Is Gerber's SI still, or was it ever, valid?

[Peter G]

I would think that about 90% of his SI values are accurate with 5% being higher

than his values and 5% being lower. Which books are off is a never ending

question. When books are off, I think his error is just + or - one. I have not

seen any that were way off.

Highly concur with this. Gerber's data can be way useful.

 

Another place for up to date info is right here on these boards. Here are some fun threads with some great discussion:

 

To Be A Gerber "9" Or Not To Be, That Is The Question!

Gerber No-Shows: Post yours here!

The Illusive Gerber "10"s

Overstreet's phantom issues...

Where can I get the stickers made to go in Gerber?

 

Thanks for providing these threads

[*paull*]

We are fortunate that plenty of Gerber books were printed. It's still possible to get new sets today, right? Could you imagine how much they would sell for if they were limited to 500 copies each?

[PovertyRow]

We are fortunate that plenty of Gerber books were printed. It's still possible to get new sets today, right? Could you imagine how much they would sell for if they were limited to 500 copies each?

 

Yes, they are easily gotten new on Amazon as well as many used offerings on Amazon and eBay. Just search on The Photo-Journal Guide to Comic Books

 

I have my original copies from when they first came out. Need a rebinding desperately but the pages themselves are still gorgeous bone white.

[PovertyRow]

I would think that about 90% of his SI values are accurate with 5% being higher

than his values and 5% being lower. Which books are off is a never ending

question. When books are off, I think his error is just + or - one. I have not

seen any that were way off. A warehouse find could make such a difference.

 

On the other hand, his "existing counts" are way low thanks, primarily, to the

internet, big auction houses, and dealers with huge database. A simple

revision of the counts would be to multiply each of them by 3.

 

While Gerber got many of his images from private collectors and used the lists

of what they had and what they did not have, I think he undervalued the

importance of "items locked up in private collections." Thus there are a lot of

people saying "This 8 should be a 7" based in part on items coming to market

from older collections that he did not see. Rather than doing any wholesale

lowering of SI values, it would be more reasonable to increase the "existing

counts" for each SI value

 

I tend to agree, especially with the "existing counts". Both the internet and Census have really had an impact on bringing more books to light.

 

But while some of the counts may well be off, I think the relative scarcity in relation to other books of a title may still be valid: that is a 7, while the number of existing copies may be higher, is still scarcer than 3s, 4s 5s etc. of the same title. Because the internet and Census also caused more common books to be brought to the public eye.

[Sqeggs]

I would think that about 90% of his SI values are accurate with 5% being higher

than his values and 5% being lower. Which books are off is a never ending

question. When books are off, I think his error is just + or - one. I have not

seen any that were way off. A warehouse find could make such a difference.

 

On the other hand, his "existing counts" are way low thanks, primarily, to the

internet, big auction houses, and dealers with huge database. A simple

revision of the counts would be to multiply each of them by 3.

 

While Gerber got many of his images from private collectors and used the lists

of what they had and what they did not have, I think he undervalued the

importance of "items locked up in private collections." Thus there are a lot of

people saying "This 8 should be a 7" based in part on items coming to market

from older collections that he did not see. Rather than doing any wholesale

lowering of SI values, it would be more reasonable to increase the "existing

counts" for each SI value

 

I tend to agree, especially with the "existing counts". Both the internet and Census have really had an impact on bringing more books to light.

 

But while some of the counts may well be off, I think the relative scarcity in relation to other books of a title may still be valid: that is a 7, while the number of existing copies may be higher, is still scarcer than 3s, 4s 5s etc. of the same title. Because the internet and Census also caused more common books to be brought to the public eye.

 

Excellent point. Barring warehouse finds or other unusual events, Gerber probably had relative scarcities right.

[jimjum12]

I would think that about 90% of his SI values are accurate with 5% being higher

than his values and 5% being lower. Which books are off is a never ending

question. When books are off, I think his error is just + or - one. I have not

seen any that were way off. A warehouse find could make such a difference.

 

On the other hand, his "existing counts" are way low thanks, primarily, to the

internet, big auction houses, and dealers with huge database. A simple

revision of the counts would be to multiply each of them by 3.

 

While Gerber got many of his images from private collectors and used the lists

of what they had and what they did not have, I think he undervalued the

importance of "items locked up in private collections." Thus there are a lot of

people saying "This 8 should be a 7" based in part on items coming to market

from older collections that he did not see. Rather than doing any wholesale

lowering of SI values, it would be more reasonable to increase the "existing

counts" for each SI value

 

I tend to agree, especially with the "existing counts". Both the internet and Census have really had an impact on bringing more books to light.

 

But while some of the counts may well be off, I think the relative scarcity in relation to other books of a title may still be valid: that is a 7, while the number of existing copies may be higher, is still scarcer than 3s, 4s 5s etc. of the same title. Because the internet and Census also caused more common books to be brought to the public eye.

 

Excellent point. Barring warehouse finds or other unusual events, Gerber probably had relative scarcities right.

 

... this is the conclusion I've arrived at as well. I still whip my copies out to check the Index rankings. It seems like Gerber may have been guilty of paying less attention to items that didn't interest him as much.... and considering that the bulk of the data was gleaned while operating an auction service, items that weren't sought out as avidly as others may have insufficient data to gauge one way or the other. I'm of the opinion that an estimate of only 1-10 copies is unrealistic with only the one source of data. I would consider a "9" to be more in line with 1-25, an "8" at 25-100 and a "7" at 100-250....... but that's just me. It was one of my favorite aspects of the PJ's and I spent almost as much time checking out the SI as I did the images...... almost. I have already worn out two sets and am working on my third GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Tri-Color Brian]

So, Jimbo...with your numbers, what would you consider Contact 12 to be? A "7" or an "8"?