The official J Scott Campbell Appreciation/Discussion Thread 12 12

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 1/9/2019 at 12:32 AM, masterlogan2000 said:

Actually, I made a simple statement about what may also affect the value of a book.  In fact, YOU are the one that started incorporating the factors of "value" into the conversation in the first place, not me.  Remember this, as it is very important to the conversation below.

 

My numbers were a derivative of the unsubstantiated "90-99%" figures that YOU provided without providing any actual data to back those claims.  I simply divided your percentages by two with my claim that a book may lose half its value within the first 30 days of publication.  (Not to mention that the cited reference to a known and respected comic dealer puts that percentage loss much higher).

So let's take an example with arbitrary numbers and simple math... something worth $100 today loses 50% of its value within 30 days of release.  The book is now worth $50.  Arguably, 50% of its value was therefore tied to the age of the book.  You then can't have 90-99% of the value tied to the book's status when you've already lost 50% (otherwise we'd be at 140-149%).

 

Actually, I'm NOT referring to depreciation here at all.  I'm also NOT stating that the value of an item is dictated by time.  Time decay is the EFFECT we see, with weakened demand weeks/months after initial release being the CAUSE.

With your misunderstanding, it's your argument that is erroneous.

 

I find it utterly laughable that you completely write off my statement on what may play a factor when determining the value of a book, yet your gospel on what constitutes value is apparently deemed relevant.  Where you are COMPLETELY off base is that it doesn't matter one bit the ingredients of the total value of a book.  Total value can be summed from the status, the condition, time value, how many words are on the seventh page, whether or not Olivia Munn licked the cover, is it raining outside... the factors that constitute the total value are ALL completely irrelevant!  Why?  Because for the sake of what you are arguing, and hence what you should care about and focus on, the only thing that matters is the ratio of TOTAL VALUE against the value that was added by a signature.  All other factors, including condition and status (the factors YOU listed) are completely irrelevant to YOUR point.

 

And despite all of this, you continue to attack this minor mention of time decay that is 1) established as fact, 2) was made to contribute to the discussion, and 3) was in total agreement to your original point.  Yet, apparently MY argument is completely irrelevant and I'm radically complicating the issue, while you're the one that started these arguments in the first place.

No. 

You're arguing just to argue. 

While many will claim that's my raison d'être, it's not. You chose to pick out a tiny element of the discussion, and then develop an entire "argument" from it, using bad logic, bad math, unnecessarily confrontational language, and poor reasoning. For instance, your percentage computations are wrong. I could further explain, but no one is really interested. This is not the thread to be discussing intricate economic philosophy.

No offense intended, just pointing it out.

The value of any item is mostly based on what it is...whether it's a piece of used toilet paper or an Action Comics #1. "Time decay" (what most people call "depreciation") is merely a facet of that, not a separate factor. The other major factor is its condition. Whether it's 90% or 99% or 82.732% or 99.999992647% is not relevant. A signature does not contribute significantly to the value of most things that are signed in the comic book world, with very few exceptions. 

That's the only point being made.

Edited January 11, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[masterlogan2000]

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're arguing just to argue. 

While many will claim that's my raison d'être, it's not.

I understand that you and I have taken this topic wildly off course.  But, don't tell me that I'm just arguing to argue, when I am simply exercising my right to defend my position... a position which, again, you have constantly decided to attack.

 

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You chose to pick out a tiny element of the discussion, and then develop an entire "argument" from it, using bad logic, bad math, unnecessarily confrontational language, and poor reasoning.

Let's recap.

I post that there is a time element involved in new moderns when determining value.
You jump on this and tell me I'm wrong.
I defend that position and point out the hypocrisy of your own posts using very clear logic leveraged against your own unsubstantiated numbers.
Yet within every single post I've made, I've still stated that I agree with you regarding what little value that signatures add to these comics.

So, who is arguing just to argue here?

Oh, and kudos points to you for editing your original post here to make it less confrontational than your original wording.  I now only count four instances in this one sentence in which you try to escalate a confrontation.

 

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No offense intended, just pointing it out.

You've initiated and tripled down on attacking every one of my replies on this topic, so this is more than "just pointing it out".  But, I take no offense to this, as that's what one comes to expect by engaging with you.

 

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Whether it's 90% or 99% or 82.732% or 99.999992647% is not relevant.

On 1/7/2019 at 12:12 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nevermind, of course, that 90-99% of the value of every book is in 1. its status (New Mutants #98 or #92?) and 2. its condition.  

So if it's not relevant, then stop making up these claims.  The 90-99% figures were originally stated by you.

 

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

A signature does not contribute significantly to the value of most things that are signed in the comic book world, with very few exceptions.

And just to be a model of consistency, I agree with you here.

[rogue14]

Although I have yet to be lucky enough to get any of his sets when sales go live, is the 2 set limit for the same set or 2 sets period?

Or, could you put 2 different variants set and get 2 of each for a total of 4 sets? 

[ExNihilo]

34 minutes ago, rogue14 said:

Although I have yet to be lucky enough to get any of his sets when sales go live, is the 2 set limit for the same set or 2 sets period?

Or, could you put 2 different variants set and get 2 of each for a total of 4 sets? 

2 sets period.  You could place an order for one Premium Set and one Ultra set in your cart, but that's it.  It's not 2 Premium Sets and 2 Ultra sets for total of 4 sets.  If you want additional sets, you need to complete the order and create a new one.

Edited January 12, 2019 by ExNihilo

[PerlAddict]

Unsigned ASM # 14 Ultra sets were gone in 2 minutes originally, but now show as available again at 11:19.

[PerlAddict]

In fact, everything except signed A&B and signed C&D sets are still available 20 minutes after going live. That's kind of surprising. Although I do with this was 8 different covers instead of 4 standard and 4 virgin with recolors.

[kimik]

Sweet. I totally forgot about this at the open, but just went and was able to get two unsigned ultra sets half an hour later. I hope they come through. 

[ygogolak]

8 minutes ago, PerlAddict said:

In fact, everything except signed A&B and signed C&D sets are still available 20 minutes after going live. That's kind of surprising. Although I do with this was 8 different covers instead of 4 standard and 4 virgin with recolors.

Must be limiting in waves.

[ExNihilo]

2 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Must be limiting in waves.

I see all sets available (signed and unsigned).  I wonder if the JSCPremium site has anything to do with this.  Was much of the previous demand for unsigned books REALLY largely due to people wanting to buy raw copies to get signed at conventions?  And now that JSC has teased direct CGC 9.8 signature series label books, consumers are waiting on those instead?

Or alternatively could the site be bugged and not showing orders properly?  I really hope it's the former otherwise that would suck for any fans who would end up having their order cancelled.

[Vfactor1]

Seems tome this is basically what happened last time.

[devald]

personally I think it's the future cgc offering ppl are waiting on plus this isnt new art as the designs were used for sideshow. (cant recall if the art was also used for prints). I'm not super excited and I've been getting his sets for the last 3-4 years

[Hey Kids, Comics!]

They sent out an email saying they were allocating some of the stock they were saving for cons to the site. 

[Avi]

22 minutes ago, ExNihilo said:

I see all sets available (signed and unsigned).  I wonder if the JSCPremium site has anything to do with this.  Was much of the previous demand for unsigned books REALLY largely due to people wanting to buy raw copies to get signed at conventions?  And now that JSC has teased direct CGC 9.8 signature series label books, consumers are waiting on those instead?

Or alternatively could the site be bugged and not showing orders properly?  I really hope it's the former otherwise that would suck for any fans who would end up having their order cancelled.

 

8 minutes ago, devald said:

personally I think it's the future cgc offering ppl are waiting on plus this isnt new art as the designs were used for sideshow. (cant recall if the art was also used for prints). I'm not super excited and I've been getting his sets for the last 3-4 years

When you try to add the ULTRA set to cart it says sold out.

Personally I have "JSC fatigue". Tired of his rehashed spider-man work.

[Hey Kids, Comics!]

4 minutes ago, Avi said:

 

When you try to add the ULTRA set to cart it says sold out.

Personally I have "JSC fatigue". Tired of his rehashed spider-man work.

It is, but if you add the two Premium sets, they're still available and only $5 more. 

[rogue14]

2 hours ago, ExNihilo said:

2 sets period.  You could place an order for one Premium Set and one Ultra set in your cart, but that's it.  It's not 2 Premium Sets and 2 Ultra sets for total of 4 sets.  If you want additional sets, you need to complete the order and create a new one.

Thanks! Finally managed to get through! Didn’t know the discount code could only be used once... dang! O’well.

Edited January 12, 2019 by rogue14
Verbiage

[jsilverjanet]

On 1/7/2019 at 6:56 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

And I LOVE Campbell art. As I told him on that November day in 2016 in Burbank, CA, "I've been a fan of yours since Deathmate Black" (yes, he did a few pages in that.) 

okay maybe then you loved his art but you have to admit the stuff he's put out in the past 2 years is

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 1/12/2019 at 2:01 AM, masterlogan2000 said:

I understand that you and I have taken this topic wildly off course.  But, don't tell me that I'm just arguing to argue, when I am simply exercising my right to defend my position... a position which, again, you have constantly decided to attack.

 

Let's recap.

I post that there is a time element involved in new moderns when determining value.
You jump on this and tell me I'm wrong.
I defend that position and point out the hypocrisy of your own posts using very clear logic leveraged against your own unsubstantiated numbers.
Yet within every single post I've made, I've still stated that I agree with you regarding what little value that signatures add to these comics.

So, who is arguing just to argue here?

Oh, and kudos points to you for editing your original post here to make it less confrontational than your original wording.  I now only count four instances in this one sentence in which you try to escalate a confrontation.

 

You've initiated and tripled down on attacking every one of my replies on this topic, so this is more than "just pointing it out".  But, I take no offense to this, as that's what one comes to expect by engaging with you.

 

So if it's not relevant, then stop making up these claims.  The 90-99% figures were originally stated by you.

 

And just to be a model of consistency, I agree with you here.

I could do a point by point refutation of your statements, but no one else is interested. Honest. I made a general point, using casual, "for the sake of the argument" numbers. I wasn't responding to anyone. I was making a comment to whomever was interested. I didn't make any "claims", or anything else along those lines. You have created an issue where there is none, and the decision to engage was yours, not mine. If you see "attacks", I'm afraid the issue is your perception, and that would likely be resolved by you choosing not to interact with me in the future. I cannot control your reaction to my comments, but you can. Trust me when I say...no one else is interested. 

Take care.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 1/12/2019 at 10:00 AM, Avi said:

Personally I have "JSC fatigue". Tired of his rehashed spider-man work.

I think that's true of a lot of people. Same ol' same ol'. 

I understand that his business model works for him...for now. And, unfortunately, the art business has become nothing but an endless cranking out of print-worthy images. But it would be nice if these artists would get back to the craft of storytelling. It would be nice to see a book drawn...start to finish...by Campbell. 

If Jim Lee can do it, at least in spurts, so can everyone else.

Even Picasso and Monet changed up their subjects on a regular basis.

[masterlogan2000]

 

37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Honest. I made a general point ... I was making a comment to whomever was interested.

This sounds exactly like what I was doing when suggesting that there was a time component involved in valuations for modern books.  Your original post asked me to further explain, which I did.  You then proceed to tell me in multiple posts how wrong I am and how irrelevant the arguments were...  all the while, ignoring the fact that your own arguments were just as irrelevant.

 

37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

and the decision to engage was yours, not mine.

There is a saying somewhere about it taking two to tango.

 

37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I could do a point by point refutation of your statements, but no one else is interested.

37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Trust me when I say...no one else is interested. 

And yet here you are, replying yet again to teach me a lesson of some sort.  Wisdom that applies to others, but apparently doesn't apply to your own determination to continue to derail a thread.

If you really, truly cared about not taking the topic off course, you would send me a PM.  But clearly, you love the spectacle that you've had a hand in creating.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, masterlogan2000 said:

 

This sounds exactly like what I was doing when suggesting that there was a time component involved in valuations for modern books.  Your original post asked me to further explain, which I did.  You then proceed to tell me in multiple posts how wrong I am and how irrelevant the arguments were...  all the while, ignoring the fact that your own arguments were just as irrelevant.

 

There is a saying somewhere about it taking two to tango.

 

And yet here you are, replying yet again to teach me a lesson of some sort.  Wisdom that applies to others, but apparently doesn't apply to your own determination to continue to derail a thread.

If you really, truly cared about not taking the topic off course, you would send me a PM.  But clearly, you love the spectacle that you've had a hand in creating.

Ok. Thanks for sharing your perspective. Take care.