characterizes the discussion as Cerebus vs. Wolverine, and that's never been the case (though that does accurately characterize those arguing for Hulk #181 being "more valuable", which is the heart of the disagreement.)

 

His response is silly? Now who's insulting?

 

Read it again. You've read it wrong.

 

Read it again.

[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.

 

Ok.

 

Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting?

 

And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true.

 

In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.")

 

Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this?

 

 

Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion? So they may have left off FF 4 and OAAW 83 since the space allotted on the page for the list was insufficient? Why would this necessarily be one of the 2 OPTIONS THAT YOU, NOT ME, ARE CONCLUDING? Editorial discretion is used in publishing and it's not necessarily motivated by your omniscient conclusion. Again, your logical conclusion is a prime example of absurdity, ad infinitum.

 

Also when someone disagrees with you, it's either an insult or they're emotional. Yet, you have the nerve to insinuate not once, but twice, that a well respected boardie has a phony signature line. This is the lowest example of class that I've ever witnessed on the boards. But wait, this thread isn't over, is it? Show some real class and apologize to Jay.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

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)

 

Your conclusions completely lack context.

 

Here, let's see if this might help.

 

There is a coin that is extremely rare...an 1822 US $5 half-eagle.

 

There are three known examples, and two of those are in the Smithsonian.

 

The last example is in private hands. It was last sold in 1982 when Eliasberg's collection was sold off. It sold for $687,500.

 

Now, since then, there have been hundreds of coins that have sold for more than that.

 

By the reasoning that you, Jaydog, and others continue to use, that coin is only "worth" $687K.

 

After all...that price is a fact. There are no other data points to use. No one can reasonably say that it would sell for more, because there are no sales, right?

 

But coin dealers and price guide officials estimate the value of that coin at $5,000,000 at least.

 

How is that possible? The only data point we have is $687K.

 

Ah, but we have to look at the context. That single data point doesn't tell the story..just like all the data points you have just posted.

 

Raw data is meaningless without interpretation.

 

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.

 

It is not possible to determine "trends" for Cerebus #1 in 9.0+ grade. There simply isn't enough data.

 

 

So what can we learn from this? We can see that H181 is trending strongly upwards while Cerebus is trending downwards across grades.

 

Hulk #181 is, indeed, trending strongly upwards.

 

However, there isn't enough data to determine if Cerebus #1 is trending in any direction.

 

We can also see that H181 is the highest valued issue in all grades except for 9.4.

 

1822 Half Eagle. By your reasoning, the finest two 1838-O Half Dollars...at $734k and $763k respectively...are worth more than the 1822 Half Eagle, because it sold for only $687k.

 

The fact that it happened 30+ years ago is not relevant, right?

 

Raw data without analysis is useless.

 

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 what amount is that "significant bonus"...? I'm not disputing that there is some sort of premium for "highest grade on record" (though such a dispute CAN be made)...I'm just wondering what you think that bonus might be.

 

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.

 

True. And by this argument, New Mutants #98 is worth twice as much as Our Army at War #81.

 

After all...when you compare the highest grade with the highest grade, you have New Mutants #98 selling or $15k, while Our Army #81 has only achieved a paltry $7100.

 

Ipso facto, "collectors value New Mutants #98 higher than OOAW #81."

 

 

If I may make a niggling point....since there's only ONE copy of Hulk #181 in 9.9, I'm not sure how collectorS, plural, value it higher, but that's probably not a relevant point..........

 

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.

 

That's an interesting conclusion.

 

There is no possible argument in any grade except 9.0 and 9.4.

 

It used to be that if a book was more valuable in the highest grades, it was more valuable absolutely. Mainly because of the fact that it sold for more money.

 

That may not be the case anymore.

 

 

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.

 

Also an interesting conclusion, given the scarcity of the data.

 

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.

 

Why does it have to be limited to a single high purchase?

 

Is it not possible for there to be more than one sale before the OPG data period ends?

 

 

Likely? Oh, no, definitely not.

 

But certainly possible.

[Jaydogrules]

Bravo to the last 9 or so posts guys. Finally an objective, substantive discussion on the actual facts/data points without a bunch of meaningless conclusory statements, condescension, and name calling.

 

-J.

 

Can you please point me to a post where anyone was called a name? Can you please point me to any "meaningless conclusory statements"? Can you please point me to "condescension"?

 

Disagreeing with you, and laying out an argument why, is not "condescension."

 

Jay, the only thing you think is objective is that with which you agree. That isn't objectivity.

 

I need only use your own words: your arguments are made using "publicly available data points"...those who disagree are merely speculating, even though those same data points are used.

 

This is not objectivity. This is the very definition of subjectivity.

 

Look at this very post: "finally, an objective, substantive discussion"...thereby condescendingly dismissing everything else as subjective and insubstantial.

 

You are doing the very thing you're complaining about..

 

 

 

 

 

My friend, either you or your mate chuck have either directly or indirectly called me (and others) all of the following pejoratives:

 

1) Liar

2) Troll

3) Politician

4) Propagandist

5) Conspiracy Theorist

6) Illogical

7) Overly Emotional

8) Intellectually Dishonest

9) Ignorant

10) Incompetent

 

And those are just the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure I can find plenty more if I read back through some of the posts.

 

The following are examples of meaningless conclusory statements (ie, a flat responses with nothing else stated, or any evidence provided to support the response) that have been bandied about by yourself and a couple others who evidently support your position:

 

1) "You are wrong"

2) "You are incorrect"

3) "You don't know what you are talking about"

4) "You don't understand the market "

5) "You don't know how to read data "

6) "You don't know how to interpret GPA"

 

Again, there are plenty more but these are the ones that first come to mind (and also show more of that condescension as well).

 

It's great that you love your cerebus, but there's no need to attempt to belittle other posters (some of whom do not even use English as a first language) or try to prove to everyone how smart and informed you are by telling everyone else how they are not smart or informed.

 

Stick to the facts man, and don't make it personal and if you're right people will see how intelligent and informed you are on their own (which you obviously are).

 

-J.

[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??

 

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

 

Ok.

 

Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting?

 

And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true.

 

In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.")

 

Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this?

 

 

Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion?

 

I already explained this, but I will explain it again: because it would render the lists meaningless, by their own definitions.

 

Here is a list of the top 10 posters on this board, by post count:

 

* VintageComics User * 72241

* greggy User * 64253

* Comicopolis User * 63714

* G.A.tor User * 50918

* DrWatson User 42721

* Bosco685 User 41675

* DiceX User 40722

* goldust40 User * 40053

* RockMyAmadeus User 38601

* Jeffro User 38454

 

This is a list of the top 10 posters, using no criteria except post count.

 

But wait! There's a poster missing! MutantKeys has 43873 posts, placing him at #5 on this list, bumping Jeffro to #11.

 

So, by my definition, if I say this is a list of the top 10 posters, by post count...is it accurate?

 

Regardless of why I left out MK, by my definition, is it accurate?

 

No. Of course not. I'm missing something. If I said it WAS accurate, and purposely ignored calls by others to include MK in the list...would I simply be "using editorial discretion"? Or, would I put my own definition to the lie?

 

Clearly, the latter. My own definition would be a lie, because I excluded MK, purposely.

 

So, if the Top 10 Silver Age list in the OPG is missing something, is that list accurate by its own definition?

 

No.

 

Does Overstreet's own definition allow for "editorial discretion"?

 

No. He doesn't say "this is the Top 10 list, the way I think it should be."

 

He says "this is the Top 10 list, according to the values I list."

 

Therefore....

 

If there is an omission, it is either a mistake...or Overstreet is directly contradicting his own definition of the list.

 

There is no allowance for "editorial discretion", because that's not what the lists are, by definition.

 

So they may have left off FF 4 and OAAW 83 since the space allotted on the page for the list was insufficient? Why would this necessarily be one of the 2 OPTIONS THAT YOU, NOT ME, ARE CONCLUDING? Editorial discretion is used in publishing and it's not necessarily motivated by your omniscient conclusion. Again, your logical conclusion is a prime example of absurdity, ad infinitum.

 

Overstreet is not publishing his opinion in those lists. If he were, you would be completely correct.

 

But he is not. His own definition does not allow for editorial discretion.

 

Also when someone disagrees with you, it's either an insult or they're emotional.

 

Patent nonsense.

 

Many people have disagreed with me, many times, and in many ways.

 

The issue isn't disagreement. The issue is the way in which disagreement is handled.

 

As always.

 

And I can prove it by looking in this very thread, only a few posts back.

 

Chrisco disagreed with me (which you misread), about the lack of necessity of his post explaining "Team Cerebus."

 

I have known Chrisco for a long time. I have a good deal of respect for Chrisco. He and I have just disagreed, and he even said such a disagreement is silly.

 

I don't think, for a second, that he's insulting me, or that he's "arguing from emotion."

 

When I say you are arguing from emotion, it is because you are arguing from emotion (as evidenced by you resorting to unjustifiable hyperbole like "absurdity, ad infinitum", and statements like "you have the nerve", etc. These are not the words of a calm person. These are the words that angry, outraged people use.)

 

It is not because you "disagree with me."

 

And yes, I know most people DO have such a reaction. I like to think I'm not most people, at least in respect to reason.

 

Yet, you have the nerve to insinuate not once, but twice, that a well respected boardie has a phony signature line.

 

Well respected? The guy has been here less than a year. If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest putting up a poll. I suspect the vast majority of board members have never HEARD of "jaydogrules", much less "well respect" him.

 

I asked if the books in his sigline were his. That's it. There are, in fact, many siglines that contain pictures of items that DO NOT belong that poster.

 

Was it an "insinuation" that he had a "phony sigline"? Yes. It absolutely was, as all such questions are. It is a questionable sigline, containing scans that are all from clearly different sources. Generally, scans from multiple sources are a "red flag." And you may not be aware of this, but this board generally has a nose for detecting frauds. Investigating red flags are one of the means of doing that. People are insinuated every day on this board.

 

But you'll note that I asked...I didn't simply assume. And I posted no conclusion, insinuation or otherwise.

 

Once he said they were, that was the end of it. Question answered. Not brought up again until you did just now, trying to make hay out of it.

 

Are YOU going to apologize to me for misreading the "silly" statements between myself and Chrisco, and accusing (not just insinuating) me of insulting him?

 

You see the worst, because you wish to. That's a terrible way to live life.

 

 

This is the lowest example of class that I've ever witnessed on the boards. But wait, this thread isn't over, is it? Show some real class and apologize to Jay.

 

That you think me questioning someone's sigline is "the lowest example of class you have ever witnessed on the boards" only demonstrates how deeply you are divorced from reason. There has been far, far, FAR worse on this boards, and if you haven't witnessed it...you haven't been paying any attention at all.

 

You argue from emotion, not reason.

 

This is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility. Your emotion drives you, and one need not go further than this latest "outrage", which has absolutely zero bearing on anything in this thread. It's utterly irrelevant, and designed solely to make me look bad, and if you can succeed in making me look bad, my arguments, as the thinking doubtless goes, won't carry as much weight.

 

It is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

 

I hope...genuinely, for your sake, because it doesn't affect me much at all...that you eventually learn how to disagree with people without becoming emotionally involved.

[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.

 

Ok.

 

Now, can you answer the questions, without being insulting?

 

And I understand that you believe that questioning you is also "insulting." Many people believe that, because they think with their emotions, rather than reason. In fact, you are likely insulted by what I just typed, though it is absolutely true.

 

In any event...my "conclusion" isn't a difficult one. Either the Top 10 lists are what they say they are, and the omission of OAAW #83 is an oversight, or they are not, and it's a conspiracy to "keep certain books in, and certain books out" (which would defeat the whole point of such lists, and render them utterly meaningless, even without their expressly stated purpose of simply being "the list of the most valuable books per age.")

 

Which sounds more reasonable? How is it possible to even challenge this?

 

 

Why do you present the conclusion by using a disjunctive either "oversight" or "conspiracy?" You know well what I said. What's wrong with a little editorial discretion?

 

I already explained this, but I will explain it again: because it would render the lists meaningless, by their own definitions.

 

Here is a list of the top 10 posters on this board, by post count:

 

* VintageComics User * 72241

* greggy User * 64253

* Comicopolis User * 63714

* G.A.tor User * 50918

* DrWatson User 42721

* Bosco685 User 41675

* DiceX User 40722

* goldust40 User * 40053

* RockMyAmadeus User 38601

* Jeffro User 38454

 

This is a list of the top 10 posters, using no criteria except post count.

 

But wait! There's a poster missing! MutantKeys has 43873 posts, placing him at #5 on this list, bumping Jeffro to #11.

 

So, by my definition, if I say this is a list of the top 10 posters, by post count...is it accurate?

 

Regardless of why I left out MK, by my definition, is it accurate?

 

No. Of course not. I'm missing something. If I said it WAS accurate, and purposely ignored calls by others to include MK in the list...would I simply be "using editorial discretion"? Or, would I put my own definition to the lie?

 

Clearly, the latter. My own definition would be a lie, because I excluded MK, purposely.

 

So, if the Top 10 Silver Age list in the OPG is missing something, is that list accurate by its own definition?

 

No.

 

Does Overstreet's own definition allow for "editorial discretion"?

 

No. He doesn't say "this is the Top 10 list, the way I think it should be."

 

He says "this is the Top 10 list, according to the values I list."

 

Therefore....

 

If there is an omission, it is either a mistake...or Overstreet is directly contradicting his own definition of the list.

 

There is no allowance for "editorial discretion", because that's not what the lists are, by definition.

 

So they may have left off FF 4 and OAAW 83 since the space allotted on the page for the list was insufficient? Why would this necessarily be one of the 2 OPTIONS THAT YOU, NOT ME, ARE CONCLUDING? Editorial discretion is used in publishing and it's not necessarily motivated by your omniscient conclusion. Again, your logical conclusion is a prime example of absurdity, ad infinitum.

 

Overstreet is not publishing his opinion in those lists. If he were, you would be completely correct.

 

But he is not. His own definition does not allow for editorial discretion.

 

Also when someone disagrees with you, it's either an insult or they're emotional.

 

Patent nonsense.

 

Many people have disagreed with me, many times, and in many ways.

 

The issue isn't disagreement. The issue is the way in which disagreement is handled.

 

As always.

 

And I can prove it by looking in this very thread, only a few posts back.

 

Chrisco disagreed with me (which you misread), about the lack of necessity of his post explaining "Team Cerebus."

 

I have known Chrisco for a long time. I have a good deal of respect for Chrisco. He and I have just disagreed, and he even said such a disagreement is silly.

 

I don't think, for a second, that he's insulting me, or that he's "arguing from emotion."

 

When I say you are arguing from emotion, it is because you are arguing from emotion (as evidenced by you resorting to unjustifiable hyperbole like "absurdity, ad infinitum", and statements like "you have the nerve", etc. These are not the words of a calm person. These are the words that angry, outraged people use.)

 

It is not because you "disagree with me."

 

And yes, I know most people DO have such a reaction. I like to think I'm not most people, at least in respect to reason.

 

Yet, you have the nerve to insinuate not once, but twice, that a well respected boardie has a phony signature line.

 

Well respected? The guy has been here less than a year. If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest putting up a poll. I suspect the vast majority of board members have never HEARD of "jaydogrules", much less "well respect" him.

 

I asked if the books in his sigline were his. That's it. There are, in fact, many siglines that contain pictures of items that DO NOT belong that poster.

 

Was it an "insinuation" that he had a "phony sigline"? Yes. It absolutely was, as all such questions are. It is a questionable sigline, containing scans that are all from clearly different sources. Generally, scans from multiple sources are a "red flag." And you may not be aware of this, but this board generally has a nose for detecting frauds. Investigating red flags are one of the means of doing that. People are insinuated every day on this board.

 

But you'll note that I asked...I didn't simply assume. And I posted no conclusion, insinuation or otherwise.

 

Once he said they were, that was the end of it. Question answered. Not brought up again until you did just now, trying to make hay out of it.

 

Are YOU going to apologize to me for misreading the "silly" statements between myself and Chrisco, and accusing (not just insinuating) me of insulting him?

 

You see the worst, because you wish to. That's a terrible way to live life.

 

 

This is the lowest example of class that I've ever witnessed on the boards. But wait, this thread isn't over, is it? Show some real class and apologize to Jay.

 

You argue from emotion, not reason.

 

This is not my fault, nor is it my responsibility. Your emotion drives you, and one need not go further than this latest "outrage", which has absolutely zero bearing on anything in this thread. It's utterly irrelevant, and designed solely to make me look bad, and if you can succeed in making me look bad, my arguments, as the thinking doubtless goes, won't carry as much weight.

 

It is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

 

I hope...genuinely, for your sake, because it doesn't affect me much at all...that you eventually learn how to disagree with people without becoming emotionally involved.

 

Defending the indefensible.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Defending the indefensible.

 

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense.

 

You only discredit yourself.

 

 

 

[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.

 

That's not true at all...I mean, at all...but ok.

 

I think this has been happening, and quite often. People talk about books being "hot," people talk about "recent trends," people even talk about DC 100 Page Super Spectacular 5. People compared 9.4s to 9.9s, people made accusations of OPG oversights and conspiracies, people talked about the relevance of "publicly available sales data" and the reliability of dealers' opinions. People celebrated Hulk 181's liquidity and condemned Cerebus 1's scarcity. People compared Wolverine's popularity to Cerebus's niche market. People talked about the relative value of the two books in 8.0 and 8.5. People talked about the run of early Cerebus that went for 25% of guide. I think almost all of this is irrelevant and distracting from the actual source of the disagreement, which was OPG's list of top Bronze Age books in 9.2 in 2013-14.

 

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.

 

This is not an assumption, this is an established fact, by the words of the OPG itself:

 

"With input from a network of experienced advisors including well established collectors, dealers, and historians of popular culture, we have undertaken significant effort to assemble this pricing information."

 

- Overstreet Price Guide, 40th Edition, page 64

 

And we need not take Overstreet's word for it, either. We have the direct testimony OF those advisors that they have, in fact, informed the OPG.

 

I was reluctant to state that OPG's acceptance as the industry standard was a fact, since I have no evidence to support that beyond anecdote. For all we know Bob gets the advisors' reports and disregards them in favor of his own interpretation. Unlikely, but beyond my scope of knowledge. I also would not use the document itself to support its own claims, and as you pointed out at least one person implied that there was a clandestine reason behind the exclusion of OAAW from the list.

 

Is it 100% accurate in every case across the country all the time?

 

This isn't a valid question to ask. Not only can't it be "100% accurate in every case across the country all the time", it doesn't even pretend to be such a thing, It is a price guide, not a price record.. Asking "is it 100% accurate" necessarily assumes that it is not only possible to be so, but that it probably should be so.

 

And that has never been its function.

 

Some may think this is picking nits, but it's the underpinning of this entire discussion. And you may think it is adequately addressed by what you said following, but I'm saying the question itself is not valid.

 

As a price guide. it gives a reasonable retail value (not price...price is what the individual seller and buyer agree to) for any given book in any given grade. It does not pretend to say "this is what X-Men #47 is worth in VF" (even though that is precisely what it appears to do)...it says "this is ABOUT what it is worth, according to previous sales of this book in this grade."

 

Yeah, that's basically the point I was getting at. The books are only $100 apart on the list, so it's not unreasonable at all to suppose that an individual seller and buyer could agree to a higher price for Cerebus 1 or Hulk 181.

 

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.

 

There is no new EC material, and yet Crime Suspenstories #22 has been on a tear recently.

 

 

I do not disagree with you assertion (and have said as much in this thread.) However, lack of new material isn't necessarily going to mean reduced demand in the future (and I hope it does mean that, because I would like to buy them for little money.)

 

That's a great point about CSS22, and illustrates how complex the market can be. I hope Cerebus doesn't fall completely off the map, but I expect it to decline quite a bit (just my personal opinion of the situation). This month's Back Issue! has a pretty good article on the early days of Cerebus, and any exposure is good exposure.

 

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.

 

This is what several people have said, at various points in this thread.

 

The issue has been the people who think that the OPG is wrong to value Hulk #181 above Cerebus #1, in any grade.

 

That's it. That's the entire crux of the debate.

 

Is that right, or are they transposed? I thought we all accepted that Hulk 181 sells for more than Cerebus 1 in mid to low grade? I'll go ahead and post this and see if you've edited...

[bronze johnny]

 

Defending the indefensible.

 

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense.

 

You only discredit yourself.

 

 

 

The "Guardian of Reason" has spoken thus...

 

Again, defending the indefensible.

[Jaydogrules]

 

Defending the indefensible.

 

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense.

 

You only discredit yourself.

 

 

 

RMA, I didn't make a big deal out of it, even though you did it not once, but twice, off topic, and in the thread. Truthfully, that was a bit tacky. But I do make it a point to not take anything that is said on these boards personally.

 

-J.