When will the New Mutants 98 bubble burst? 1 1

[BarryAllen]

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up

 

Nielsen uses "viewer buttons" and "written diaries" that are supposed to keep track of who is watching and when. There has been wide criticism of both models (especially the more prevalent diary model) and large accusations of inaccurate sample sizes being used (lots of racial bias accusations). Because it is a private company and all their models are proprietary, I guess my own skepticism plays into it as well.

 

But no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up.

 

So no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

No doubt they aren't perfect but there is a huge industry based on the numbers.

Best I can do is go with the data. I wish I could find the rest of the data sheet showing the other age 9-14 shows.

 

I also don't need to go into all the detail about the industries based on these numbers, Cartoon Network, Disney Channel Nick etc. There is tons of data that you are saying should be tossed out. Its quite mind blowing when you think about it.

 

http://www.ratingsintel.com/think-kids-report-youth-viewing-habits/

 

I'd be curious to see better links explaining why all this data is usless.

Sorry but for me to toss out all this data completely I would need some strong sources.

 

 

I wouldn't recommend throwing anything out completely, but rather taking it with a grain of salt. I work in an industry that heavily uses Nielsen data and it isn't treated as the "bible." When a private company owns all the information and won't be transparent about the entirety of its calcuation methodology, one should be skeptical. The TV industry has been heavily criticized for years for relying too heavily on Nielsen ratings, particularly since the inception of the Internet (and more recently Internet TV) and Neilsen's inability to adapt their models to reflect modern viewing practices.

 

I would say that their overall viewership household numbers are fairly accurate (i.e. an estimated X million households watch SpongeBob based on their sample sizes) but actually taking it to 4-9 year olds versus 7-13 year olds is unreliable. With children's shows, it is fair to say that for the most part they are watched by children because many of them would be uninteresting to adults (although you could argue that a parent regularly watches with them as well but is strangely never reported). With other shows that viewership is shared (like Flash, or Arrow or even Walking Dead) it is more difficult to assume age of viewership. In general though, I think it stands to reason that most parents do not let children under 13 regularly watch hyper violent shows.

 

So I am probably more middle of the road in terms of the data, I am comfortable with the overall viewership numbers but less comfortable with diving deeper due to all the stated above. However that is largely driven by my personal professional experience with data and the Nielsen company - which is only one man's perspective.

 

I see it as there isn't reliable hard data to that level, you take the numbers/company at their word. :shrug;

 

So do I. I worked for Disney.

 

 

(I think it stands to reason that most parents do not let children under 13 regularly watch hyper violent shows.) Again this seems to be more of a gut feeling.

Do you have kids. 2 of my 3 boys watch the show. Most of my kids friends watch the show. They are under 12.

Ask around....You'll find its really common. The data seems to go with what I've seen.

 

My experience is the opposite and my friends kids aren't allowed to watch the show. For me the data is counter-intuitive.

 

:shrug:

 

Whichever way it follows there is still the dilemma of nostalgia long term as a requirement for purchase behavior in adulthood. I just don't see kids (if we accept your POV) growing up and one day 20-30 years from now becoming nostalgic for a comic book that a TV series was based on they watched some time ago. It really isn't the same thing as idolizing Superman, Batman and Spider-Man as children. The impact on their emotions, hopes and dreams isn't equivalent.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Anything in life can be considered art.

 

Only to people who don't have standards.

 

I am sure those people who do comics for fun have other income to make up for the lack of income from doing their hobby on the side.

 

And there are plenty of people who do comics because it is their vocation, as opposed to their avocation, but nonetheless need the income it provides to provide for their basic needs.

 

I am happy you love comics so do I so as of right now making a living via comics makes me happy.

 

Comics are produced and sold on various business resell outlets. They are abolsutely a commodity.

 

Do you ever wonder why your comment elicited such a strong response when you made it at the time?

 

Because you don't understand what a "commodity" is. A commodity is an item that is fully or at least substantially fungible, "that is, the market treats its instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them." In other words, an ounce of gold is an ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, and a bushel of wheat is a bushel of wheat is a bushel of wheat, without regard to who produced it. A product is not (generally) a commodity; a product is what you make WITH commodities, and comic books are products (though Dave Sim finds even that objectionable, and I tend to agree with him.)

 

When you, therefore, call comic books "commodities", you not only aren't using the term correctly, but you drastically devalue the efforts of thousands of creators in creating something that is nothing like anything else on the market.

 

Comic books aren't commodities any more than films are commodities, or paintings are commodities, or novels are commodities, or pop albums are commodities.

 

Anything that can be bought and sold appears to be a commodity in my eyes.

 

Again, that's because you don't understand what a commodity is.

 

I understand one can get technical with the word commodity as it has to be a "raw" material such as gold, oil, or coffee bean but comics are paper and paper is a commodity.

 

I deal in paper on the open market....so I consider comics a commodity, especially when we are dealing with back issues.

 

(even more technical....pulp is traded as a commodity which turns into paper)

 

 

You cannot just make up your own definitions for words, insist it's good enough for you, and then expect people to understand, much less agree with, you.

 

When you say comic books are "just paper", you're saying that movies are "just plastic film", and music is "just sound" and, in one easy statement, totally dismissing the creative work of millions of people across millennia, the things that make people feel, relate to one another, experience emotion, joy, sorrow, laughter, pain, tragedy, comedy.

 

What a drab, grey world that is, when comic books are just "paper."

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Well... not to butt in, but one of CGCs purposes is to turn books into commodities. They haven't fully managed that - collectors still may favor one book of the same grade and page quality over another - but they've gone a good way down that path.

 

The purpose of CGC wasn't to create commodities. It was to provide reliable grading and restoration detection so that buyers and sellers could both agree on what it was they were selling...another unfortunate side effect of the money factor.

 

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need sonically sealed cases and tamper-proof holders. CGC could simply put their assessment on a piece of paper or label and include it with the book, so there wouldn't be a "commodity" created. That's just the unfortunate side effect of dishonesty.

 

A service which you use.

 

Why do you keep saying that, as if it is some sort of "well, you're a hypocrite, because you use that service, so there!"...?

 

Recognizing and acknowledging a necessary evil doesn't make it any less necessary: if I want to buy more comics, I am forced by the market to use CGC's services, or I cannot buy as many comics as I would like. That's pretty self-evident. I cannot call a New Mutants #98 a 9.8 and get $900 for it; but if CGC calls it a 9.8, I can.

 

I didn't create this market; I only work within its confines. I don't condemn buying and selling comics; I simply wish for, and actively campaign for, a perspective that respects the creative efforts of the artform.

 

I am not mad at the gallery owner for selling the art; I just want the focus to be on the art, not the money it can make.

 

Yeah cause people would honor those paper grades honestly.

 

You crack me up RMA.

 

Yes, that's what I just said. I'm not sure you understood my comment; you're making the same point I just made.

[Junkdrawer]

 

Anything in life can be considered art.

 

Only to people who don't have standards.

 

I am sure those people who do comics for fun have other income to make up for the lack of income from doing their hobby on the side.

 

And there are plenty of people who do comics because it is their vocation, as opposed to their avocation, but nonetheless need the income it provides to provide for their basic needs.

 

I am happy you love comics so do I so as of right now making a living via comics makes me happy.

 

Comics are produced and sold on various business resell outlets. They are abolsutely a commodity.

 

Do you ever wonder why your comment elicited such a strong response when you made it at the time?

 

Because you don't understand what a "commodity" is. A commodity is an item that is fully or at least substantially fungible, "that is, the market treats its instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them." In other words, an ounce of gold is an ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, and a bushel of wheat is a bushel of wheat is a bushel of wheat, without regard to who produced it. A product is not a commodity; a product is what you make WITH commodities, and comic books are products (though Dave Sim finds even that objectionable, and I tend to agree with him.)

 

When you, therefore, call comic books "commodities", you not only aren't using the term correctly, but you drastically devalue the efforts of thousands of creators in creating something that is nothing like anything else on the market.

 

Comic books aren't commodities any more than films are commodities, or paintings are commodities, or novels are commodities, or pop albums are commodities.

 

Anything that can be bought and sold appears to be a commodity in my eyes.

 

Again, that's because you don't understand what a commodity is.

 

I understand one can get technical with the word commodity as it has to be a "raw" material such as gold, oil, or coffee bean but comics are paper and paper is a commodity.

 

I deal in paper on the open market....so I consider comics a commodity, especially when we are dealing with back issues.

 

(even more technical....pulp is traded as a commodity which turns into paper)

 

 

You cannot just make up your own definitions for words, insist it's good enough for you, and then expect people to understand, much less agree with, you.

 

When you say comic books are "just paper", you're saying that movies are "just plastic film", and music is "just sound" and, in one easy statement, totally dismissing the creative work of millions of people across millennia, the things that make people feel, relate to one another, experience emotion, joy, sorrow, laughter, pain, tragedy, comedy.

 

What a drab, grey world that is, when comic books are just "paper."

Thats some heavy

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I know I edited before you quoted this.

 

Pulp is a commodity so comics in my eyes are a commodity.

 

However if you can sell something on the open market is a freakin commodity such as eBay or here on the CGC boards.

 

If you give me $ and I give you something tangible and I do it over and again sounds like a commodity to me.

 

No, that is merchandise, not a commodity.

 

Buying Oreo cookies, whether you buy one bag or 1,000, doesn't mean Oreo cookies are a commodity. They are not. They are merchandise, that is, something that is made for and intended to be used by a consumer.

 

Yes, I acknowledge that people now treat New Mutants #98s in 9.8 like commodities, but that doesn't make it so.

[miraclemet]

Is there a similar big key that has been able to sustain value and adhere to the supply and demand rule while being readily available in high grade condition as verified by the census?

 

Often times the comics don't come out of the box to be graded until there's a reason for it, and that's when the community gets hard data about the numbers, but Deadpool has always been at least somewhat popular and known so it's a little different. Maybe that's the important difference?

 

 

Deadpool hasn't always been even somewhat popular. He went for many, many years (1993-2008) without much notice at all.

 

9.8s sold many, many times in the mid 00's in the $40-$60 range.

 

just throwing some actual data in to go with statements

 

# of times NM98 sold for $40-60 vs total number of sales that year

 

2007: 0 out of 24 times (this is the point that it started heading up...)

2006: 11 out of 34 times

2005: 1 out of 33 times

2004: 1 out of 19 times

 

So that total is 13 out of 110 sales in the time frame, so 11.8% of sales. Not sure if thats many many or just many, or a few, or sometimes.... but it's actual data.

 

In 2006-2007 you saw Marvel start to push DPool as a character, he because the funny guy to Calbe's "straight man" in Cable & Deadpool, which later gave way to Deadpool and _(a rotating all star)__ all of which recaptured that old Kelly voice.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Is there a similar big key that has been able to sustain value and adhere to the supply and demand rule while being readily available in high grade condition as verified by the census?

 

Often times the comics don't come out of the box to be graded until there's a reason for it, and that's when the community gets hard data about the numbers, but Deadpool has always been at least somewhat popular and known so it's a little different. Maybe that's the important difference?

 

 

Deadpool hasn't always been even somewhat popular. He went for many, many years (1993-2008) without much notice at all.

 

9.8s sold many, many times in the mid 00's in the $40-$60 range.

 

just throwing some actual data in to go with statements

 

# of times NM98 sold for $40-60 vs total number of sales that year

 

2007: 0 out of 24 times (this is the point that it started heading up...)

2006: 11 out of 34 times

2005: 1 out of 33 times

2004: 1 out of 19 times

 

So that total is 13 out of 110 sales in the time frame, so 11.8% of sales. Not sure if thats many many or just many, or a few, or sometimes.... but it's actual data.

 

In 2006-2007 you saw Marvel start to push DPool as a character, he because the funny guy to Calbe's "straight man" in Cable & Deadpool, which later gave way to Deadpool and _(a rotating all star)__ all of which recaptured that old Kelly voice.

 

Your forgot 2003:

 

2003: 3 of 7

 

Which means, in the era being discussed, you saw 16 sales in the $40-$60 range. I consider 16 9.8s to be many, but if you want to quibble, how about "lots"? Will "several" work...?

 

 

[the blob]

I feel quite sad for people who own comics and have never red one.

 

 

that would involve a color touch and come back a PLOD

[the blob]

Yvette Harris, a psychology professor and early childhood researcher at The Miami University of Ohio, says The Walking Dead might be OK for young adults, but 9- and 10-year-olds are unlikely to understand its underlying message. "Violence is sometimes justified," says Harris, "and it's the hero who actually can engage in violent behavior because — the justification is — the hero is protecting everybody and saving the world."

----

 

I think we probably let him see too much violent stuff (he loves the Terminator movies, etc.), but I don't let our 10.5 year old watch WD. He may see the reruns that run before I get home from work, but I think those have some of the gore edited out.

 

I took him to Deadpool because he begged and begged and begged. I covered his eyes during the sex and strip club scenes and he covered his own eyes during some of the more gnarley scenes.

[the blob]

 

Your forgot 2003:

 

2003: 3 of 7

 

Which means, in the era being discussed, you saw 16 sales in the $40-$60 range. I consider 16 9.8s to be many, but if you want to quibble, how about "lots"? Will "several" work...?

 

 

I dunno, it seemed like one was able to snag deals better back then. less automated bidding and what not. but your point is taken. so what was the GPA average on a 9.8 in 2007?

[BarryAllen]

 

I dunno, it seemed like one was able to snag deals better back then. less automated bidding and what not. but your point is taken. so what was the GPA average on a 9.8 in 2007?

 

High: $178

Low: $94

Avg: ~$124

Edited March 2, 2016 by rfoiii

[the blob]

 

I dunno, it seemed like one was able to snag deals better back then. less automated bidding and what not. but your point is taken. so what was the GPA average on a 9.8 in 2007?

 

High: $178

Low: $94

Avg: ~$124

 

How about 2006? because clearly toward the end of 2007 it was definitely heating up big time, which might raise those averages

 

 

$124 smells like a very hot book for 2007,particularly for an early 90s book. I had snagged a 9.4 ASM 300 for $65 in 2005 to put things in perspective.

[BarryAllen]

 

I dunno, it seemed like one was able to snag deals better back then. less automated bidding and what not. but your point is taken. so what was the GPA average on a 9.8 in 2007?

 

High: $178

Low: $94

Avg: ~$124

 

How about 2006? because clearly toward the end of 2007 it was definitely heating up big time, which might raise those averages

 

 

$124 smells like a very hot book for 2007,particularly for an early 90s book. I had snagged a 9.4 ASM 300 for $65 in 2005 to put things in perspective.

 

High: $175 (one outlier above $123)

Low: $43

Avg: ~$80-90ish (don't want to do the math cause I'm lazy)

 

 

FYI - the averages for 2005 and 2004 look similar as well (different highs and lows though)

 

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by rfoiii

[ComicConnoisseur]

I thought you guys would get a kick out of this. Found on YouTube.

The NM #98 review!

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

How about 2006? because clearly toward the end of 2007 it was definitely heating up big time, which might raise those averages

 

 

$124 smells like a very hot book for 2007,particularly for an early 90s book. I had snagged a 9.4 ASM 300 for $65 in 2005 to put things in perspective.

 

Not for 9.8s. X-Men #266 was selling for about $200 during this year, with 64 sales.

 

This was the weird time for "modern" slabs, because the market didn't quite know how to react to them yet. 2007 was the first really big year of modern slabbing, where books like ASM #301 sold for $970, Daredevil #168 was selling for $1700-$1900, and New Mutants #87 was selling for $300+ multiple times.

 

Because very few understood that there were piles of 9.8s waiting to be slabbed, a lot of those early 9.8s sold for a LOT more than they would in the future. Remember, New Mutants #99 sold for $95 in 2007, too.

[the blob]

ok, i picked up some modern 9.8 slabs for $10 a pop on ebay around then though...stuff like swamp thing 27..."good" books, but not keys or anything, so to me it seemed like a very erratic market. i wanted exemplars of what a 9.8 was supposed to look like so i wasn't willing to go over $10, i wasn't trying to invest or anything. also picked up a bunch of 5.0 - 8.0 BA and SA in that price range to use as grading exemplars, but that's not for this discussion. i wound up doing ok selling those exemplars later though.

[VintageComics]

New Mutants #98 is the 1st book that I've seen rise in price after the movie was released. Just sayin'

 

[BarryAllen]

New Mutants #98 is the 1st book that I've seen rise in price after the movie was released. Just sayin'

 

 

Looks pretty flat to me (for almost 2 years).

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by rfoiii

[VintageComics]

New Mutants #98 is the 1st book that I've seen rise in price after the movie was released. Just sayin'

 

 

Looks pretty flat to me (for almost 2 years).

 

It does? Look at the 9.8 averages. They are rising. The last sale was $900, there is an auction running for another 3 days that is at $750 and I just sold one for $800 pretty quick (something that was tougher to do a few months ago) and there were 3 other people interested in the book when it sold.

 

I personally think there is another surge on the book.

 

 

[BarryAllen]

New Mutants #98 is the 1st book that I've seen rise in price after the movie was released. Just sayin'

 

 

Looks pretty flat to me (for almost 2 years).

 

It does? Look at the 9.8 averages. They are rising. The last sale was $900, there is an auction running for another 3 days that is at $750 and I just sold one for $800 pretty quick (something that was tougher to do a few months ago) and there were 3 other people interested in the book when it sold.

 

I personally think there is another surge on the book.

 

 

Look at the control charts on the right (24 Months and 12 Months boxes), the book is not surging, maybe ever so slightly up. Statistically flat.

 

:shrug:

Edited March 2, 2016 by rfoiii