ASM #300 Chromium variant

[Gunnz]

So ASM #300 is one of my most sought after books, specifically the Chromium variant.

 

But I've read that this was a second print, and I've also read that Overstreet says its value is pretty low compared to the $600+ prices I see on eBay.

 

Anyone want to enlighten me?

[Broke as a Joke]

This book came out something like 10 years after Spiderman 300 was printed. It's a nice book but nowhere near as cool as the real thing IMO.

[mrwoogieman]

It's called Marvel Collectibles Classics: Spider-man #1 - not a second print or a variant. Published in 1998, not a Copper Age book. Kind of like a Marvel Milestone Edition reprint, but with a chromium cover. Not sure why it's so expensive - chromium cover maybe?

 

[valiantman]

Chromium cover and limited print (about 10,000 copies, I think) are the main factors for value.

If it was a high print run (like most chromium books), it would be a neat book but nowhere near the value.

 

Spawn #1 Black & White (which was 5 years after the original) is similar case of "I don't care if it's a reprint from years later, it looks COOL!" being more valuable than (or as valuable as) the real thing.

[Jaydogrules]

http://www.recalledcomics.com/AmazingSpider-Man300ChromiumReprint.php

 

Definitely considered reprint, with about 3300 copies. At one time it actually sold for more than its first print counterpart due to its low print run, but has since fallen out of favor as the first print surged.

 

-J.

[valiantman]

478 copies have been slabbed --- that's almost 15%!

 

Most books have less than 2% slabbed.

 

Makes you wonder if more than 3,300 were printed...

they just weren't pre-ordered in the first month (when the 3,300 was calculated).

 

Pre-orders of 3,300 doesn't mean only 3,300.

[spidrvacc]

Cool book but as soon as copies broke $250 I sold both mine. Not that cool.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So ASM #300 is one of my most sought after books, specifically the Chromium variant.

 

But I've read that this was a second print, and I've also read that Overstreet says its value is pretty low compared to the $600+ prices I see on eBay.

 

Anyone want to enlighten me?

 

It is officially called "Marvel Collectible Classics: Spider-Man #1", and it was issued in 1998. There are 9 of these books, one Avengers, two Spiderman, and six X-Men. They all reprint books, mostly significant books from the titles. They carried a price of $10 each.

 

The Avengers and X-Men carry little premium. The Spiderman books, of course, carry a very large premium.

 

They were limited to about 3,000 copies each.

[Jeffro.]

It's called Marvel Collectibles Classics: Spider-man #1 - not a second print or a variant. Published in 1998, not a Copper Age book. Kind of like a Marvel Milestone Edition reprint, but with a chromium cover. Not sure why it's so expensive - chromium cover maybe?

 

 

Correct. This book is not ASM 300 Chromium Variant. It's called Marvel Collectibles Classics: Spider-man #1

[RockMyAmadeus]

Be aware that information from "Recalled Comics" can be, and has been, incorrect. Take it with a grain of salt.

[Jaydogrules]

Be aware that information from "Recalled Comics" can be, and has been, incorrect. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

The site's owner does not purport it to be gospel however he definitely does his due diligence, and consults with (some) exclusive sources prior to publishing and routinely updates it as additional information is provided or brought to light.

 

All in all it is a very convenient go-to source for quick and well organized info, and I have yet to personally see anything blatantly incorrect that he has published. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[revat]

Be aware that information from "Recalled Comics" can be, and has been, incorrect. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

The site's owner does not purport it to be gospel however he definitely does his due diligence, and consults with (some) exclusive sources prior to publishing and routinely updates it as additional information is provided or brought to light.

 

All in all it is a very convenient go-to source for quick and we'll organized info, and I have yet to personally see anything blatantly incorrect that he has published. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

wasn't something just pointed out that was blatantly incorrect? Or am I thinking of something else?

[Jaydogrules]

Be aware that information from "Recalled Comics" can be, and has been, incorrect. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

The site's owner does not purport it to be gospel however he definitely does his due diligence, and consults with (some) exclusive sources prior to publishing and routinely updates it as additional information is provided or brought to light.

 

All in all it is a very convenient go-to source for quick and we'll organized info, and I have yet to personally see anything blatantly incorrect that he has published. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

wasn't something just pointed out that was blatantly incorrect? Or am I thinking of something else?

 

Nothing I have heard of. But if he is alerted that something is incorrect and there's data to verify it provided he is very quick to update the site. He goes out of his way to keep it as accurate as possible.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Be aware that information from "Recalled Comics" can be, and has been, incorrect. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

The site's owner does not purport it to be gospel however he definitely does his due diligence, and consults with (some) exclusive sources prior to publishing and routinely updates it as additional information is provided or brought to light.

 

All in all it is a very convenient go-to source for quick and we'll organized info, and I have yet to personally see anything blatantly incorrect that he has published. (thumbs u

-J.

 

If you don't purport something to be factual, why post it? Why not put a disclaimer that says "all of this is my opinion, and I come up with that opinion on a whim, so don't take any of it seriously"...?

 

Are you the site's owner?

 

What is "blatantly incorrect"? It's either correct, or it's not. That's like "blatantly pregnant."

 

Here's a bit of info that's not correct:

 

"In the early 90's Image flooded the market with multiple variants of many comics and The Maxx was no exception with 7 variants of #1 (including these Ashcans, the standard cover, 3D cover, and even a Glow in the Dark edition!). "

 

Not correct. The 3D cover was not printed until 1998.

 

"Not blatant!" That's the problem. It's not blatant. It's subtle. Yet, it's still wrong.

 

Also, the "values" given for the various ashcans are wildly inaccurate. $900 for the #3 Yellow (which have had multiple sales in the $400 range), but $600 for the #3 Black, the single rarest Maxx ashcan of them all, with only a single sale of $1800 confirmed in the last 10 years or so?

 

After all...he's got MY #3 black scan on his website.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Also...his "estimated quantity" for the ashcans is completely wrong.

 

What he has is the PRINT RUNS for these books. The estimated remaining copies is far, far lower.

 

If you're going to use "estimate", use the actual estimations from knowledgeable sources, not the original print runs.

 

That would be like saying "estimated copies for Action 1 is 200,000" since that was the print run.

 

Doesn't make sense.

[Jaydogrules]

Also...his "estimated quantity" for the ashcans is completely wrong.

 

What he has is the PRINT RUNS for these books. The estimated remaining copies is far, far lower.

 

If you're going to use "estimate", use the actual estimations from knowledgeable sources, not the original print runs.

 

That would be like saying "estimated copies for Action 1 is 200,000" since that was the print run.

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

How could he know how many copies circulated or survived? The guy does the site as a hobby and a FREE reference for those who are interested or are rare variant hunters (such as myself). Anybody who does something in their free time for the benefit of others is okay in my book. And I'm totally fine knowing the original print run (or estimate thereof), it's at the very least a starting point and I can use my own extrapolations from there.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Also...his "estimated quantity" for the ashcans is completely wrong.

 

What he has is the PRINT RUNS for these books. The estimated remaining copies is far, far lower.

 

If you're going to use "estimate", use the actual estimations from knowledgeable sources, not the original print runs.

 

That would be like saying "estimated copies for Action 1 is 200,000" since that was the print run.

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

How could he know how many copies circulated or survived?

 

That's what the word "estimate" means.

 

:shrug:

 

The guy does the site as a hobby and a FREE reference for those who are interested or are rare variant hunters (such as myself). Anybody who does something in their free time for the benefit of others is okay in my book.

 

That's nice, but that means, because it's free, it's ok to be wrong? So, if I post a website telling everyone that tells everyone that Spiderman was created by DC in the 1970's by Elizabeth Taylor and Stephen Hawking...but don't charge for it...that's "ok in your book"?

 

This is bad reasoning.

 

And I'm totally fine knowing the original print run (or estimate thereof), it's at the very least a starting point and I can use my own extrapolations from there.

-J.

 

Fine, but your acceptance of that doesn't therefore make the information correct.

 

Either use one or the other. Don't call the original print run an "estimate."

 

Another incorrect piece of information:

 

"Somewhere around 600-1,000 are thought to have been issued." (Sandman #8 Editorial variant.)

 

We know how many were issued: 600. This is based on information obtained by Overstreet in 1989, when the book was issued. It was given out in the SF Bay Area.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Be aware that information from "Recalled Comics" can be, and has been, incorrect. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

The site's owner does not purport it to be gospel however he definitely does his due diligence, and consults with (some) exclusive sources prior to publishing and routinely updates it as additional information is provided or brought to light.

 

All in all it is a very convenient go-to source for quick and we'll organized info, and I have yet to personally see anything blatantly incorrect that he has published. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

wasn't something just pointed out that was blatantly incorrect? Or am I thinking of something else?

 

Nothing I have heard of. But if he is alerted that something is incorrect and there's data to verify it provided he is very quick to update the site. He goes out of his way to keep it as accurate as possible.

 

-J.

 

Are you he?

[Jaydogrules]

Also...his "estimated quantity" for the ashcans is completely wrong.

 

What he has is the PRINT RUNS for these books. The estimated remaining copies is far, far lower.

 

If you're going to use "estimate", use the actual estimations from knowledgeable sources, not the original print runs.

 

That would be like saying "estimated copies for Action 1 is 200,000" since that was the print run.

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

How could he know how many copies circulated or survived?

 

That's what the word "estimate" means.

 

:shrug:

 

The guy does the site as a hobby and a FREE reference for those who are interested or are rare variant hunters (such as myself). Anybody who does something in their free time for the benefit of others is okay in my book.

 

That's nice, but that means, because it's free, it can be wrong? So, if I post a website telling everyone that tells everyone that Spiderman was created by DC in the 1970's by Elizabeth Taylor and Stephen Hawking...but don't charge for it...that's "ok in your book"?

 

This is bad reasoning.

 

And I'm totally fine knowing the original print run (or estimate thereof), it's at the very least a starting point and I can use my own extrapolations from there.

-J.

 

Fine, but your acceptance of that doesn't therefore make the information correct.

 

Either use one or the other. Don't call the original print run an "estimate."

 

Another incorrect piece of information:

 

"Somewhere around 600-1,000 are thought to have been issued." (Sandman #8 Editorial variant.)

 

We know how many were issued: 600. This is based on information obtained by Overstreet in 1989, when the book was issued. It was given out in the SF Bay Area.

 

I've never once had any issues with the site and used it on multiple different occasions to make informed buying decisions. I highly recommend it.

 

My best recommendation for you would be to simply not use it. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

PS: Overstreet isn't necessarily right about everything either.

[revat]

Also...his "estimated quantity" for the ashcans is completely wrong.

 

What he has is the PRINT RUNS for these books. The estimated remaining copies is far, far lower.

 

If you're going to use "estimate", use the actual estimations from knowledgeable sources, not the original print runs.

 

That would be like saying "estimated copies for Action 1 is 200,000" since that was the print run.

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

How could he know how many copies circulated or survived?

 

That's what the word "estimate" means.

 

:shrug:

 

The guy does the site as a hobby and a FREE reference for those who are interested or are rare variant hunters (such as myself). Anybody who does something in their free time for the benefit of others is okay in my book.

 

That's nice, but that means, because it's free, it's ok to be wrong? So, if I post a website telling everyone that tells everyone that Spiderman was created by DC in the 1970's by Elizabeth Taylor and Stephen Hawking...but don't charge for it...that's "ok in your book"?

 

This is bad reasoning.

 

And I'm totally fine knowing the original print run (or estimate thereof), it's at the very least a starting point and I can use my own extrapolations from there.

-J.

 

Fine, but your acceptance of that doesn't therefore make the information correct.

 

Either use one or the other. Don't call the original print run an "estimate."

 

Another incorrect piece of information:

 

"Somewhere around 600-1,000 are thought to have been issued." (Sandman #8 Editorial variant.)

 

We know how many were issued: 600. This is based on information obtained by Overstreet in 1989, when the book was issued. It was given out in the SF Bay Area.

 

I have no idea about any of this, although I tend to give RMA the benefit of the doubt. What I do know is that nowhere in the description of the comic does he use the official name of it, which is something I would do if I wanted to have even a modicum of credibility, provided his point is to be informative and educational.