• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

What do you think is a sleeper?

Started by all4comics,

61 posts in this topic

cavecarson

cavecarson

Posted
Posted
and the lovely Liefeld art is such a bonus mmmmm yummy

 

foreheadslap.gif

vomit-smiley-010.gif

Dice you just don't like him because you know how to draw. You have to look past the anatomic abnormalities and the inbred faces that all appear oddly identical.

How did this guy ever get popular?

Frank Springer, Frank Robbins (throwing some more at you to help with that stomach flu you got)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
divad

divad

Posted
Posted
I still think that important/classic covers, First Cover Appearances, and other cover-related Keys are the true sleepers in the CGC era.

 

I remember mentioning this about ASM 51 (first Kingpin cover), others joined in, and CGC prices spiked up noticeably. confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Joe,

 

hi.gif I agree. I recently sold this raw ASM #51 for $175:

 

ASM%2051s.JPG

 

ASM%2051bs.JPG

 

A sweet copy! thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan4Fan

Fan4Fan

Posted
Posted
ataskmaster.jpg

 

Interesting... this is one I pointed out to JC back in the comicinvestor.com days...

 

Must still be sleeping (tho' I finally picked up my copy a few months back).

 

Thanks,

Fan4Fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
THE_BEYONDER

THE_BEYONDER

Posted
Posted
9.6 on the MT 99?

 

Yup. Bought that book from drbanner(along with the 98) just before I became a member here.

 

I bought about 20 more raw issues a while back, and submitted a few to CGC:

 

81 9.8 W

100 9.6 W

102 9.8 W

 

If anyone has 103-130 in NM+ or better.....PM me. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcd-migration

mcd-migration

Posted
Posted

An interesting book for down the road could be X-Men Annual 14, with the 1st appearance of Gambit. While it guides at $25 right now, no one, including Overstreet takes this book seriously & it can be had for much, much less. Overstreet lists it as 1st appearance Gambit (minor app. 5 pages). I don't have a problem with Overstreet wording it however they want , but at least get the facts straight & list him as a minor appearance (10 pages). 10 pages is enough imo.

 

Sure, the book was not intended to be his 1st appearance, but because of Marvel's Annual scheduling it came out before X-Men 266 & thus "was" his first appearance. It would not surprise me at all, if down the road, some of the BSD's get with Overstreet & the guide flip flops & starts pushing this book as the key & not X-Men 266. Get'em while they are cheap, before he appears in the next X-Men flick!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

The ONLY chance that issue had was if X-Men 266 did not have Gambit on the cover.

 

Obviously, it does (with a cover blurb introducing him), so that X-Men Annual is dead on the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mephisto

Mephisto

Posted
Posted
The ONLY chance that issue had was if X-Men 266 did not have Gambit on the cover.

 

Obviously, it does (with a cover blurb introducing him), so that X-Men Annual is dead on the water.

 

I agree but X-Men 266 was one of the worst comics I have ever read...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcd-migration

mcd-migration

Posted
Posted

The ONLY chance that issue had was if X-Men 266 did not have Gambit on the cover.

Obviously, it does (with a cover blurb introducing him), so that X-Men Annual is dead on the water.

 

I agree 100%...at the present time. Five years down the road I'm not so sure. Overstreet has flip flopped before & it wouldn't suprise me for him to do it again. He lists Gambit as appearing on 5 pages in error. While it is a minor appearance (hell, there were 30+ heroes running around in the book), he was shown on 10 diffferent pages. It was the 1st time anyone ever saw the character & he was called by name.

 

There was a time that Overstreet had Swampthing #1 as more valuable than HOS #92. Now HOS #92 (the tryout) is 4X Swampthing #1. On the exact opposite side Conan #1 is 3.5X it's tryout in Chamber of Darkness #4. No reasoning on either, just whatever Overstreet decides to push at the time. It wouldn't take much to flip X-Men 266 & Annual #14...

 

Sleepers don't always come through, but this book can still be found in the $1 boxes at conventions & is worth the risk imo. As someone else noted, that X-Men 266 was an ugly looking comic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mephisto

Mephisto

Posted
Posted
The ONLY chance that issue had was if X-Men 266 did not have Gambit on the cover.

Obviously, it does (with a cover blurb introducing him), so that X-Men Annual is dead on the water.

 

I agree 100%...at the present time. Five years down the road I'm not so sure. Overstreet has flip flopped before & it wouldn't suprise me for him to do it again. He lists Gambit as appearing on 5 pages in error. While it is a minor appearance (hell, there were 30+ heroes running around in the book), he was shown on 10 diffferent pages. It was the 1st time anyone ever saw the character & he was called by name.

 

There was a time that Overstreet had Swampthing #1 as more valuable than HOS #92. Now HOS #92 (the tryout) is 4X Swampthing #1. On the exact opposite side Conan #1 is 3.5X it's tryout in Chamber of Darkness #4. No reasoning on either, just whatever Overstreet decides to push at the time. It wouldn't take much to flip X-Men 266 & Annual #14...

 

Sleepers don't always come through, but this book can still be found in the $1 boxes at conventions & is worth the risk imo. As someone else noted, that X-Men 266 was an ugly looking comic.

 

I have an OS where Hulk 180 is worth more than 181. blush.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcd-migration

mcd-migration

Posted
Posted

In the CGC World, the X-Men 266 cover guarantees it will be regarded as the first Gambit and for the most money.

 

So does this apply, in your opinion, to the Bishop cover appearance on X-Men 282 making it his 1st appearance? Secondly, I'm not so sure CGC is going to have as much say 5 years down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcd-migration

mcd-migration

Posted
Posted

please elaborate

 

Really..nothing sinister or disrespectful intended towards CGC or those that make a killing off selling CGC books. Just my opinion that a lot happens in 5 years. In 1999 you couldn't have predicted the vast changes to the market of today. I would certainly expect the next 5 years to be just as interesting & unpredictable.

 

It would be my personal hope that CGC can continue to educate the masses in grading to the point that 5 years from now a CGC 9.2 & a raw 9.2 would be viewed equally. CGC would then be used for their resto detection & as a 3rd party opinion & not as a reason to quadruple a profit.

 

Finish up the popcorn, truthfully...nothing to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
So does this apply, in your opinion, to the Bishop cover appearance on X-Men 282 making it his 1st appearance?

 

Nope, as that was a last-page cameo.

 

X-Men 266 was his first full appearance, it was his first cover appearance, it was his first chronoligical appearance, and only a publishing snafu led to the X-Men Annual even being brought into the conversation.

 

This is not something illogical like Hulk 180 being more valuable than Hulk 181, and I really think people are [!@#%^&^] into the wind thinking X-Men 266 will suddenly go into the dollar bins and his Annual appearance will start getting the big bucks.

 

P.S. I also agree that CGC will be a short-term speculative bubble, but at that point, the market will contract greatly and we probably won't be having these conversations.

 

More like "great household uses for CGC slabs". 27_laughing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing