Tracking the invisible hand of the market... 1 1

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Looking for a solution to the ungraded copy (potential CGC supply) problem... what if I also include the 5-year growth of the CGC census?

 

Would it help if each book had an indication for how many additional copies have been CGC graded in the past 5 years?

 

 

too many variables that are not indicative of actual extant ungraded copies. I would pass.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

New version of the chart...

 

 

 

 

Removes the comparison to ASM #300, because collectors may not wish to compare to ASM #300. That's a complication that isn't needed. (thumbs u

 

Statements from my previous post are still applicable:

 

Compare the first appearance of Punisher (ASM #129, 4.0 index) to the first appearance of Thor (JiM #83, 3.8 index)...

If Thor fans don't think Punisher should have a higher relative index for an average copy,

they are basically thinking that either an average ASM #129 is overpriced or an average JiM #83 is underpriced.

 

They might act accordingly. (thumbs u

 

I like it, but I can't really use the chart without knowing the average grades of the individual books

[valiantman]

I like it, but I can't really use the chart without knowing the average grades of the individual books

 

Let's get nutty.

 

[AJD]

I like the 5-yr CGC growth data. Almost all graded Iron Man 55s are in that window - wonder why?

 

What is a little surprising (to me) is that seems to be true for ASM 121 as well. I'd have thought that book was significant enough pre movie hype. Evidently not.

[valiantman]

I like the 5-yr CGC growth data. Almost all graded Iron Man 55s are in that window - wonder why?

 

What is a little surprising (to me) is that seems to be true for ASM 121 as well. I'd have thought that book was significant enough pre movie hype. Evidently not.

 

The 5-yr CGC growth data on the chart is percentage based... it's a separate calculation from the black lines.

 

Orange is supposed to be compared to other orange, so that you can get a sense of which books are still coming to CGC often... I've edited the graph to put in some orange percentage gridlines.

 

Iron Man 55 grew from 600 submissions in 2010 to 1,836 submissions currently.

ASM 121 grew from 1,535 in 2010 to 2,986 currently.

[AJD]

I like the 5-yr CGC growth data. Almost all graded Iron Man 55s are in that window - wonder why?

 

What is a little surprising (to me) is that seems to be true for ASM 121 as well. I'd have thought that book was significant enough pre movie hype. Evidently not.

 

The 5-yr CGC growth data on the chart is percentage based... it's a separate calculation from the black lines.

 

Orange is supposed to be compared to other orange, so that you can get a sense of which books are still coming to CGC often... I've edited the graph to put in some orange percentage gridlines.

 

Iron Man 55 grew from 600 submissions in 2010 to 1,836 submissions currently.

ASM 121 grew from 1,535 in 2010 to 2,986 currently.

 

Got it. Thanks for explaining to the thickies. (thumbs u

 

And it's much clearer now.

[thirdgreenham]

Very cool! (thumbs u

 

Thank you for enabling me. I now know which books are undervalued and I'm going to remortgage my house to get a whole whack of these!

 

Thanks!!

[A.Romeo]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread thanks for the time and effort you put in to collect this data.

[Sqeggs]

If the "invisible hand of the market" only values an average copy of Marvel Comics #1 at about half of what it values an average copy of ASM #300 (considering price and CGC census counts), then a collector who disagrees with the "invisible hand" might consider an average copy of Marvel Comics #1 underpriced.

 

Interesting collection of data, but I'm not sure I understand your argument. Why would we expect that the market would drive the total value of each comic into equality? ASM 300 and Marvel 1 seem like very different beasts and, while both are collectible comics, buyers for them don't -- I don't think -- have much overlap. Why would we expect the total value of all extant copies of these two books to be the same?

 

By analogy, would we expect the total value of all Van Gogh and all Picasso paintings to be the same? The total value of all copies of the first edition of The Hobbit and all copies of the first edition of The Great Gatsby to be the same?

 

I may not be understanding your approach, though.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I like the 5-yr CGC growth data. Almost all graded Iron Man 55s are in that window - wonder why?

 

What is a little surprising (to me) is that seems to be true for ASM 121 as well. I'd have thought that book was significant enough pre movie hype. Evidently not.

 

The 5-yr CGC growth data on the chart is percentage based... it's a separate calculation from the black lines.

 

Orange is supposed to be compared to other orange, so that you can get a sense of which books are still coming to CGC often... I've edited the graph to put in some orange percentage gridlines.

 

Iron Man 55 grew from 600 submissions in 2010 to 1,836 submissions currently.

ASM 121 grew from 1,535 in 2010 to 2,986 currently.

 

Not really the books that are coming to CGC often, but the 5 yr census growth of each individual slabbed issue.

I think the raw numbers are of greater comparison value, than the relationship of individual issues slabbed in the past 5 years / number of same issue previously slabbed. We all know that NM98, IM 55, WD1 saw huge increases in their previously slabbed census numbers compared to the other books.

 

To really show the books coming to CGC often, it would be better to show:

IM55 = 1236

ASM 121 = 1451

This would give a better idea of the "flow" of keys into CGC.

[musicmeta]

All this analysis is very very interesting.

[valiantman]

To really show the books coming to CGC often, it would be better to show:

IM55 = 1236

ASM 121 = 1451

This would give a better idea of the "flow" of keys into CGC.

More numbers on the same graph will definitely clutter it up... the point of having the CGC growth is to indicate which raw books are still coming to CGC versus those raw books which might be "tapering off".

 

The problem it addresses was the concern that people may not realize how many more raw copies are available to be slabbed... particular for post-1975 books.

 

If you look at the chart, it's very clear that there are plenty of New Mutants #98 and Walking Dead #1 which are still getting slabbed, while there are very few new slabs for books like Action Comics #1.

 

Putting the numbers on would tell more of the story, but it would also make it very hard to read everything else that's there.

[valiantman]

If the "invisible hand of the market" only values an average copy of Marvel Comics #1 at about half of what it values an average copy of ASM #300 (considering price and CGC census counts), then a collector who disagrees with the "invisible hand" might consider an average copy of Marvel Comics #1 underpriced.

 

Interesting collection of data, but I'm not sure I understand your argument. Why would we expect that the market would drive the total value of each comic into equality? ASM 300 and Marvel 1 seem like very different beasts and, while both are collectible comics, buyers for them don't -- I don't think -- have much overlap. Why would we expect the total value of all extant copies of these two books to be the same?

 

By analogy, would we expect the total value of all Van Gogh and all Picasso paintings to be the same? The total value of all copies of the first edition of The Hobbit and all copies of the first edition of The Great Gatsby to be the same?

 

I may not be understanding your approach, though.

 

I agree it's a bit of a tenuous connection, but the idea is this:

 

The calculation clearly shows the Big 3 books have similar value/weight.

There is nothing in the database to favor those three books more than any other data...

but the results have the AF #15, AC #1, and DC #27 right at the top, at very similar numbers.

 

The next two also seem logical... first Hulk and first Wolverine.

 

The idea would be that the "invisible hand" of the market is reflecting the "collective importance" that collectors put on these books.

 

When you think about whether Incredible Hulk #181 (collectively) should be more "important" than Amazing Spider-Man #300 (collectively), I think most collectors would agree that Wolverine is more important than Venom.

 

The calculation also agrees, with Hulk #181 at a 10.1 index and ASM #300 at a 2.0 index.

 

But, if you think about the "origin of Marvel Comics" - Marvel Comics #1 (1939), which has the first Golden Age Human Torch and first Golden Age Sub-Mariner (or at least a very early one)... this is a book that is often cited in the Top Ten comics of all time. Should it have a "collective importance" higher than the first appearance of Venom?

 

I think so. Maybe others disagree... but it's hard to see how Venom "means more" than the first comic of the whole Marvel line.

Marvel Comics #1 has an index of 1.0, while ASM #300 has an index of 2.0.

For those reasons, I think Marvel Comics #1 is undervalued when it comes to the "invisible hand".

 

Likewise, we've got the first Silver Surfer, first Robin, and Golden Age first Green Lantern all below the first Venom.

Are those books undervalued? Or is it ASM #300 that's overvalued?

Or is everything exactly where it's supposed to be... with Venom above them?

 

The market is what it is... and the calculation is just reflecting what's happening in that market,

so perhaps Venom does belong so much higher on the list than Marvel Comics #1 and those other first appearances.

The market is essentially "voting" with its wallets and the calculation is just showing us what's happening beyond the "Big 3" and the unsurprising books that come next.

I'm basically asking what the surprises in the list mean... and whether the market will correct whatever we might say looks wrong.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

To really show the books coming to CGC often, it would be better to show:

IM55 = 1236

ASM 121 = 1451

This would give a better idea of the "flow" of keys into CGC.

the point of having the CGC growth is to indicate which raw books are still coming to CGC versus those raw books which might be "tapering off".

 

 

But the ratio doesn't actually tell you that. The raw difference IS the indicator of which books are still coming to CGC.

 

I would eliminate the ratio number entirely, as I disagree that it is useful, other than as an indicator of "what heated up from 5 years ago"

 

It also complicates comparisons between the different books.

[valiantman]

To really show the books coming to CGC often, it would be better to show:

IM55 = 1236

ASM 121 = 1451

This would give a better idea of the "flow" of keys into CGC.

the point of having the CGC growth is to indicate which raw books are still coming to CGC versus those raw books which might be "tapering off".

 

 

But the ratio doesn't actually tell you that. The raw difference IS the indicator of which books are still coming to CGC.

 

I would eliminate the ratio number entirely, as I disagree that it is useful, other than as an indicator of "what heated up from 5 years ago"

 

It also complicates comparisons between the different books.

 

More data is better, but my concern was the clutter.

I've removed the orange altogether, and provided the counts for new copies submitted since 2010 under each issue name.

 

The chart is taller, but also a little cleaner.

 

[Sqeggs]

If the "invisible hand of the market" only values an average copy of Marvel Comics #1 at about half of what it values an average copy of ASM #300 (considering price and CGC census counts), then a collector who disagrees with the "invisible hand" might consider an average copy of Marvel Comics #1 underpriced.

 

Interesting collection of data, but I'm not sure I understand your argument. Why would we expect that the market would drive the total value of each comic into equality? ASM 300 and Marvel 1 seem like very different beasts and, while both are collectible comics, buyers for them don't -- I don't think -- have much overlap. Why would we expect the total value of all extant copies of these two books to be the same?

 

By analogy, would we expect the total value of all Van Gogh and all Picasso paintings to be the same? The total value of all copies of the first edition of The Hobbit and all copies of the first edition of The Great Gatsby to be the same?

 

I may not be understanding your approach, though.

 

I agree it's a bit of a tenuous connection, but the idea is this:

 

The calculation clearly shows the Big 3 books have similar value/weight.

There is nothing in the database to favor those three books more than any other data...

but the results have the AF #15, AC #1, and DC #27 right at the top, at very similar numbers.

 

The next two also seem logical... first Hulk and first Wolverine.

 

The idea would be that the "invisible hand" of the market is reflecting the "collective importance" that collectors put on these books.

 

When you think about whether Incredible Hulk #181 (collectively) should be more "important" than Amazing Spider-Man #300 (collectively), I think most collectors would agree that Wolverine is more important than Venom.

 

The calculation also agrees, with Hulk #181 at a 10.1 index and ASM #300 at a 2.0 index.

 

But, if you think about the "origin of Marvel Comics" - Marvel Comics #1 (1939), which has the first Golden Age Human Torch and first Golden Age Sub-Mariner (or at least a very early one)... this is a book that is often cited in the Top Ten comics of all time. Should it have a "collective importance" higher than the first appearance of Venom?

 

I think so. Maybe others disagree... but it's hard to see how Venom "means more" than the first comic of the whole Marvel line.

Marvel Comics #1 has an index of 1.0, while ASM #300 has an index of 2.0.

For those reasons, I think Marvel Comics #1 is undervalued when it comes to the "invisible hand".

 

Likewise, we've got the first Silver Surfer, first Robin, and Golden Age first Green Lantern all below the first Venom.

Are those books undervalued? Or is it ASM #300 that's overvalued?

Or is everything exactly where it's supposed to be... with Venom above them?

 

The market is what it is... and the calculation is just reflecting what's happening in that market,

so perhaps Venom does belong so much higher on the list than Marvel Comics #1 and those other first appearances.

The market is essentially "voting" with its wallets and the calculation is just showing us what's happening beyond the "Big 3" and the unsurprising books that come next.

I'm basically asking what the surprises in the list mean... and whether the market will correct whatever we might say looks wrong.

 

While your results are interesting, I'm still not sure that the basic idea is meaningful. The market shows itself in prices realized on a copy by copy basis. Say the total amount -- which you don't actually calculate (I understand that doing so would be a mighty chore) -- indicates that $20,000,000 has been spent on Action 1s and $30,000,000 has been spent on Tec 27s. Those totals are just an artifact of the copy by copy auctions.

 

I can't think of any particular market mechanism that would drive the totals into or out of equality; hence, it's hard to see what conclusions we can draw from them regarding the relative popularity of Superman and Batman. A key problem with applying your method to those particular books is that the totals are driven by the availability of copies and by how recently the auctions were conducted. If, for instance, the Dentist were to auction his Church copy of Action 1, that one sale would have a large impact on the total value of Action 1s but can hardly be interpreted as indicating a surge in Superman's popularity relative to Batman's.

 

I think the application is even more tenuous when applied to ASM 300 and Marvel 1. It is interesting that the total value -- as you very roughly calculate it -- of all copies of ASM 300 is greater than the value of all copies of Marvel 1. But again, to interpret the results as indicating that Marvel 1 is somehow undervalued requires the (implicit) assumption that the market can be expected to eventually drive the total value of these two issues into equality. I can't think of any reason to expect that.

[valiantman]

But again, to interpret the results as indicating that Marvel 1 is somehow undervalued requires the (implicit) assumption that the market can be expected to eventually drive the total value of these two issues into equality. I can't think of any reason to expect that.

Not an expectation for equality... just a different ratio.

If Marvel Comics #1 should be closer to ASM #300's 2.0 index than its current 1.0, then Marvel Comics #1 is undervalued (or ASM #300 is overvalued).

 

I'm not saying that Marvel Comics #1 and ASM #300 should have equal index values.

That would be a coincidence.

 

It just-so-happens that AF #15, AC #1, DC #27 have very similar index values, and they are far ahead of the next books...

but it's generally understood that Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman are the Big 3 with the order being debatable.

There's no reason to believe any other comics will be able to catch them in this index calculation.

 

What I'm saying is that if ASM #300 isn't "twice as important" as Marvel Comics #1, then something's off in the market. Whether it should be ASM #300 with a 2.0 and Marvel Comics #1 with a 1.1 or a 1.9 or a 3.5... that's left to be seen.

But Marvel Comics #1 is currently a 1.0 index, while ASM #300 is a 2.0.

I'm not sure that's an accurate reflection of the "relative importance" of Marvel Comics #1.

 

Meanwhile the AF #15, AC #1, and DC #27 index values do appear to be a good reflection of "relative importance".

 

I'm also not surprised that Hulk #1 and Hulk #181 have very similar values, even if they are far below the Big 3.

What's surprising is that Venom is rating so much higher than Marvel Comics #1, Fantastic Four #48, All-American #16, Detective #38, etc.

 

Equality isn't what I'm expecting... just relative values that actually make sense.

[valiantman]

Found another book that qualifies...

 

Fantastic Four #5 has an index of 1.3, just above Amazing Spider-man #2 (index of 1.2). (thumbs u

 

(most recent) Chart updated.

[lou_fine]

More data is better, but my concern was the clutter.

I've removed the orange altogether, and provided the counts for new copies submitted since 2010 under each issue name.

 

The chart is taller, but also a little cleaner.

 

 

You've definitely put a lot of time and thought into this, with all of the data you've been able to compile. (thumbs u

 

Interesting to note the impact of the movies and TV shows with over 5.5K of new submissions for NM 98, over 1.2K of new submissions for Iron Man 55, over 1.6K of new submissions for Walking Dead #1, etc.

 

Rather surprised that More Fun 73 with the introduction of Aquaman, Green Arrow, and Speedy came in near the bottom of the list with only 8 new submissions over the previous 5 years. Especially since this appears to be the only GA book that has really been significantly affected by the movie and TV hype, as evident with prices on this book going for multiples over what they were selling for just last year.

 

Wonder if the recent explosion of sky high prices on this particular book will drag out more copies to be slabbed and sold.

[ComicConnoisseur]

But again, to interpret the results as indicating that Marvel 1 is somehow undervalued requires the (implicit) assumption that the market can be expected to eventually drive the total value of these two issues into equality. I can't think of any reason to expect that.

Not an expectation for equality... just a different ratio.

If Marvel Comics #1 should be closer to ASM #300's 2.0 index than its current 1.0, then Marvel Comics #1 is undervalued (or ASM #300 is overvalued).

 

I'm not saying that Marvel Comics #1 and ASM #300 should have equal index values.

That would be a coincidence.

 

It just-so-happens that AF #15, AC #1, DC #27 have very similar index values, and they are far ahead of the next books...

but it's generally understood that Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman are the Big 3 with the order being debatable.

There's no reason to believe any other comics will be able to catch them in this index calculation.

 

What I'm saying is that if ASM #300 isn't "twice as important" as Marvel Comics #1, then something's off in the market. Whether it should be ASM #300 with a 2.0 and Marvel Comics #1 with a 1.1 or a 1.9 or a 3.5... that's left to be seen.

But Marvel Comics #1 is currently a 1.0 index, while ASM #300 is a 2.0.

I'm not sure that's an accurate reflection of the "relative importance" of Marvel Comics #1.

 

Meanwhile the AF #15, AC #1, and DC #27 index values do appear to be a good reflection of "relative importance".

 

I'm also not surprised that Hulk #1 and Hulk #181 have very similar values, even if they are far below the Big 3.

What's surprising is that Venom is rating so much higher than Marvel Comics #1, Fantastic Four #48, All-American #16, Detective #38, etc.

 

Equality isn't what I'm expecting... just relative values that actually make sense.

What I found out over the years is that Venom is at least twice as popular with the younger generations than Fantastic Four is. I guarantee if they made a solo Venom movie it would beat the Fantastic Four movie at the box office.

Just trying to add why Venom`s first appearance seems to have more action compared to some of those other vintage comics.