FANTASY 15....................how likely is it that

[EastEnd]

Of course! By no means does that mean it can get 106k again.

It can even go lower,but than maybe not. I dont think it means its a base.

 

Agreed. To know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly.

[FFB]

I dont want to get in a whos right whos wrong war here but I believe 99 percent of anyone with comic knowledge would agree that the OA to ASM 43 is not worth 106,000

 

Irrelevant. 99.999999999% of comic collectors could not afford that cover at $106K, so their opinions on the matter are inconsequetial. You might as well ask the abominable snowman whether a Ferrari is worth $250,000.

 

If two or more buyers bid the piece up to $106K, then that's (at least) what the piece was worth at that time.

You make a good point, so in your opinion do you think a "non-key" cover to asm which in this case is 43 is worth 106K

 

 

Yes, is two people bid on it and the piece sold for $106K to a willing bidder in an arm's length sale, I don't see how anyone could say the piece isn't worth $106K. That isn't to say that it's worth $106K to everyone, but within its market, it's worth $106K.

 

It was worth $106,000 to exactly one individual. That doesn't make a market.

 

What about the underbidders right below that guy? By your reasoning, no auction sales are sufficient to act as evidence of an item's value.

 

I was at the auction. Two phone bidders bid it up. One dropped out after lengthy back and forth. By definition, if the winner tried to sell it immediately thereafter for $106,000 he wouldn't get it since no one else was willing to go that high. So the intrinsic value has to be something less than $106,000.

 

So then what's it worth? What the underbidder was willing to pay? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How would you define "value" for this or any other item?

[FFB]

Of course! By no means does that mean it can get 106k again.

It can even go lower,but than maybe not. I dont think it means its a base.

 

How do you know? It might sell for more if it were resold.

[EastEnd]

I dont want to get in a whos right whos wrong war here but I believe 99 percent of anyone with comic knowledge would agree that the OA to ASM 43 is not worth 106,000

 

Irrelevant. 99.999999999% of comic collectors could not afford that cover at $106K, so their opinions on the matter are inconsequetial. You might as well ask the abominable snowman whether a Ferrari is worth $250,000.

 

If two or more buyers bid the piece up to $106K, then that's (at least) what the piece was worth at that time.

You make a good point, so in your opinion do you think a "non-key" cover to asm which in this case is 43 is worth 106K

 

 

Yes, is two people bid on it and the piece sold for $106K to a willing bidder in an arm's length sale, I don't see how anyone could say the piece isn't worth $106K. That isn't to say that it's worth $106K to everyone, but within its market, it's worth $106K.

 

It was worth $106,000 to exactly one individual. That doesn't make a market.

 

What about the underbidders right below that guy? By your reasoning, no auction sales are sufficient to act as evidence of an item's value.

 

I was at the auction. Two phone bidders bid it up. One dropped out after lengthy back and forth. By definition, if the winner tried to sell it immediately thereafter for $106,000 he wouldn't get it since no one else was willing to go that high. So the intrinsic value has to be something less than $106,000.

 

So then what's it worth? What the underbidder was willing to pay? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How would you define "value" for this or any other item?

 

It's what I said before... to know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly. The $106k is just one instance of what one person was willing to pay at a particular moment. That's about all it tells us (other than the fact that at that moment, no one else was willing to pay as much).

[Royale-migration]

Of course! By no means does that mean it can get 106k again.

It can even go lower,but than maybe not. I dont think it means its a base.

 

Agreed. To know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly.

 

This is a silly statement. You are looking at this as a comic book perhaps. There are no similar items as it is one of a kind. You cant look at the #40, the #44 or the #46 to gauge what the #43 did in fact sell for!!!! Moreover,...as other pieces move up in value,......the #40 etc.....the #43 will become more valuable probably with it. THAT is how the OA market works.

[EastEnd]

Of course! By no means does that mean it can get 106k again.

It can even go lower,but than maybe not. I dont think it means its a base.

 

Agreed. To know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly.

 

This is a silly statement. You are looking at this as a comic book perhaps. There are no similar items as it is one of a kind. You cant look at the #40, the #44 or the #46 to gauge what the #43 did in fact sell for!!!! Moreover,...as other pieces move up in value,......the #40 etc.....the #43 will become more valuable probably with it. THAT is how the OA market works.

 

My friend, you need to take a class on valuation.

[FFB]

So then what's it worth? What the underbidder was willing to pay? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How would you define "value" for this or any other item?

 

It's what I said before... to know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly. The $106k is just one instance of what one person was willing to pay at a particular moment. That's about all it tells us (other than the fact that at that moment, no one else was willing to pay as much).

 

I think I understand part of what you're saying, but you still haven't answered my question. Let's say you had the same cover sell 10 times in a year, with 10 different results. How do you calculate the value? Highest price? Average of all 10? Average of the 10 underbidders' highest bids? Lowest sales price out of the 10? Weight the different results differently if some of them were achieved at private sales instead of public auction? Multiple sales are only part of a value equation.

 

Then there's another problem. Maybe for items that are not unique, using multiple realized sales figures that would make sense, but for items like original silver age Spider-Man covers, they are unique/non-fungible and they just don't sell often enough to have enough datapoints to do the analysis you're talking about. The cover for 40 is different from the cover to 43, which is different from the cover of #51, which is different from the cover to #60, etc., etc. Not all "non-key" covers will be worth the same as every other non-key cover, simply because some non-key covers look way better than other non-key covers. As with fine art, when you're dealing with unique items being sold, most recent realized sales values are not a perfect metric, but they're the best indicator there is for the value of an item at that point in time.

[EastEnd]

So then what's it worth? What the underbidder was willing to pay? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How would you define "value" for this or any other item?

 

It's what I said before... to know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly. The $106k is just one instance of what one person was willing to pay at a particular moment. That's about all it tells us (other than the fact that at that moment, no one else was willing to pay as much).

 

I think I understand part of what you're saying, but you still haven't answered my question. Let's say you had the same cover sell 10 times in a year, with 10 different results. How do you calculate the value? Highest price? Average of all 10? Average of the 10 underbidders' highest bids? Lowest sales price out of the 10? Weight the different results differently if some of them were achieved at private sales instead of public auction? Multiple sales are only part of a value equation.

 

Then there's another problem. Maybe for items that are not unique, using multiple realized sales figures that would make sense, but for items like original silver age Spider-Man covers, they are unique/non-fungible and they just don't sell often enough to have enough datapoints to do the analysis you're talking about. The cover for 40 is different from the cover to 43, which is different from the cover of #51, which is different from the cover to #60, etc., etc. Not all "non-key" covers will be worth the same as every other non-key cover, simply because some non-key covers look way better than other non-key covers. As with fine art, when you're dealing with unique items being sold, most recent realized sales values are not a perfect metric, but they're the best indicator there is for the value of an item at that point in time.

 

You're looking for an exact formula that doesn't exist... particularly with regard to unique items. The typical method used is to identify comparables and then use those to approximate value (e.g., this is what a Picasso of such and such period and/or such and such subject sold for -- and I agree that the more recent the sale the better)... this is why values are often presented as ranges rather than fixed numbers... it's just not that exacting. But to take one sale an infer that that's the value is wrong -- all it tells us is what ONE person was willing to pay at ONE moment in time.

 

There are characteristics inherent in a Spidey #43 cover that drive a buyer's motivation to buy. Many of these characteristics are common to other covers.

[action1kid]

Of course! By no means does that mean it can get 106k again.

It can even go lower,but than maybe not. I dont think it means its a base.

 

How do you know? It might sell for more if it were resold.

 

Of course it can. But without 2 ultra hot buyers maybe not.

Your not quarenteeing it will go higher,right?

[tth2]

like i think spending $50 and up on slabbed copies some of the most plentiful HG books in existence is kind of stupid when you could be buying up decent copies of undercollected SA DCs, but i would never tell you that except when trying to explain a point i'm trying to make

[FFB]

So then what's it worth? What the underbidder was willing to pay? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How would you define "value" for this or any other item?

 

It's what I said before... to know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly. The $106k is just one instance of what one person was willing to pay at a particular moment. That's about all it tells us (other than the fact that at that moment, no one else was willing to pay as much).

 

I think I understand part of what you're saying, but you still haven't answered my question. Let's say you had the same cover sell 10 times in a year, with 10 different results. How do you calculate the value? Highest price? Average of all 10? Average of the 10 underbidders' highest bids? Lowest sales price out of the 10? Weight the different results differently if some of them were achieved at private sales instead of public auction? Multiple sales are only part of a value equation.

 

Then there's another problem. Maybe for items that are not unique, using multiple realized sales figures that would make sense, but for items like original silver age Spider-Man covers, they are unique/non-fungible and they just don't sell often enough to have enough datapoints to do the analysis you're talking about. The cover for 40 is different from the cover to 43, which is different from the cover of #51, which is different from the cover to #60, etc., etc. Not all "non-key" covers will be worth the same as every other non-key cover, simply because some non-key covers look way better than other non-key covers. As with fine art, when you're dealing with unique items being sold, most recent realized sales values are not a perfect metric, but they're the best indicator there is for the value of an item at that point in time.

 

You're looking for an exact formula that doesn't exist... particularly with regard to unique items. The typical method used is to identify comparables and then use those to approximate value (e.g., this is what a Picasso of such and such period and/or such and such subject sold for -- and I agree that the more recent the sale the better)... this is why values are often presented as ranges rather than fixed numbers... it's just not that exacting. But to take one sale an infer that that's the value is wrong -- all it tells us is what ONE person was willing to pay at ONE moment in time.

 

There are characteristics inherent in a Spidey #43 cover that drive a buyer's motivation to buy. Many of these characteristics are common to other covers.

 

I think the idea that there are comparables for silver age ASM covers is open for debate. Some of them certainly have things in common, but there are also enough differences that one could argue it either way.

 

Then there is also the problem that large art ASM does not come up for auction often enough to give enough datapoints to do any statistically valid extrapolation. I am also sure that the hundreds of fine art appraisers in the world who value artifacts for insurance purposes do not feel overly constrained by a lack of a multitude of datapoints to help in forming their opinions. Would they prefer to have more datapoints? Sure. But they typically don't have them, and, as I said before, whether any other piece is truly a "comparable" is speculative and open for debate. If a fine art appraiser were hired to value the ASM#43 cover for insurance purposes, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the single most important piece of information and the one that would most influence the appraiser's opinion, would be the sales price paid by the purchaser in an arm's length transaction at public auction, and the fact that at least one other bidder was willing to pay only $1,000 less for the item. Who knows -- maybe the winning bidder would have paid $125K for the piece?

[tth2]

He smelled...bad.

So Brad Savage DOES own the AF 15 cover OA?

 

I would've said the AF 15 cover was worth close to $1 million, but now that it's been displayed publicly, I think its value must have plummeted to about $1 thousand.

[tth2]

Lets get back to the topic at hand please...........

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/sho...rt=all&vc=1

Happy one day anniversary!

People try to put him down

Just because he's shillin' about

Things he does look awful k-k-kold

Wish he'd die before I get old

 

Talkin' 'bout the k-k-krazy kat.

Talkin' about the k-k-krazy kat baby!

[EastEnd]

So then what's it worth? What the underbidder was willing to pay? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. How would you define "value" for this or any other item?

 

It's what I said before... to know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly. The $106k is just one instance of what one person was willing to pay at a particular moment. That's about all it tells us (other than the fact that at that moment, no one else was willing to pay as much).

 

I think I understand part of what you're saying, but you still haven't answered my question. Let's say you had the same cover sell 10 times in a year, with 10 different results. How do you calculate the value? Highest price? Average of all 10? Average of the 10 underbidders' highest bids? Lowest sales price out of the 10? Weight the different results differently if some of them were achieved at private sales instead of public auction? Multiple sales are only part of a value equation.

 

Then there's another problem. Maybe for items that are not unique, using multiple realized sales figures that would make sense, but for items like original silver age Spider-Man covers, they are unique/non-fungible and they just don't sell often enough to have enough datapoints to do the analysis you're talking about. The cover for 40 is different from the cover to 43, which is different from the cover of #51, which is different from the cover to #60, etc., etc. Not all "non-key" covers will be worth the same as every other non-key cover, simply because some non-key covers look way better than other non-key covers. As with fine art, when you're dealing with unique items being sold, most recent realized sales values are not a perfect metric, but they're the best indicator there is for the value of an item at that point in time.

 

You're looking for an exact formula that doesn't exist... particularly with regard to unique items. The typical method used is to identify comparables and then use those to approximate value (e.g., this is what a Picasso of such and such period and/or such and such subject sold for -- and I agree that the more recent the sale the better)... this is why values are often presented as ranges rather than fixed numbers... it's just not that exacting. But to take one sale an infer that that's the value is wrong -- all it tells us is what ONE person was willing to pay at ONE moment in time.

 

There are characteristics inherent in a Spidey #43 cover that drive a buyer's motivation to buy. Many of these characteristics are common to other covers.

 

I think the idea that there are comparables for silver age ASM covers is open for debate. Some of them certainly have things in common, but there are also enough differences that one could argue it either way.

 

Then there is also the problem that large art ASM does not come up for auction often enough to give enough datapoints to do any statistically valid extrapolation. I am also sure that the hundreds of fine art appraisers in the world who value artifacts for insurance purposes do not feel overly constrained by a lack of a multitude of datapoints to help in forming their opinions. Would they prefer to have more datapoints? Sure. But they typically don't have them, and, as I said before, whether any other piece is truly a "comparable" is speculative and open for debate. If a fine art appraiser were hired to value the ASM#43 cover for insurance purposes, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the single most important piece of information and the one that would most influence the appraiser's opinion, would be the sales price paid by the purchaser in an arm's length transaction at public auction, and the fact that at least one other bidder was willing to pay only $1,000 less for the item. Who knows -- maybe the winning bidder would have paid $125K for the piece?

 

Well, I'm obviously not going to change your mind and have run out of time here so I will leave you with these thoughts and you can do with them as you please:

 

1) Everything has comparables (in a valuation sense).

 

2) an insurance company would never take one transaction and use that as a value point.

 

3) the bid increments were $5000 (not $1,000)

 

4) your $125k figure is speculative... the fact we do know is that no one else was willing to pay $106k

 

Enjoy.

[action1kid]

Your a regular Henry longworth Linkletter

[comicdonna]

Lets get back to the topic at hand please...........

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/sho...rt=all&vc=1

Happy one day anniversary!

People try to put him down

Just because he's shillin' about

Things he does look awful k-k-kold

Wish he'd die before I get old

 

Talkin' 'bout the k-k-krazy kat.

Talkin' about the k-k-krazy kat baby!

Exactly

[Royale-migration]

Of course! By no means does that mean it can get 106k again.

It can even go lower,but than maybe not. I dont think it means its a base.

 

Agreed. To know the true value, the same or similar items have to be sold repeatedly.

 

This is a silly statement. You are looking at this as a comic book perhaps. There are no similar items as it is one of a kind. You cant look at the #40, the #44 or the #46 to gauge what the #43 did in fact sell for!!!! Moreover,...as other pieces move up in value,......the #40 etc.....the #43 will become more valuable probably with it. THAT is how the OA market works.

 

My friend, you need to take a class on valuation.

 

You really dont know what you are talking about. I am not trying to be rude or obnoxious but well,....you dont. There is no comparable for a unique piece this is a fact. Again, this is not a comic book and there are no SUBSTITUTES. Looking at the sale of the #43 to see what the #39, #40, #46 would sell for is absurd as those covers are much much more coveted than the #43 and would likely fetch multiples of the #43.

 

For example,....if the ASM#40 were to come to sale it would likely fetch multiples of the #43 based on its relevance and iconographic status. One could not look at any other ASM Cover sale to gauge what that one cover would fetch. The reason being simple, there is only 1 ASM#40 Cover.

 

You can make stuff up,..and say 'its so'...but that dont make it 'so'. Fact. Jack.

[ShoNuff-migration]

[action1kid]

 

So your saying the piece MUST get at least 106k and no way can it go lower? Only up?

[comicdonna]

He's not a Noob