X-MEN #1 club 27 27

[Pantodude]

35 minutes ago, PKJ said:

The 2.5 is white and a much better presenting copy, the 3.0 is pretty ugly imo and is 800 cheaper than the 2.5.

Are we looking at the same book?  Here's the 3.0.

Here's the 2.5.  

 

The 3.0 presents WAY, and I mean WAY, better than the 2.5.  Look at the spine on the 3.0!  It is like a 7.0 spine at least!  And look at that bottom half of the front cover with the dark colors -- no creases!   And that right edge is MUCH nicer.   It seems obvious to me that this structurally very sound 3.0 book took a huge hit for the water stains, as I think most folks have noted is CGC's policy with respect to stains.  In the end, that is a nice 3.0, all things considered.  

 

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Pantodude

[speedcake]

yeah that 3.0 is easily the nicer book. 

My 2.5 is way nicer than this 2.5. Every time I look at it I scratch my head that its only a 2.5, especially when I see the other 2.5 copies currently on the market (two on ebay auction right now, for ex.)

[PKJ]

6 minutes ago, Pantodude said:

Are we looking at the same book?  Here's the 3.0.

Here's the 2.5.  

 

The 3.0 presents WAY, and I mean WAY, better than the 2.5.  Look at the spine on the 3.0!  It is like a 7.0+ at least.  And look at that bottom half of the front cover with the dark colors -- no creases!   And that right edge is MUCH nicer.   It seems obvious to me that this structurally very sound 3.0 book took a huge hit for the water stains, as I think most folks have noted is CGC's policy with respect to stains.  

 

 

Hey now, Neither are beauties by no stretch, but (after seeing your scans) I thought the top of the cover was ripped and stained. The loss of color and nasty stain plus a ripped cover would be worse to me as well as how bad that wrap is, kids flip the book over if you want to see Iceman, looking at it again, you are right, So I will throw it back, why is it more right now? I know it may not hold but if it does why?

Edited March 24, 2021 by PKJ

[Pantodude]

8 minutes ago, PKJ said:

Hey now, Neither are beauties by no stretch, but (after seeing your scans) I thought the top of the cover was ripped and stained. The loss of color and nasty stain plus a ripped cover would be worse to me as well as how bad that wrap is, kids flip the book over if you want to see Iceman, looking at it again, you are right, So I will throw it back, why is it more right now? I know it may not hold but if it does why?

To be clear, that 2.5 is a decent example for the grade.  Worth the going rate, in other words.  I'm just saying the 3.0 looks better because the mostly-translucent stains explain the grade, not the structural condition of the book. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Pantodude

[PKJ]

Just now, Pantodude said:

To be clear, that 2.5 is a decent example for the grade.  Worth the going rate, in other words.  I'm just saying the 3.0 looks better because the mostly-translucent stains explain the grade, not the structural condition of the book.  

And I agree, I had them both up on the phone, I swore that was ripped at the top. 

[drbanner]

Books with white pages and free of chipping command a premium over books with less PQ and chipping, all else being equal. Always have, always will.

[dikran]

2 hours ago, PKJ said:

As a SW collector, think of it like this. Would you rather have a Yellow Bubble POTF Luke Stormtrooper or a crystal clear Luke Stormtrooper, both say AFA80. The clear bubble will always bring a premium, when Jim Bull  Dogatuna turned up all those clear bubble Luke Stormtrooper's in 2000-2001 they were all scooped up and later on sold for enormous prices at that time simply due to the bubble.

Yeah but the bubble is prominently displayed for action figures and is a major part of the eye appeal. PQ for slabbed comics is not something that will affect eye appeal to the same extent, unlike color strike on the cover proper. I think equal grade, faded covers are way more problematic than PQ. Personally, I’d much rather cgc denote color strike (bright, slightly bright, slightly faded, faded, etc...) rather than page whiteness. But that’s just me 😊

[Sweet Lou 14]

3 hours ago, PKJ said:

As a SW collector, think of it like this. Would you rather have a Yellow Bubble POTF Luke Stormtrooper or a crystal clear Luke Stormtrooper, both say AFA80. The clear bubble will always bring a premium, when Jim Bull  Dogatuna turned up all those clear bubble Luke Stormtrooper's in 2000-2001 they were all scooped up and later on sold for enormous prices at that time simply due to the bubble.

Holy smokes.  I finally feel like I mastered all the names and kooky jargon of comic collecting and then a post like this cracks open the door to a whole other world I know nothing about.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Sweet Lou 14

[Point Five]

2 hours ago, Pantodude said:

Are we looking at the same book?  Here's the 3.0.

Here's the 2.5.  

 

The 3.0 presents WAY, and I mean WAY, better than the 2.5.  Look at the spine on the 3.0!  It is like a 7.0 spine at least!  And look at that bottom half of the front cover with the dark colors -- no creases!   And that right edge is MUCH nicer.   It seems obvious to me that this structurally very sound 3.0 book took a huge hit for the water stains, as I think most folks have noted is CGC's policy with respect to stains.  In the end, that is a nice 3.0, all things considered.  

 

 

It's fascinating how subjective this stuff is. I'd rather have the 2.5 here than the 3.0, though neither is ideal for the grade. Those stains on the 3.0 would just bug me forever. 

 

[Hollywood1892]

3 hours ago, Pantodude said:

Are we looking at the same book?  Here's the 3.0.

Here's the 2.5.  

 

The 3.0 presents WAY, and I mean WAY, better than the 2.5.  Look at the spine on the 3.0!  It is like a 7.0 spine at least!  And look at that bottom half of the front cover with the dark colors -- no creases!   And that right edge is MUCH nicer.   It seems obvious to me that this structurally very sound 3.0 book took a huge hit for the water stains, as I think most folks have noted is CGC's policy with respect to stains.  In the end, that is a nice 3.0, all things considered.  

 

 

What about that stain tho

[drbanner]

35 minutes ago, Point Five said:

It's fascinating how subjective this stuff is. I'd rather have the 2.5 here than the 3.0, though neither is ideal for the grade. Those stains on the 3.0 would just bug me forever. 

 

Ditto...the right edge is rough but the main image is nice.

[Pantodude]

15 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

What about that stain tho

Well, that is why that seemingly 6.0 book was downgraded to a 3.0.  I'm not saying I like stains.  But the stains here, despite being extensive, at least are translucent (you can see the book thru most of it, unlike a darker stain).   The 3.0 more than accounts for that, because you see the book would have otherwise graded much higher.  I was only addressing the suggestion that the 3.0 was worth less than the 2.5.  It most certainly is not, because it was already downgraded.  Whether someone would rather buy the 2.5 at the 2.5 FMV instead of buying the 3.0 at the 3.0 FMV because they tolerate stains less than other defects (like more wear, tears), that's a different issue.   I could see someone buying either book at the FMVs associated with their respective grades and being happy with either book.  

Edited March 24, 2021 by Pantodude

[drotto]

1 hour ago, drbanner said:

Books with white pages and free of chipping command a premium over books with less PQ and chipping, all else being equal. Always have, always will.

So nobody wants my 4.5 with cream to off white pages and mild Marvel chipping.  Makes me sad.  I should just throw it away next trash day. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by drotto

[KCOComics]

6 minutes ago, drotto said:

So nobody wants my 4.5 with cream to off white pages and mild Marvel chipping.  Makes me sad.  I should just throw it away next trash day. 

Wait, I'll take it! 

Oh, did you say cream to OW??? Never mind, toss it!

[Hollywood1892]

30 minutes ago, Pantodude said:

Well, that is why that seemingly 6.0 book was downgraded to a 3.0.  I'm not saying I like stains.  But the stains here, despite being extensive, at least are translucent (you can see the book thru most of it, unlike a darker stain).   The 3.0 more than accounts for that, because you see the book would have otherwise graded much higher.  I was only addressing the suggestion that the 3.0 was worth less than the 2.5.  It most certainly is not, because it was already downgraded.  Whether someone would rather buy the 2.5 at the 2.5 FMV instead of buying the 3.0 at the 3.0 FMV because they tolerate stains less than other defects (like more wear, tears), that's a different issue.   I could see someone buying either book at the FMVs associated with their respective grades and being happy with either book.  

The 5.5 for 25k has a brutal staple

What do you make of that?

Edited March 24, 2021 by Hollywood1892

[Pantodude]

19 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

The 5.5 for 25k has a brutal staple

What do you make of that?

I don't make anything of it!  It's not my book.  

Edited March 24, 2021 by Pantodude

[Hollywood1892]

1 minute ago, Pantodude said:

I don't make anything of it!  It's not my book.  

Man that wasn't the answer I was looking for

In all seriousness tho the bad staple doesn't seem to bother people since it's about 13k higher then the highest GPA price on that grade

[Math Teacher]

4 hours ago, Pantodude said:

The 3.0 presents WAY, and I mean WAY, better than the 2.5.  Look at the spine on the 3.0!  It is like a 7.0 spine at least!  And look at that bottom half of the front cover with the dark colors -- no creases!   And that right edge is MUCH nicer.   It seems obvious to me that this structurally very sound 3.0 book took a huge hit for the water stains, as I think most folks have noted is CGC's policy with respect to stains.  In the end, that is a nice 3.0, all things considered.  

 

 

I agree with some of your points, but, me myself, the first thing I see on XM 1 3.0 is the water stains.

[Kevlar568]

5 hours ago, Pantodude said:

The X-Men, although consistently popular, were until recently undervalued.  But that doesn't mean it should  join the podium of SA keys by displacing the other books already there.   As another poster commented in another thread, that was because more people (read X-Men fans) wanted GSX 1 and the new team.   

This is why X-Men#1 is not spun from the same special cloth as AF15, IH#1, FF1, JIM83, TTA27, TOS39, ST110, Showcase4, and even Action Comics 1 and Detective Comics 27 (put aside the obvious difference of Golden Age stuff--my point is broader than that).  Unlike X-Men #1, which is not the fav book of many an X-Men fan (who prefer GSXM1 of X-Men94 for the new group), all those other books are the genesis of the specific mega-key SUPERHERO characters we all still love today.   Spidey is Spidey.  Hulk is Hulk.  Thor is Thor.  And the group that is known as FF are the same four folks they have always been.  The X-men who people love?....well...that depends on whether you are talking about old school or new school X-Men fans.  This is why X-Men#1 was not valued as highly as the other books until quite recently, and whatever happened the last year cannot possibly warrant the re-writing of history.  Let me repeat that....X-Men fans themselves did not rate X-Men#1 as highly as the other top seven SA keys and even preferred Bronze X-Men keys (like GSXM1 and XM94) over it.   Let that sink in.     

Regardless, X-Men#1 is the start of a team and the first appearance of specific non-mega-key superheroes, and one badass villain, Magneto.   Magneto is the most important character introduced in X-Men #1, from what I gather.   We can all agree that Magneto, like Dr. Doom, has never been on a par with Spidey, Hulk, Thor, Antman, Dr. Strange, and Flash (although that's DC, of course), etc.   So this is really simple.  Any mega-key superhero (take your pick of Spidey, Hulk, Thor, Flash, etc) > Dr. Doom, and Dr. Doom is indisputably > Magneto in the Marvel world.  Therefore, sanity demands that AF15, IH1, FF1, SC4, and JIM83 remain ranked above X-Men#1.  If there is any movement up for X-Men#1, perhaps an argument can be made for overtaking BB28, but that's it.  Flavor of the day does not a rewriting of history make.  

All that said, I own a bunch of this stuff, including X-Men #1, and am fond of all of the above books.  But we shouldn't mischaracterize the significance of these books.  

Fair enough! Everyone has a preference and unique opinion towards these things I’m sure - one thing I will say is that I think it’s disingenuous to say that X-men 1 is not spun from the same “magic cloth” despite having the same creators and being released by the same company in the same time period, as well as being much more successful as a franchise than all other Marvels except maybe Spider-Man. It also seems strange to downplay Professor X/ Charles Xavier as a “non-mega-key superhero”, the founder of the X-men and one of the most popular and recognizable Marvel heroes, appearing in  (checks google) 12 mainstream blockbuster Hollywood films in the last 20 years. I was going to type more about prof X but honestly his rep as a character speaks for itself - he is a mega key Marvel character. Another so called “non-mega-key superhero” who’s first appearance is in X-men #1: Marvel Girl - aka Jean Grey- aka the Phoenix/the Dark Phoenix and the mother of Cable(might be a clone of her?). Jean Grey is consistently ranked as one of the greatest superheroes of all time as well as a top 10 Marvel VILLAIN of all time as the Dark Phoenix. Again I think it’s disingenuous to call her a non-mega key Marvel character considering she is probably one of the most popular female Marvel heroes. 
 

I also disagree with X-men being “flavour of the day” - I think the franchise dominance of the last 40 years (the legendary and top-selling Cockrum/Claremont/Byrne run/s, X-men #1 (1991) Guinness World Record best selling comic, a blockbuster film featuring the X-men/mutant characters released by Hollywood every 1.6 years since the year 2000, Logan, Deadpool, and Deadpool 2 peaking at #1 and #3 for highest earning R-rated films of ALL TIME, DP2 and Logan both featuring professor X and mutant characters) I could go on... 

[Pantodude]

15 minutes ago, Kevlar568 said:

I think it’s disingenuous to say that X-men 1 is not spun from the same “magic cloth”

Hold your horses!   You did not understand what I wrote, and consequently wrote an irrelevant retort.  But I forgive you.  Anyway, unlike the books I listed (AF15, IH1, SC4, FF1, JIM83, etc), which introduced a character or group that remained unchanged in its membership or identity over time, X-Men#1 introduced the X-Men -- a fluid concept/team whose members change over time.   You love Spidey, you will always be hooked on AF15.   You like Hulk, IH#1 is your book.  You dig Fantastic Four, then FF#1 is your bible.  But the X-Men?   Like I thought I had already explained clearly, it depends on whether you are new school and relate to new members (so GSXM1 and XM94 is your thing) or old school, in which case X-Men #1 is your thing.  This is what X-Men fans have explained consistently over the years.  Don't shoot the messenger (or twist what he says!), please.  

Edited March 25, 2021 by Pantodude