Total Existing Copies of AF #15 2 2

[Jaydogrules]

The census isn't completely wrong or useless. For example it tells us there are less Hulk 1's than AF15, or that X-Men 1 is a more common book.

 

But after going to a lot of conventions over the last 30+ years, plus talking and trading with friends, you get an idea of what's out there. I trust that experience and the experience of other long time collectors and dealers. I haven't seen too many shocking things come out of the census other than maybe there's a lot more of almost everything out there than I thought. Especially post 1956.

 

+1, especially to the bolded part.

 

-J.

[bluechip]

Just checked the census and there are 2317 copies (blue, yellow, purple) listed.

 

I'm in the camp that believes there are many (as in 1,000s) of raw copies out there. The only relevant data I know of is the print run, which was I think at least 150,000 copies. It was a book that was instantly popular. I bought a copy off the stands and remember how impressive it looked compared with other books out that month.

 

It appeared before, but not long before, collecting really got rolling in an organized way but clearly not before a lot of people, like me, held on to books indefinitely, rather than reading them and throwing them away. Marvel collecting of that sort was already underway and Marvel collecting of the more organized sort, with mail-order dealers to support it, was underway in a couple of years at which time in addition to copies available from dealers there were many copies around in used bookstores or hobby stores that catered to comic readers/collectors.

 

I find it very unlikely given that background that fewer than 10% of the copies printed survived. I'm sure there were at least 15,000 Marvel collectors around in the early 1960s. Heck I knew dozens, most of whom had a copy (or more) of AF 15.

 

Keeping with the theme of conjecture:

 

There are lots of things made from all eras that were popular with a less than 10% survival rate. Cards, toys, books, etc - very little survives (Americans are kinda wasteful). Particularly when we are talking about something that kids were responsible for the care of. They may have loved that book, but most kids are notoriously bad at keeping things and even worse at keeping them in good condition. We are talking about a time before prevelant bags, boards and known storage. They would have read, reread, spilled on and eventually lost many many copies to mothers and fathers ambivalent of the value (monetary or otherwise).

 

 

 

Anyway, different line of thinking: if this data is true it leads me to believe that the overwhelming majority are not interested in selling. While I can believe it is a coveted book, it is hard to believe so many people couldn't or wouldn't want to capitalize on a minimum of a $4,000ish payday... Ignoring the absolute number of be census, why wouldn't it's numbers grow each year at least closer to the price increase growth curve? The more it became expensive, the higher likelihood that people would start to sell right?

 

Again, this is definitely conjecture, but if greater than 90% of owners are pure collectors not interested in selling (to buy more books, to buy a car, to pay for kids/grandkids college, to take a trip of a lifetime, etc) - shouldn't more people on here own a copy? This is a very focused group with many experienced collectors that lived through all of this and experienced it all first hand. Wouldn't a lot own a copy? Maybe they do and aren't sharing, but That seems like a high number.

 

It's all relative. Old time collectors are just that...collectors. Most have what they need. What doesn't work in this equation is applying ones own standards (ie you would sell for a 4k profit) to those that have.

 

Today's cgc collecting era is surprisingly diff from the last collecting era.

 

In the next 5-10 years I believe many of these collection will be sold/liquidated and then, and unfortunately not till then, will we get a better feel for extant copies.

 

I get it, difficult to speculate to people's motivations.

 

What about this point then:

 

Shouldn't the AF 15 club show the raw list outpace the slabbed list by far and away?

 

I get it, this is sponsored by the CGC. But isnt this place first and foremost a "Collector's" society right?

 

+1

 

That's another good point.

 

It seems folks would rather place more weight on the unverifiable and un-quantified than what is readily apparent and documented before them.

 

To each his own I suppose.

 

-J.

 

Probably because that "readily apparent and documented data" has issues of its own. However, even if assume that number is 100% fact, it still only tells you how many slabbed copies are in existence.

I understand wanting to be able to quantify something based on hard data but the numbers on the CGC census can be flawed data.

 

Agreed. Re: <<>>> -- there is so much wrong with that. First it calls it verifiable that a person says on a board that they have a copy, while simultaneously calling it unverifiable that people on the same board say they have seen many copies. And it implies that an anecdotal "verified: compilation of existing copies is somehow verification of the lack of other copies. This is working backward from a desired conclusion and wanting that conclusion to sway the market.

 

"Verifiable and Quantifiable":

1) CGC census

2) GPA

3) Comic Link, Heritage, etc auction results/listings

4) Ebay Listings

5) Reputable Dealer Reports

 

"Unverifiable and Anecdotal":

1) "I know a guy who knows a guy...."

2) "I heard of a guy who saw a guy...."

3) "I once saw an LCS with 10 copies for sale 30 years ago..."

4) "I have seen 50 copies for sale at a convention 20 years ago..."

 

I give 99% of weight to the former and 1% to the latter. I go by and extrapolate from what I can see and verify for myself. We live in the information age where the necessary data is readily available to the masses. Too many people are attempting to disregard/ignore hard data in favor of hearsay and assumptions. They call the data "incomplete", yet it is certainly more complete than the naked conjecture that they are attempting to rely on. And yes, we do have enough hard data to derive a statistical extrapolation, whether some people believe so or not. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

Now this is getting silly.

 

I sometimes caution friends who aren't aware of how things work in comics that items which are truly rare will often get belittled by people who don't own a similar item and the same person will tell you a heartbeat later that some RRP dealer variant limited edition they have to sell you is rare in a meaningful way and has nowhere to go but up. Now I have nothing against people pumping their stuff in a buyer beware market, so long as they don't resort also to dumping on other people's stuff, and this is far from the most extreme example of that I have seen -- but it's a cousin to it.

 

AF15 is a great book but it's not rare. Are there enough fans out there who want it so that supply still falls far short of demand. That argument is a reasonable one. But assertions with an obvious agenda that the book is somehow truly rare when it's easily discovered not to be so is the sort of thing which can undermine its value when people realize they've been misled and overreact.

 

Edited March 10, 2015 by bluechip

[Gotham Kid]

But assertions with an obvious agenda that the book is somehow truly rare when it's easily discovered not to be so is the sort of thing which can undermine its value when people realize they've been misled and overreact.

 

(thumbs u

[kimik]

"Verifiable and Quantifiable":

5) Reputable Dealer Reports

 

You have at least one. Telling you you're wrong and that there are at least 10k copies or more out there.

 

And there have been at least two dealers who have disagreed with that estimate as well. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

I am too lazy to read the rest of this mess.

 

Looking at the last three pages, I see Rick and Greg as saying plentiful. Who are the dealers that are saying it is not?

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

But assertions with an obvious agenda that the book is somehow truly rare when it's easily discovered not to be so is the sort of thing which can undermine its value when people realize they've been misled and overreact.

 

(thumbs u

 

Sorry, I must have missed the part where someone said that.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

"Verifiable and Quantifiable":

1) CGC census

2) GPA

3) Comic Link, Heritage, etc auction results/listings

4) Ebay Listings

5) Reputable Dealer Reports

 

Let's consider these criteria for a second. As has been pointed out by many, the CGC census is only a part, and a very, very small part, of the bigger picture.

 

As of right now, there are 2,777,868 listings on eBay in the "Comics" category.

 

Of those listings, 72,391 contain the letters "CGC." This includes listings for books that aren't actually CGC'd, but contain the letters in the title (no small amount, either.) It excludes any listing that doesn't contain the letters "CGC", but actual CGC'd copies that don't list "CGC" are so rare as to be statistically negligible.

 

So, you're looking at about 2.6% of all the listings on eBay being CGC or CGC-related. That means 97.4% of all the eBay listings in Comics have nothing to do with CGC.

 

Then, you suggest GPA. GPA, naturally, is only a part of the part, and only includes information for slabs actually sold. Now, granted, it paints a broader picture than a single eBay snapshot, but still...it only represents a fraction of what exists. It currently lists 1,791,001 sales, including duplicates, or a little more than half the total number of books CGC has graded...together, they don't come up with a greater number of copies than the print run of Superman #75 by itself.

 

Comiclink/Heritage, et al. - valuable resources but again...these only reflect sales of books, not actual extant copies.

 

Look at it this way: I could, right now, call up Image and commission my own RMA variant...minimum order is 1,000. I could obtain that variant, keep it in cases on my floor, and sell 3.

 

Looking at sales figures, one might come to the conclusion that there were only 3 that existed. But, we know that's not true. With this illustration, it's easy to see how sales...especially sales data limited to the last decade and a half....isn't going to paint a full, or even realistic, picture of what exists.

 

Lastly, we get to "Reputable Dealer Reports." That's the real rub. Because, in reality, that should read "Reputable Dealer Reports (From People Jay Considers Reputable Dealers.)" That would be the completely honest answer.

 

There are people who don't consider me "reputable", for no other reason than "they don't like my tone." True story. They dismiss my analysis for reasons that have nothing to do with the merit of the analysis. Now, I'm not a dealer (per se), but I've spent 95% of the last 25-26 years dealing with comics on a daily basis, selling them since 1998.

 

Consider the Sandman #8 variant. Among people on this board, there is likely no one who has more direct experience with this book than Schmidt. Lots of us may come close, but this is one of his specialties. And yet, you argued with him about it, and cited the census to do it. Clearly, you didn't think his opinion on the book were reputable enough, right? Is it reputable if you agree with it?

 

There are people on this board who know more than anyone else (at least on this board) about various comic-related subjects. Flying Donut has direct experience about the comics market from the 70's and 80's I could only dream of having. We sometimes disagree, but it is very, very rare. He knows what he's talking about. Branget knows Walking Dead, among other things. If I needed information about the state of brand new books, Beachbum would be who to ask. And very few people know the Sig Series program like Richie, Partouche, and Triston. Oh, and Triston is a master of late 40's/early 50's Pre-Code Horror.

 

And that's just a few. So, it doesn't so much depend on "Reputable Dealer Reports" as it does the criteria of what and who you consider to be reputable.

 

 

"Unverifiable and Anecdotal":

1) "I know a guy who knows a guy...."

2) "I heard of a guy who saw a guy...."

3) "I once saw an LCS with 10 copies for sale 30 years ago..."

4) "I have seen 50 copies for sale at a convention 20 years ago..."

 

I give 99% of weight to the former and 1% to the latter. I go by and extrapolate from what I can see and verify for myself. We live in the information age where the necessary data is readily available to the masses. Too many people are attempting to disregard/ignore hard data in favor of hearsay and assumptions.

 

94% of the time, I agree with your statement. But you're trying to apply it, here, in a way that cannot ever be done, because it is information that cannot ever be known. There is no way to figure out exactly how many of any one thing exists, especially 50+ years after it was produced and distributed to the four winds. It's simply not possible. And so, you go by what works: estimates, by people who deal in those markets on a routine basis.

 

The census is NOT useless at all, and no one's suggesting that. It is a wonderful tool if used and viewed properly. But Lazyboy hit the nail on the head: you're a blind man trying to figure out the elephant by only feeling its ear, and suggesting that the elephant is like a fan, because you don't see the rest of the elephant.

 

They call the data "incomplete", yet it is certainly more complete than the naked conjecture that they are attempting to rely on.

 

And this is completely untrue. Not only is the data not "complete" in any reasonable manner, but no one is making "naked conjecture." Quite the contrary; this so-called "naked conjecture" is far, far, by leaps and bounds, more accurate than the picture the census paints.

 

You're just not willing to accept that.

[Jaydogrules]

"Verifiable and Quantifiable":

1) CGC census

2) GPA

3) Comic Link, Heritage, etc auction results/listings

4) Ebay Listings

5) Reputable Dealer Reports

 

Let's consider these criteria for a second. As has been pointed out by many, the CGC census is only a part, and a very, very small part, of the bigger picture.

 

As of right now, there are 2,777,868 listings on eBay in the "Comics" category.

 

Of those listings, 72,391 contain the letters "CGC." This includes listings for books that aren't actually CGC'd, but contain the letters in the title (no small amount, either.) It excludes any listing that doesn't contain the letters "CGC", but actual CGC'd copies that don't list "CGC" are so rare as to be statistically negligible.

 

So, you're looking at about 2.6% of all the listings on eBay being CGC or CGC-related. That means 97.4% of all the eBay listings in Comics have nothing to do with CGC.

 

Then, you suggest GPA. GPA, naturally, is only a part of the part, and only includes information for slabs actually sold. Now, granted, it paints a broader picture than a single eBay snapshot, but still...it only represents a fraction of what exists. It currently lists 1,791,001 sales, including duplicates, or a little more than half the total number of books CGC has graded...together, they don't come up with a greater number of copies than the print run of Superman #75 by itself.

 

Comiclink/Heritage, et al. - valuable resources but again...these only reflect sales of books, not actual extant copies.

 

Look at it this way: I could, right now, call up Image and commission my own RMA variant...minimum order is 1,000. I could obtain that variant, keep it in cases on my floor, and sell 3.

 

Looking at sales figures, one might come to the conclusion that there were only 3 that existed. But, we know that's not true. With this illustration, it's easy to see how sales...especially sales data limited to the last decade and a half....isn't going to paint a full, or even realistic, picture of what exists.

 

Lastly, we get to "Reputable Dealer Reports." That's the real rub. Because, in reality, that should read "Reputable Dealer Reports (From People Jay Considers Reputable Dealers.)" That would be the completely honest answer.

 

There are people who don't consider me "reputable", for no other reason than "they don't like my tone." True story. They dismiss my analysis for reasons that have nothing to do with the merit of the analysis. Now, I'm not a dealer (per se), but I've spent 95% of the last 25-26 years dealing with comics on a daily basis, selling them since 1998.

 

Consider the Sandman #8 variant. Among people on this board, there is likely no one who has more direct experience with this book than Schmidt. Lots of us may come close, but this is one of his specialties. And yet, you argued with him about it, and cited the census to do it. Clearly, you didn't think his opinion on the book were reputable enough, right? Is it reputable if you agree with it?

 

There are people on this board who know more than anyone else (at least on this board) about various comic-related subjects. Flying Donut has direct experience about the comics market from the 70's and 80's I could only dream of having. We sometimes disagree, but it is very, very rare. He knows what he's talking about. Branget knows Walking Dead, among other things. If I needed information about the state of brand new books, Beachbum would be who to ask. And very few people know the Sig Series program like Richie, Partouche, and Triston. Oh, and Triston is a master of late 40's/early 50's Pre-Code Horror.

 

And that's just a few. So, it doesn't so much depend on "Reputable Dealer Reports" as it does the criteria of what and who you consider to be reputable.

 

 

"Unverifiable and Anecdotal":

1) "I know a guy who knows a guy...."

2) "I heard of a guy who saw a guy...."

3) "I once saw an LCS with 10 copies for sale 30 years ago..."

4) "I have seen 50 copies for sale at a convention 20 years ago..."

 

I give 99% of weight to the former and 1% to the latter. I go by and extrapolate from what I can see and verify for myself. We live in the information age where the necessary data is readily available to the masses. Too many people are attempting to disregard/ignore hard data in favor of hearsay and assumptions.

 

94% of the time, I agree with your statement. But you're trying to apply it, here, in a way that cannot ever be done, because it is information that cannot ever be known. There is no way to figure out exactly how many of any one thing exists, especially 50+ years after it was produced and distributed to the four winds. It's simply not possible. And so, you go by what works: estimates, by people who deal in those markets on a routine basis.

 

The census is NOT useless at all, and no one's suggesting that. It is a wonderful tool if used and viewed properly. But Lazyboy hit the nail on the head: you're a blind man trying to figure out the elephant by only feeling its ear, and suggesting that the elephant is like a fan, because you don't see the rest of the elephant.

 

They call the data "incomplete", yet it is certainly more complete than the naked conjecture that they are attempting to rely on.

 

And this is completely untrue. Not only is the data not "complete" in any reasonable manner, but no one is making "naked conjecture." Quite the contrary; this so-called "naked conjecture" is far, far, by leaps and bounds, more accurate than the picture the census paints.

 

You're just not willing to accept that.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with many of your points. Probably the only one I might take some exception to is substituting the opinions of dealers for my own. I respect their opinions, and for crying out loud I have bought many high dollar books from several of the dealers who have posted in this thread even. But respecting their opinions does not necessarily mean that I adopt those opinions in lieu of my own, or in spite of other available data sources. It is but one tool in the toolkit that I, as a buyer, have at my disposal. I have stated my own opinion on how many copies (and their respective likely condition) of AF 15 I believe to be out there still in the raw. Some have said similar amounts, others have said different amounts. I do feel my own personal estimate is solid, however, and I stand by it. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[Prince Namor]

You're essentially calling the experts on this board 'liars', some of which have been selling comics or collecting comics for decades longer than a lot of people on this forum.

 

Believe what you like, but as students of comics history, it's frustrating to some of us to watch newer collectors make the same mistakes over and over.

 

Who's calling anybody a "liar"? People have offered their "opinions". No one posting here, dealer or otherwise, has seen "all raw copies" first hand. So no one can post with absolute omniscience.

 

I choose to extrapolate from the hard data that is available with an eye towards what some reputable dealers have stated as well. There is some disagreement in the estimates among them so that brings me back to the hard publicly available data. There is more than enough out there to make reasonable extrapolations. Others may choose to extrapolate differently. That's the beauty of opinions- everybody is free to have one. Mine is based primarily on what I see and can see based on records extending back 15 years.

 

-J.

 

And that's your first mistake. If you'd been around this hobby for a decade or two you'd see how people buy at shows. CGC books are a minor part of this hobby.

 

[BarryAllen]

 

[DR.X]

Let's consider these criteria for a second. As has been pointed out by many, the CGC census is only a part, and a very, very small part, of the bigger picture.

 

you could have stopped right there.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Let's consider these criteria for a second. As has been pointed out by many, the CGC census is only a part, and a very, very small part, of the bigger picture.

 

you could have stopped right there.

 

Yeah, but....it's me...

 

 

"Never say with 10 words what you could easily say with 1,000."

 

or

 

"The easiest way to be misunderstood is to trust others to understand you."

 

[BarryAllen]

Ignoring the data discussion, I still haven't seen a good argument for a quantity above around the 15,000ish mark.

 

A number of people have given ranges that fall under this (on both sides of the fence) and I am interested if anyone thinks it is greatly higher.

 

Majority of poll is call it 5,000-15,000 and above 23,000 (I grouped some of the responses).

Edited March 10, 2015 by rfoiii

[bababooey]

Let's try a sports analogy to look at the relevance of known data being applied to a related unknown.

 

"Verifiable and quantifiable" data

Last night Detroit beat Edmonton, the score was 5 -2 - that is the only information you have.

 

If you want to extrapolate who had the most shots on net you can't really do it based on the number of goals, just as you can't really determine how many existing copies there are based on census population.

 

All the scoreboard tells you about "shots on net" is that you can assume the number of shots exceeds the number of goals, beyond that you can't really extrapolate how many shots on net there were even though there is some relationship between the known & unknown data.

 

Edmonton out shot Detroit 38-26

 

 

[DR.X]

Majority of pole is call it 5,000-15,000 and above 30,000 (I grouped some of the responses).

 

what is that poll based on? how many collectors, hoarders are out there that never talk about comics or visit chat boards. probably alot. we are just a fly in the ointment in the whole scope of things.

[BarryAllen]

Majority of pole is call it 5,000-15,000 and above 30,000 (I grouped some of the responses).

 

what is that poll based on? how many collectors, hoarders are out there that never talk about comics or visit chat boards. probably alot. we are just a fly in the ointment in the whole scope of things.

 

:shrug:

 

I thought the point of this whole discussion was to accept the opinions of people on the boards because of their expertise.

 

Now I am confused, who is credible and who is not?

 

Seriously, is the data from the poll within this conversation also not relevant?

Edited March 10, 2015 by rfoiii

[Prince Namor]

 

 

It's all just good discussion!

[ttfitz]

Ignoring the data discussion, I still haven't seen a good argument for a quantity above around the 15,000ish mark.

 

A number of people have given ranges that fall under this (on both sides of the fence) and I am interested if anyone thinks it is greatly higher.

 

Majority of poll is call it 5,000-15,000 and above 23,000 (I grouped some of the responses).

 

I've lost track, but I feel like if everyone had agreed that 15,000ish was a reasonable number, this discussion would have ended 10 or 15 pages ago. It's been my impression that some were arguing for much (much) less, and that 15,000ish was outside the reasonable bounds (I think Jay maxed out at 5,000).

 

Gator said he thinks 30k is "too much", and I have no reason to argue. But if someone came on here and told us he had invented a machine that could detect AF15s, and that there were 39,267 copies still in existence, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Well, surprised that someone had invented a machine that could detect AF15s...

[G.A.tor]

[kimik]

Ignoring the data discussion, I still haven't seen a good argument for a quantity above around the 15,000ish mark.

 

A number of people have given ranges that fall under this (on both sides of the fence) and I am interested if anyone thinks it is greatly higher.

 

Majority of poll is call it 5,000-15,000 and above 23,000 (I grouped some of the responses).

 

I've lost track, but I feel like if everyone had agreed that 15,000ish was a reasonable number, this discussion would have ended 10 or 15 pages ago. It's been my impression that some were arguing for much (much) less, and that 15,000ish was outside the reasonable bounds (I think Jay maxed out at 5,000).

 

Gator said he thinks 30k is "too much", and I have no reason to argue. But if someone came on here and told us he had invented a machine that could detect AF15s, and that there were 39,267 copies still in existence, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Well, surprised that someone had invented a machine that could detect AF15s...

 

If it can detect AF #15s in garages, basements or attics I would be even more impressed.......

[jimjum12]

I'm working on a machine that can reconstitute copies from ash piles, trash heaps, and landfills..... GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u