MOST VALUABLE MODERN VARIANTS - THE RANKINGS 17 17

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 7/16/2018 at 10:28 AM, Jaydogrules said:

I don't need to prove anything to you.

You have never proved any of your accusations, ever, in the entire time you have been on this board.

So, not only do you not need to, you won't.

I'm making mention of that fact so that everyone knows where everyone else is coming from, and judges accordingly.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you're going to make a specific accusation like "There are three unique shills bidding in both auctions", then basic decency DEMANDS that you at least make an attempt to prove your accusations. People read this board and these comments do not occur in a vacuum. It isn't fair to a seller who might be behaving honorably to have people disrupt their listings by accusations like the above, without a single stitch of proof.

That IS auction manipulation, whether the accusers want to admit it or not.

I have seen multiple sales scuttled because people irresponsibly screamed "SHILL BIDDING!!!", but never bothered to actually explain why they thought that.

That is just as irresponsible and unethical as actual shill bidding itself.

Honor demands an attempt to prove an accusation which could have a real effect on the outcome of any listing.

...and I shouldn't even have to say this.

Edited July 20, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[ygogolak]

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you're going to make a specific accusation like "There are three unique shills bidding in both auctions", then basic decency DEMANDS that you at least make an attempt to prove your accusations. People read this board and these comments do not occur in a vacuum. It isn't fair to a seller who might be behaving honorably to have people disrupt their listings by accusations like the above, without a single stitch of proof.

That IS auction manipulation, whether the accusers want to admit it or not.

I have seen multiple sales scuttled because people irresponsibly screamed "SHILL BIDDING!!!", but never bothered to actually explain why they thought that.

That is just as irresponsible and unethical as actual shill bidding itself.

Honor demands an attempt to prove an accusation which could have a real effect on the outcome of any listing.

...and I shouldn't even have to say this.

Funny you just gloss right over my comment where I said eBay has proven shill bidding by removing an account.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, ygogolak said:

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you're going to make a specific accusation like "There are three unique shills bidding in both auctions", then basic decency DEMANDS that you at least make an attempt to prove your accusations. People read this board and these comments do not occur in a vacuum. It isn't fair to a seller who might be behaving honorably to have people disrupt their listings by accusations like the above, without a single stitch of proof.

That IS auction manipulation, whether the accusers want to admit it or not.

I have seen multiple sales scuttled because people irresponsibly screamed "SHILL BIDDING!!!", but never bothered to actually explain why they thought that.

That is just as irresponsible and unethical as actual shill bidding itself.

Honor demands an attempt to prove an accusation which could have a real effect on the outcome of any listing.

...and I shouldn't even have to say this.

Funny you just gloss right over my comment where I said eBay has proven shill bidding by removing an account.

1. I was replying to jaydogrules...not you.

2. You're going to have to work a little harder than merely saying "eBay has proven shill bidding by removing an account." Which account? How do you know? Can you make a case, or are you just speculating? And before you're tempted to do so, saying "look it up for yourself" is not making a case.

3. Provided you prove your claim, that's one...and the other two?

4. The implications you consistently make about other people's motives are inflammatory. Before you accuse people of "glossing over" anything, you might want to inquire before making such assumptions.

[ygogolak]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

1. I was replying to jaydogrules...not you.

2. You're going to have to work a little harder than merely saying "eBay has proven shill bidding by removing an account." Which account? How do you know? Can you make a case, or are you just speculating? And before you're tempted to do so, saying "look it up for yourself" is not making a case.

3. Provided you prove your claim, that's one...and the other two?

4. The implications you consistently make about other people's motives are inflammatory. Before you accuse people of "glossing over" anything, you might want to inquire before making such assumptions.

eBay removed the accounts of two bidders now. Another bidder with zero feedback appeared after the first account with zero feedback was banned. They had bid on all three of these auctions.

How would you ever prove shill bidding then?

I guess if someone came on here and said "I own one of those and will bid this one up". Then we would know it was shill bidding, right?

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

eBay removed the accounts of two bidders now. Another bidder with zero feedback appeared after the first account with zero feedback was banned. They had bid on all three of these auctions.

So you say. 

Can you make a case? Who are the "suspect accounts"? Who are the three that "jaydogrules" is referring to? Where's the link to the bidding history? Where's a screenshot of the suspect bidding history? What are the particulars of the suspect accounts? When eBay "removes accounts" they don't wipe all trace. Where is a screen shot of the cancelled bids?

And again...if you're tempted to say "look it up for yourself; I'm not going to do your work for you", then you've not even attempted to make your case, and you're not doing the work that is rightfully yours.

If you're going to accuse people of potentially illegal activity, which accusations are public, and could have a deleterious effect on the outcomes of these listings, make the case.

17 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

How would you ever prove shill bidding then?

I guess if someone came on here and said "I own one of those and will bid this one up". Then we would know it was shill bidding, right?

Proof of shill bidding...as I've said elsewhere...is very difficult, because you're getting into questions of motive, and you're acting on partial information.

To answer your last question: what does "owning one of these and will bid this one up" have to do with shill bidding? Again: "bidding things up" IS NOT shill bidding UNLESS the bidder has ZERO intention of actually purchasing the item if they win it. Merely bidding items up is not shill bidding. 

I "bid things up" all the time for items that I own multiple copies already. I have a perfect legal, ethical, and moral right to do so, provided I intend to buy the item if I end up being the winner. That's not shill bidding. 

I am not excusing or endorsing shill bidding in any way. I am saying, however, that the casual accusations of shill bidding...especially on active listings...has gotten far too cavalier here.

Edited July 20, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[ygogolak]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So you say. 

Can you make a case? Who are the "suspect accounts"? Who are the three that "jaydogrules" is referring to? Where's the link to the bidding history? Where's a screenshot of the suspect bidding history? What are the particulars of the suspect accounts? When eBay "removes accounts" they don't wipe all trace. Where is a screen shot of the cancelled bids?

And again...if you're tempted to say "look it up for yourself; I'm not going to do your work for you", then you've not even attempted to make your case, and you're not doing the work that is rightfully yours.

If you're going to accuse people of potentially illegal activity, which accusations are public, and could have a deleterious effect on the outcomes of these listings, make the case.

Proof of shill bidding...as I've said elsewhere...is very difficult, because you're getting into questions of motive, and you're acting on partial information.

To answer your last question: what does "owning one of these and will bid this one up" have to do with shill bidding? Again: "bidding things up" IS NOT shill bidding UNLESS the bidder has ZERO intention of actually purchasing the item if they win it. Merely bidding items up is not shill bidding. 

I "bid things up" all the time for items that I own multiple copies already. I have a perfect legal, ethical, and moral right to do so, provided I intend to buy the item if I end up being the winner. That's not shill bidding. 

I am not excusing or endorsing shill bidding in any way. I am saying, however, that the casual accusations of shill bidding...especially on active listings...has gotten far too cavalier here.

I've never seen someone go out of their way and waste so much time twisting things around to attempt to make a fictitious point. It's pretty amazing. What you are asking could never be proven because eBay would never admit to it publicly. Yet, they have their own definition and webpage for shill bidding.

Anyway, do this look legit to you? If it does, it furthers my case that you have no idea what shill bidding is.

 

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/10/2018 at 2:08 PM, Jaydogrules said:

#3- Batman #608 RRP (2002)-  Despite a blockbuster sale of a Jim Lee signed 9.8 copy for $5,500 on July 9 this modern age stalwart drops one spot this update.  The combination of it being Batman, a first appearance of a new character (on the cover),  Part One of a story line that put the Batman title back on top, deep within the run of a popular, long running title, 15 years old, ridiculously rare, and by the highly regarded Jim Lee, might make this the "perfect variant".  This is the "granddaddy" of the DC "RRP" line of books, and maybe even the age of modern variants as we know it to a certain extent.  With that recent 9.8 sale of $5,500 and 9.6's reaching nearly $3,000, and raw copies hitting $2100, even a 7.0 copy fetching $1,136, and copies seeming to have all but disappeared into personal collections, don't expect to get this one on the cheap ever again (when you can even find one).   

Ahem.

[FlyingDonut]

On 7/10/2018 at 2:08 PM, Jaydogrules said:

#2- Amazing Spider-Man #678 (2012)-  Moving all the way up to the #2 spot this go-round, this book has been on a bit of a tear lately, with multiple 9.6 copies pushing $3k, a signed 9.0 selling for $2,500, and a 9.8 selling for a whopping $6k on July 6, a new all time high, and the first 9.8 copy to sell publicly in two and a half years.  This now classic and oft-reprinted and homaged cover was a 1:50 variant when sales of ASM barely cracked 50,000, and features Mary Jane in mid-possession by the alien symbiote known as Venom. Its character mash-up and spoof elements made it an instant hit right out of the gate and it never looked back. So strong is the pull of this book that it raised to prominence (and value) of most, if not all of the other "Venom Variants" that were released outside of the ASM title that same month, which has led to a brand new batches of Venom variants released over the years, as well as Venomized villain covers.   The ASM 678 is why Venomized covers are a "thing", and the concept itself has now practically become a sub-genre unto itself.  Its "modern grail" status, and presence in the ASM run should keep it near the top of this list for a very long time. 

A CGC slabbed 9.6/white one of these was on the wall at the Frederick (MD) Con today for $2600. I came very close to pulling the trigger.

[Jaydogrules]

1 hour ago, FlyingDonut said:

A CGC slabbed 9.6/white one of these was on the wall at the Frederick (MD) Con today for $2600. I came very close to pulling the trigger.

 That's not a bad price for that.

-J.

[Spawn1709]

The Spawn 185 sketch at cgc 9.6 just sold for $10,000. 

[newshane]

On 7/23/2018 at 12:37 AM, Spawn1709 said:

The Spawn 185 sketch at cgc 9.6 just sold for $10,000. 

It appeared to be a legit sale after all the shill bids were cancelled.

Do we have a new number one now?

[Spawn1709]

5 hours ago, newshane said:

It appeared to be a legit sale after all the shill bids were cancelled.

Do we have a new number one now?

 

I think we might. And it's a Spawn!!!! And the sale wasn't even for a 9.8!!!!!!! 

Makes me wonder how much a 9.8 would sell for...

[Jaydogrules]

22 minutes ago, Spawn1709 said:

I think we might. And it's a Spawn!!!! And the sale wasn't even for a 9.8!!!!!!! 

Makes me wonder how much a 9.8 would sell for...

No.  It will take more than one sale, and without bidding activity like that to be #1, at least on this list (which I take great pains to keep as clean and tight as possible).  In fact, based on the sale result of $1400 of the raw copy that happened after that 9.6 copy, I would probably even move it down a notch on the list.  

-J.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Jaydogrules

[Spawn1709]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

No.  It will take more than one sale, and without bidding activity like that to be #1, at least on this list (which I take great pains to keep as clean and tight as possible).  In fact, based on the sale result of $1400 of the raw copy that happened after that 9.6 copy, I would probably even move it down a notch on the list.  

-J.

I don't think moving it down one would be the right call though...

[ygogolak]

15 hours ago, newshane said:

It appeared to be a legit sale after all the shill bids were cancelled.

Do we have a new number one now?

 

10 hours ago, Spawn1709 said:

I think we might. And it's a Spawn!!!! And the sale wasn't even for a 9.8!!!!!!! 

Makes me wonder how much a 9.8 would sell for...

The winning bidder never paid. I was contacted by the seller.

[ygogolak]

9 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

No.  It will take more than one sale, and without bidding activity like that to be #1, at least on this list (which I take great pains to keep as clean and tight as possible).  In fact, based on the sale result of $1400 of the raw copy that happened after that 9.6 copy, I would probably even move it down a notch on the list.  

-J.

But only one sale of ASM 667 makes it's the most valuable?

[newshane]

10 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

 I would probably even move it down a notch on the list.  

-J.

Well, it's your list, not mine.

I know you are going by public sales, but I am quite aware of the market value of the book since I've (privately) sold one lately for...well...more than any of the other books currently listed, with the exception of #1.

57 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

 

The winning bidder never paid. I was contacted by the seller.

That stinks! I was wondering. I was thinking of contacting the seller myself.

eBay is getting ridiculous. Tired of non-paying shills. What, exactly, is the thrill?

Edited August 11, 2018 by newshane

[ygogolak]

28 minutes ago, newshane said:

 

That stinks! I was wondering. I was thinking of contacting the seller myself.

eBay is getting ridiculous. Tired of non-paying shills. What, exactly, is the thrill?

I think it's usually people who own the book who are trying to drive that value up to increase the value of their book.

Hmm, where have I seen this recently? 

This was proven by some sleuths on this board with the Rick & Morty #1 variant when the shill bidder then listed their copy.

Edited August 11, 2018 by ygogolak

[Jaydogrules]

1 hour ago, ygogolak said:

But only one sale of ASM 667 makes it's the most valuable?

One?  Check GPA.

-J.