Moderns that are heating up on ebay! 70 70

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I'll note again that I'm looking for a way to best determine the number of copies that might be out there based on the information available. I think the Comichron numbers are a good starting point, and since you have already acknowledged that you don't have a better way to determine that, I consider that question answered. But I'd still like to know why you're claiming there were "thousands" of Miracleman variants available. Where's your support for that claim?

Once more: there isn't a way to determine the number of copies out there. While I recognize that some of you have a need to quantify everything, the fact is, in this case, there is no GOOD way, much less "better" way. The Comichron numbers ARE NOT a "good starting point", for all the various reasons that have already been given...multiple times...because the Comichron numbers have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the incentive variants in any way, shape, or form, other than PERHAPS being included as part of the total number reported, which tells us virtually nothing. If you cannot accept that, then you're going to continue to run into these problems. "Something" is not always better than nothing.

And if we're going to play the "you didn't answer my question" game...which is tedious and dull...I already asked you a question you have yet to answer: what do YOU consider "huge"? Since "huge" and "a bunch" are qualitative terms which have no real meaning, then tell me what you mean by "huge", and I'll be happy to explain where my support for my claim lies.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Oh boy, oh boy! I can't wait to talk in circles about something that can't be proven!

Right. NOW you're onto something. NOW you're starting to get it: "something that can't be proven."

Go with that. 

[Jaydogrules]

9 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Right. NOW you're onto something. NOW you're starting to get it: "something that can't be proven."

Go with that. 

Now you're conflating someone "proving" something that no one has claimed is provable with making reasonable estimates based on publicly available data.  

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

I could go on, but, I'm good.

...guess not. Again.

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Now you're conflating someone "proving" something that no one has claimed is provable with making reasonable estimates based on publicly available data.  

-J.

That is yet another of your strawman arguments, and it doesn't even make all that much sense. I don't think you know what "conflating" means.

I thought you were done...?

Edited February 16, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[Aweandlorder]

I wonder who chose to follow this thread since yesterday (was 98 yesterday) ((I know I got nothing better to do in my spare time but monitor this sh*t))  

 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Aweandlorder

[RockMyAmadeus]

For the benefit of those who want to cling to Comichron numbers as a means of making a "reasonable estimate based on publicly available data", I will once more run down the reasons why that is not a good idea:

1. Comichron numbers are sales numbers (NOT print numbers) of all versions of a particular book, including, perhaps, the numbers printed of the retailer incentive. That means we don't have a breakdown of those numbers into their component parts. If a book sold 79,387 copies...as reported by Diamond...we don't know how many of those 79,387 were regular versions and how many were variants (and some books have multiple variants, INCLUDING store variants, convention variants, retailer incentive variants, etc.)

(A great example of this was Amazing Spiderman #666, which had, according to Diamond, 135,568 copies sold in its first month of release...but that number includes over 140 different versions of the "store" variant, and each store had to order a minimum of 500 copies....so, if each ordered the minimum, that's 70,000 or so copies right there...and yet, all we know is how many TOTAL copies, all versions, were sold that first month.)

2. Comichron numbers are, themselves, estimates.

3. Comichron numbers don't include reorders, which are copies that were printed, but not sold, during the sales period reported by Diamond.

4. Comichron numbers are estimates for sales only in North America, and include no numbers for standard, English language copies printed and sold in other locations around the world.

5. Retailer incentive numbers are order numbers; that is, what a retailer must order of the regular to obtain one copy of the incentive variant. Nowhere will anyone find anything that suggests that those numbers relate, in any way, to how many a publisher prints (with some rare exceptions for smaller publishers.) It is only an ordering number.

6. The publishers print not only enough to cover qualifying orders plus overages for damage, but also enough to give many away at various promotional events AND offer many for sale, in numbers ABOVE "case pack" numbers, on a routine basis, which further skews the "estimates."

Because of all these factors, it is impossible to use estimates...and only one type of estimates, sales in the first month of all copies to North America...to make any sort of "reasonable" estimate on the number of retailer incentives printed.

You would be trying to make an estimate of an estimate of an estimate. The resulting numbers are functionally useless.

The appeal..."well, Diamond reports this many, so 1:100 must mean they made 1% of that Diamond number!"...is there, for sure. But that's only when you don't understand what those numbers represent and how they're derived. Once you scratch the surface even a little bit, you discover how futile the exercise is. It's better to have NO estimates, than use estimates of estimates of estimates to come up with bad numbers that almost certainly bear no resemblance to reality.

Of course, that won't stop people from doing so, because it's appealing (and lazy) to do so...but that doesn't mean it's correct.

[I like pie]

[Lazyboy]

9 minutes ago, I like pie said:

Yeah, right. Somebody will find a way to try to argue against reason again.

Always err on the side of hype. That is an expression, right?

[rckstr1253]

So is the glossy rai 0 worth holding onto or better to sell now?  I believe i have a 9.8 one in storage  graded by cgc, and is it better to sell it now or is there a good chance its value will continue to increase?

[fastballspecial]

25 minutes ago, rckstr1253 said:

So is the glossy rai 0 worth holding onto or better to sell now?  I believe i have a 9.8 one in storage  graded by cgc, and is it better to sell it now or is there a good chance its value will continue to increase?

Sell it now. Its on a huge upswing. Get your money and get out. Just my two cents. Valiant fans will tell you different, but
I don't see the long term here. 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

6 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Once more: there isn't a way to determine the number of copies out there. While I recognize that some of you have a need to quantify everything, the fact is, in this case, there is no GOOD way, much less "better" way. The Comichron numbers ARE NOT a "good starting point", for all the various reasons that have already been given...multiple times...because the Comichron numbers have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the incentive variants in any way, shape, or form, other than PERHAPS being included as part of the total number reported, which tells us virtually nothing. If you cannot accept that, then you're going to continue to run into these problems. "Something" is not always better than nothing.

And if we're going to play the "you didn't answer my question" game...which is tedious and dull...I already asked you a question you have yet to answer: what do YOU consider "huge"? Since "huge" and "a bunch" are qualitative terms which have no real meaning, then tell me what you mean by "huge", and I'll be happy to explain where my support for my claim lies.

I would consider "huge" to be a number in many multiples of the numbers normally produced as overages to replace damages for an average issue. I think that would have been fairly obvious based on the context on the conversation, or at least that a reasonable person could come to that conclusion.

So, question answered. Your turn. Do you have any support for your claim that "thousands" of copies were available?

[I like pie]

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

6 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Because of all these factors, it is impossible to use estimates...and only one type of estimates, sales in the first month of all copies to North America...to make any sort of "reasonable" estimate on the number of retailer incentives printed.

You would be trying to make an estimate of an estimate of an estimate. The resulting numbers are functionally useless.

Since you're choosing to ignore it, I've already pointed out that there is a lot of room for error here. The bottom line is using what is available to make a *best* guess.

Maybe there are 10 copies of a book.

Maybe the print run is the same as X-Force 1.

Or, maybe we can use what we know to narrow the range down somewhere between there using the information available. No, we don't have access to all information. But you can make a better-informed collecting decision by using what information *is* available than by just throwing your hands up in the air and saying "WE'LL NEVER KNOW!"

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I would consider "huge" to be a number in many multiples of the numbers normally produced as overages to replace damages for an average issue. I think that would have been fairly obvious based on the context on the conversation, or at least that a reasonable person could come to that conclusion.

That's not an answer, with a shot of snarky added for good measure, which accomplishes nothing. We were talking about specific comic books; in this case, the Miracleman incentives. All you did here was answer the exact same way you answered before, just using different words, which is a non-answer. We've already well established that retailer incentives are routinely printed in "many multiples of the numbers normally produced as overages to replace damages." And, really...this conversation's going nowhere, and it's just making the audience mad. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Since you're choosing to ignore it, I've already pointed out that there is a lot of room for error here. The bottom line is using what is available to make a *best* guess.

Maybe there are 10 copies of a book.

Maybe the print run is the same as X-Force 1.

Or, maybe we can use what we know to narrow the range down somewhere between there using the information available. No, we don't have access to all information. But you can make a better-informed collecting decision by using what information *is* available than by just throwing your hands up in the air and saying "WE'LL NEVER KNOW!"

I've already addressed this. See above. 

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's not an answer, with a shot of snarky added for good measure, which accomplishes nothing. We were talking about specific comic books; in this case, the Miracleman incentives. All you did here was answer the exact same way you answered before, just using different words, which is a non-answer. We've already well established that retailer incentives are routinely printed in "many multiples of the numbers normally produced as overages to replace damages." And, really...this conversation's going nowhere, and it's just making the audience mad. 

My answer was a perfectly reasonable answer. But I guess not accepting it is a good way to not have to back up your own claim.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

My answer was a perfectly reasonable answer. But I guess not accepting it is a good way to not have to back up your own claim.

It was a non-answer. It just used more qualitative words to not answer the direct question.

"That's a really big collection!"

"What do you mean by 'big'?"

"I mean, it's like. huge, gigantic, enormous! You know...large! Like...you know, bigger than normal!"

Just like you didn't answer what you meant by "over publishing" and "flooding the market." 

As for my claim, I'll leave it to you to figure out. It's pretty obvious, if you think about it for just a bit. Here's your hints: Miracleman #1 THROUGH #10. All incentive variants. Incentive variants that are produced to the tune of 1,000 or more EACH....because that's the minimum that publishers like DC and Marvel order...

 

[fastballspecial]

18 minutes ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

21 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's not an answer, with a shot of snarky added for good measure, which accomplishes nothing. We were talking about specific comic books; in this case, the Miracleman incentives. All you did here was answer the exact same way you answered before, just using different words, which is a non-answer. We've already well established that retailer incentives are routinely printed in "many multiples of the numbers normally produced as overages to replace damages." And, really...this conversation's going nowhere, and it's just making the audience mad. 

My answer was a perfectly reasonable answer. But I guess not accepting it is a good way to not have to back up your own claim.

Just leave it alone he can go on forever. Most of us understand the point you are trying to make. The estimates are a guess at best. Its a good indicator, but no where near precise. I use them when looking at a book to give me an idea of a ballpark figure and leave it at that. 

Anyone trying to do more than that is just an educated or non-educated guess which can be dangerous with the wrong
individual or website.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by fastballspecial

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It was a non-answer. It just used more qualitative words to not answer the direct question.

"That's a really big collection!"

"What do you mean by 'big'?"

"I mean, it's like. huge, gigantic, enormous! You know...large! Like...you know, bigger than normal!"

Just like you didn't answer what you meant by "over publishing" and "flooding the market." 

As for my claim, I'll leave it to you to figure out. It's pretty obvious, if you think about it for just a bit. Here's your hints: Miracleman #1 THROUGH #10. All incentive variants. Incentive variants that are produced to the tune of 1,000 or more EACH....because that's the minimum that publishers like DC and Marvel order...

 

Explain to me why you think it's fair to criticize my use of "huge" or "flooding" when you're using "bunch" to back up your claim. Note that you made your claim before mine.

And you're trying to substantiate your claim that "thousands" of books were available in the variant dump by making another unsubstantiated claim, that the books were produced in the thousands?