Showcase #4 9.8 on Comic Connect - sold for 15k

[G.A.tor]

I've only held one. Earlier work I believe. Action 7. Fc appeared 100% color touched over. I'm assuming they've adapted since then and reduced in some instances? But this cover was so colored it looked and felt "fake".

 

Thanks

 

You should go see one now to compare

ive heard less ct these days.

[FoomMember]

Seems to me the only real question being asked here: how much resto is TOO much resto?

 

It's a question of not only how much resto but what sort of resto.

 

As technology changes all fields have to adapt. We're now seeing that happy in as it adapts.

 

 

Are you saying quality vs quantity? Because this book looks like quantity ruled.

[VintageComics]

Seems to me the only real question being asked here: how much resto is TOO much resto?

 

It's a question of not only how much resto but what sort of resto.

 

As technology changes all fields have to adapt. We're now seeing that happy in as it adapts.

 

 

Are you saying quality vs quantity? Because this book looks like quantity ruled.

 

Both. If you can't quantify how much and what type of resto though, it's hard to know what and how much was done.

[FoomMember]

I agree. In this case, it looks like a young Pam Anderson was transformed into...egad!...the 'Tommy Lee' Pamela Anderson that looks less like a good looking woman than a female impersonator doing an impression of Pamela Anderson.

 

ie. very fake looking.

[burntboy]

Young Pamela Anderson...

 

Her first couple of pictorials in Playboy were awesome...

[Mark 1]

I like where this thread is going.

[Comicopolis]

I like where this thread is going.

 

More pics required.

[gosensgo93]

Too much color touch on a book ? Yah I pass.. Some is understandable but not overkill

[esquirecomics]

I have a vague recollection that he was already trying to sell his copy within a short period of buying it. What prompted him to try to get rid of it? Did he find a better one, meaning it became his undercopy?

 

He was never a collector of the book. He bought it as a short-term flip.

 

correct, it was immediately for sale at $125K asking.

 

Guys, guys, my gosh, you would think I broke some laws or something.

 

I bought it off of Ebay from Mark Wilson for $62,500 in 2004 (or was it 2005?). I don't think I ever asked more than double for what I paid. It was always an investment book, although it was definitely a holy grail of mine from childhood. But no emotional attachment. Sold it, as noted, through Metro for $100,000 in 2011.

 

Now as a lawyer math is not my strong suit so I might have this completely wrong, but I think that means it was sold for about a 60% profit in less than seven years. And don't forget that during that seven year period the entire stock market collapsed!

 

Worked for me!

[G.A.tor]

I have a vague recollection that he was already trying to sell his copy within a short period of buying it. What prompted him to try to get rid of it? Did he find a better one, meaning it became his undercopy?

 

He was never a collector of the book. He bought it as a short-term flip.

 

correct, it was immediately for sale at $125K asking.

 

Guys, guys, my gosh, you would think I broke some laws or something.

 

I bought it off of Ebay from Mark Wilson for $62,500 in 2004 (or was it 2005?). I don't think I ever asked more than double for what I paid. It was always an investment book, although it was definitely a holy grail of mine from childhood. But no emotional attachment. Sold it, as noted, through Metro for $100,000 in 2011.

 

Now as a lawyer math is not my strong suit so I might have this completely wrong, but I think that means it was sold for about a 60% profit in less than seven years. And don't forget that during that seven year period the entire stock market collapsed!

 

Worked for me!

Two ways to interpret.

Profit margin:

Gross profit it typically calculated as your profit divided by gross revenue (sales). In this case, 37500/100000=37.5%

 

Profit markup

Some folks will calculate profit relative to cost. That's what you did. 37500/62500=60%

[Aman619]

they're both correct!

 

in the first the profit was 37% of the sale price, (as in answering the question "so how much of the 100K was profit?")

 

but having laid out 37K and getting back 100K, his 37K investment paid out 62K more in cash than he had before, or 60% more than he invested.

[burntboy]

they're both correct!

 

in the first the profit was 37% of the sale price, (as in answering the question "so how much of the 100K was profit?")

 

but having laid out 37K and getting back 100K, his 37K investment paid out 62K more in cash than he had before, or 60% more than he invested.

 

The voice of reason as always, except he laid out 62500 and got back 100,000, making his profit on investment 37500 or 60% (37,500/62500).

[G.A.tor]

they're both correct!

 

in the first the profit was 37% of the sale price, (as in answering the question "so how much of the 100K was profit?")

 

but having laid out 37K and getting back 100K, his 37K investment paid out 62K more in cash than he had before, or 60% more than he invested.

 

correct...one is profit margin, one is profit markup... different ways of saying the same thing, with different %

[Mark 1]

Either way, he made a nice profit on his initial investment.

[Aman619]

oops messed up the math. but yes, a pretty good deal for Mark.. Only better if he had held onto the book though! : )

[comicdonna]

I'm glad that's all straightened out.

[*matterus023*]

With the money made I wouldn't be sitting down working out the finer details. Holiday booked and feet up in the sun