MOST VALUABLE MODERN VARIANTS - THE RANKINGS 17 17

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, jsilverjanet said:

Is the black cat Campbell Spider-Man rare?

 

Which one?  Superior 20? Or ASM Presents Black Cat 1?

-J.

 

[divad]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

1 hour ago, jsilverjanet said:

Is the black cat Campbell Spider-Man rare?

 

Which one?  Superior 20? Or ASM Presents Black Cat 1?

-J.

 

None of them are "rare."

[Jaydogrules]

24 minutes ago, divad said:

None of them are "rare."

The ASM Presents has about half the amount of slabbed copies as the SSM 20 (~150 to 300+), and appears to be slightly less historically "available".

In comparison to other books on this list that gives the ASM presents an average "rarity".

My own personal litmus is, while also taking the census and closed GPA sales numbers into account, are there historically 3 or more of the book "available" for sale at any given time.  If it is less than 3, the book is probably pretty rare, either based on census population, availability, or both.  

-J.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[divad]

Scarce perhaps, but not rare.

[Foley]

8 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Essentially confirming yet again and once and for all what those in the know who have followed and investigated the book for years have speculated based on all prevailing indicators. 

-J.

Please provide an official transcript of this call.

Otherwise, forgive us if we don't take your word for it.

Thanks. 

(Insert reply about how I never contribute anything meaningful)

[RockMyAmadeus]

16 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Boy, is this going to ruin your day ...

I put in another call to Diamond and ran through several of these ASM item codes with a few of their reps.

The first three had no idea why there would be a "1" there for case pack quantity.

Then I got a hold of one of the main Marvel guys over there again, gave him a few of the item codes, including the ones for the 667 Dell'otto, and the 648 Campbell colour.

I had to ask my questions in a general way, because no, they do not and will not give out specific info about print runs (obviously).  So, after letting him look at both the 648 colour Campbell and the 667 Hans, I asked him to look at the 667 Dell'otto and I phrased my question like this:  "Generally speaking, what did it mean when Diamond coded the case pack quantity as '1'"?

First, he was curious as to why I was even asking about a 10 year old book.  I told him he was settling a dispute (not an untruth).

While he was muttering to himself under his breath, reading through the info of the 667 Dell'otto, I told him my (Chuck's) operating theory-  That there were not enough of the Dell'otto 667 ordered to fulfill an entire case pack for that issue.

He said, "let me look at the orders received for that issue", paused a moment, and then said that there were "just about 200 orders for that book" (less than the 225 per case pack for that issue, hence only a "1").

Then he went back to the 648 colour Campbell saying "let's test your theory on that one", and said there were "about 400" of that one ordered (more than the 130 per case pack for that issue, hence why the number per case pack populated, "130").

After looking at a couple more things he stated:

1)  Marvel does not determine how many books go per case pack, the printer does

2)  Diamond used to update(s) that number once they receive the order of books from the printer, and the book shipped.

3)  Diamond does not (always) do that anymore

4)  He was happy to settle the dispute (really nice guy, actually).

So in closing, YES, there were only a couple of hundred copies of the ASM 667 Dell'otto ordered, printed, and distributed, or, LESS than one case pack.

And.. as a bonus piece of info, only about 400 of the ASM 648 colour Campbell's printed and distributed.

Essentially confirming yet again and once and for all what those in the know who have followed and investigated the book for years have speculated based on all prevailing indicators. 

-J.

"Anonymous sources say...."

No matter how many times anonymous sources are "quoted" and given "weight", if the information cannot be independently verified, it doesn't have any value.

This is and has always been the distinguishing difference between one side and the other. It's never been "you say this, and I say this." It's always been "you say this, but what you say cannot be independently verified. It might be true, but many people with a lot of experience that overlaps say it's almost certainly not."

I have an inside source at one of the publishers, someone who is involved in and in charge of determining print runs for retailer incentives, store exclusives, and the like. He/she has given me information off the record about the print runs of various books that are in direct opposition to the official company statements on the matter. I have not quoted anything he/she has said to me because they were given off the record, and until and unless he/she is willing to go ON the record, that information is...like all the information contained above...just hearsay, and of very little value.

If you want to give your sources value, they need to be named so that the information they've given can be independently verified.

Also, you continue to make the same on-purpose "mistakes" that you've made throughout the discussion, arriving at "conclusions" that aren't actually supported by the arguments you make; namely that qualifying orders are equal to the quantity printed.

 

[jsilverjanet]

10 hours ago, divad said:

Scarce perhaps, but not rare.

Scare in the open market maybe but they are out there

I purchased these on eBay about 3 years ago. They were in a pile of books the seller had purchased from a flea market vendor on the east coast 

the seller had multiple copies of variants but these were the most valuable ones

Oddly enough they only had one copy of the regular cover 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/30/2019 at 8:37 AM, Jaydogrules said:

Yes you did create these accounts years ago, but it had nothing to do with me. It is your bizarre coping mechanism for dealing with the slightest hint of dissent when it comes to your OPINIONS.  You use at least three accounts regularly, that should be fairly obvious to even the most casual observer, and those don't even include your multiple abandoned one-off accounts that you use for some of your more openly vitruolic posts that you pretty clearly expect to get blocked (and often do).

-J.

 

On 10/30/2019 at 8:20 AM, Jaydogrules said:

Multiple board names with tens of thousands of posts among them has been more than enough for you, thanks.  

-J.

 

 

On 10/30/2019 at 7:13 AM, Jaydogrules said:

The guy with multiple sock puppet accounts that he uses to respond to himself and like his own posts in nearly every thread he participates in ? 

-J.

During the course of this latest discussion, you have accused multiple people of being "sock puppet" accounts of a single person...in this case, me. I would like to state, for the record, that I am not @Lazyboy, @darkstar, nor anybody else on this board, nor are they me. Nor have I ever had a "one-off" account, abandoned or otherwise. I don't think I need to state how insulting it is to accuse people of being the same person, simply because they have similar views on certain subjects. In the past, I would simply respond with the snark that is board currency, standard operating procedure (as evidenced by this thread), but the environment here has grown so selectively restrictive, I fear being "suspended" yet again for saying anything that anyone might possibly interpret as "crossing a line", so I will refrain.

Because of the ambiguity of the rules, I am only allowed to ask you this once, and if you refuse, there's nothing I can say further without, myself, being subject to sanction from moderation. So, I will use my one and only opportunity to ask you to please stop accusing people of being "sock puppets" of each other.

Perhaps @CCGmod2 or some other person from the moderation team can graciously come here and explain the mechanisms they have in place to prevent people from having multiple accounts here, and why those are not allowed.

[Jaydogrules]

34 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

"Anonymous sources say...."

No matter how many times anonymous sources are "quoted" and given "weight", if the information cannot be independently verified, it doesn't have any value.

This is and has always been the distinguishing difference between one side and the other. It's never been "you say this, and I say this." It's always been "you say this, but what you say cannot be independently verified. It might be true, but many people with a lot of experience that overlaps say it's almost certainly not."

I have an inside source at one of the publishers, someone who is involved in and in charge of determining print runs for retailer incentives, store exclusives, and the like. He/she has given me information off the record about the print runs of various books that are in direct opposition to the official company statements on the matter. I have not quoted anything he/she has said to me because they were given off the record, and until and unless he/she is willing to go ON the record, that information is...like all the information contained above...just hearsay, and of very little value.

If you want to give your sources value, they need to be named so that the information they've given can be independently verified.

Also, you continue to make the same on-purpose "mistakes" that you've made throughout the discussion, arriving at "conclusions" that aren't actually supported by the arguments you make; namely that qualifying orders are equal to the quantity printed.

 

You are free to do the legwork to "independently verify" for yourself.   I didn't cull sources and info for you, I did it to placate my own curiosity and only chose to share for anyone else who might be interested.  

 And the Diamond rep stated less than a standard case pack for that issue was ordered AND printed (Marvel has been printing "tight" to orders for years now, also his words from our earlier conversation, but he was "lying", right I get it ).

-J.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Jaydogrules]

6 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

Scare in the open market maybe but they are out there

I purchased these on eBay about 3 years ago. They were in a pile of books the seller had purchased from a flea market vendor on the east coast 

the seller had multiple copies of variants but these were the most valuable ones

Oddly enough they only had one copy of the regular cover 

Holy shhhhh...man, are those all still raw, or are they slabbed and sold?

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

43 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

You are free to do the legwork to "independently verify" for yourself.   I didn't cull sources and info for you, I did it to placate my own curiosity and only chose to share for anyone else who might be interested.  

 And the Diamond rep stated less than a standard case pack for that issue was ordered AND printed (Marvel has been printing "tight" to orders for years now, also his words from our earlier conversation, but he was "lying", right I get it ).

-J.

If your information (with sincerest apologies to @bababooey) is not independently verifiable, by naming the sources from whom you've obtained it, it doesn't have value. The anonymous "Diamond rep", not being either the publisher nor the printer, isn't in a position to have this information, and since they can't be "cross examined", so to speak, there's no way for anyone to verify what that anonymous person actually said...only what you report they said.

So, no, no one is free to independently verify it for themselves, because no one else knows who your source is to ask.

[Jaydogrules]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If your information (with sincerest apologies to @bababooey) is not independently verifiable, by naming the sources from whom you've obtained it, it doesn't have value. The anonymous "Diamond rep", not being either the publisher nor the printer, isn't in a position to have this information, and since they can't be "cross examined", so to speak, there's no way for anyone to verify what that anonymous person actually said...only what you report they said.

So, no, no one is free to independently verify it for themselves, because no one else knows who your source is to ask.

Maybe you missed my earlier post, but the "anonymous 'Diamond rep'" specifically stated that, due to its brokerage agreement with Marvel, Diamond places its orders directly with the printer and warehouses the entirety of the books' print runs, and as such, when he was graciously researching the various Diamond item numbers that I was giving him, he was seeing and reading the exact amount of orders and print number information from his computer screen. And you know darn well that this info is closely guarded and proprietary, so you know I cannot publicly name this person, especially since his name was given to me by a boardie here.  If you're not willing to put in your own leg work, and choose to ignore all of the other obvious public supporting indicators, that's your prerogative and not my problem.  

-J.

[newshane]

Why argue? 

All of these "rare" variants will be worthless in 3....2....1..............

 

 

[Shoomanfoo]

10 minutes ago, newshane said:

Why argue? 

All of these "rare" variants will be worthless in 3....2....1..............

 

 

Truth!

[Jaydogrules]

28 minutes ago, newshane said:

Why argue? 

All of these "rare" variants will be worthless in 3....2....1..............

 

 

The variants released between about 2009-2014 are mostly legit, and the Top Ten on this list in particularly are proven, enshrined modern classics.  New variants didn't really turn into a spec racket until 2015, which is pretty much also when the books on this list really started blowing up.  People looking for "the next" this or that.

Anything printed after that, I don't even have much faith in, particularly since Marvel opened up ratios to qualifying also based on retailer exclusive variants as well.  I didn't care for that move much, and it really did make it pretty much impossible to ballpark their numbers based on anything anymore.

Take, for example the ghost spider 1 Lee variant.  A 1:100, that is not even a year old yet, should, on paper have numbers on the census comparable to the Dell'otto 667 +20% give or take,  after one year, but instead has just under 200 copies already.   After just one year, as compared to the Dell'otto 667 with only ~45 after over eight years.  Now granted, the Dell'otto 667 is an outlier for more than one reason, but still, 200 copies of a 1:100 after 1 year vs 45 after 8 years is remarkable, and is an example why I personally haven't been paying big money for post-2014 variants.

-J.

[newshane]

It's okay...I drank the kool-aide for many years.  

 

[divad]

2 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

13 hours ago, divad said:

Scarce perhaps, but not rare.

Scare in the open market maybe but they are out there

I was being "gracious"

 

[divad]

35 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

the Top Ten on this list in particularly are proven, enshrined modern classics.

I'd rather a Basquiat . . . 

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, divad said:

I'd rather a Basquiat . . . 

-J.

[divad]

2 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

Oddly enough they only had one copy of the regular cover