Are prices still climbing or have they eased up a bit???
23 23

1,778 posts in this topic

Just now, valiantman said:

Getting another actor in the Wolverine role will probably be the biggest factor in the market.  Hugh Jackman made the role "his", but can anyone tell me who is the actor who played the Joker?  Right, I just heard three different names (and none of them were Jared Leto). :devil:

Wolverine in the MCU just needs the right actor, and it will make Hulk #181 hard to "burst" in prices.  Of course, no matter who they announce, the price will probably drop.  Someone said "Joaquin Phoenix" earlier and if you'll remember, that whole "no Batman supposedly Joker movie" was going to be a big flop the moment they announced it.  Experts are everywhere, and there's still not a single correct person in the room.  :D

But seriously, the "bubble bursting" would mean you could buy again at historical "pre-bubble" prices.  I don't see it happening on key issues.  Market pullback?  Of course, every journey has a point that the highway slows down for a few miles.  Is it slowing down because there's no one on the road?  No, it usually slows down for a while to make way for the future expansion of additional lanes (or, in the case of comic books, additional zeroes in the price).

If they're clever- and Kevin Feige has proven to be- they won't get a "name" actor. They'll do the same thing they did with Hugh Jackman, which is get an unknown or at least a not famous actor. This was established so well with Christopher Reeve; because there was no pre-conceived notion of him, he just looked like Superman. They will also likely want to get someone younger than someone like Joaquin Phoenix (?!) because, unless it was the 52 year old Jackman, they will likely want to sign a younger actor to a multi-year contract. Not that Jackman couldn't still look good in a decade, but I'm just saying.

The way to make Wolverine succeed in the MCU after so many people understandably associating him with Jackman, and the way to avoid comparisons with Jackman's literally history making tenure as the character is a very simple one: introduce and keep Wolverine in costume. At least at first. Jackman never appeared in a real masked Wolverine costume, so- this would be unique, this would automatically make people psychologically not automatically compare the MCU Wolverine to Hugh Jackman's portrayal. The costume also might have the added effect of making 1st comic appearance jump, if it's somewhat based on the color scheme of the 1974 costume. You show the actor unmasked as Logan only briefly. Don't give the critics time to compare and contrast.

 

But what do I know! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, NewWorldOrder said:

You mean prices for OWW copies don't sell for as much as WP copies?  Thanks for the tip. lol 

You also really need to educate yourself on the difference between a market bubble and a market pull pack

I am noticing that you dont analyze markets very well since both books you mentioned are still overall ascending in value.

A bubble means the market has crashed, and most people lost money.  However, a pull back means many people are still up a good amount of money from what they bought the book for, but didn't sell at the height of the market.  Nothing can go up forever so a natural pull back or price ceiling is going to happen at some point.

If Apple shares were selling $145, but then settled (pulled backed) at $133 thats not a stock crash for Apple if you have $102 into each share.  It just means if you purchased at the height of the share price you have to wait till the stock values increases past $145, but the majority of share holders made out.

I will say this and this is just my opinion, but if anyone thinks Hulk 181 and GSX #1 are ever going to crash back down to pre-covid levels I wish you luck in finding such a copy for that pricing.  That ship has sailed. 

Well said buddy!

I think if Hulk 181s really "crash" and go to 2010 prices again or lower, we all have bigger issues than our comics losing value...... pun ;) 

Like you said, will there be a pullback?  Sure, it would only make sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

If they're clever- and Kevin Feige has proven to be- they won't get a "name" actor. They'll do the same thing they did with Hugh Jackman, which is get an unknown or at least a not famous actor. This was established so well with Christopher Reeve; because there was no pre-conceived notion of him, he just looked like Superman. They will also likely want to get someone younger than someone like Joaquin Phoenix (?!) because, unless it was the 52 year old Jackman, they will likely want to sign a younger actor to a multi-year contract. Not that Jackman couldn't still look good in a decade, but I'm just saying.

The way to make Wolverine succeed in the MCU after so many people understandably associating him with Jackman, and the way to avoid comparisons with Jackman's literally history making tenure as the character is a very simple one: introduce and keep Wolverine in costume. At least at first. Jackman never appeared in a real masked Wolverine costume, so- this would be unique, this would automatically make people psychologically not automatically compare the MCU Wolverine to Hugh Jackman's portrayal. The costume also might have the added effect of making 1st comic appearance jump, if it's somewhat based on the color scheme of the 1974 costume. You show the actor unmasked as Logan only briefly. Don't give the critics time to compare and contrast.

 

But what do I know! 

I edited my post to clarify that when I mentioned Joaquin Phoenix it was because he was one of three different actors people might name when you ask, "who played the Joker?"

Wolverine only has one actor name now, but it could have two or three (and everyone have a different favorite) after the next few movies.  Jackman is our Jack Nicholson.  Who will be our Wolverine version of Heath Ledger? Who will be our Wolverine version of Joaquin Phoenix?  I'm guessing Jared Leto would be happy to be our Wolverine version of Jared Leto. 

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

If they're clever- and Kevin Feige has proven to be- they won't get a "name" actor. They'll do the same thing they did with Hugh Jackman, which is get an unknown or at least a not famous actor. This was established so well with Christopher Reeve; because there was no pre-conceived notion of him, he just looked like Superman. They will also likely want to get someone younger than someone like Joaquin Phoenix (?!) because, unless it was the 52 year old Jackman, they will likely want to sign a younger actor to a multi-year contract. Not that Jackman couldn't still look good in a decade, but I'm just saying.

The way to make Wolverine succeed in the MCU after so many people understandably associating him with Jackman, and the way to avoid comparisons with Jackman's literally history making tenure as the character is a very simple one: introduce and keep Wolverine in costume. At least at first. Jackman never appeared in a real masked Wolverine costume, so- this would be unique, this would automatically make people psychologically not automatically compare the MCU Wolverine to Hugh Jackman's portrayal. The costume also might have the added effect of making 1st comic appearance jump, if it's somewhat based on the color scheme of the 1974 costume. You show the actor unmasked as Logan only briefly. Don't give the critics time to compare and contrast.

 

But what do I know! 

Wolverine has been my favorite character since the 80s. Hugh Jackman was fine but a bit sanitized for my taste. But in general I feel that every movie with wolverine (or the x-men for that matter) has been hot garbage, cept for Logan. PG13 doesn’t help. If they do a reboot I hope they try to capture some of the grit, carnage, and mystery from the Miller stuff and the 1988 series.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2021 at 5:54 PM, Readcomix said:

When you’re on the “control U” page, then type control F. A search box will appear in the upper right. Type “taxex” in there and it will bring you to the highlighted taxex price.

Just a heads up on using the taxex method to see what a book actually sold for.

George with GPAnalysis mentioned here that using this method isn't always accurate.

I don't know why it's not always accurate and didn't ask for clarification, but wanted to put that information out there.

 

 

Edited by Domo Arigato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IronMan_Cave said:

NOPE

I'm just gonna wait for more results, let numbers do the talking

You do that. lol 

Your numbers so far proved your logic is flawed and very uneducated. 

PM me when you get can some of these books at pre-covid prices, until then I will be over here drinking your milkshake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Poekaymon said:

1. Ahem.  Every link you posted is off white while the majority of your comparisons are white.  :eyeroll:

2. Looking at just the 9.2, that 18.5k just looks like an outlier.  Several other March sales in the 13-15k range, including two with white pages, which is right in line with your off white for 14k.  Same thing for the 9.6.

3. If anything, contrary to your intended purpose, your list shows the market, and H181 in particular, continues to be extremely strong.

4. Small fluctuations, such as the ones you have illustrated here, even among identical books, happen all the time.  Things don't go endlessly straight up in a vertical line, even if it does seem that way sometimes.

5. Let us know when the books are back to March 2020 prices--ie, when they are half what you have posted here.

100%, I just cant understand how the OP took the time to look at sales records which proves his own points wrong, but cant admit he is wrong.

You tried your best to help him lol 

Edited by NewWorldOrder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2021 at 6:20 PM, Domo Arigato said:

Just a heads up on using the taxex method to see what a book actually sold for.

George with GPAnalysis mentioned here that using this method isn't always accurate.

I don't know why it's not always accurate and didn't ask for clarification, but wanted to put that information out there.

 

 

I can't seem to find "taxex" anymore in the page source.   Noticed a reddit thread also with the poster making the same observation.

I did click on 'show original listing"

Tried multiple completed sales with a best off accepted note & unable to find "taxex" on any of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, csaag said:

I can't seem to find "taxex" anymore in the page source.   Noticed a reddit thread also with the poster making the same observation.

I did click on 'show original listing"

Tried multiple completed sales with a best off accepted note & unable to find "taxex" on any of them

I just tried it on one and couldn't find it either.

I wonder if eBay got word of people searching for it and, for some reason, didn't want people to see it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

I just tried it on one and couldn't find it either.

I wonder if eBay got word of people searching for it and, for some reason, didn't want people to see it.

 

I even searched for "$" symbols thinking maybe they just used a diff keyword but no such luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2021 at 12:37 PM, rsouxlja7 said:

I wouldn't call books going up 100% and then dropping 10-20% a "bubble burst".

Agreed. People don't seem to understand the word. Bubbles bursting are when Harbinger 1 went from $100+ to $5-10 in a matter of a year or less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also find pointing to one our two auctions to prove a decline is flawed. Auctions can too easily be jacked up with shill bids. There may not be shilling on a subsequent auction. Any statistician would laugh at your for using a single data point to prove a hypothesis.  The next batman 227 is not going to sell for the crazy price because it was just stupid. It won't mean it "burst"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, the blob said:

The next batman 227 is not going to sell for the crazy price because it was just stupid. It won't mean it "burst"

WTF:  But I just won Transformers 1 last month for a paltry $44K, expecting it to continue climbing to 6-figures before the end of this year. :frustrated: :mad:  :censored:

Edited by lou_fine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2021 at 4:47 PM, valiantman said:

I edited my post to clarify that when I mentioned Joaquin Phoenix it was because he was one of three different actors people might name when you ask, "who played the Joker?"

Wolverine only has one actor name now, but it could have two or three (and everyone have a different favorite) after the next few movies.  Jackman is our Jack Nicholson.  Who will be our Wolverine version of Heath Ledger? Who will be our Wolverine version of Joaquin Phoenix?  I'm guessing Jared Leto would be happy to be our Wolverine version of Jared Leto. 

I didn’t think about Joaquin Phoenix.

I thought about Nicholson, Ledger, and  Cesar Romero

image.jpeg.c8e9db9eb4801574a8adcaf3569d3ec5.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
23 23