Valuation

[BarryAllen]

It makes a lot more sense to pay attention to the people who actually deal with those books on a regular basis.

.

 

Really? You take the word of someone on an item's value that is selling you something that you have no basis of comparison? Really?

 

Reminds me of the old joke of the woman who walks in on her husband caught red handed in the act of cheating on her in their marital bed:

 

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

 

 

-J.

 

Who wold you trust more - someone you deal with on a regular basis or somebody you don't know?

 

 

I don't think the choice was between two people: one you know and one you don't. The point was to trust yourself.

 

Besides, just because you have dealt with someone for a long time and have built a "relationship" with them doesn't mean you haven't been getting fleeced for years...

 

What are you arguing again?

 

What dealer gave you that royal fleecing?

 

He who shall not be named. Let's call him: Boardie Member A.

 

And you've decided to trust noone now because of it?

 

Trust is earned in this area. References count.

 

When it comes to money, many people aren't themselves.

[BarryAllen]

Wow! I have a headache from this thread.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Wow! I have a headache from this thread.

 

Me too

 

[Comicopolis]

Wow! I have a headache from this thread.

 

A 60% or 80% headache?

[THE_BEYONDER]

It makes a lot more sense to pay attention to the people who actually deal with those books on a regular basis.

.

 

Really? You take the word of someone on an item's value that is selling you something that you have no basis of comparison? Really?

 

Reminds me of the old joke of the woman who walks in on her husband caught red handed in the act of cheating on her in their marital bed:

 

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

 

 

-J.

 

Who wold you trust more - someone you deal with on a regular basis or somebody you don't know?

 

 

I don't think the choice was between two people: one you know and one you don't. The point was to trust yourself.

 

Besides, just because you have dealt with someone for a long time and have built a "relationship" with them doesn't mean you haven't been getting fleeced for years...

 

What are you arguing again?

 

What dealer gave you that royal fleecing?

 

He who shall not be named. Let's call him: Boardie Member A.

 

And you've decided to trust noone now because of it?

 

Trust is earned in this area. References count.

 

When it comes to money, many people aren't themselves.

 

No doubt. Money can turn asshats into even bigger asshats.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

 

So they don't report?

 

George just puts their names up for no apparent reason?

 

Three things:

 

1) He puts their names up there because they have reported at least one data entry at some point and it makes for a good business move. Hell, I have no idea how many any one of them provide their data or how often. He has no way of knowing if they report every sale so from his prospective he is safe and validating his business. Without being able to claim they report to him would mean the loss of a ton of business as eBay and most auction data is readily available without GPA.

 

2) Your statement is silly and inflammatory, similar to most of your arguments thus far. You are simply making assertions claiming they are facts because you either call someone's honor into question or your own and continue to rant as if everyone should just believe what you say is fact.

 

3) Clearly these dealers do not report every single sale. I will not speculate as to why, but it is obvious to anyone with a GPA subscription and spends more than 15 minutes on the internet that this is true.

 

 

My arguments have been based 100% around facts...

 

(1) My own sales data from many years of dealing.

(2) The much smaller percentage (per capita) of pence copies being slabbed in comparison to their US counterparts. I know this because we're CGC authorised dealers and I know the breakdown of the submissions we make on behalf of customers.

(3) The complete lack of GPA data from UK dealers - other than eBay UK - whereas many US dealers report.

 

Now, until anybody can refute any of those facts, I'll continue to assert that pence copies trade between 70-80% of their US counterparts and certainly a small sample of a very small sample of a niche market...GPA recorded pence copy sales...is not going going to sway me, for the reasons I have already stated.

 

Okay so your position is essentially that all pense copies have an FMV of 70-80% of cents when you "don't" count all the sales that have actually occurred and are reported publicly which show the FMV to be closer to 60%.

 

And you're complaining about GPA using selective data points ?

 

Got it. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

Actually, GPA doesn't appear to show a FMV closer to 60%. You looked at Hulk #1 and AF #15. I'll look at Avengers #1.

 

A 7.0 sold in 2012 for $3,875. The 2012 average for cents copies was $5,222.

 

So that's 74%

 

A 6.5 sold in March 2014 for $2,995. The 12 month average for cents copies is $3,980.

 

So that's 75%.

 

A 5.5 sold in May 2014 for $1,733. The 12 month average for cents copies is $3,269.

 

So that's 53%.

 

A 5.0 sold in 2013 for $1,650. The 2013 average for cents copies was $2,286.

 

So that's 72%.

 

A 4.5 sold in April 2014 for $1,400. The 12 month average for cents copies is $1,972.

 

So that's 71%.

 

Now, putting all that together, it would appear that the average is actually 69%.

 

However, there is a case to be made that the 5.5 sale is possibly an outlier and that the average is really 73%.

 

So...make of that what you will.

 

Why stop there ?

 

In 2013 a pense 6.0 copy sold for $1646. That's about 50% below FMV for a cents copy that could be had for $3254 at the same time.

 

In 2013 a pense 4.0 could be had for $980. That's about 56% FMV for a cents copy then ($1731).

 

In 2013 a 2.0 pense went for $460. Approximately 47% of the cents version at that time ($963).

 

In 2013 a pense 1.5 was going for $432. About 61% FMV of the cents equivalent ($703).

 

In April 2014 a pense 4.5 copy went for $1400. About 66% of a comparably graded cents copy in 2013 ($2045).

 

So if we take ALL the available data for this book and average it out we see a typical FMV of 61.56% for pense verses cents copies. Basically very close to the same 60% average that can be observed across the broader market in general. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

 

[oakman29]

Wow! I have a headache from this thread.

 

A 60% or 80% headache?

I don't know the headache market to give you a percentage,but certainly feels like 80% to me.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Why stop there ?

 

In 2013 a pense 6.0 copy sold for $1646. That's about 50% below FMV for a cents copy that could be had for $3254 at the same time.

 

Wrong. The average was $3,162. That gives us 52%.

 

In 2013 a pense 4.0 could be had for $980. That's about 56% FMV for a cents copy then ($1731).

 

Wrong. The average was $1.443. That gives us 68%.

 

In 2013 a 2.0 pense went for $460. Approximately 47% of the cents version at that time ($963).

 

Correct. Hey you had to get one right. That gives us 48%!

 

In 2013 a pense 1.5 was going for $432. About 61% FMV of the cents equivalent ($703).

 

Wrong. The average was $604. That gives us 71%.

 

In April 2014 a pense 4.5 copy went for $1400. About 66% of a comparably graded cents copy in 2013 ($2045).

 

Wrong. The average was $1972. That gives us 71%. And just as a handy hint, taking a sale for one year and comparing it to an average for a different year, rather than the readily available data for the actual year - just to skew the figures in your favour - is not good form.

 

So if we take ALL the available data for this book and average it out we see a typical discount of 61.56% for pense verses cents copies. Basically very close to the 60% average that can be observed across the broader market in general. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Wow! I have a headache from this thread.

 

A 60% or 80% headache?

I don't know the headache market to give you a percentage,but certainly feels like 80% to me.

 

[Jaydogrules]

Why stop there ?

 

In 2013 a pense 6.0 copy sold for $1646. That's about 50% below FMV for a cents copy that could be had for $3254 at the same time.

 

Wrong. The average was $3,162. That gives us 52%.

 

In 2013 a pense 4.0 could be had for $980. That's about 56% FMV for a cents copy then ($1731).

 

Wrong. The average was $1.443. That gives us 68%.

 

In 2013 a 2.0 pense went for $460. Approximately 47% of the cents version at that time ($963).

 

Correct. Hey you had to get one right. That gives us 48%!

 

In 2013 a pense 1.5 was going for $432. About 61% FMV of the cents equivalent ($703).

 

Wrong. The average was $604. That gives us 71%.

 

In April 2014 a pense 4.5 copy went for $1400. About 66% of a comparably graded cents copy in 2013 ($2045).

 

Wrong. The average was $1972. That gives us 71%. And just as a handy hint, taking a sale for one year and comparing it to an average for a different year, rather than the readily available data for the actual year - just to skew the figures in your favour - is not good form.

 

So if we take ALL the available data for this book and average it out we see a typical discount of 61.56% for pense verses cents copies. Basically very close to the 60% average that can be observed across the broader market in general. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

 

Ahem. I actually decided which GPA average to use based on approximately when in the year the pense copy recorded its sale in order to give a truer apples to apples comparison in time. A pense copy sold in 09/2013 should not be equated to an entire 2013 average for the cents copy. The 12 month average becomes more instructive in those situations. I did this even when the 2013 average was actually higher than the 12 month average. I did this because I am not biased and have no skin in the game. Had I just taken the "highest numbers" I could have shown an FMV of pence to cents of closer to 55%. But that's not what I did. I actually calculated giving the greater deference to the pense numbers, and even included the most favorable data that you used from 2012.

 

The analysis stands. You are STILL looking at a give or take 60% FMV versus cents copies. Maybe next time before you start criticizing someone's "form", you should first inquire about their methodology. Your bias is showing.

 

Sorry.

 

-J.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Your bias is showing.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

Your bias is showing.

 

 

 

Here's hoping that by the time I reach my 10,000th post give or take, I'll know how to post really funny pictures, memes and gifs in a thread, and am less concerned with facts and figures and putting forth reasonable and well stated arguments. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Your bias is showing.

 

 

 

Here's hoping that by the time I reach my 10,000th post give or take, I'll know how to post really funny pictures, memes and gifs in a thread, and am less concerned with facts and figures and putting forth reasonable and well stated arguments. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

If you knew Nick....you'd understand the facepalm.

 

Maybe someday you'll get it.

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Why stop there ?

 

In 2013 a pense 6.0 copy sold for $1646. That's about 50% below FMV for a cents copy that could be had for $3254 at the same time.

 

Wrong. The average was $3,162. That gives us 52%.

 

In 2013 a pense 4.0 could be had for $980. That's about 56% FMV for a cents copy then ($1731).

 

Wrong. The average was $1.443. That gives us 68%.

 

In 2013 a 2.0 pense went for $460. Approximately 47% of the cents version at that time ($963).

 

Correct. Hey you had to get one right. That gives us 48%!

 

In 2013 a pense 1.5 was going for $432. About 61% FMV of the cents equivalent ($703).

 

Wrong. The average was $604. That gives us 71%.

 

In April 2014 a pense 4.5 copy went for $1400. About 66% of a comparably graded cents copy in 2013 ($2045).

 

Wrong. The average was $1972. That gives us 71%. And just as a handy hint, taking a sale for one year and comparing it to an average for a different year, rather than the readily available data for the actual year - just to skew the figures in your favour - is not good form.

 

So if we take ALL the available data for this book and average it out we see a typical discount of 61.56% for pense verses cents copies. Basically very close to the 60% average that can be observed across the broader market in general. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

 

Ahem. I actually decided which GPA average to use based on approximately when in the year the pense copy recorded its sale in order to give a truer apples to apples comparison in time. A pense copy sold in 09/2013 should not be equated to an entire 2013 average for the cents copy. The 12 month average becomes more instructive in those situations. I did this even when the 2013 average was actually higher than the 12 month average. I did this because I am not biased and have no skin in the game. Had I just taken the "highest numbers" I could have shown an FMV of pence to cents of closer to 55%. But that's not what I did. I actually calculated giving the greater deference to the pense numbers, and even included the most favorable data that you used from 2012.

 

The analysis stands. You are STILL looking at a give or take 60% FMV versus cents copies. Maybe next time before you start criticizing someone's "form", you should first inquire about their methodology. Your bias is showing.

 

Sorry.

 

-J.

 

I HAVE NO BIAS. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT??? I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BIG UP THE VALUE OF PENCE COPIES!!!

 

I am simply reporting what I know from decades of dealing with the commodity, both buying and selling...not what I have extrapolated from extremely limited data, in some cases quoting that data incorrectly to back up the case (your explanation for your incorrect reporting is weak sauce).

 

You have proven again and again that you have little understanding of the pence market and your complete reliance on a single, flawed data stream suggests you don't want to know. When given information and reasoning by Brits...who have far greater knowledge on this topic than you could even dream of...you have either ignored it or questioned their motivations.

 

I really am out, but I'll leave you with one thought...if you're going to soapbox about a subject, at least get the name right...it's 'pence'.

[oakman29]

Your bias is showing.

 

 

 

Here's hoping that by the time I reach my 10,000th post give or take, I'll know how to post really funny pictures, memes and gifs in a thread, and am less concerned with facts and figures and putting forth reasonable and well stated arguments. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

If you knew Nick....you'd understand the facepalm.

 

Maybe someday you'll get it.

 

Amen! Nick is always on the up and up.

[seanfingh]

Your bias is showing.

 

 

 

Here's hoping that by the time I reach my 10,000th post give or take, I'll know how to post really funny pictures, memes and gifs in a thread, and am less concerned with facts and figures and putting forth reasonable and well stated arguments. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

You are not interested in any reasonable well-stated arguments that are not supported by statistical inference (and in fact statistical inference predicated upon whatever parameters you have placed on the data source). That is neither right nor wrong, but it is why you get into a lot of scrapes.

[BarryAllen]

Why stop there ?

 

In 2013 a pense 6.0 copy sold for $1646. That's about 50% below FMV for a cents copy that could be had for $3254 at the same time.

 

Wrong. The average was $3,162. That gives us 52%.

 

In 2013 a pense 4.0 could be had for $980. That's about 56% FMV for a cents copy then ($1731).

 

Wrong. The average was $1.443. That gives us 68%.

 

In 2013 a 2.0 pense went for $460. Approximately 47% of the cents version at that time ($963).

 

Correct. Hey you had to get one right. That gives us 48%!

 

In 2013 a pense 1.5 was going for $432. About 61% FMV of the cents equivalent ($703).

 

Wrong. The average was $604. That gives us 71%.

 

In April 2014 a pense 4.5 copy went for $1400. About 66% of a comparably graded cents copy in 2013 ($2045).

 

Wrong. The average was $1972. That gives us 71%. And just as a handy hint, taking a sale for one year and comparing it to an average for a different year, rather than the readily available data for the actual year - just to skew the figures in your favour - is not good form.

 

So if we take ALL the available data for this book and average it out we see a typical discount of 61.56% for pense verses cents copies. Basically very close to the 60% average that can be observed across the broader market in general. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

 

Ahem. I actually decided which GPA average to use based on approximately when in the year the pense copy recorded its sale in order to give a truer apples to apples comparison in time. A pense copy sold in 09/2013 should not be equated to an entire 2013 average for the cents copy. The 12 month average becomes more instructive in those situations. I did this even when the 2013 average was actually higher than the 12 month average. I did this because I am not biased and have no skin in the game. Had I just taken the "highest numbers" I could have shown an FMV of pence to cents of closer to 55%. But that's not what I did. I actually calculated giving the greater deference to the pense numbers, and even included the most favorable data that you used from 2012.

 

The analysis stands. You are STILL looking at a give or take 60% FMV versus cents copies. Maybe next time before you start criticizing someone's "form", you should first inquire about their methodology. Your bias is showing.

 

Sorry.

 

-J.

 

I HAVE NO BIAS. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT??? I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BIG UP THE VALUE OF PENCE COPIES!!!

 

I am simply reporting what I know from decades of dealing with the commodity, both buying and selling...not what I have extrapolated from extremely limited data, in some cases quoting that data incorrectly to back up the case (your explanation for your incorrect reporting is weak sauce).

 

You have proven again and again that you have little understanding of the pence market and your complete reliance on a single, flawed data stream suggests you don't want to know. When given information and reasoning by Brits...who have far greater knowledge on this topic than you could even dream of...you have either ignored it or questioned their motivations.

 

I really am out, but I'll leave you with one thought...if you're going to soapbox about a subject, at least get the name right...it's 'pence'.

 

:shrug:

 

I just wanted you to admit that the list of dealers don't report ALL their sales to GPA.

 

Is that going to happen or should I just go to bed?

[Jaydogrules]

Why stop there ?

 

In 2013 a pense 6.0 copy sold for $1646. That's about 50% below FMV for a cents copy that could be had for $3254 at the same time.

 

Wrong. The average was $3,162. That gives us 52%.

 

In 2013 a pense 4.0 could be had for $980. That's about 56% FMV for a cents copy then ($1731).

 

Wrong. The average was $1.443. That gives us 68%.

 

In 2013 a 2.0 pense went for $460. Approximately 47% of the cents version at that time ($963).

 

Correct. Hey you had to get one right. That gives us 48%!

 

In 2013 a pense 1.5 was going for $432. About 61% FMV of the cents equivalent ($703).

 

Wrong. The average was $604. That gives us 71%.

 

In April 2014 a pense 4.5 copy went for $1400. About 66% of a comparably graded cents copy in 2013 ($2045).

 

Wrong. The average was $1972. That gives us 71%. And just as a handy hint, taking a sale for one year and comparing it to an average for a different year, rather than the readily available data for the actual year - just to skew the figures in your favour - is not good form.

 

So if we take ALL the available data for this book and average it out we see a typical discount of 61.56% for pense verses cents copies. Basically very close to the 60% average that can be observed across the broader market in general. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

 

 

Ahem. I actually decided which GPA average to use based on approximately when in the year the pense copy recorded its sale in order to give a truer apples to apples comparison in time. A pense copy sold in 09/2013 should not be equated to an entire 2013 average for the cents copy. The 12 month average becomes more instructive in those situations. I did this even when the 2013 average was actually higher than the 12 month average. I did this because I am not biased and have no skin in the game. Had I just taken the "highest numbers" I could have shown an FMV of pence to cents of closer to 55%. But that's not what I did. I actually calculated giving the greater deference to the pense numbers, and even included the most favorable data that you used from 2012.

 

The analysis stands. You are STILL looking at a give or take 60% FMV versus cents copies. Maybe next time before you start criticizing someone's "form", you should first inquire about their methodology. Your bias is showing.

 

Sorry.

 

-J.

 

I HAVE NO BIAS. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT??? I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BIG UP THE VALUE OF PENCE COPIES!!!

 

I am simply reporting what I know from decades of dealing with the commodity, both buying and selling...not what I have extrapolated from extremely limited data, in some cases quoting that data incorrectly to back up the case (your explanation for your incorrect reporting is weak sauce).

 

You have proven again and again that you have little understanding of the pence market and your complete reliance on a single, flawed data stream suggests you don't want to know. When given information and reasoning by Brits...who have far greater knowledge on this topic than you could even dream of...you have either ignored it or questioned their motivations.

 

I really am out, but I'll leave you with one thought...if you're going to soapbox about a subject, at least get the name right...it's 'pence'.

 

Ah yes the famous "typo" remark. I apologize for my phone's inadequate spell check.

 

And I never said nick was a bad guy. I just find it interesting that he rejects actual publicly available sales data, and expects others to embrace his anecdotal accounts of the myriad of underground sales that evidently occur with PENCE books on a regular basis. Yes there is "some" value to this kind of data but it is not superior to data that is readily consumable by the masses, and certainly should not be considered in lieu of such.

 

And again, GPA is not a single data stream and that is not even the only source I have used. GPA is an amalgam of multiple data streams including ebay GBR (UK). If there is anything that anyone has ignored, it is you ignoring this inconvenient fact.

 

-J.

[BarryAllen]

Your bias is showing.

 

 

 

Here's hoping that by the time I reach my 10,000th post give or take, I'll know how to post really funny pictures, memes and gifs in a thread, and am less concerned with facts and figures and putting forth reasonable and well stated arguments. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

You are not interested in any reasonable well-stated arguments that are not supported by statistical inference (and in fact statistical inference predicated upon whatever parameters you have placed on the data source). That is neither right nor wrong, but it is why you get into a lot of scrapes.

 

I don't think this entirely fair. A large amount of the supporting cited "data" was personal experience which isn't a reliable source of information when supporting a valid argument or hypothesis. The GPA discussion was interesting, but beyond that he mostly provided conjecture (eloquent or not) and came off as very defensive that his opinion was not readily accepted as fact.

 

Again, don't really know all the parties but experience does not always equal trustworthiness, especially when it comes to dollars.

 

:shrug:

[Jaydogrules]

Your bias is showing.

 

 

 

Here's hoping that by the time I reach my 10,000th post give or take, I'll know how to post really funny pictures, memes and gifs in a thread, and am less concerned with facts and figures and putting forth reasonable and well stated arguments. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

You are not interested in any reasonable well-stated arguments that are not supported by statistical inference (and in fact statistical inference predicated upon whatever parameters you have placed on the data source). That is neither right nor wrong, but it is why you get into a lot of scrapes.

 

I don't think this entirely fair. A large amount of the supporting cited "data" was personal experience which isn't a reliable source of information when supporting a valid argument or hypothesis. The GPA discussion was interesting, but beyond that he mostly provided conjecture (eloquent or not) and came off as very defensive that his opinion was not readily accepted as fact.

 

Again, don't really know all the parties but experience does not always equal trustworthiness, especially when it comes to dollars.

 

:shrug:

 

I believe that a lot of the long time posters have likely had multiple dealings with various dealers on these boards, and this would explain why they simply would take him "at his word".

 

Nick, you have implied more than once that my questioning your figures is akin to me questioning your honesty. This is simply not the case. Clearly multiple boardies vouch for your ethics and are comfortable with your interpretation of the market. I grant you your experience with pence books is greater than mine. But like the old joke that I quoted earlier, I believe in hard facts and publicly dispensed information that I can see first and foremost. And this is smart because not all dealers are as upstanding as you are. (thumbs u

 

-J.