Happened upon a rare book that is graded 1 1

[MAR1979]

On 10/15/2023 at 9:14 PM, Antillia Island said:

But yes thank you, I thought about your advice, I was going to add Wolverine #1 (1982) to my collection because Frank Miller signatures on it are dipping below $300. But yes, I looked at CGC and there is more than 1000 9.8s in the system and over 25,000 total graded. (wondered how many are still out there ungraded and Frank Miller appears to sign once a year) .... did everyone keep this issue? Those are crazy high numbers. I understand the demand is high for the book but IDK this CGC census thing and growing (E-bay and other) vault systems.

I'd prefer a very low census signature books in my vault then something with over 1000 already minted. I've seen NFTs just skyrocket with no apparent logic behind them mostly driven by low minting numbers. Graded signature books are a little more tricky to create, in some time when we get rid of this snail mail and the vault systems are in place, I can see the vault book prices will drop when an artist announces they would do a signature event. (haha, I guess in the future people can do "inside trading" and short books, how long will it last until the SEC hunts us down ) But, crypto we have been searching for something as a backing in which we could trade, but not USD, gold, stock or established comedies. Most my friends are looking at graded VHS but I tossed a bunch of my mothers VHS cassettes so it makes me sad. 

Anyway, Thank You for advice. 

Yep everyone kept the issue and in high grade. Wolverine 1 (1982) was a huge production run for its time in which pretty much everyone bagged/mylar'd and boarded from the get go. I was just a small kid then and I did that. As I understand it many shop owners and collectors also gobbled them up from their local newsstands as they all thought the book was gold. ASM252 and Thor 337 are other prime examples of that. 

I would bet those who have lost $ with NFT far outweighs those who have received nominal gains. Buy nothing, get nothing applies   Like any "scheme" those who get in and out early are the ones who make bank

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by MAR1979

[shadroch]

Bagging was very popular in 1982, but few people were boarding that early. I believe my shop didn't carry them until 1985.

[MAR1979]

On 10/18/2023 at 3:02 PM, shadroch said:

Bagging was very popular in 1982, but few people were boarding that early. I believe my shop didn't carry them until 1985.

The Shop I used from 1982-1995 had them from their start. Guess I thought that was normal. I think they added Mylites in 1983. I still have books in the original Mylites from my childhood   On anything decent though I changed boards in the 1990's and then again 12 years back and then for some again during start of the pandemic to keep myself occupied.

Edited October 18, 2023 by MAR1979

[Antillia Island]

On 10/19/2023 at 2:56 AM, MAR1979 said:

 

I would bet those who have lost $ with NFT far outweighs those who have received nominal gains. Buy nothing, get nothing applies   Like any "scheme" those who get in and out early are the ones who make bank

 

NFT's were driven mostly by excess liquidity in the Crypto market. Not a lot of people "lost" money, because most was bought from crypto rewards. The liquidity in crypto is a whole different topic. Since my crypto staking returns can buy a comic per day, I decided to find alternate form of investment instead of re-investing them back into crypto.  

Reading blogs and reviews, I believe most traditional comic collectors are stuck on the thought of the reading the physical copy of the book. For me I travel a lot (currently in Japan and haven't been home for 10 months) So I must send piles of boxes to my mother’s house, that stuff can't follow me around. That is why I have poor picture of my Zindan because I had to ask my mother to photograph it.

But every physical copy I get, I find the digital version and read it. It gives me a unique satisfaction that I have a physical version somewhere in the world. It's very unlike my NFTs, and I believe that is driving the new VHS market, because when you watch the movie Top Gun you think about the VHS copy that you own sitting somewhere (hopefully in a vault system someday) 

Yes, I got the Zindan digital versions, it is really an interning story. I will be traveling to India in a couple months so it will be even more enjoyable to search out real world artifacts that can relate to the story. But I agree everyone is trying to understand the "place" for comics, I feel they are supposed to be read like movie are supposed to be watched. In time they will sit as the physical artifact of the story they tell, for me it's a nice feeling to know I have a physical version when I flip though the digital story on my iPad.  But that is just my opinion, for in the end that is what the art is about, not making money but giving joy and pleasure to people. For some that might mean reading a digital version and owning a physical version in some vault somewhere. 

[MAR1979]

On 10/18/2023 at 11:09 PM, Antillia Island said:

 

NFT's were driven mostly by excess liquidity in the Crypto market. Not a lot of people "lost" money, because most was bought from crypto rewards.

That seems to be similar to the old Casino trope of "Playing with the House's Money". A trope that is only good for the casino.   A trope that is also wrong. Once you win money playing Blackjack, Craps, or whatever, that money is yours not theirs. Professional gamblers understand that and thusly are able to make a living.

Regardless if the funds from the purchaser were made from Crypto, or  working as an Architect, or Driving a Race Car, or selling home knit scarfs on Etsy or any other revenue stream - If they forked over their funds for the NFTs and the NFTs have depreciated so that selling them means doing so at a price lower than they paid, with or without fees, then plain and simple they have "lost" money.

Bottom line it was their money to lose and they lost it. Unless of course it's was someone else money they were purchasing NFT's on their behalf, then their Investor/Client has lost money.

P.S. Whether someone cares or not if they lost money, does not change the fact that they have.

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by MAR1979

[Dr. Balls]

On 10/18/2023 at 12:56 PM, MAR1979 said:

I would bet those who have lost $ with NFT far outweighs those who have received nominal gains. Buy nothing, get nothing applies   Like any "scheme" those who get in and out early are the ones who make bank

 

It's an old article, but it would appear to be the case. NFTs are being used as tax write-offs for the mega rich, which makes sense if you have $100M in income and need a way to offset some of that. And then there's this article from last month showing that 78% of NFTs are worthless - being held by 23 million people.

On 10/19/2023 at 7:41 AM, MAR1979 said:

Whether someone cares or not if they lost money, does not change the fact that they have.

Exactly.

And finally: NFT backed loans are showing losses. Yes, banks decided to loan against the value of NFTs and are - surprisingly  - taking defaults on them. If financial institution stupidity weren't so wildly rampant, it'd actually be funny to see them take the pipe on that. But everyone gets to pay for those moronic decisions made by the few who believed the hype.

[Antillia Island]

On 10/19/2023 at 9:41 PM, MAR1979 said:

That seems to be similar to the old Casino trope of "Playing with the House's Money". A trope that is only good for the casino.   A trope that is also wrong. Once you win money playing Blackjack, Craps, or whatever, that money is yours not theirs. Professional gamblers understand that and thusly are able to make a living.

Regardless if the funds from the purchaser were made from Crypto, or  working as an Architect, or Driving a Race Car, or selling home knit scarfs on Etsy or any other revenue stream - If they forked over their funds for the NFTs and the NFTs have depreciated so that selling them means doing so at a price lower than they paid, with or without fees, then plain and simple they have "lost" money.

Bottom line it was their money to lose and they lost it. Unless of course it's was someone else money they were purchasing NFT's on their behalf, then their Investor/Client has lost money.

P.S. Whether someone cares or not if they lost money, does not change the fact that they have.

 

Haha, Crypto is far from casino type gambling when you get into the mechanics (tokenomics) it's very different. Sadly US is soooo behind, why I stay abroad, out of the US IP address with my coin. A lot of alt-coins exclude US IPs for their airdrops and even smart enough to see though VPNs. Probably a good comic vault will need to be located somewhere outside the US ecosystem. But like I said this is a whole different subject, haha. 

In the last 2 years I've lost over 50% of my crypto portfolio, but that portfolio had gained ~1100% from my original investment. Have I lost money or gained money? 

It isn't the fact if people "lost" money it's based on their original investment. People that bought into BTC at a few hundred dollars. That investment turned into millions. They turned a portion of it into NFTs during the 2021 bull market, and lost that value today. Simply you can say they gained house money "crypto" and lost house money in "NFT," I really suggest not to try and rationalize it in that method. It's was more of an excess supply of crypto without a way to truly use the money, piggy backed with the ability to create hype and trade NFTs on the fly that drove demand. It was a unique situation, but now crypto has more outlets (across the globe) to use the coin, I don't see the NFT craze ever happing again. But, in next decade, I personally feel we are embarking on an asset driven non-fungible token.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Antillia Island