Amazing Spider-Man 667 1:100 Dell'Otto Variant

[BarryAllen]

I can't believe Mike was called a bully

 

Not choosing sides - but he did call Jaydog "pathetic" first.

 

You can't be all that awesome and insult people to that degree. I know I am not one to talk, but people seriously can't just deny that he directly insulted another person (and from what I can tell in this thread it was unprovoked - at least to him personally). That certainly doesn't make him evil by any stretch (not sure it makes him a bully either), but ignoring what he said isn't a fair assessment of the situation.

 

Someone was insulted, so they retaliated. Kinda par for the course round here...

 

Gotcha. It just gets fist rating debating something when the other party ignores any facts and acts as if his word is the only word.

 

Totally agree - many times it is happening on both sides of the argument.

 

I only saw it on Jaydog's side but I admit I don't read

RMA's posts.

 

:shrug:

 

At this point it probably doesn't matter.

 

[N/A]

[BarryAllen]

Is this threads goal nerd ufc, or asm variant pumping. Struggling to follow.

 

 

Side note, slabbing books is arbitrary, so while people can make interesting observations about said behaviour, it can't ever 'prove' anything about underlying print runs. A derivative can't dictate the underlying value

 

I am not sure I 100% follow. I agree that slabbing data alone is not substantial enough to create a conclusion about the total number of books, but I do believe that in today's comic market (i.e. one that is primarily about resale value) it is pertinent data.

 

So when a modern variant (i.e. a book that over-indexes in resale and therefore should also in slabbing) has so few submissions to the largest and most widely recognized/renowned company (CGC for anyone who is just joining us ), it does create an interesting conundrum.

 

[Jaydogrules]

Are we still trying to "prove" that black is "white", that up is "down" and that rare is somehow secretly "common"?

 

As entertaining as your feeble attempts to deconstruct ad nauseum that which has been a generally accepted position for years, I must say that I am also mildly disappointed in a few of you.

 

Mainly, you continue to imply, for some odd reason, that the book is not rare, that they simply "must be out there", yet you cite no first hand evidence (or any evidence) that would actually give you any reason to believe that. Frankly your efforts simply look like sour grapes at this point (again). I don't know who you are trying to convince (yourselves?), but the hard statistical data that is available for anyone to see not only proves your half-baked speculative "theories" wrong now, but they have for years.

 

You speak of other books that are not comparable like spider Gwen, ASM 301, miracle man, and skottie young as a means of proving....something ? And then you high five each other in the thread like frat boys as if you've just discovered the cure for cancer.

 

Yet when I compare actually comparable books and data from the same time frame, you summarily proclaim me "incorrect" and "ignorant".

 

Well FWIW I find your theories laughably contrarian to the very few facts that we actually do know about the book, nearly to the point of trolling.

 

Simply put, (and whether you like it or not) the book is impossibly rare and as such has sold for thousands raw for years.

 

The book was rare on the market since the day it was released with even large retailers showing no copies available from the beginning, following a nearly unprecedented event conducted by marvel which goosed sales to more than double its normal figures for the time by enticing retailers (likely mostly small ones) to over order on the immediately preceding issue that was to have been released just two weeks before this one.

 

The book was immediately tough on the secondary market and there were no pre-orders offered.

 

Despite being a book that has sold for hundreds and then thousands raw there are still only 20 slabs, only five of which have publicly changed hands in 4 and a half years, the first of which not selling for over a year after the book's initial release, and the last selling nearly a year ago this month.

 

As time has gone on there have been fewer and fewer unique raw copies surfacing for sale, with just one this year so far.

 

These and only these are the facts, and I have been the only one to report actual facts that are relevant to this book. JunkDonkey has offered no facts. RMA has not. Chuck has not.

 

Rfoii, I appreciate you chiming in. There is some merit to your posts about the psychology of many on these boards. However in this instant, not one of the alleged "experts" has reported any first hand/direct experience with this book. I highly doubt any of them have ever even seen a copy in person.

 

That's how rare it is.

 

They are speaking in generalities, as to what "normally" happens with a book, even though this book has never followed the "normal" patterns.

 

RMA you are the worst offender. Your hypocritical posturing borders on the obscene. In the ASM 361 print run thread you attempt to argue that that book was not "hoarded" en masse, and even if it was, that "human nature" would have caused most (all?) of those hoarding it to "cash out" once the book reached a whopping $25 FMV.

 

Yet here you seem to be applying the exactly opposite logic, stating that, irrespective of the book attaining an FMV 500-1200 times its cover price (or more) that no one (or very few) potential sellers can be bothered to sell or even slab the book. You know, like what happens with every single other book when it starts selling for crazy prices. Why has this book not followed that well documented pattern? It's a conundrum indeed.

 

In fact, I am starting to wonder how any of you so-called "experts" expect much of what you are saying to be taken seriously, because your "theories" based on the FACTS defy logic and common sense and seem more designed to advance an agenda rather than to actually have an honest discussion about what could reasonably explain the book's unprecedented rarity.

 

Some of your theories have been so outlandish that if I were to say that a Unicorn must have shot rainbows out of its butt that incinerated half the print run, it would be just about as likely as some of the positions you have advanced.

 

Mysterio, I am not including you in this diatribe as toward the end you legitimately seemed interested in exchanging plausible facts and theories on the matter.

 

But to the rest of you, I can only shake my head. Some of the longest tenured "experts" on these boards, who can't even acknowledge when their pre-ordained theories fail them, and would choose to argue against all available data and common sense rather than either remain silent (since I don't believe any of you to have any first hand knowledge or experience with the book), or perhaps make some queries to Diamond and seeing whatever information you could dig up that might actually be productive. The book is rare, that is an incontrovertible fact. We have theories as to why. Some decent and plausible that are actually based on and extrapolated from the few facts before us. But most asinine and ridiculous based on nothing more than what at this point only looks like sour grapes and disdain.

 

Like I said, I expected better from you.

 

-J.

 

[N/A]

You've lost it dude.

 

I don't know who said the book was not rare as far as sales. The main debate has always been extrapolating print run based on slabs or sales. Neither are directly correlated to print run.

 

Hard to find for sale? Yup. Does that tell us print run? Nope.

 

You have extrapolated the facts to make unsubstantiated claims. Simple. You might be right. You might be wrong. The latter seems to be an impossibility for you.

[jsilverjanet]

This book is not rare

[N/A]

[Jaydogrules]

This book is not rare

 

Then show us yours.

 

-J.

[BarryAllen]

This book is not rare

 

[N/A]

[James J]

 

Then show us yours.

 

-J.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

You've lost it dude.

 

I don't know who said the book was not rare as far as sales. The main debate has always been extrapolating print run based on slabs or sales. Neither are directly correlated to print run.

 

Hard to find for sale? Yup. Does that tell us print run? Nope.

 

You have extrapolated the facts to make unsubstantiated claims. Simple. You might be right. You might be wrong. The latter seems to be an impossibility for you.

 

If a person cannot make an informed guesstimate based on those two hard data points, what other possible data could he base a guesstimate upon? Or are you of the belief that no human should ever attempt to ballpark the print run of a comic book variant? You know...something that people do all the time on these boards in thousands of other threads, without nearly the hostile resistance that has been conducted in this thread for some inexplicable reason.

 

I have not represented any theory as a "fact" when it is such. I am not sure where you are getting that from.

 

Let's look at two more comparable case studies, shall we? This time non-Marvel books:

 

Batman #1 Sketch (New 52) Cover Date 11/11 (ASM 667 is 10/11)- A 1:200 book that sells for $1000+ in a 9.8 and has trended up from Day One. People love them some Batman after all. In fact, that title and ASM have duked it out for the #1 and #2 positions on the sales chart for the better part of a year- Estimated print run 800 copies; 397 total slabs. 250, 9.8's.

 

Saga #1 RRP Cover Date 4/12- A mega hit for Image, even the regular cover which has a ton of slabbed 9.8's sells for $200+ on a regular basis. The RRP has also trended upward from nearly the beginning and is now breaking $1000 for a blue label- estimated print run, a paltry 500 copies; 223 total slabs. 183, 9.8's.

 

ASM 667 Dell'Otto (released during the same time frame, and exponentially more valuable than either of those books)- 20 total slabs. 11, 9.8's.

 

I wonder what happened differently there. Perhaps an itty bitty print run? Resulting in an itty bitty distribution? Leading to itty bitty submissions to CGC? And itty bitty public sales?

 

 

To say (or imply) that there can be no correlation at all to guesstimated print runs and sales/slabs of particularly valuable books, that have been valuable since virtually the moment they were released, and have retained their value over multiple years, and continued to increase in value is utterly bogus. Especially since that is precisely what people do and have done all the time in the absence of a print out from Marvel/Diamond that details for us the exact print runs for the variants that they release.

 

-J.

 

 

[N/A]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

[mysterio]

Jay, it is the use of phrases like "hostile resistance", "exponentially more valuable" and "utterly bogus" that have been used to describe positions that may be causing a lot of the difficulties here. Hyperbolizing the discussion gets people's backs up, and this is where a lot of internet discussions go wrong. It is hard to see both sides of an argument from all the way up on a high horse.

 

This thread raised the question of the print run of this book, and there have been some good data that can help shed light on that question. The CGC census is another data point, though it has more limited value. Sales data may also provide some information, but again, these are of more limited value.

 

The census data is influenced by the following (not an exhaustive list):

Why do people slab books?

Do people like and/or believe in slabbing books?

Do people want to spend the money to slab their books?

Do people want to risk loss or damage in the process of slabbing books?

How many people who do slab would submit a modern that wasn't a slam dunk 9.8?

Does CBCS or PGX have a census to assess other slabbing options?

 

Sales data is influenced by the following (not an exhaustive list):

Do people realize that the variant they have is worth money?

Do people who have a lot of variants recall having this one?

Do people want to break up their runs if they have all the variants?

Do we have data on ALL sales, even the private sales or trades?

 

If we cannot approximate answers to these questions, we are making assumptions about what the data that we do have actually means. The data we do have suggest that this book is indeed difficult to find, and that few copies have changed hands since it was printed. Nobody disputed these facts as we know them today. To go beyond these conclusions is to take leaps that the data do not support. It may be better to be more conservative in our approach, rather than start shouting from the rooftops that this ASM #667 variant is the rarest and greatest variant to hit the hobby in the last 1,000 years.

[CBT]

Is this threads goal nerd ufc, or asm variant pumping. Struggling to follow.

 

 

Side note, slabbing books is arbitrary, so while people can make interesting observations about said behaviour, it can't ever 'prove' anything about underlying print runs. A derivative can't dictate the underlying value

 

I am not sure I 100% follow. I agree that slabbing data alone is not substantial enough to create a conclusion about the total number of books, but I do believe that in today's comic market (i.e. one that is primarily about resale value) it is pertinent data.

 

So when a modern variant (i.e. a book that over-indexes in resale and therefore should also in slabbing) has so few submissions to the largest and most widely recognized/renowned company (CGC for anyone who is just joining us ), it does create an interesting conundrum.

 

 

I bolded the relevant part to your comments

[mysterio]

Is this threads goal nerd ufc, or asm variant pumping. Struggling to follow.

 

 

Side note, slabbing books is arbitrary, so while people can make interesting observations about said behaviour, it can't ever 'prove' anything about underlying print runs. A derivative can't dictate the underlying value

 

I am not sure I 100% follow. I agree that slabbing data alone is not substantial enough to create a conclusion about the total number of books, but I do believe that in today's comic market (i.e. one that is primarily about resale value) it is pertinent data.

 

So when a modern variant (i.e. a book that over-indexes in resale and therefore should also in slabbing) has so few submissions to the largest and most widely recognized/renowned company (CGC for anyone who is just joining us ), it does create an interesting conundrum.

 

 

I bolded the relevant part to your comments

 

And I've bolded the relevant part of his post that related back to yours. He never said it proved anything, just raised an interesting question.

[CBT]

You've lost it dude.

 

I don't know who said the book was not rare as far as sales. The main debate has always been extrapolating print run based on slabs or sales. Neither are directly correlated to print run.

 

Hard to find for sale? Yup. Does that tell us print run? Nope.

 

You have extrapolated the facts to make unsubstantiated claims. Simple. You might be right. You might be wrong. The latter seems to be an impossibility for you.

 

If a person cannot make an informed guesstimate based on those two hard data points, what other possible data could he base a guesstimate upon? Or are you of the belief that no human should ever attempt to ballpark the print run of a comic book variant?

-J.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone spoke against people making guesses or hypothesis. It's not about whether it's right or wrong. It's about saying a guess is a fact, or saying a correlation is causation.

[CBT]

Is this threads goal nerd ufc, or asm variant pumping. Struggling to follow.

 

 

Side note, slabbing books is arbitrary, so while people can make interesting observations about said behaviour, it can't ever 'prove' anything about underlying print runs. A derivative can't dictate the underlying value

 

I am not sure I 100% follow. I agree that slabbing data alone is not substantial enough to create a conclusion about the total number of books, but I do believe that in today's comic market (i.e. one that is primarily about resale value) it is pertinent data.

 

So when a modern variant (i.e. a book that over-indexes in resale and therefore should also in slabbing) has so few submissions to the largest and most widely recognized/renowned company (CGC for anyone who is just joining us ), it does create an interesting conundrum.

 

I bolded the relevant part to your comments

 

And I've bolded the relevant part of his post that related back to yours. He never said it proved anything, just raised an interesting question.

 

 

Which I had already said in my bolded part.....

[Jaydogrules]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

 

-J.

 

[mysterio]

Is this threads goal nerd ufc, or asm variant pumping. Struggling to follow.

 

 

Side note, slabbing books is arbitrary, so while people can make interesting observations about said behaviour, it can't ever 'prove' anything about underlying print runs. A derivative can't dictate the underlying value

 

I am not sure I 100% follow. I agree that slabbing data alone is not substantial enough to create a conclusion about the total number of books, but I do believe that in today's comic market (i.e. one that is primarily about resale value) it is pertinent data.

 

So when a modern variant (i.e. a book that over-indexes in resale and therefore should also in slabbing) has so few submissions to the largest and most widely recognized/renowned company (CGC for anyone who is just joining us ), it does create an interesting conundrum.

 

I bolded the relevant part to your comments

 

And I've bolded the relevant part of his post that related back to yours. He never said it proved anything, just raised an interesting question.

 

 

Which I had already said in my bolded part.....

 

So if he was essentially agreeing with you, why make a stink about it?