Tracking the invisible hand of the market... 1 1

[valiantman]

Stock market cap calculations only work because every share of the stock is accounted for at all times. So when a purchase is made, people have an exact idea of the total number of shares among other things. Without that vital piece of data the analysis becomes less accurate.

Except in the case of CGC graded books... the number in the CGC census is the best number we can use for the number of CGC graded books. Yes, there are more raw books out there for new books (most of the time), but they're not CGC graded until they're CGC graded.

 

We aren't trying to represent every copy in existence here... we're trying to represent every CGC graded copy.

The market size for CGC slabs requires them to be CGC slabbed first.

Thanks to the CGC census... our numbers are as close as we're ever going to get each time it's updated.

 

Estimates for the number of copies in existence are a different kind of unknown that I'm not addressing at all.

Yes it matters that there are more raws for certain books, but until they've been slabbed... it doesn't matter here.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Six years ago, I proposed the idea of "market cap" for CGC slabbed comics.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3277046&fpart=1

 

The general idea is that the total number of slabs for a book multiplied by the market price for that book gives you a "total market cap" (capitalization) for a comic.

 

The true market cap would be the value of all 10 plus the value of all 9.9 plus the value of 9.8 plus the value of all 9.6 plus the value of all 9.4, etc.

Let's make our lives easier and estimate the market cap by using the value of the average graded copy and multiplying by the number slabbed.

It's not perfect, but it's a heckuvalot easier than trying to figure out every price for every grade based on actual sales and rough estimates for the gaps where there are no recent sales at certain grades.

 

What is of particular interest about this idea is that it appears to reflect the "general concensus" (invisible hand?) of the market when it comes to "total value" for a comic situation, such as a first appearance.

This is true even when comics have vastly different CGC census numbers and vastly different CGC market prices.

 

For example:

 

Amazing Fantasy #15 has 1,727 copies graded as Universal or Signature Series.

The average grade is CGC 3.7, and the average Universal price for CGC 3.7 (between 3.5 and 4.0) would be about $11,000.

Multiply $11,000 by 1,727 copies and you get $18,997,000 as a rough estimate of the "market cap" for 1st appearance of Spider-man.

 

Action Comics #1 has 36 copies graded as Universal (no Signature Series).

The average grade is 4.25 and the average Universal price for CGC 4.25 is about $500,000.

Multiply $500,000 by 36 and you get $18,000,000 as a rough estimate of the "market cap" for 1st appearance of Superman.

 

Despite the ridiculously different number of slabs (1,727 vs 36), and the ridiculously different prices for an average copy ($11,000 vs. $500,000), the first appearance of Spider-man has essentially the same "total market value" as the first appearance of Superman.

 

Does this make sense? I think so.

Doesn't the market (and the general public) recognize Spider-man and Superman at about the same popularity? Yes --- it's easy to argue who is more popular, Spider-man or Superman. They're about 50/50.

 

What about Batman, you ask?

 

Let's check.

 

There are 31 Universal graded copies of Detective Comics #27 with an average Universal grade of 4.76.

The average Universal price for CGC 4.76 (between 4.5 and 5.0) would be about $550,000.

Multiply $550,000 by 31 and you get... $17,050,000.

 

So, when it comes to this rough market cap calculation, that's:

 

1st appearance of Spider-man = $19,000,000.

1st appearance of Superman = $18,000,000.

1st appearance of Batman = $17,000,000.

 

Makes sense to me... the "invisible hand of the market" values all 3 first appearances roughly the same.

If someone believes that Batman should be $18,000,000 or $19,000,000 then the market price of the average copy of Detective Comics #27 is too low (in their opinion).

The $550,000 average should $580,000 to $613,000, if the total value should be equal to Superman or Spider-man.

 

If someone else believes that Spider-man should be less than Superman and Batman, let's say, they think it should be $16,000,000, then the market price of the average copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 should be $9,265... instead of $11,000.

 

Of course, the number of copies on the CGC census is very important.

If there were two more average copies of Detective Comics #27 added to the census, the total value would be $18,000,000...

even though the average price would not be changing.

 

For Amazing Fantasy #15 to increase its total value from $19,000,000 to $20,000,000...

we need to see the CGC census grow by 91 average copies with no change to the market price... OR...

we need to see the market price of an average copy go from $11,000 to $11,580.

 

At any rate, I'm amazed that the TOP 3 characters' first appearances are basically the same total market value.

Despite the difference in age between Amazing Fantasy #15 and Action #1 and DC #27...

and despite the difference in the CGC census... the total market value is basically the same.

 

The invisible hand of the market has "spoken".

 

Here's what the "invisible hand" has to say about other important first appearances:

(notice the size of the gap between the Big 3 and the next 2, then a gap, then 2, then another gap, etc.)

 

 

If any of these look too low to you, maybe there is an opportunity to invest in a CGC graded average Universal copy at the current market price.

If any of these look too high to you, maybe the average CGC graded copy market price is too high and is due for a correction.

 

If anyone believes I've missed an important comic whose "market cap" would be high enough to make this list... post it here and we'll check it out.

 

(thumbs u

 

EDIT: Revised the numbers to correct for Signature Series Restored comics (removed them).

 

Added all comic books (even if they don't have a first appearance) which are worth $1,000,000 market cap (or more).

 

Added a chart from the revised numbers.

Brillant,brillant post. (thumbs u

So good I`m going to test it on certified Baseball card keys.

It will be interesting to see how Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth market caps are.

Also anybody try this on Valiant keys yet?

 

[valiantman]

Brillant,brillant post. (thumbs u

So good I`m going to test it on certified Baseball card keys.

It will be interesting to see how Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth market caps are.

Also anybody try this on Valiant keys yet?

Be sure to read my latest posts in this thread... the premium paid for higher grades creates a complication not mentioned in the first post you quoted, but if premiums follow a standard pattern then there might be a simple way to adjust for them as well.

[valiantman]

The only real "issue" is that with comic books there is an exponential value growth at higher grades versus a more arithmetic growth for the lower grades. And they are not equivalent for each book.

That's correct --- the estimate does undervalue the entire CGC census value due to the premiums paid for the higher grades.

 

In the case of Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spider-man #300, the average price of the average grade method results in a total that is only 60% of the average price of each grade method. The premiums that are paid for the higher grades have us undervaluing the total, as expected.

...

 

The total from the average price of the average grade method is 80% of the average price for each grade method for Action Comics #1.

...

 

I'll keep working on a few more... see if 60% is a standard "most of the time" or if we just happened to pick three very different books where two matched.

 

A few more...

 

Incredible Hulk #181 - the averaging method is about 75% of the full method.

 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles #1 - the averaging method is about 78% of the full method.

 

New Mutants #98 - the averaging method is about 74% of the full method.

[valiantman]

Thinking more about what I'm trying to do here.. I'm not really trying to estimate the true market cap.

 

It would be great if this calculation DID estimate the true market cap, but because of the premiums paid for higher grades... it doesn't. It's getting around 60% to 80% of the right answer.

 

But... what this calculation DOES well is provide us a comparison between the "relative values" of the average CGC slabbed copy for these keys.

 

So, while we can't determine what might be happening at the top of the grade prices for each book, we CAN determine whether the average copy is appropriately priced.

 

Intuitively, we know that Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman are the Big 3.

We know that a case can be made for each one that they are the #1 superhero.

 

If there were equal numbers of all three first appearances, we might expect them to be the same price.

 

But, we know that Amazing Fantasy #15 outnumbers Action #1 and Detective #27 by many multiples.

 

So... what should we expect the average copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 to cost, relative to the prices for the average copies of Action #1 and Detective #27?

 

That's what I'm trying to find... the "relative value" for the average CGC slabbed copy of keys. Is it appropriate?

 

According to this averaging method, the average copy of New Mutants #98 is "relatively equal" to the average copy of Brave and the Bold #28, when you take the CGC census into consideration.

Should it be?

 

That's the question.

 

Should the "relative values" of the average CGC slabbed copies of Amazing Fantasy #15, Action #1, and Detective #27 be equal? According to this calculation, they are.

 

We can't use this (very well) to talk about premiums being paid for high grades...

but I think we've got something useful for talking about the average CGC slabbed copy market.

[sterlingcomics]

valiantman--thank you for all that you do. You're the resident CGC data miner.

[AJD]

Great thread. I really like your approach.

 

If you're interested, I did some curve fitting, and have some weights for price versus grade that could be applied for grade to deal with the price premium effect Gator observed. Here they are normalised to 4.0, close enough to your average grade of 3.66 for AF15. The results aren't perfect, but I use them to predict prices for seldom sold books based on sales in other grades and the results aren't bad - certainly better than a linear assumption. It's easy to normalise them other grades if you want.

 

1.8 -- 0.47

2.0 -- 0.53

3.0 -- 0.72

3.5 -- 0.83

4.0 -- 1.00

4.5 -- 1.11

5.0 -- 1.27

5.5 -- 1.43

6.0 -- 1.67

6.5 -- 1.95

7.0 -- 2.33

7.5 -- 2.73

8.0 -- 3.33

8.5 -- 4.13

9.0 -- 5.33

9.2 -- 6.67

9.4 -- 8.00

9.6 -- 16.00

 

[valiantman]

Amazing Spider-man #300 is the most commonly submitted book to CGC.

 

We can do a relative comparison of the average prices for the average CGC slabbed copy for each of these keys, where ASM #300 is set to an index of 1.00.

 

This removes the dollar amounts which are not the market cap, but retains the relative comparisons between the books.

 

 

Is this useful?

 

 

[AJD]

Not sure I understand the methodology here - why is the average sale of ASM300 twice that of Marvel Comics #1? I assume you're also multiplying by the number of copies at that grade?

 

Let me see...

 

566 x ASM300 in 9.8 @ $800 each = $450k

 

2 x MC1 in 6.0 @ $100k = $200k

 

Is that the idea?

 

 

[valiantman]

Great thread. I really like your approach.

 

If you're interested, I did some curve fitting, and have some weights for price versus grade that could be applied for grade to deal with the price premium effect Gator observed. Here they are normalised to 4.0, close enough to your average grade of 3.66 for AF15. The results aren't perfect, but I use them to predict prices for seldom sold books based on sales in other grades and the results aren't bad - certainly better than a linear assumption. It's easy to normalise them other grades if you want.

 

1.8 -- 0.47

2.0 -- 0.53

3.0 -- 0.72

3.5 -- 0.83

4.0 -- 1.00

4.5 -- 1.11

5.0 -- 1.27

5.5 -- 1.43

6.0 -- 1.67

6.5 -- 1.95

7.0 -- 2.33

7.5 -- 2.73

8.0 -- 3.33

8.5 -- 4.13

9.0 -- 5.33

9.2 -- 6.67

9.4 -- 8.00

9.6 -- 16.00

 

Thanks!

 

Just for fun, I've put your curve against the data I used for calculating all the grade prices for Amazing Fantasy #15 and Action #1, which both have averages near the CGC 4.0 in your curve.

 

 

Since it's hard to see what's happening below CGC 7.5, I've got a more focused graph for the lower grades.

 

 

When I've worked with these curves in the past, I've tried to adjust them according to the CGC census populations at each grade.

It's tough to make them fit well, since the market doesn't always reflect what it probably should if it was completely efficient.

[AJD]

 

Just for fun, I've put your curve against the data I used for calculating all the grade prices for Amazing Fantasy #15 and Action #1, which both have averages near the CGC 4.0 in your curve.

 

 

Since it's hard to see what's happening below CGC 7.5, I've got a more focused graph for the lower grades.

 

 

When I've worked with these curves in the past, I've tried to adjust them according to the CGC census populations at each grade.

It's tough to make them fit well, since the market doesn't always reflect what it probably should if it was completely efficient.

 

That makes sense - my data is all for GA comics (my focus). Just getting a copy counts more than grade in many cases, so the premium is less. I see from you graphs that the premium is much greater for SA, which makes perfect sense given the much larger population.

[valiantman]

Not sure I understand the methodology here - why is the average sale of ASM300 twice that of Marvel Comics #1? I assume you're also multiplying by the number of copies at that grade?

 

Let me see...

 

566 x ASM300 in 9.8 @ $800 each = $450k

 

2 x MC1 in 6.0 @ $100k = $200k

 

Is that the idea?

 

 

Not exactly... I'm still using the number of CGC graded copies multiplied by the average price of an average CGC grade for that book.

 

ASM #300 has 9,916 graded copies, avg. grade 8.9, and price for 8.9 is about $200.

So, ASM #300 is 9,916 times $200 = $1,983,200.

 

Marvel Comics #1 has 25 graded copies, avg. grade 4.7, and price for 4.7 is about $40,000.

So, MC #1 is 25 times $40,000 = $1,000,000.

 

ASM #300 has $1,983,200, and MC #1 has $1,000,000.

ASM #300 is set as 1.00 (for all comparisons), and MC #1 is 0.50 relative to ASM #300.

[AJD]

 

Not exactly... I'm still using the number of CGC graded copies multiplied by the average price of an average CGC grade for that book.

 

ASM #300 has 9,916 graded copies, avg. grade 8.9, and price for 8.9 is about $200.

So, ASM #300 is 9,916 times $200 = $1,983,200.

 

Marvel Comics #1 has 25 graded copies, avg. grade 4.7, and price for 4.7 is about $40,000.

So, MC #1 is 25 times $40,000 = $1,000,000.

 

ASM #300 has $1,983,200, and MC #1 has $1,000,000.

ASM #300 is set as 1.00 (for all comparisons), and MC #1 is 0.50 relative to ASM #300.

 

Ah, got it. So the graph is simply the original one in units of 1.9832 million dollars instead. I thought it was some different calculation - that explains why they were so similar.

[valiantman]

 

Not exactly... I'm still using the number of CGC graded copies multiplied by the average price of an average CGC grade for that book.

 

ASM #300 has 9,916 graded copies, avg. grade 8.9, and price for 8.9 is about $200.

So, ASM #300 is 9,916 times $200 = $1,983,200.

 

Marvel Comics #1 has 25 graded copies, avg. grade 4.7, and price for 4.7 is about $40,000.

So, MC #1 is 25 times $40,000 = $1,000,000.

 

ASM #300 has $1,983,200, and MC #1 has $1,000,000.

ASM #300 is set as 1.00 (for all comparisons), and MC #1 is 0.50 relative to ASM #300.

 

Ah, got it. So the graph is simply the original one in units of 1.9832 million dollars instead. I thought it was some different calculation - that explains why they were so similar.

Exactly!

 

The dollar amounts were confusing the guys who pointed out that they're too low when you look at the premiums paid for grades above the average.

 

So, I've replaced the dollar amounts with a simple comparison to ASM #300 (the most popular CGC submission), where the result is a decimal without a need for a dollar sign. (thumbs u

 

If the "invisible hand of the market" only values an average copy of Marvel Comics #1 at about half of what it values an average copy of ASM #300 (considering price and CGC census counts), then a collector who disagrees with the "invisible hand" might consider an average copy of Marvel Comics #1 underpriced.

 

So... each collector might look at this chart (also shown earlier) and see if they agree with the "invisible hand" when it comes to average prices for the average grade. If they think an average book should have a higher value relative to ASM #300... or even relative to a neighboring book... then they might want to seek out that average book while it is undervalued (in their opinion).

 

Compare the first appearance of Punisher (ASM #129, 1.99 index) to the first appearance of Thor (JiM #83, 1.89 index)...

If Thor fans don't think Punisher should have a higher relative index for an average copy,

they are basically thinking that either an average ASM #129 is overpriced or an average JiM #83 is underpriced.

 

They might act accordingly. (thumbs u

[valiantman]

New version of the chart...

 

 

Removes the comparison to ASM #300, because collectors may not wish to compare to ASM #300. That's a complication that isn't needed. (thumbs u

 

Statements from my previous post are still applicable:

 

Compare the first appearance of Punisher (ASM #129, 4.0 index) to the first appearance of Thor (JiM #83, 3.8 index)...

If Thor fans don't think Punisher should have a higher relative index for an average copy,

they are basically thinking that either an average ASM #129 is overpriced or an average JiM #83 is underpriced.

 

They might act accordingly. (thumbs u

[BarryAllen]

Stock market cap calculations only work because every share of the stock is accounted for at all times. So when a purchase is made, people have an exact idea of the total number of shares among other things. Without that vital piece of data the analysis becomes less accurate.

Except in the case of CGC graded books... the number in the CGC census is the best number we can use for the number of CGC graded books. Yes, there are more raw books out there for new books (most of the time), but they're not CGC graded until they're CGC graded.

 

We aren't trying to represent every copy in existence here... we're trying to represent every CGC graded copy.

The market size for CGC slabs requires them to be CGC slabbed first.

Thanks to the CGC census... our numbers are as close as we're ever going to get each time it's updated.

 

Estimates for the number of copies in existence are a different kind of unknown that I'm not addressing at all.

Yes it matters that there are more raws for certain books, but until they've been slabbed... it doesn't matter here.

 

I understand what you are stating, but you are using a valuation of total market value but only including portion of the market. The parallel doesn't make sense because there are un-slabbed copies in the world. Without taking those into account, the proper laws of supply and demand aren't accounted for because people do buy, sell and collect raw comics. This would be the same as saying that there are two kinds of Walmart stock - shares traded on the stock market and shares not traded on the stock market and comparing it to Berkshire whose shares all trade on the stock market. Because you can only get an accurate market cap for the stocks known and traded, you are leaving out a large portion of the valuation.

 

Likewise with comics: most of Action 1 is in the census while the vast majority of ASM 300 is not. One is apples and the other is bananas.

 

I get what you are trying to do here and it is an interesting analysis. However, it is an inaccurate picture of the value of any given book when the availability of raw copies is equal to, or greater than the number of slabbed copies.

 

At the end of the day the total number of "shares" is extremely relevant. Availability (supply) is a main driving force in a purchase decision (demand), without it value eventually crumbles because it isn't fixed. In this case the census creates a false sense of "rarity" with post 1970s books and their prices are inflated as a result (supply is falsely fixed). To really compare all of the books you would have to factor in multiple other variables to make it "apples to apples."

Edited June 28, 2015 by rfoiii

[valiantman]

Stock market cap calculations only work because every share of the stock is accounted for at all times. So when a purchase is made, people have an exact idea of the total number of shares among other things. Without that vital piece of data the analysis becomes less accurate.

Except in the case of CGC graded books... the number in the CGC census is the best number we can use for the number of CGC graded books. Yes, there are more raw books out there for new books (most of the time), but they're not CGC graded until they're CGC graded.

 

We aren't trying to represent every copy in existence here... we're trying to represent every CGC graded copy.

The market size for CGC slabs requires them to be CGC slabbed first.

Thanks to the CGC census... our numbers are as close as we're ever going to get each time it's updated.

 

Estimates for the number of copies in existence are a different kind of unknown that I'm not addressing at all.

Yes it matters that there are more raws for certain books, but until they've been slabbed... it doesn't matter here.

 

I understand what you are stating, but you are using an valuation of total market value but only including portion of the market. The parallel doesn't make sense because there are un-slabbed copies in the world. Without taking those into account, the proper laws of supply and demand aren't accounted for because people do buy, sell and collect raw comics. This would be the same as saying that there are two kinds of Walmart stock - shares traded on the stock market and shares not traded on the stock market and comparing it to Berkshire whose shares all trade on the stock market. Because you can only get an accurate market cap for the stocks known and traded, you are leaving out a large portion of the valuation.

 

Likewise you can't segment off a portion of the business and then compare a total market valuation when large portions of the market are not included (i.e. much of Action one is in the census while the vast majority of ASM 300 is not). One is apples and the other is bananas.

 

I get what you are trying to do hear and it is an interesting analysis. However, it is an inaccurate picture of the value of any given book when the availability of raw copies is equal to, or greater than the number of slabbed copies.

 

At the end of the day the total number of "shares" is extremely relevant. In this case the census creates a false sense of "rarity" with post 1970s books and their prices are inflated as a result (supply is falsely fixed). To really compare all of the books you would have to factor in multiple other variables to make it "apples to apples."

We can't do anything with math about the raw books that aren't CGC graded. We don't have any numbers.

We can talk about it all day, but there's nothing to punch into the calculation.

 

So --- this is for CGC graded copies. If they're not CGC graded, I'm not talking about them.

There is a risk that someone will ignore how many ungraded copies exist, but that's not my problem.

We can't quantify unknown values, so we're left with: "Be careful, CGC hasn't graded every comic!"

 

Should I not do this work at all?

 

I've never been one to try to educate those who haven't already reached some minimum level of understanding about topics I enjoy. I'm not talking about you... I'm talking about whoever you're trying to protect from themselves.

[valiantman]

Looking for a solution to the ungraded copy (potential CGC supply) problem... what if I also include the 5-year growth of the CGC census?

 

Would it help if each book had an indication for how many additional copies have been CGC graded in the past 5 years?

 

[BarryAllen]

Stock market cap calculations only work because every share of the stock is accounted for at all times. So when a purchase is made, people have an exact idea of the total number of shares among other things. Without that vital piece of data the analysis becomes less accurate.

Except in the case of CGC graded books... the number in the CGC census is the best number we can use for the number of CGC graded books. Yes, there are more raw books out there for new books (most of the time), but they're not CGC graded until they're CGC graded.

 

We aren't trying to represent every copy in existence here... we're trying to represent every CGC graded copy.

The market size for CGC slabs requires them to be CGC slabbed first.

Thanks to the CGC census... our numbers are as close as we're ever going to get each time it's updated.

 

Estimates for the number of copies in existence are a different kind of unknown that I'm not addressing at all.

Yes it matters that there are more raws for certain books, but until they've been slabbed... it doesn't matter here.

 

I understand what you are stating, but you are using an valuation of total market value but only including portion of the market. The parallel doesn't make sense because there are un-slabbed copies in the world. Without taking those into account, the proper laws of supply and demand aren't accounted for because people do buy, sell and collect raw comics. This would be the same as saying that there are two kinds of Walmart stock - shares traded on the stock market and shares not traded on the stock market and comparing it to Berkshire whose shares all trade on the stock market. Because you can only get an accurate market cap for the stocks known and traded, you are leaving out a large portion of the valuation.

 

Likewise you can't segment off a portion of the business and then compare a total market valuation when large portions of the market are not included (i.e. much of Action one is in the census while the vast majority of ASM 300 is not). One is apples and the other is bananas.

 

I get what you are trying to do hear and it is an interesting analysis. However, it is an inaccurate picture of the value of any given book when the availability of raw copies is equal to, or greater than the number of slabbed copies.

 

At the end of the day the total number of "shares" is extremely relevant. In this case the census creates a false sense of "rarity" with post 1970s books and their prices are inflated as a result (supply is falsely fixed). To really compare all of the books you would have to factor in multiple other variables to make it "apples to apples."

We can't do anything with math about the raw books that aren't CGC graded. We don't have any numbers.

We can talk about it all day, but there's nothing to punch into the calculation.

 

So --- this is for CGC graded copies. If they're not CGC graded, I'm not talking about them.

There is a risk that someone will ignore how many ungraded copies exist, but that's not my problem.

We can't quantify unknown values, so we're left with: "Be careful, CGC hasn't graded every comic!"

 

Should I not do this work at all?

 

I've never been one to try to educate those who haven't already reached some minimum level of understanding about topics I enjoy. I'm not talking about you... I'm talking about whoever you're trying to protect from themselves.

 

I understand and no one is under any obligations to educate anyone - there are other unnamed boardies who would vehemently argue otherwise - but I don't. I really believe you are trying to bring data to the mix and I appreciate that, I truly do.

 

My point was that you are comparing books along a scale and then enabling people to make assumptions that books are "under or over" valued relative to their position on the scale to other books. I am only pointing out that the data you crunched doesn't provide the basis for that suggested comparison (based on what I have said above).

 

What your analysis does do is give a total value of slabbed books (relatively accurately - the census is known to be inaccurate and the valuation is averaging grades and price points) and then ranks them. That data could be useful in some areas but it isn't an absolute valuation of the market for a given book.

 

We don't have to split hairs and I can stop derailing your thread. I was just pointing out what I perceived was a flaw in the model and how you were suggesting it be interpreted (others were making similar incorrect interpretations as well).

 

Please don't stop doing anything on my account (not that you really would), I just like the discussion. Your analysis caught my attention so I engaged.

 

Edited June 28, 2015 by rfoiii

[InvstmntComcSuply]

We can't do anything with math about the raw books that aren't CGC graded. We don't have any numbers.

We can talk about it all day, but there's nothing to punch into the calculation.

 

So --- this is for CGC graded copies. If they're not CGC graded, I'm not talking about them.

There is a risk that someone will ignore how many ungraded copies exist, but that's not my problem.

We can't quantify unknown values, so we're left with: "Be careful, CGC hasn't graded every comic!"

 

Should I not do this work at all?

 

I've never been one to try to educate those who haven't already reached some minimum level of understanding about topics I enjoy. I'm not talking about you... I'm talking about whoever you're trying to protect from themselves.

 

As other math geeks, we probably just thought you needed a bigger disclaimer.

Now, done and done.

So, by all means, carry on.

 

Great Work!