Old Label vs New Label

[Foolkiller]

King:

 

Don't the Comic Companies (like Valiant, Image etc in the 90s) simply respond to the demand in the market place from speculators buying thousands of copies or whatever spiking and artificially inflating demand?

 

To me, you can't have one without the other, and that's when a crash can ensue, because the demand isn't real.

 

That is the fault of the store or dealer that orders the books. It is up to them to order the correct amount of product. Its not the buyer's fault that the books are supplied to them. It is the dealer's. It is up to the dealer to make decisions regarding order numbers--nobody elses. You'd think after a time of talking to customers and serving customers with 50 copies of whatever, that they'd get the idea at some point in the future its going to collapse. That is one of the undeclared jobs of any salesman--to predict market trends, and to counteract unwanted activity in that market.

 

I'm not saying speculators were not a part of it. I'm just pointing out that anyone calling a speculator the only actor responsible for the crash is just plain wrong, because that would be impossible. There was more then one actor in the cause of the crash. Heck, one could take it back a step further and ask, "what caused the speculator to begin speculating in this industry in the first place?" The answer to that would be having read in the paper that many tens of thousands of dollars were being spent on old collections (now pedigree collections).

 

Dude -- that completely misses the point of how orders are done in stores -- You worked for a store -- those guys meet the demands of the customers... what, the store is supposed to say, no we want to sell FEWER copies?

[Foolkiller]

I dont want to interrupt. but as fo rthe 90s speculators? yeah they did fuel excess demand and cause printy runds to climb. But, remember what really killed the goose. Whenthe baseball card game cooled, many of the cardstores jumped into the HOT HOT comic market. So inaddition to colectors buying multiples, there were now twice as many stores all ordering BIG to sell out AND have cases left over for when th eprices spiked. And, of course all these xtra orders printed and shipped never had enuff buyers for them cause collector demand didnt increase at that point, just RETAILER demand! SO most of the excess books printed etc just sat there unsold. XMen#1 sold 5 million copies----- TO RETAILERS!! Nobody knows how many were actually resold to actual collector/speculators,,,

 

and anyway, whats all that got to do with Al Capps?? That was a different kind of price specu;ation that I THOUGHT you were gonna discuss!

 

good points.

[ImageMask]

 

It is easier for any given person to comprehend a 2.5 when in the context of being out of a possible 10, then it is a person to understand what a GD+ means from a FN- to a NM.

 

Yes, It is. But, If you don't what a 2.5 "looks" like compared to a 6.0 to a 9.4 what's the difference between a g+ , f-, or nm-? It does not matter CGC numbers or Joe Collector letters if you can't correlate the "look" of a book to a number or letter what's the point of any grading system? Love your supply and demand explanation by the way. You must be a quad-muti-million-aire bt now with all this knowledge.

[Aman619]

Im amazed you got my point with all those typos! thanx

[arexcrooke]

I dont want to interrupt. but as fo rthe 90s speculators? yeah they did fuel excess demand and cause printy runds to climb. But, remember what really killed the goose. Whenthe baseball card game cooled, many of the cardstores jumped into the HOT HOT comic market. So inaddition to colectors buying multiples, there were now twice as many stores all ordering BIG to sell out AND have cases left over for when th eprices spiked. And, of course all these xtra orders printed and shipped never had enuff buyers for them cause collector demand didnt increase at that point, just RETAILER demand! SO most of the excess books printed etc just sat there unsold. XMen#1 sold 5 million copies----- TO RETAILERS!! Nobody knows how many were actually resold to actual collector/speculators,,,

 

and anyway, whats all that got to do with Al Capps?? That was a different kind of price specu;ation that I THOUGHT you were gonna discuss!

huh? Are you talking to me of KoR? im confused

[arexcrooke]

Dude -- that completely misses the point of how orders are done in stores -- You worked for a store -- those guys meet the demands of the customers... what, the store is supposed to say, no we want to sell FEWER copies?

didnt i say that

[kc120us]

1-CGC has switched to a numbers only nomenclature

2-Even though they call them "NM" it doesnt neccesarily align with OS

3-Because they dont align with OS, there is no meaining behind the #

 

I see what your saying but the same is also true of raw books or the scans of books in the PGM section of these boards. One person's NM could very well be another's VF/NM or NM+. That's why many of us, myself included, are still begging CGC to make the grader's notes more accessible. Then at least you can get a list of the defects that were found and gain a little more insight. Grading, as we all know, is more art than science and thus there will always be differing opinions. I fathom that even if the CGC grading crew were replaced with the entire Overstreet advisory board, people would still say they are not in alignment with the guide.

 

Thanks for replying to my post, Arex. You've given me something to think about. Now, I must sleep.

 

Casey

[Foolkiller]

 

It is easier for any given person to comprehend a 2.5 when in the context of being out of a possible 10, then it is a person to understand what a GD+ means from a FN- to a NM.

 

Yes, It is. But, If you don't what a 2.5 "looks" like compared to a 6.0 to a 9.4 what's the difference between a g+ , f-, or nm-? It does not matter CGC numbers or Joe Collector letters if you can't correlate the "look" of a book to a number or letter what's the point of any grading system? Love your supply and demand explanation by the way. You must be a quad-muti-million-aire bt now with all this knowledge.

 

I would imagine King's point is that, to a novice, you can imagine that on a 10 point scale, 2 is worse than 6, and that's a lot more clear than terminology of fine is actually better than good.

 

But I think what Nick is saying is very fair -- if you knew anything about comics you'd learn the system pretty quick. And most people who were collectors understood the grading system and a *spoon* could figure it out.

[Aman619]

I dont want to interrupt. but as fo rthe 90s speculators? yeah they did fuel excess demand and cause printy runds to climb. But, remember what really killed the goose. Whenthe baseball card game cooled, many of the cardstores jumped into the HOT HOT comic market. So inaddition to colectors buying multiples, there were now twice as many stores all ordering BIG to sell out AND have cases left over for when th eprices spiked. And, of course all these xtra orders printed and shipped never had enuff buyers for them cause collector demand didnt increase at that point, just RETAILER demand! SO most of the excess books printed etc just sat there unsold. XMen#1 sold 5 million copies----- TO RETAILERS!! Nobody knows how many were actually resold to actual collector/speculators,,,

 

and anyway, whats all that got to do with Al Capps?? That was a different kind of price specu;ation that I THOUGHT you were gonna discuss!

huh? Are you talking to me of KoR? im confused

 

dont really know, but a an argument was raguing and I just walked in and aded my two cents to all a youse. thewn I walked out. But I came back and made this reply. But Im leaving again. Probably stop back and look at the replies, And probably reply again, Then leave. Again.

[ImageMask]

 

I would imagine King's point is that, to a novice, you can imagine that on a 10 point scale, 2 is worse than 6, and that's a lot more clear than terminology of fine is actually better than good.

 

Agreed . But if I sell you a 2.0 as a 6.0 how the *spoon* would you the difference?

Which brings us to your second point....

 

But I think what Nick is saying is very fair -- if you knew anything about comics you'd learn the system pretty quick. And most people who were collectors understood the grading system and a *spoon* could figure it out.

[chrisco37]

The only thing I like about the new label is that the serial numbers are very easy to read. They're almost impossible to read off an old label. I also like the big grade, but I wish they could post the alphabetical grade (in similarly large font) alongside.

 

We have a winner!

 

I like the looks of the new label as well. Just wish they would add the "alpha-grade" along with it.

 

Of course, when it comes to buying, I'd take an old label over a new label allday/everyday. IMO, less chance the book is/was a resub (I know there is no way to prove this, but I'll play the odds).

[KingOfRulers]

King:

 

Don't the Comic Companies (like Valiant, Image etc in the 90s) simply respond to the demand in the market place from speculators buying thousands of copies or whatever spiking and artificially inflating demand?

 

To me, you can't have one without the other, and that's when a crash can ensue, because the demand isn't real.

 

That is the fault of the store or dealer that orders the books. It is up to them to order the correct amount of product. Its not the buyer's fault that the books are supplied to them. It is the dealer's. It is up to the dealer to make decisions regarding order numbers--nobody elses. You'd think after a time of talking to customers and serving customers with 50 copies of whatever, that they'd get the idea at some point in the future its going to collapse. That is one of the undeclared jobs of any salesman--to predict market trends, and to counteract unwanted activity in that market.

 

I'm not saying speculators were not a part of it. I'm just pointing out that anyone calling a speculator the only actor responsible for the crash is just plain wrong, because that would be impossible. There was more then one actor in the cause of the crash. Heck, one could take it back a step further and ask, "what caused the speculator to begin speculating in this industry in the first place?" The answer to that would be having read in the paper that many tens of thousands of dollars were being spent on old collections (now pedigree collections).

 

Dude -- that completely misses the point of how orders are done in stores -- You worked for a store -- those guys meet the demands of the customers... what, the store is supposed to say, no we want to sell FEWER copies?

 

As I metioned earlier, meeting the demand for something does not necessarily make you a good or successful business person. You meet the demand as best you can, which is accompanied by logic. A bad business person is the person who will strive to do anything without first giving it some thought.

 

It is poor judgement to continue to fuel something like the false boom when you have already come to the conclusion that it will collapse. How can you justify that meeting an astronomic demand even with the knowledge of a probable collapse is good business skills?

 

As I said before, meeting immediate demand does not make you a good business person. Anyone can try and meet something that is clearly evident as that point in time. What seperates them is being able to identify trends long term, not short term.

[KingOfRulers]

 

Is it? Is it really?

Yes, it really is.

 

So, what is allowable in a '2.5'? Or not allowable?

The same things that are allowed in GD+, or not allowed in GD+.

 

What can you expect from your '2.5'?

The same thing you can expect from you GD+

 

Is it a quarter as good as a 10.0? Or 400% better than a 0.5? And in what way?

That's for you to decide based on your interpretation of the guide.

 

And where do you go to find out the answer to these important questions?

I don't know...church?

[KingOfRulers]

 

I would imagine King's point is that, to a novice, you can imagine that on a 10 point scale, 2 is worse than 6, and that's a lot more clear than terminology of fine is actually better than good.

Exactly.

 

But I think what Nick is saying is very fair -- if you knew anything about comics you'd learn the system pretty quick. And most people who were collectors understood the grading system and a *spoon* could figure it out.

 

I for one am in favor of a system to attract NEW collectors. You want to be user friendly to people, not intimidating. Even if it is subconcious. If the hobby continues to go in the direction of the old worn out stamp market with arguements like others that have been seen here tonight, then this hobby could be in serious trouble. Not so much in regards to the grading system, but in general. If other viewpoints concerning the industry have a similar tone to the ones seen here tonight, then the hobby will be in danger in the coming years.

[Foolkiller]

King:

 

Don't the Comic Companies (like Valiant, Image etc in the 90s) simply respond to the demand in the market place from speculators buying thousands of copies or whatever spiking and artificially inflating demand?

 

To me, you can't have one without the other, and that's when a crash can ensue, because the demand isn't real.

 

That is the fault of the store or dealer that orders the books. It is up to them to order the correct amount of product. Its not the buyer's fault that the books are supplied to them. It is the dealer's. It is up to the dealer to make decisions regarding order numbers--nobody elses. You'd think after a time of talking to customers and serving customers with 50 copies of whatever, that they'd get the idea at some point in the future its going to collapse. That is one of the undeclared jobs of any salesman--to predict market trends, and to counteract unwanted activity in that market.

 

I'm not saying speculators were not a part of it. I'm just pointing out that anyone calling a speculator the only actor responsible for the crash is just plain wrong, because that would be impossible. There was more then one actor in the cause of the crash. Heck, one could take it back a step further and ask, "what caused the speculator to begin speculating in this industry in the first place?" The answer to that would be having read in the paper that many tens of thousands of dollars were being spent on old collections (now pedigree collections).

 

Dude -- that completely misses the point of how orders are done in stores -- You worked for a store -- those guys meet the demands of the customers... what, the store is supposed to say, no we want to sell FEWER copies?

 

As I metioned earlier, meeting the demand for something does not necessarily make you a good or successful business person. You meet the demand as best you can, which is accompanied by logic. A bad business person is the person who will strive to do anything without first giving it some thought.

 

It is poor judgement to continue to fuel something like the false boom when you have already come to the conclusion that it will collapse. How can you justify that meeting an astronomic demand even with the knowledge of a probable collapse is good business skills?

 

As I said before, meeting immediate demand does not make you a good business person. Anyone can try and meet something that is clearly evident as that point in time. What seperates them is being able to identify trends long term, not short term.

 

So it's bad business when people want IPods that stores stock IPods because the fad might go out of style? How does the store owner know it is a "false" boom. That's like saying they all have crystal balls. Talk to the dealers in the early 90s, and I'm sure they weren't all predicting a crash. They didn't know the bottom was going to fall out until too late, or if they did, were willing to make their profit and walk.

 

Either way, meeting demand, even short term, meets with the idea that most owners of making the money now.

 

The best comic shop owners were the ones who capitalized on the 90s boom, met the demand, but then found a way to survive through the crash, not the ones who simply didn't meet the orders, which seems to be what you are arguing.

[KingOfRulers]

 

So it's bad business when people want IPods that stores stock IPods because the fad might go out of style?

That is an entirely different matter and industry. Comics are often bought as an investment, while IPods are not. One would be considered a collectible good while the other would not. They are not synonomous for comparison.

 

How does the store owner know it is a "false" boom. That's like saying they all have crystal balls. Talk to the dealers in the early 90s, and I'm sure they weren't all predicting a crash. They didn't know the bottom was going to fall out until too late, or if they did, were willing to make their profit and walk.

The notion was based upon the acknowledgement of a premise. I said, "It is poor judgement to continue to fuel something like the false boom when you have already come to the conclusion that it will collapse" If you have not come to a conclusion, you cannot act upon it. But if that conclusion is made by the owner, then it would be a poor business move to continue to invest in something that you have already concluded will collapse.

 

So, in the case of the 90's crash...that would mean either many predicted it would collapse but continued to invest, or many did not predict it and continued to invest.

 

Either way, meeting demand, even short term, meets with the idea that most owners of making the money now.

Making money now is not beneficial if its prevents you from making money later. That is why when attempting to make money now, it is necessary for the owner to predict how that will affect money making later.

 

The best comic shop owners were the ones who capitalized on the 90s boom, met the demand, but then found a way to survive through the crash, not the ones who simply didn't meet the orders, which seems to be what you are arguing.

 

You meet orders that are in line with whatever you think the health of the industry is. That is what I am saying. Sure, the "best" comic shops did capitalize. That why they are the "best" comic shops isn't it? But take a look at the 25-35% of stores in the country that closed. I'd guess they were meeting demand most of the time as well. Again, meeting demand alone is not what makes a successful business.

[mica]

King of Rulers, sorry buddy but you really are missing the boat. Which is sad because you've got a ton of passion.

 

I recommend you read the scans that Mister-Not-So-Nice posted a few months ago. They were in comic paneled format and were not only hilarious but extrememly educational as to what happened in the past... and what is still happening on a smaller scale.

If I find them I'll post a link.

[KingOfRulers]

King of Rulers, sorry buddy but you really are missing the boat. Which is sad because you've got a ton of passion.

 

I recommend you read the scans that Mister-Not-So-Nice posted a few months ago. They were in comic paneled format and were not only hilarious but extrememly educational as to what happened in the past... and what is still happening on a smaller scale.

If I find them I'll post a link.

 

Well, then I'd just venture to say that you missed the boat. Who is right?

[Aman619]

I knoe you are but what am I?

[Foolkiller]

 

So it's bad business when people want IPods that stores stock IPods because the fad might go out of style?

That is an entirely different matter and industry. Comics are often bought as an investment, while IPods are not. One would be considered a collectible good while the other would not. They are not synonomous for comparison.

 

How does the store owner know it is a "false" boom. That's like saying they all have crystal balls. Talk to the dealers in the early 90s, and I'm sure they weren't all predicting a crash. They didn't know the bottom was going to fall out until too late, or if they did, were willing to make their profit and walk.

The notion was based upon the acknowledgement of a premise. I said, "It is poor judgement to continue to fuel something like the false boom when you have already come to the conclusion that it will collapse" If you have not come to a conclusion, you cannot act upon it. But if that conclusion is made by the owner, then it would be a poor business move to continue to invest in something that you have already concluded will collapse.

 

So, in the case of the 90's crash...that would mean either many predicted it would collapse but continued to invest, or many did not predict it and continued to invest.

 

Either way, meeting demand, even short term, meets with the idea that most owners of making the money now.

Making money now is not beneficial if its prevents you from making money later. That is why when attempting to make money now, it is necessary for the owner to predict how that will affect money making later.

 

The best comic shop owners were the ones who capitalized on the 90s boom, met the demand, but then found a way to survive through the crash, not the ones who simply didn't meet the orders, which seems to be what you are arguing.

 

You meet orders that are in line with whatever you think the health of the industry is. That is what I am saying. Sure, the "best" comic shops did capitalize. That why they are the "best" comic shops isn't it? But take a look at the 25-35% of stores in the country that closed. I'd guess they were meeting demand most of the time as well. Again, meeting demand alone is not what makes a successful business.

 

An entirely different matter? I'm plugging in a "widgets" argument. If you have a product, any product, and you feed the masses with it because of demand you are doing the same thing that was being done in the 90s with a product. Why does it make a difference whether that product is a collectible or not? Can you explain why in the world of meeting demand that makes any difference? Because it might "hurt" the market?

 

Which leads me to, even if you predicted that the there was an overflood, how would you be able to predict that this would definitively cause some sort of collapse. You are asking the owners to have seen this coming, which is like saying if I knew Enron was going to collapse, I never would have bought their stock and the employees should have known to quit. Well, duh. Don't promote something you know is going to be harmful. Was that really within their ability?

 

And let's say that the owner doesn't make money "now" who's to ensure that they "will" make money later? Why do you think that these comic shops would have survived if "only" they hadn't pandered to those greedy speculators.

 

Basically, I really don't understand your argument. It lacks some basic points of logic, and I think what we need is someone who's actually run a store to come on and explain why this is either correct or flawed, but needs to be done in a much more clear fashion.