CGC now featuring newsstand copy designation 6 6

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 5:56 PM, Dewus2? said:

You have a learning disability 

Tell it to my doctorate. Again, if anyone is having a hard time dealing with the truth and accuracy in reporting, it isn't me.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:51 PM, paqart said:

There is a difference between "a voice of reason" and FlyingDonut, who treats every attempt to discuss the subject as an opportunity to prevent the conversation from happening. Also, the disclaimers aren't necessary in that context, when question marks are frequently used. I don't see you complaining about people listing everything with a barcode as a newsstand edition. I think that is a much bigger problem than a claim of 100:1 rarity when it might actually be 53:1 (or even 1,000:1).

But you get the point, I get yours. The disclaimer should be that they could be that rare, not the disclaimer as no one knows but on my own research.

It should read: 

There is know way of knowing how rare or a way to quantify these Newsstands during such an such period. Disclaimer it could be as rare as ratios? 

It should not say:

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! 1:100 Newsstand, maybe even as rare 1:1000! And that's it.

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 6:00 PM, Dewus2? said:

Yes, post your credentials again so I can win the pool!

Good luck! Here's to give you some help, in case this is something you care about a great deal: PhDPhDphDPhD...

[ADAMANTIUM]

We can also realize that more modern newsstands are "rare" without all the qualifiers that make you look knowledgeable when your not.

No one likes a slick car salesperson. That's just the way it is, we get they're rare, you don't have to devolve into hype. I believe that, that's why I can collect them, but keep it real and honest is called ethics.

Ethics are real, and there is no way that facts that "can't be known" should then be assumed. Ethics

This car I haven't checked the breaks but hey most cars have working ones! I wouldn't buy the car, it's that simple

Edited September 27, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 6:02 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

But you get the point, I get yours. The disclaimer should be that they could be that rare, not the disclaimer as no one knows but on my own research.

It should read: 

There is know way of knowing how rare or a way to quantify these Newsstands during such an such period. Disclaimer it could be as rare as ratios? 

It should not say:

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! 1:100 Newsstand, maybe even as rare 1:1000! And that's it.

If I were to make a posting, I would likely try to quantify the rarity but would do it by finding out how many NS editions were available at the time I posted. It would read something like this: "Newsstand edition. One of 73 available at time of posting" or "1 of 8 in CGC registry, compared to 1,876 Direct editions". However, we can't expect everyone to be so circumspect. I know when I buy off eBay or similar sites that 1) I may not get the newsstand in the image (much worse than misstating the rarity), 2) it may be in worse condition due to bad packing, bad handling, or the wrong photo (also worse than misstating the rarity), 3) It may not be as rare as stated (and I absolutely don't care because I don't rely on these statements when I make buying decisions). Speaking of which, the only estimate of rarity that I trust is my own, which is independent of any claims. I have made mistakes before but that is my fault, not the seller, because I don't trust their ad for a rarity estimate anyway. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 9/27/2022 at 5:09 PM, paqart said:

If I were to make a posting, I would likely try to quantify the rarity but would do it by finding out how many NS editions were available at the time I posted. It would read something like this: "Newsstand edition. One of 73 available at time of posting" or "1 of 8 in CGC registry, compared to 1,876 Direct editions". However, we can't expect everyone to be so circumspect. I know when I buy off eBay or similar sites that 1) I may not get the newsstand in the image (much worse than misstating the rarity), 2) it may be in worse condition due to bad packing, bad handling, or the wrong photo (also worse than misstating the rarity), 3) It may not be as rare as stated (and I absolutely don't care because I don't rely on these statements when I make buying decisions). Speaking of which, the only estimate of rarity that I trust is my own, which is independent of any claims. I have made mistakes before but that is my fault, not the seller, because I don't trust their ad for a rarity estimate anyway. 

Ya flying donut in posting was practically saying the same sort, just don't be slick about it. That comes with as much truth as possible, and don't make assumptions. That's just ethics. He didn't say they weren't rare or anything that would disprove the "market" for them. He's just face value kind of seller and buyer. 

We can also realize that more modern newsstands are "rare" without all the qualifiers that make you look knowledgeable when your not.

No one likes a slick car salesperson. That's just the way it is, we get they're rare, you don't have to devolve into hype. I believe that, that's why I can collect them, but keep it real and honest is called ethics.

Ethics are real, and there is no way that facts that "can't be known" should then be assumed. Ethics

This car I haven't checked the breaks but hey most cars have working ones! I wouldn't buy the car, it's that simple

take that as an example 

[ADAMANTIUM]

I think your passion is real, nothing wrong with that, but just like you don't take the listings posted rarity at face value, because you know better through your research?

Everyone here is saying the same thing, and trying to quantify unknowable with numbers and ratios makes us know better with our own research.

It makes the listings look like they're trying to be slick about it, with numbers and such. 

Also when there truly is a knowable fact with newsstands as @valiantmanhas proven on more than one occasion, it makes those that see and hear not believe because the unknowable also had charts and graphs..

If nonsense gets allowed it will muddy facts in the end,, not unlike crying wolf. @paqart

It's no harm no foul to state the for sure facts and mention the unknowable could be estimated, just don't take estimates as facts.

Definitely don't feel defensive when the facts are stated. Anyway, I'm sure you know how you do things, I won't pretend to know the big picture. No worries mate.

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 6:22 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I think your passion is real, nothing wrong with that, but just like you don't take the listings posted rarity at face value, because you know better through your research?

Everyone here is saying the same thing, and trying to quantify unknowable with numbers and ratios makes us know better with our own research.

It makes the listings look like they're trying to be slick about it, with numbers and such. 

Also when there truly is a knowable fact with newsstands as @valiantmanhas proven on more than one occasion, it makes those that see and hear not believe because the unknowable also had charts and graphs..

If nonsense gets allowed it will muddy facts in the end,, not unlike crying wolf. @paqart

It's no harm no foul to state the for sure facts and mention the unknowable could be estimated, just don't take estimates as facts.

Definitely don't feel defensive when the facts are stated. Anyway, I'm sure you know how you do things, I won't pretend to know the big picture. No worries mate.

 

If that's all he is trying to say, I wish he wouldn't use all caps to say it and would say it less often. It's like someone screaming in your ear every time someone wants to talk about this. I don't need to hear the warning every time the topic of newsstand rarity comes up. Maybe he thinks it is a huge problem that sellers make careless claims in their ads but I think it is also a problem (a bigger one) to derail serious discussions with redundant warnings.

[ADAMANTIUM]

On 9/27/2022 at 5:29 PM, paqart said:

If that's all he is trying to say, I wish he wouldn't use all caps to say it and would say it less often. It's like someone screaming in your ear every time someone wants to talk about this. I don't need to hear the warning every time the topic of newsstand rarity comes up. Maybe he thinks it is a huge problem that sellers make careless claims in their ads but I think it is also a problem (a bigger one) to derail serious discussions with redundant warnings.

I get that, maybe he doesn't hear it form others enough? And I hear you, ironically I'm thinking you sound the exact same to him

 

Because he does collect them and sees it all the time, that's why it was mentioned the voice of "reason". Facts should never be disparaged. The only time they are is by, we'll usually, by someone who wants to leave them covered up. "I'm " not saying that's you, or even him really. Just it should be a regular part of the conversation, imo.

But that's neither here nor there. In the end this will affirm newsstands what cgc is taking up? To be sure, we'd like the facts to be affirmed 1st and most of all. With the estimated stuff, if it ever comes to light, then we can say YAY! Believe me a lot of boardies would be right there with you, but you and I are new, they've been waiting a lot longer than us, to no avail. That's why it's frustrating because the ones who might have possibly confirmed are dying or gone with no mention. If the facts died to as "the known facts" we wouldn't want that either.

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by ADAMANTIUM

[Lazyboy]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:49 PM, valiantman said:

You won in 1978, when it was new. When MAD was comparing to covers with no obstructions.

Barcodes are uglier than when there was NO ugly box of any kind, NO bars, NO Spidey head (when it doesn't make sense, like Care Bears), NO "Millenium is coming...", no nuthin'.

But 15 years later... 1993... EVERY book gets a barcode whether it's direct edition or newsstand.  It doesn't matter anymore when EVERY book has a barcode (and direct editions have MORE lines) for the next 20 years.

You're living in 1978. Congrats. You're 44 years older than you think you are. 

Well, that's not quite true. Not every publisher put barcodes on every book in 1993.

Still, this whole tangent started with a joke I made responding to somebody else.

[Lazyboy]

On 9/27/2022 at 5:29 PM, paqart said:

If that's all he is trying to say, I wish he wouldn't use all caps to say it and would say it less often. It's like someone screaming in your ear every time someone wants to talk about this. I don't need to hear the warning every time the topic of newsstand rarity comes up. Maybe he thinks it is a huge problem that sellers make careless claims in their ads but I think it is also a problem (a bigger one) to derail serious discussions with redundant warnings.

What we really don't need is to see your irrelevant, misleading (at best) garbage every time the topic comes up. Irrelevant garbage and false claims have no place in serious discussions.

Didn't you quit the boards for good (for the third? time) not too long ago?

[Lazyboy]

On 9/27/2022 at 2:35 PM, paqart said:

We disagree on this. I quantify it all the time by comparing market availability on various auction sites (eBay for less pricey items, eBay and Heritage for more expensive ones). You may doubt whether the counts I make represent an absolutely accurate value but it still represents quantification of rarity. Also keep in mind that while you worry whether this or that estimate are absolutely accurate, prices and demand for these keep going up. Speaking of agendas, I have to wonder what yours is. Seriously, why do you care that other people find this collecting niche worthwhile? I wouldn't be collecting at all if not for this because it is fun to hunt these down. Forget about 2008 and up, there are plenty of earlier newsstands that are just as difficult to obtain or more so. Also remember that DC newsstands between 2012-2017 are somewhat easier to find than between 2002-2008.

Collecting newsstands would not be rewarding if it were easy. It is not easy. All by itself, that indicates that the balance of accuracy leans more heavily in favor of Rozanski and Noble than yourself. Again, all one has to do is check. I have checked. If anything, 100:1 rarity is on the low end for some issues. 50:1 is more "normal" for the comics I'm looking for, though I have most of those now. My current interest is in the no-seeums for which no reasonable rarity estimate can be made because, after looking through over a thousand listings for each, no newsstand examples have been found. As much as it irritates you to think of a 100:1 ratio, how do you like the idea of 1,000:1? That, I believe, is exactly the case for some newsstands.

Collecting newsstands would not be rewarding if you couldn't mislead suckers about their rarity and create a false market from which you can profit. Once again, you can make claims about the current demand for Newsstands, but that demand did not exist before the creation and spread of absurd misinformation about Newsstand rarity.

You've looked at eBay. eBay may be a convenient place to buy things, but it is not the marketplace, no matter how much you claim it is. eBay is only a small, though highly visible, piece of the marketplace for comics. Your false "marketplace availability estimates" have zero value except as another way to mislead people.

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 7:20 PM, Lazyboy said:

Collecting newsstands would not be rewarding if you couldn't mislead suckers about their rarity and create a false market from which you can profit. Once again, you can make claims about the current demand for Newsstands, but that demand did not exist before the creation and spread of absurd misinformation about Newsstand rarity.

You've looked at eBay. eBay may be a convenient place to buy things, but it is not the marketplace, no matter how much you claim it is. eBay is only a small, though highly visible, piece of the marketplace for comics. Your false "marketplace availability estimates" have zero value except as another way to mislead people.

Haha, you hilarious person. eBay is about the best way to get a sample size large enough to make an estimate of any kind. Every other auction site is not only smaller but has fewer newsstands on offer. Local comic book stores are near useless because few have more than a handful of newsstands. Comic book conventions are only slightly better. The NYCC, for instance, may have more newsstands than any single or pair of comic book stores but the effort required to find newsstands at a convention is much greater than eBay, for results that are paltry by comparison.

You may not like eBay as an example because you know of something better but I haven't seen anything that comes close for quantity available and ease of search. Methodologically speaking, you'd be hard pressed to find an alternate that better represents availability of newsstands, particularly because newsstands were marketed to casual readers, not collectors. That audience is more likely to use eBay than ComicConnect or any other industry-specific auction site.

In any event, if we were to use your standards for evidence, we'd give up before we started. The reason? If the best place to look is the place we must not look, there isn't much to find. From which nothing, apparently, you derive all of your positions on the issue.

[Lazyboy]

On 9/27/2022 at 7:17 PM, paqart said:

Haha, you hilarious person. eBay is about the best way to get a sample size large enough to make an estimate of any kind. Every other auction site is not only smaller but has fewer newsstands on offer. Local comic book stores are near useless because few have more than a handful of newsstands. Comic book conventions are only slightly better. The NYCC, for instance, may have more newsstands than any single or pair of comic book stores but the effort required to find newsstands at a convention is much greater than eBay, for results that are paltry by comparison.

You may not like eBay as an example because you know of something better but I haven't seen anything that comes close for quantity available and ease of search. Methodologically speaking, you'd be hard pressed to find an alternate that better represents availability of newsstands, particularly because newsstands were marketed to casual readers, not collectors. That audience is more likely to use eBay than ComicConnect or any other industry-specific auction site.

In any event, if we were to use your standards for evidence, we'd give up before we started. The reason? If the best place to look is the place we must not look, there isn't much to find. From which nothing, apparently, you derive all of your positions on the issue.

eBay is still only a skewed, small fraction of the marketplace that does not tell us anything about total extant supply.

If I wanted to ( I don't, or I would have done it already), I could buy hundreds of Newsstands in the very near future, none of which you can see from where you are.

Why is it not enough to simply say that Newsstands are less common? Why the need for all the hype, lies and nonsense?

[paqart]

On 9/27/2022 at 8:44 PM, Lazyboy said:

eBay is still only a skewed, small fraction of the marketplace that does not tell us anything about total extant supply.

If I wanted to ( I don't, or I would have done it already), I could buy hundreds of Newsstands in the very near future, none of which you can see from where you are.

Why is it not enough to simply say that Newsstands are less common? Why the need for all the hype, lies and nonsense?

I think your use of the terms "hype, lies and nonsense" might qualify all by themselves. It happens to be fun to discuss such things as rarity of newsstands, particularly because an exactly accurate answer is elusive. You seem to want to pour cold water on that fun, and do so successfully quite often. Personally, I find your efforts intrusive, unwarranted, offensive, and not all that well-informed, if for no other reason but that you seem to have made an art out of remaining uninformed and doing your best to keep everyone else in the dark also. If anyone has betrayed an agenda here, it is you and the Donut man. 

"Does not tell us anything about total extant supply." Baloney. Utter baloney. To say nothing, it would have to be unrelated but it is not. Also, tell us what you think is better. If you have nothing to offer, perhaps you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Your comments remind me of the kind of thing I expect from a wife kicking her husband under the table at a fancy party to prevent him from accidentally revealing that she didn't graduate from elementary school. It does not seem to have any higher purpose than that.

[CGC Mike]

Lets make sure this conversation remains civil.

[valiantman]

On 9/27/2022 at 5:36 PM, Lazyboy said:

On 9/27/2022 at 4:49 PM, valiantman said:

You won in 1978, when it was new. When MAD was comparing to covers with no obstructions.

Barcodes are uglier than when there was NO ugly box of any kind, NO bars, NO Spidey head (when it doesn't make sense, like Care Bears), NO "Millenium is coming...", no nuthin'.

But 15 years later... 1993... EVERY book gets a barcode whether it's direct edition or newsstand.  It doesn't matter anymore when EVERY book has a barcode (and direct editions have MORE lines) for the next 20 years.

You're living in 1978. Congrats. You're 44 years older than you think you are. 

Well, that's not quite true. Not every publisher put barcodes on every book in 1993.

Still, this whole tangent started with a joke I made responding to somebody else.

I've seen the MAD magazine used in just about every discussion of barcodes and that MAD magazine had a point when MAD went from no obstructions to a barcode... in 1978.

May 1993 is when Amazing Spider-Man (#379, released in May 1993) got barcodes on both the newsstand or direct edition.

Amazing Spider-Man is the biggest title in the history of CGC submissions, by a large margin.

http://www.cgcdata.com/cgc/cgctitle/

Collectors who disparage "stripes" were basically out of luck starting in mid-1993, there was no choice. The stripes started for every book and there are still stripes on the books today (no more newsstands, just stripes on direct editions).

It's a weak argument to say, "I don't like stripes so the first decade of newsstands are ugly, but not the three decades of direct editions that have stripes ever since".

Edited September 28, 2022 by valiantman

[valiantman]

Here's the bottom line.

Some people DO pay more for some newsstands, despite all the whining and complaining.  A lot more.

Amazing Spider-Man #300 is still the most submitted CGC book of all time.

CGC 9.8 Amazing Spider-Man #300 is about $5,000 in direct edition and $18,000 in newsstand.

If the recorded sales on eBay are not representative. If the GPAnalysis records aren't a good sample, then that means there should be other places to buy newsstands in bulk, but we just haven't seen them in the marketplace.

No one leaves the chests of gold at the bottom of the ocean if they actually know where the ship is wrecked.

Talk is cheap. CGC 9.8 Amazing Spider-Man #300 Newsstand is not.

(...and no, I don't own one. It's not bias. It's data.)

Edited September 28, 2022 by valiantman

[Lazyboy]

On 9/27/2022 at 8:20 PM, paqart said:

I think your use of the terms "hype, lies and nonsense" might qualify all by themselves. It happens to be fun to discuss such things as rarity of newsstands, particularly because an exactly accurate answer is elusive. You seem to want to pour cold water on that fun, and do so successfully quite often. Personally, I find your efforts intrusive, unwarranted, offensive, and not all that well-informed

I know and understand infinitely more than you about Newsstands and I'm not the one spreading garbage.

On 9/27/2022 at 8:20 PM, paqart said:

, if for no other reason but that you seem to have made an art out of remaining uninformed and doing your best to keep everyone else in the dark also. If anyone has betrayed an agenda here, it is you and the Donut man. 

On 9/27/2022 at 8:20 PM, paqart said:

"Does not tell us anything about total extant supply." Baloney. Utter baloney. To say nothing, it would have to be unrelated but it is not. Also, tell us what you think is better. If you have nothing to offer, perhaps you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Take your own advice.

According to what I see on eBay, most of the millions of copies of X-Force #1 obviously no longer exist, because I can only see a tiny fraction of them on there. That's all you're saying.

On 9/27/2022 at 8:20 PM, paqart said:

Your comments remind me of the kind of thing I expect from a wife kicking her husband under the table at a fancy party to prevent him from accidentally revealing that she didn't graduate from elementary school. It does not seem to have any higher purpose than that.

I can try to explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you, which is unfortunate, because you obviously need the help.

[MAR1979]

On 9/27/2022 at 9:40 PM, valiantman said:

Here's the bottom line.

Some people DO pay more for some newsstands, despite all the whining and complaining.  A lot more.

Amazing Spider-Man #300 is still the most submitted CGC book of all time.

CGC 9.8 Amazing Spider-Man #300 is about $5,000 in direct edition and $18,000 in newsstand.

If the recorded sales on eBay are not representative. If the GPAnalysis records aren't a good sample, then that means there should be other places to buy newsstands in bulk, but we just haven't seen them in the marketplace.

No one leaves the chests of gold at the bottom of the ocean if they actually know where the ship is wrecked.

Talk is cheap. CGC 9.8 Amazing Spider-Man #300 Newsstand is not.

(...and no, I don't own one. It's not bias. It's data.)

 

If you (slabdata ) are able to scrape the new newsstand notation data then in a couple (? not sure how long) years time there should be a fair amount of data to model decent projections. Starting from the inception of the data. Please feel free to correct and expand on what I've said

Edited September 28, 2022 by MAR1979