Bronty Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 4:46 PM, Namtak said: So now that we know that collectibles are scam in prices,who wants to sell me an original 1938 action comics 1 for 10 $? Namtak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombat Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 4:25 PM, valiantman said: I posted something similar to this in a different topic, but it seems like it might work well here also... Given that Issue #1 of a favorite title is completely unobtainable... Consider two possible comic book collections: Collection A) Issues #2 through #300 of a favorite title -OR- Collection B) Issues #2 through #300 of a favorite title, plus 1% ownership in a real #1 issue. Can anyone honestly say they wouldn't choose Collection B, since ownership in #1 through #300 outright isn't an option? Personally I wouldn't consider that fractional share in the #1 as part of my collection. It would be an investment, but I don't really own any part of that book. Beige and Sweet Lou 14 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) On 8/25/2021 at 3:48 PM, wombat said: On 8/25/2021 at 3:25 PM, valiantman said: I posted something similar to this in a different topic, but it seems like it might work well here also... Given that Issue #1 of a favorite title is completely unobtainable... Consider two possible comic book collections: Collection A) Issues #2 through #300 of a favorite title -OR- Collection B) Issues #2 through #300 of a favorite title, plus 1% ownership in a real #1 issue. Can anyone honestly say they wouldn't choose Collection B, since ownership in #1 through #300 outright isn't an option? Personally I wouldn't consider that fractional share in the #1 as part of my collection. It would be an investment, but I don't really own any part of that book. You can't hold any part of the book, but you would legally own 1%. If it was $1,000,000 you wouldn't like to have claim to $10,000 of it instead of nothing at all? Or are you saying that you'd be fine with Collection B if I rephrased it... Collection B) Issues #2 through #300 of a favorite title, plus (NOT IN MY COLLECTION) equity in a real copy of #1. Edited August 25, 2021 by valiantman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) On 8/25/2021 at 4:48 PM, wombat said: Personally I wouldn't consider that fractional share in the #1 as part of my collection. It would be an investment, but I don't really own any part of that book. I don't really get the comparison either. Obviously choice 2) is worth more. Maybe a better comparison would be 3 books from the 1-300 run drawn at random versus a 1% stake in the entire 300 issue run? Although that would have its problems too. Edited August 25, 2021 by Bronty jimjum12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 3:50 PM, Bronty said: I don't really get the comparison either. Obviously choice 2) is worth more. Maybe a better comparison would be 3 books from the 3-300 run drawn at random versus a 1% stake in the entire 300 issue run? Although that would have its problems too. No randomness. Purposeful collecting of issues #2 through #300, and being unable to obtain a full copy of #1, having a legal ownership in 1% of a real copy... versus issues #2 through #300 and nothing else. It's not complicated. X X + 1% of Y (when Y is the key aspect in your goal of collecting X, even though you can't touch Y in person.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombat Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 4:49 PM, valiantman said: You can't hold any part of the book, but you would legally own 1%. If it was $1,000,000 you wouldn't like to have claim to $10,000 of it instead of nothing at all? Or are you saying that you'd be fine with Collection B if I rephrased it... Collection B) Issues #2 through #300 of a favorite title, plus (NOT IN MY COLLECTION) equity in a real copy of #1. I thought I remember from when this first came up that you don't actually own any part of the asset. You only own a something that represents a percentage in the value of the asset. But maybe I'm wrong in that. If you replace the word collection with investment or portfolio that would make sense to me. And of course option B would be worth more. But on the other hand option A you would still have that money or it would be invested in something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 25, 2021 Author Share Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) On 8/25/2021 at 4:47 PM, Bronty said: I for one question the motives of those ready to call fraud on markets they don't participate in and generally know nothing about. Oftentimes its people salty they lost out. Karl, who the published that video is a speedrunner. Not sure what he collects but if he's speedrunning, its probably loose cartridges, maybe CIBs. Guess what HASN'T gone up much? loose cartridges, most CIBs... I understood it from the first time you posted. I find it astonishing you would think someone who went to the level of investigative detail he did in the video would do all this because of sour grapes. Regardless, what he showed/proved is open to dispute, but I have a hard time seeing you disproving that Jeff Meyer is a director, and didn't have some advantage having his games graded by the company he manages (in whatever role defined by WATA for their director), for a collection he bought from another WATA person (Dain Anderson), with the added twist that they gave it a "Carolina Collection" designation. The only thing they might have called it to make it clearer what they were doing is if they named it "All For the Benjamins." In the comic world comparable, it would be akin to someone like Paul Litch buying a collection from Harshen, putting all sweet high grades on it, and calling it the "Florida Collection." Of course, you are welcome to disprove any of what he exposed about Jeff Meyer and Dain Anderson, but I'm sure you know you can't. Edited August 25, 2021 by comicwiz jimjum12, Cosmic_Shel, MatterEaterLad and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 4:55 PM, comicwiz said: level of investigative detail The dude made a factual error in the first ten seconds of the video. The level of investigative detail is close to zero. But, you know, some people like to wear tinfoil hats. Darkseid of the Moon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 25, 2021 Author Share Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) On 8/25/2021 at 4:57 PM, Bronty said: The dude made a factual error in the first ten seconds of the video. The level of investigative detail is close to zero. But, you know, some people like to wear tinfoil hats. What was the error? Did that Super Mario Bros not sell for $30K in 2017? That was literally what he said at the 5 second mark, he showed a Mashable article which pretty much substantiates it. I see YouTubers in that year posting videos of the sale... what am I missing? Edited August 25, 2021 by comicwiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 4:55 PM, comicwiz said: I understood it from the first time you posted. I find it astonishing you would think someone who went to the level of investigative detail he did in the video would do all this because of sour grapes. Regardless, what he showed/proved is open to dispute, but I have a hard time seeing you disproving that Jeff Meyer is a director, and didn't have some advantage having his games graded by the company he manages (in whatever role defined by WATA for their director), for a collection he bought from another WATA person (Dain Anderson), with the added twist that they gave it a "Carolina Collection" notation. In the comic world comparable, it would be akin to someone like Paul Litch buying a collection from Harshen, putting all sweet high grades on it, and calling it the "Florida Collection." Of course, you are welcome to disprove any of this, but I'm sure you know you can't. I dunno much about Jeff. But Dain was GOING to be involved with wata as the IT head. He LOST INTEREST in games, and didn't want to move to Colorado with his family in the end, and therefore, to my knowledge, never did sweet diddly bupkis with wata except be listed as a director prior to his very-close-to-immediate exit. I'm so done with this. You guys that cry deceit and corruption based on one momo's videos without asking any questions have your minds made up, and there's no changing that. Have fun without me. jimjum12 and Darkseid of the Moon 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 3:55 PM, wombat said: I thought I remember from when this first came up that you don't actually own any part of the asset. You only own a something that represents a percentage in the value of the asset. But maybe I'm wrong in that. If you replace the word collection with investment or portfolio that would make sense to me. And of course option B would be worth more. But on the other hand option A you would still have that money or it would be invested in something else. That's legalese to say that you can't show up and demand a small piece of page 7 because you own 0.1%. The asset stays intact and you own 0.1% in an LLC which owns 100% of the asset. Regardless, I'm speaking of a hypothetical... something similar to how you can own 0.1% of stock in a company without having any worry that you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 4:59 PM, comicwiz said: What was the error? Did that Super Mario Bros not sell for $30K in 2017? That was literally what he said at the 5 second mark, he showed a Mashable article which pretty much substantiates it. I see YouTubers in that year posting videos of the sale... what am I missing? a) it was not a record for a game sale, if you interpret his statement to mean all games. b) it was not a record for a super mario bros, if you interpret his statement to mean all super marios bros. c) it was not the same copy of super mario, if you interpret his statement as that specific copy. Any which way you interpret it, he's wrong. Goodbye. Darkseid of the Moon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatterEaterLad Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 @comicwiz Oh, I'm very interested and watching with both eyes open. Journalist, Seth Abramson, has been banging this drum as well. comicwiz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombat Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 4:59 PM, valiantman said: That's legalese to say that you can't show up and demand a small piece of page 7 because you own 0.1%. The asset stays intact and you own 0.1% in an LLC which owns 100% of the asset. Regardless, I'm speaking of a hypothetical... something similar to how you can own 0.1% of stock in a company without having any worry that you don't. It doesn't really matter I guess. Either way I just can't make the leap that it would be considered part of someone's collection. And I honestly have a hard time seeing how anyone would be excited about it other than from a purely investment perspective. Sweet Lou 14, Beige and jimjum12 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sweet Lou 14 Posted August 25, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 5:09 PM, wombat said: It doesn't really matter I guess. Either way I just can't make the leap that it would be considered part of someone's collection. And I honestly have a hard time seeing how anyone would be excited about it other than from a purely investment perspective. I agree. I can go right now and buy a tiny fraction of Apple or Amazon. I get no thrill from it, but I might make some money on it. That's pretty much how I would feel about owning a tiny fraction of a collectible. No thrill or sense of "ownership," just a bet I'm placing that may or may not pay off. NewWorldOrder, Dark Knight, silverseeker and 4 others 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) On 8/25/2021 at 5:07 PM, MatterEaterLad said: @comicwiz Oh, I'm very interested and watching with both eyes open. Journalist, Seth Abramson, has been banging this drum as well. Speaking of investigative detail, that forking tool accuses heritage of potentially having a special side deal to be able to list moldy Games without the special red label. That label is just new and some games were graded before it was introduced. That guy is Harvard educated, so I know he isn’t stupid enough to miss obvious facts like that. IMO both of these guys are just trying to drum up controversy to sell books and get Twitter followers. They don’t seem to be interested in the truth. They want attention and if they get sued in the process perhaps it would serve them right. Edited August 25, 2021 by Bronty MetalPSI , Domo Arigato and jimjum12 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 25, 2021 Author Share Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) On 8/25/2021 at 5:01 PM, Bronty said: a) it was not a record for a game sale, if you interpret his statement to mean all games. b) it was not a record for a super mario bros, if you interpret his statement to mean all super marios bros. c) it was not the same copy of super mario, if you interpret his statement as that specific copy. Any which way you interpret it, he's wrong. Goodbye. In fairness, I understand what you are getting at, but ultimately the most important contextual point he was making was in reference to the way the media picked up on the story. There was no discussion on variant, or certain characteristics making it more/less rare, it was seen purely as a baseline to discuss how the game went from being a $30K game, to a $1.5M game. That's the essence of what he was trying to say. This video was done to make it easy for people to understand the nuanced hobby. It's akin to the way an Action 1 sold for a record price, and the mainstream reporting calls it the best copy, when in actual fact, there's Dave Anderson's copy which is known to be superior not only in grade, but also due to pedigree. Most people reading the news wouldn't know, much less care about Anderson's copy, they are reading about the best copy to surface and the fact it attained an amazing price. Getting hung up on that, and discrediting the rest of the video based on what you described is really surprising, but certainly your right. I had someone contact me yesterday, who knew nothing about video games, to say he was compelled by the video because it explained what is ordinarily a quite complex topic to discuss, without the encumbrances of having to tease and explain exactly how the bad operators manipulated the market. Edited August 25, 2021 by comicwiz Darkseid of the Moon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valiantman Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 4:12 PM, Sweet Lou 14 said: On 8/25/2021 at 4:09 PM, wombat said: It doesn't really matter I guess. Either way I just can't make the leap that it would be considered part of someone's collection. And I honestly have a hard time seeing how anyone would be excited about it other than from a purely investment perspective. I agree. I can go right now and buy a tiny fraction of Apple or Amazon. I get no thrill from it, but I might make some money on it. That's pretty much how I would feel about owning a tiny fraction of a collectible. No thrill or sense of "ownership," just a bet I'm placing that may or may not pay off. I get no thrill from owning company stocks either. But, if I owned a small fraction of Action Comics #1, I'd smile when I walked past the poster in my game room. I'd smile when I saw a news article with Action #1. Ultimately, isn't life itself really just a tally of smiles vs. frowns? Point Five 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADAMANTIUM Posted August 25, 2021 Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 5:05 PM, valiantman said: I get no thrill from owning company stocks either. But, if I owned a small fraction of Action Comics #1, I'd smile when I walked past the poster in my game room. I'd smile when I saw a news article with Action #1. Ultimately, isn't life itself really just a tally of smiles vs. frowns? I'm enjoying the back and forth but This is what I thought of valiantman and Darkseid of the Moon 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted August 25, 2021 Author Share Posted August 25, 2021 On 8/25/2021 at 5:07 PM, MatterEaterLad said: @comicwiz Oh, I'm very interested and watching with both eyes open. Journalist, Seth Abramson, has been banging this drum as well. I've watched some of the back and forth on Twitter - to one of the points made earlier by someone here (and I concur with Karl here): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
