The battle of Captain America Comics 1 7.0 CC vs Clink 2 2

[lou_fine]

On 3/9/2023 at 7:52 PM, Professor K said:

Heritage and CC, you know exactly how much you will be dishing out for the book if your bid wins. With Comiclink you really have no choice if you really want the book to bid high and hope no one else did the same. I can see that being a reason to just not bid at all. Stinks when you see that one jerk cost you hundreds or thousands extra with 1 second to go.  It's just more comfortabe to know exactly what you will spend with each bid you make if you win. 

That's IT exactly and you certainly state it in a much more clear and concise way than me.  

[ChillMan]

If I had $200K+ to spend...I wouldn't buy a comic that is available every month and was graded recently and could have been cleaned & pressed up.  Without a thorough investigation.

Especially when the majority says it's great...that means it's overrated.

The biggest gainers come as a 'surprise'...like what comic or item is just as good but not many are talking about it...

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by ChillMan

[whomerjay]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:51 AM, lou_fine said:

That's IT exactly and you certainly state it in a much more clear and concise way than me.  

I admit to being relatively ignorant about the auction game, but I really don't get this thinking, unless this is all about which model generates the higher hammer price. I don't see why you'd refrain from bidding on CLink with a bid you're willing to pay and make otherwise on the other 2 sites.

 

If you're willing to pay X for a book and you bid X on CL and the hammer price is lower, that's good for you.  If you bid X or the same book on the other sites, that's what you pay. Are you upset about getting a book for less? Does the prospect of getting a book for less than the max constrain final bids on Heritage? Or does extended bidding truly eliminate that?

I think both models cause some irrational bidding at the end of an auction, often resulting in a book overachieving. 

With the history of shenanigans at certain auctions houses, I'm much less concerned about the modest effect attributed to differences in bidding models as a buyer or a seller. 

[lou_fine]

On 3/15/2023 at 10:10 AM, whomerjay said:

I admit to being relatively ignorant about the auction game, but I really don't get this thinking, unless this is all about which model generates the higher hammer price. I don't see why you'd refrain from bidding on CLink with a bid you're willing to pay and make otherwise on the other 2 sites.

If you're willing to pay X for a book and you bid X on CL and the hammer price is lower, that's good for you.  If you bid X or the same book on the other sites, that's what you pay. Are you upset about getting a book for less?

Well, here was my rather bad attempt at trying to explain it and it's really much more to do about human psychology or human nature than what you are willing to spend on a book:  

On 3/9/2023 at 10:48 PM, lou_fine said:

Sure, I know that from a rational POV, bidders are simply supposed to put in their maximum amount that they are willing to spend on a particular book.  But my sense of human nature tells me although they might not mind to spend another $50K or $100K on a particular book, they don't want to "voluntarily" throw that number out their on their own, unless they are actually forced to and that's where step by step incremental bidding comes in.    

 

[bodhee11]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:48 AM, lou_fine said:

Well, probably really more a case of to each their own, but like I had stated right off the bat, it's just my personal feeling which means that it's certainly opened up to dispute from others.  

I just personally tend to believe the majority of old school longer term collectors are probably more risk adverse as compared to the newer CGC generation of collectors who probably don't mind taking a bit bit of risk and might actually find some fun in doing it, while some others would avoid it by choosing not to particpate at all.  Sure, I know that from a rational POV, bidders are simply supposed to put in their maximum amount that they are willing to spend on a particular book.  But my sense of human nature tells me although they might not mind to spend another $50K or $100K on a particular book, they don't want to "voluntarily" throw that number out their on their own, unless they are actually forced to and that's where step by step incremental bidding comes in.  

Then again, like you said, it might just be a hair-brained assumption on my part here. 

I guess I’d consider myself and “old school” collector  but I certainly wouldn’t call myself risk averse (although at times I wish I had been more so)  and I typically won’t put  a cap on a book that I’m really after. Based on some bidding competitions I’ve been involved in, I definitely ain’t the only one. 
 

and please do tell about those crypto kiddies voluntarily throwing crazy bids around. I have some books I’d love for them to bid on 

Edited March 16, 2023 by bodhee11
Typo

[rjpb]

On 3/8/2023 at 3:49 PM, lou_fine said:

 

Having absolutely zero knowledge about photo technology myself, I imagine you Photoshop experts can tell us which ones of these scans is more realistic?  

According to quite a few boardies here, this so-called totally enhanced and amped up scan of the 7.0 Cap 1 from CC:  

 

Or this exact same copy as scanned by Heritage with the virtually unreadable CGC logo when it was sold for $228K back in May of 2019:  

https://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/captain-america-comics-1-timely-1941-cgc-fn-vf-70-cream-to-off-white-pages/a/7209-91066.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#

Just judging by the color on the labels, the CC scan is definitely oversaturated, and the Heritage scan is overexposed a bit (as is common with their scans). Actual color is tough to get accurate with scans as well, and I'm betting that the hues of the blues and greens are actually closer to reality in the CC scan, but the saturation levels more resemble the Ha scan.