Charting the Beginning of the Hobby with CGC Data

[sundrycollect]

I took some time tonight to chart out CGC data for 5 different "key" books from 1956 to 1974. The idea was to see if there was anything in the CGC data to support the notion that the comic collecting hobby started (in earnest) in the mid-1960's.

 

The books I chose were Showcase 4, FF1, FF45, House of Secrets 92 and Hulk 181.

 

Short answer...yes, the data clearly supports this theory. It's not that scientific, but it lead to some cool graphs!

 

You can see all the graphs at http://www.sundrycollectibles.net/comics/ . But here is a teaser. The difference between FF1 and FF45 is pretty staggering.

 

[Heronext]

Interesting endeavor. However this assumes all books in the census were collected instead of being warehouse hoards like Mile High II, which is going to be a significant factor when you're talking about a book like FF 45.

 

Also you equate comic collecting with high grade, which doesn't have to be the case. Readership in the 40s has all eras since then beat by miles. Who's to say what kids were doing back then wasn't comic collecting.

[sundrycollect]

Interesting endeavor. However this assumes all books in the census were collected instead of being warehouse hoards like Mile High II, which is going to be a significant factor when you're talking about a book like FF 45.

 

Also you equate comic collecting with high grade, which doesn't have to be the case. Readership in the 40s has all eras since then beat by miles. Who's to say what kids were doing back then wasn't comic collecting.

 

Yeah...like I said, it's not that scientific. The reason I equate more high grade today with the advent of collecting yesterday is that I think it indicates more adult collectors not treating the books as a throw away item. I don't think it is that much of a stretch.

 

As far as Mile High II...check out some of the other posts in my blog. I think it's Thor 132 that came out of there...that's an interesting chart. The guide price for that book should be WAY below its neighbors.

 

Anyway...your points are all totally valid. I am just looking at the data at hand. Either way...I just like looking at the data this way...its easier to digest and reach conclusions.