• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

mysterio

Member
  • Posts

    15,514
  • Joined

Everything posted by mysterio

  1. What am I "ignorant" of? It's not my fault that the publicly available sales data does not reflect the results that you want them to. You may say that there are "reasons" for that. We can only speculate on what those may be. But it does not alter the data. -J. You both argue that there are "reasons" for that. He just doesn't claim to know what they are, and you do.
  2. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J. Everything?? Does gpa detail : What specific venue the book was sold? What perspective buyers/bidders participated ? How the book was marketed ? How the book was presented within the sales venue and to whom? (Detailed scans , small Blurry , written description, pic etc etc) What payment options were available to perspective bidders/buyers What the defects were to differentiate it from a comparable copy If a comparable copy with different pq was even available in same venue or at same time to offer buyer/bidder alternative The image of the book is incredibly important in determining desirability and assessing value Etc etc Gpa tells us virtually nothing. It is really only good at establishing general pricing and trends. Nothing specific can be concluded from gpa outside of what that one copy sold for on that one particular date. Everything else is speculation unless you were the buyer Everything you stated and all the hypothetical scenarios you just presented are, conversely, precisely why no one can reasonably make the statement (let alone prove) that the "PQ" on the label actually affects the final prices of books in any significant or consistent manner. (thumbs u (thumbs u (the second thumbs up is for Joey D. ) -J. What you've apparently missed is that they likewise prevent you from saying that PQ hasn't impacted the final prices of books in a significant or consistent manner. If your premise was that PQ was the #1 most important factor then you might be onto something. But your data doesn't provide the clarity on this question in any way that would illuminate buying preferences or motivations. In any good hypothesis you need to find data that support it. If your hypothesis is that PQ is not influencing final purchase price then you need positive data to support the idea. As it stands, you have nothing of the sort. You simply show a lack of correlation between the few data points you have, which are an unknown (not to mention small and skewed) segment of the market, and interpret that lack of correlation as meaning only one thing. There are dozens of alternative hypotheses that are equally (and probably more) likely. PQ could easily represent a significant influence on purchase price that is swamped by other influences in different circumstances. The problem is that you lack the clarity to either support or refute any hypothesis with these data. Here's one for you. I teach, and this occupation brings me into contact with folks that are sick every day of the week. If I don't get sick from being around them, does this disprove the germ theory? This is an admittedly silly example that doesn't much differ from your interpretation of thin data as suggesting only the one possible explanation. You can personally believe whatever you want. Just don't pretend that these data support that belief any more than they do any number of alternatives. If you'd like to persist in pushing your belief please explain precisely how a lack of correlation in the numbers you've presented supports your hypothesis, and start with your explanation for how every other variable Gator mentioned is magically controlled for and known, leaving PQ as the only culprit. Also define what you mean by significant, because that's another crucial but very fuzzy key to your argument. Until you can do these things, please let the thread get back to B&B #28 pricing trends. Sorry, almost forgot. (thumbs u I have no "hypothesis" that I am attempting to prove, unless you believe that I am attempting to prove a negative (which, as you likely know, is impossible). The "hypothesis" has actually been set forth by the other side- that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more. I provided a significant data sampling which pulls from a multitude of sales sources. It is not "all" sources, but it is certainly more than one or two dealers who post on these boards. That does not imply any disrespect toward those dealers or their opinions or what they observe in the field. However the amalgam of data cited is significant and cannot be lightly dismissed simply because you or others disagree with what it reveals. What it does reveal, with regards to "this" book, is an inconsistent and unreliable correlation between the "PQ" on the label and final sales price- and that books with different "PQ" on the label sell for higher amounts not only sometimes, but more than half the time. Some have come into the thread and essentially said, "well of course, there are 'other' factors that come into play which can cause the "PQ" on the label to in fact not matter so much anymore". And I agree! So then what does that mean? If the hypothesis is that books with "better 'PQ'" on the label "always" sell for more, and then someone provides you with nearly two dozen examples of the same book, in seven different grades over a span of two years, where that in fact did not happen, I would say that said hypothesis (ie, myth) has been busted. You want to provide me some examples when the "PQ" on the label made a positive difference? Great, I never said those weren't out there. But there is overwhelming contravening data, for this book (and probably every similar book that you could think of) that also proves the exact opposite. That would be the very definition of "inconsistent", "random", and "unquantifiable", which is essentially makes the attempt to draw any correlation futile and meaningless. If you want to call that my "hypothesis" then it has indeed been readily "proven". (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u -J. I don't disagree that your hypothesis is a counter hypothesis to the idea that PQ positively influences price. Arguing against it is not disproving a negative (that'd be like saying you can't disprove that lowering speed prevents road deaths). Nor does showing there isn't a 1:1 correlation demonstrating that there is not a significant influence.
  3. For 9.4 sales: White pages (n=16).....average=3371; median=3350 OW/W pages (n=12)....average=3192; median=3227 For 9.2 sales: White pages (n=8)......average=2705; median=3000 OW/W pages (n=14)...average=2554; median=2500
  4. The Clink auctions I referenced are a perfect example of how wrong you are. Clink would regularly have dozens or even hundreds of duplicate grades with the only difference being White and non-White page books, within the same auction. The White page books regularly sold for more than the non-White page books and apparently Clink killed the practice because non-White page consignors were upset that their books didn't sell for as much as the White page copies. It doesn't get more conclusive than that. As far as I'm concerned the conversation is over but you keep beating your drum to try and make yourself look right. It's just plain silly that you are attempting to use one of the few auction houses that "doesn't" report to GPA, and has no readily accessible archived results, in lieu of the litany of data from basically every other vendor that does in order to "prove" a point that is easily (and has been) disproved. Silly, indeed. I don't need to make myself "look right". The hard data and actual facts already does that. Deal with it. -J. J , you haven't provided any hard or valid data that was achieved under a set of controls. Not one data point you are relying on is applicable and thus you have failed to prove anything. I on the other hand have provided multiple hard (and if pressed to prove or make verifiable to public could) data points that support virtually everyone's position. Comps are comps. GPA provides comps for comics. You don't need one real estate agent to have sold every house used in an appraisal for it to be "valid". A comp is a comp. -J. no doubt some general information can be extrapolated from comps (general pricing trends, etc) But a specific variable (such as pq) cannot reasonably be ascertained from these comps unless they are under the same control which I don't believe any are, and thus are not valid comps for this specific discussion And I can't tell you how many times real estate comps are dismissed once due diligence is done (not always but again, if you break it down by specific variable , comps fall apart more than not) GPA gives us everything we need to know about a book and the sale thereof except for a picture. To say (or imply) that isn't enough is a stretch, to say the least. -J. Everything?? Does gpa detail : What specific venue the book was sold? What perspective buyers/bidders participated ? How the book was marketed ? How the book was presented within the sales venue and to whom? (Detailed scans , small Blurry , written description, pic etc etc) What payment options were available to perspective bidders/buyers What the defects were to differentiate it from a comparable copy If a comparable copy with different pq was even available in same venue or at same time to offer buyer/bidder alternative The image of the book is incredibly important in determining desirability and assessing value Etc etc Gpa tells us virtually nothing. It is really only good at establishing general pricing and trends. Nothing specific can be concluded from gpa outside of what that one copy sold for on that one particular date. Everything else is speculation unless you were the buyer Everything you stated and all the hypothetical scenarios you just presented are, conversely, precisely why no one can reasonably make the statement (let alone prove) that the "PQ" on the label actually affects the final prices of books in any significant or consistent manner. (thumbs u (thumbs u (the second thumbs up is for Joey D. ) -J. What you've apparently missed is that they likewise prevent you from saying that PQ hasn't impacted the final prices of books in a significant or consistent manner. If your premise was that PQ was the #1 most important factor then you might be onto something. But your data doesn't provide the clarity on this question in any way that would illuminate buying preferences or motivations. In any good hypothesis you need to find data that support it. If your hypothesis is that PQ is not influencing final purchase price then you need positive data to support the idea. As it stands, you have nothing of the sort. You simply show a lack of correlation between the few data points you have, which are an unknown (not to mention small and skewed) segment of the market, and interpret that lack of correlation as meaning only one thing. There are dozens of alternative hypotheses that are equally (and probably more) likely. PQ could easily represent a significant influence on purchase price that is swamped by other influences in different circumstances. The problem is that you lack the clarity to either support or refute any hypothesis with these data. Here's one for you. I teach, and this occupation brings me into contact with folks that are sick every day of the week. If I don't get sick from being around them, does this disprove the germ theory? This is an admittedly silly example that doesn't much differ from your interpretation of thin data as suggesting only the one possible explanation. You can personally believe whatever you want. Just don't pretend that these data support that belief any more than they do any number of alternatives. If you'd like to persist in pushing your belief please explain precisely how a lack of correlation in the numbers you've presented supports your hypothesis, and start with your explanation for how every other variable Gator mentioned is magically controlled for and known, leaving PQ as the only culprit. Also define what you mean by significant, because that's another crucial but very fuzzy key to your argument. Until you can do these things, please let the thread get back to B&B #28 pricing trends. Sorry, almost forgot. (thumbs u
  5. I did 12 cons last year (most ever for me but I know not a lot by some standards) and decided it was too much on my family (I would love to do more, but have others to think about )....I cut it in half this year to 6....not because of the work (I strangely enjoy it) but because it was better for my family (thumbs u Which six?
  6. Speculation on GOTG team expansion? That's not even the same Quasar that was in the GOTG/Annihilation books Does that matter to anyone in the Speculation Age?
  7. That's always been a favorite cover and book for me. Scorpion was criminally underused as a villain, he scored very few appearances for as cool as he was. #29 is also a favorite cover and a great second appearance. Then you don't see him again until #145-146 if my memory is correct. Way too few appearances. He did appear in Cap 122 before ASM 145-146 - not sure if there are any other appearances - but he was/is a very underused villain. Yep, momentarily forgot about the Cap even though I owned a copy once upon a time. But even with the Cap we're talking about five appearances in ~12 years and very few since. I think the (inferior) new costume had more appearances during the Copper Age.
  8. That's always been a favorite cover and book for me. Scorpion was criminally underused as a villain, he scored very few appearances for as cool as he was. #29 is also a favorite cover and a great second appearance. Then you don't see him again until #145-146 if my memory is correct. Way too few appearances.
  9. Yes, because if it crosses the line into grade-affecting restoration for them, they will say "Restoration includes..." and pop it into a purple label. If it doesn't cross that line, in their opinion, they will put it in a blue with notes. The blue labels with notes never use the R-word anywhere on the label. It would be pretty contradictory for them to use the R-word on a blue label if they aren't going to call it a restored book. If I recall correctly, the line is whether or not the work improves the grade of the book. So if an older book (usually GA, not sure this is done much with SA unless it is very early) has glue or CT that does not improve the grade then it can be put into a blue label with notes at their discretion. If they're still going with that policy then the Batman book would be much too recent to fall under the "blue with notes" category.
  10. Let's see for JIM76 - Pricing Variant Non-SS books: 9.4 = 1 9.2 = 1 9.0 = 1 8.5 = 2 8.0 = 1 7.5 = 2 7.0 = 2 6.5 = 0 6.0 = 0 5.5 = 3 5.0 = 2 4.5 = 0 4.0 = 0 3.5 = 1 3.0 = 1 that's it for Universal, there's only 1 SS @ 3.0 Total Graded Universal = 17 Total Graded SS = 1 Total Graded = 18 For the NON-Variant, there's only 13 Universal & 1 Qualified for a total graded count of 14. Variant is +4 right now. -bc Thank you! The numbers are closer than I thought they would be, but they do jive with our general perception that the pricing variant is a bit more common than the non-variant 12 cent cover. It certainly isn't any rarer than the regular 12 cent version. FWIW, I own them both but only my non-variant is graded.
  11. :shrug: Where's the issue? Book looks like a 2.0, there is color touch and CGC decided to not purple label it (which they are allowed to do per the back of their label). The only issue is I don't see where the tape is. you learn something new every day I guess... I didn't know the purple label was discretionary. I stand corrected. Wally, to be fair, this is the first time I've ever seen it done with a Silver age book. The discretionary non-restored is usually done on GA books, like the Whiz #2 (#1) in the Sig auction at Heritage (though from what I understand, that book had previously been Purple Label and they removed JUST enough of the restoration to get a discretionary Blue instead of Purple). On a discretionary blue do they include the phrase "Restoration includes..."? From what I recall they simply put a note like "Glue on spine of cover" that does not include the R-word. This looks like a label color mistake to me, and it should have had a purple stripe like my book got. Unless, of course, the difference between a 2.0 and 2.5 is enough to get a pass...
  12. It has probably been there a while, but while updating my registry I checked and the slot for the JIM #76 pricing variant is now available for anyone interested in updating their sets. I'll try to get around to checking the census data sometime soon, and in the meantime if someone would like to check it and post here that would be great!
  13. awesome book sir! +1 It isn't an 8.5, but I'm really pleased to add this copy to my set!
  14. I bought a Flash #105 from Gino and the transaction was great! Book is beautiful and was packed very well for shipping. I'd gladly do business with him again!
  15. Once we heard they were shipped out via media mail I think we all got a little . Luckily it turned out ok.
  16. OK since I've been getting a load of PMs about it, the 9.8 was mine. I sold it to a boardie who may reveal himself if he chooses to, or not I got $3600 for it clear (check) / no fees, so that's as if it went for $4300 on ebay before ebay & paypal fees, give or take $50. Just waiting for the check to come in the mail and the deal is done Good luck to the next one, hope whoever is waiting for theirs to come back gets a 9.8 and does a happy dance like I did (thumbs u If you're going to estimate selling prices why not really make it sound good and estimate you could have sold it on Heritage instead of eBay. That way your fanciful sale would be 40% higher after buyer and seller commissions. (thumbs u A sale price is a sale price. No need to try to pump it up.
  17. Nobody likes to pay for a book to then lose 80% of the value you paid for it, whether you want it because you enjoy the character or art or even story. If you were to convince me that this will be the most desired variant of all the EoSV#2's I would feel more comfortable dropping $25.00 on a book that sold for $10 on FCBD. If you need someone to talk you into it, that is probably a sign to pass. If you still like it in a year buy it then.
  18. Low grade, sign away if you like. HG? Leave. It. Alone. +9.0
  19. From what we see in those pics, her backyard is flat as a board. The shorts can't help it.
  20. From what we see in those pics, her backyard is flat as a board. The shorts can't help it.
  21. Three months away! I'm definitely checking this one out at least Friday, with Royals tickets that evening.
  22. I'm perfectly happy with my lowly 8.0 and 7.5, respectively, but these are very pretty copies.
  23. Maybe if you post the same thing a fourth time that'll be the charm.
  24. Well, that, and actually having a character in the movie. Rick Flag I thought I read that his first appearance is in something like Weird War Tales #93 (again, never read any of these books so I haven't paid much attention).
  25. Yes. Mainly when I've tried to research various shows and the top search result ends up being my board post on that very show.