MOST VALUABLE MODERN VARIANTS - THE RANKINGS 17 17

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, valiantman said:

There's a significant "ummm, that shouldn't have happened" moment associated with the most recent 8 months, and serious questions have to be asked about the next 8 months, or the next 8 years, for that matter. 

And, if one goes back in this discussion, this "that shouldn't have happened" was forecast several years ago...it just took total madness to unhinge copies from hands. We can't know at what point that unhinging will happen...but we can know, based on statistical models of the past, that it had to, eventually.

[Jaydogrules]

11 minutes ago, valiantman said:

What has happened between February 2019 and October 2019 for ASM #667 Dell'Otto?   Because the CGC counts have jumped from 36 graded copies to 46 graded copies in just 8 months.  The prior 8 months (July 2018 to February 2019), the CGC census only increased by 1 copy.  There's a significant "ummm, that shouldn't have happened" moment associated with the most recent 8 months, and serious questions have to be asked about the next 8 months, or the next 8 years, for that matter.  Other key issues have been on the CGC census for 20 years, but this one has only been "a book to slab" for 6 years... and you're making the statement that 25% of all existing copies are already graded.  It has taken 20 years to get to 25% of the known number of TMNT #1 printed, the biggest book from the past 35 years. 

Even the Bloodshot #0 Platinum, which is a known major book for collectors of Valiant (and there are 50,000+ other (cheaper) Valiant books on the CGC census) for the past 15 years only has 24 copies graded.  It is believed that there are 300 copies of Bloodshot #0 Platinum, but after 15 years, the CGC census count is only 24.  After 6 years of slab-worthiness (or 8 years, max), the CGC census for ASM #667 Dell'Otto is at 46 copies.  After 8 years of grading for Bloodshot #0 Platinum, there were only 12 on the CGC census.  There would be 4 times as many ASM #667 Dell'Otto, just using the 8th year CGC census comparison... or there would only be 45 copies of Bloodshot #0 Platinum in existence, if ASM #667 Dell'Otto was only ~200 copies.  There can't be 300 Bloodshot #0 Platinum with 12 on the CGC census after 8 years and ~200 copies of ASM #667 Dell'Otto with 46 on the CGC census after 8 years.  

It is entirely possible that Diamond received only one case -AND- that another case (or two) stayed with Marvel, because 400+ is the only thing that makes sense for the number of copies in the CGC census. It also explains how 10 new copies were graded in the past 8 months when only 1 new copies was graded in the prior 8 months.  Nothing about the 2011 distribution changed, but 10 new copies suddenly graded in 8 months several years later statistically screams "there are more than the original distribution".

No, that is not "entirely possible" because the brokerage agreement with Diamond says that Diamond alone orders, receives, warehouses and distributes ALL of the copies ordered by Diamond and printed by Marvel.

And there were 8 copies of the 667 added to the census in 2019.  So what ?  There were years where only 2 or 3 copies were added.  The net result is still only about 5.5 copies being added per year, and this isn't accounting for the crack and resubs and sigs that I personally know account for at least 3 of those copies on the census now.  Compare that with other more relevant books like the wolvwrine 1 campbell, Saga 1 third print DRS, etc from the same time period, that actually do have reported/estimated print runs of 400-500, and literally HUNDREDS of copies on the census, and you quickly realize why your arguments hold no weight, even ignoring the Diamond solicit for the ASM 667 

-J.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[valiantman]

6 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

15 minutes ago, valiantman said:

What has happened between February 2019 and October 2019 for ASM #667 Dell'Otto?   Because the CGC counts have jumped from 36 graded copies to 46 graded copies in just 8 months.  The prior 8 months (July 2018 to February 2019), the CGC census only increased by 1 copy.  There's a significant "ummm, that shouldn't have happened" moment associated with the most recent 8 months, and serious questions have to be asked about the next 8 months, or the next 8 years, for that matter.  Other key issues have been on the CGC census for 20 years, but this one has only been "a book to slab" for 6 years... and you're making the statement that 25% of all existing copies are already graded.  It has taken 20 years to get to 25% of the known number of TMNT #1 printed, the biggest book from the past 35 years. 

Even the Bloodshot #0 Platinum, which is a known major book for collectors of Valiant (and there are 50,000+ other (cheaper) Valiant books on the CGC census) for the past 15 years only has 24 copies graded.  It is believed that there are 300 copies of Bloodshot #0 Platinum, but after 15 years, the CGC census count is only 24.  After 6 years of slab-worthiness (or 8 years, max), the CGC census for ASM #667 Dell'Otto is at 46 copies.  After 8 years of grading for Bloodshot #0 Platinum, there were only 12 on the CGC census.  There would be 4 times as many ASM #667 Dell'Otto, just using the 8th year CGC census comparison... or there would only be 45 copies of Bloodshot #0 Platinum in existence, if ASM #667 Dell'Otto was only ~200 copies.  There can't be 300 Bloodshot #0 Platinum with 12 on the CGC census after 8 years and ~200 copies of ASM #667 Dell'Otto with 46 on the CGC census after 8 years.  

It is entirely possible that Diamond received only one case -AND- that another case (or two) stayed with Marvel, because 400+ is the only thing that makes sense for the number of copies in the CGC census. It also explains how 10 new copies were graded in the past 8 months when only 1 new copies was graded in the prior 8 months.  Nothing about the 2011 distribution changed, but 10 new copies suddenly graded in 8 months several years later statistically screams "there are more than the original distribution".

No, that is not "entirely possible" because the brokerage agreement with Diamond says that Diamond alone orders, receives, warehouses and distributes ALL of the copies ordered by Diamond and printed by Marvel.

And there were 8 copies of the 667 added to the census in 2019.  So what ?  There were years where only 2 or 3 copies were added.  The net result is still only about 5.5 copies being added per year, and this isn't accounting for the crack and resubs and sigs that I personally know account for at least 3 of those copies on the census now.  Compare that with other more relevant books like the Bats 608RRP, Saga 1 third print DRS, etc, that actually do have reported/estimated print runs of 400-500, and you quickly realize why your arguments hold no weight, even ignoring the Diamond solicit for the ASM 667 

-J.

The publicly-available numbers are more impressive to me than your private source, particularly since the publicly-available numbers didn't start this topic to pimp these variants to the front page constantly for over 3 years.

Edited October 29, 2019 by valiantman

[Jaydogrules]

7 minutes ago, valiantman said:

The publicly-available numbers are more impressive to me than your private source, particularly since the publicly-available numbers didn't started this topic to pimp these variants to the front page constantly.

Yes I know, rare modern variants and the astronomical sums they sell for bother you.  I can hardly fathom why you would bother to come into the thread at all.  

And notice the last sentence in my last post lol... "even ignoring the Diamond solicit for the ASM 667".

I used the publicly available numbers.  And that's where I came up with the only 5.5 subs for the 667 per year, even after this year, which, incidentally, only raised the historical average by about 0.38.

The publicly available numbers that you are ignoring, however, are the census numbers of the other, actually comparable books from the same time period that blow up your arguments.  

-J.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[valiantman]

10 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

17 minutes ago, valiantman said:

The publicly-available numbers are more impressive to me than your private source, particularly since the publicly-available numbers didn't started this topic to pimp these variants to the front page constantly.

Yes I know, rare modern variants and the astronomical sums they sell for bother you.  I can hardly fathom why you would bother to come into the thread at all.  

And notice the last sentence in my last post lol... "even ignoring the Diamond solicit for the ASM 667".

I used the publicly available numbers.  And that's where I came up with the only 5.5 subs for the 667 per year, even after this year, which, incidentally, only raised the historical average by about 0.38.

The publicly available numbers that you are ignoring, however, are the census numbers of the other, actually comparable books from the same time period that blow up your arguments.  

-J.

Edited just now by Jaydogrules

As others have stated throughout the dozens of pages of this thread, you are a data cherry-picker and have cognitive bias.  I'll now create another graph using more than cherry-picked data points that you can ignore, but one which others will hopefully continue to reference until your Dunning-Kruger tendencies are lessened (though, it's clear, they'll never be eliminated).  Be back in a minute...

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, valiantman said:

As others have stated throughout the dozens of pages of this thread, you are a data cherry-picker and have cognitive bias.  I'll now create another graph using more than cherry-picked data points that you can ignore, but one which others will hopefully continue to reference until your Dunning-Kruger tendencies are lessened (though, it's clear, they'll never be eliminated).  Be back in a minute...

No ones has called me a "data cherry picker", that's just you.

You just don't like that the data doesn't support anything you've said.  We won't even get into Diamond invoice that actually states how many copies of the 667 there are lol.

So I will just hope that you would make a graph using the other books I mentioned, with 400-500 estimated print runs, from the same era as comparisons, instead of books from the '80s.

(Sheesh! Talk about cherry picking data)

-J.

[valiantman]

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

5 minutes ago, valiantman said:

As others have stated throughout the dozens of pages of this thread, you are a data cherry-picker and have cognitive bias.  I'll now create another graph using more than cherry-picked data points that you can ignore, but one which others will hopefully continue to reference until your Dunning-Kruger tendencies are lessened (though, it's clear, they'll never be eliminated).  Be back in a minute...

No ones has called me a "data cherry picker", that's just you.

You just don't like that the data doesn't support anything you've said.  We won't even get into Diamond invoice that actually states how many copies of the 667 there are lol.

So I will just hope that you would make a graph using the other books I mentioned, with 400-500 estimated print runs, from the same era as comparisons, instead of books from the '80s.

(Sheesh! Talk about cherry picking data)

-J.

I'm working on it. 

(You're going to love it.  Strike that.  Everyone else will.)  

[I like pie]

2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

No ones has called me a "data cherry picker", that's just you.

You are. Everyone knows it. Moving on....

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, valiantman said:

I'm working on it. 

(You're going to love it.  Strike that.  Everyone else will.)  

Ignoring the fact that you are attempting to disprove a fact that is already known, lol, I will indulge you in your folly for just a bit longer, and then go on about my day.

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

1 minute ago, I like pie said:

You are. Everyone knows it. Moving on....

Spare me dude.  Your incessant trolling is tiresome. 

-J.

[valiantman]

"CGC 9th Year" for ASM #667 Dell'Otto is still a giant "ummm, that shouldn't have happened" using the comparison books that you requested.

[Jaydogrules]

6 minutes ago, valiantman said:

"CGC 9th Year" for ASM #667 Dell'Otto is still a giant "ummm, that shouldn't have happened" using the comparison books that you requested.

This is interesting, and thank you for doing that, but I don't see the relevance.  

And why not use total copies submitted, rather than percentages? Is it because "8", is still an infinitesimal number of copies submitted IN A YEAR for a modern that has been selling for $700 in a slab since 2012?

(Another interesting book to look at is the walking dead 100 red foil Lucille book, with its announced 250 copy print run and over 130 copies submitted to CGC since 2012, over HALF of the print run submitted over the same time that the 667 has been out.)

-J.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[valiantman]

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

This is interesting, and thank you for doing that, but I don't see the relevance.  

And why not use total copies submitted, rather than percentages? Is it because "8", is still an infinitesimal number of copies submitted IN A YEAR for a modern that has been selling for $700 in a slab since 2012?

-J.

Because, as you stated, the books have different numbers of copies in existence.  Percentages being sent to CGC are comparable across books of different print runs, not number of copies.  If I have 6 blue marbles and you have 2 red marbles, the fact that something happens with 3 of my blue marbles doesn't mean anything when you only have 2 total red marbles in the first place.  50% of yours and 50% of mine would be comparable.

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, valiantman said:

Because, as you stated, the books have different numbers of copies in existence.  Percentages being sent to CGC are comparable across books of different print runs, not number of copies.  If I have 6 blue marbles and you have 2 red marbles, the fact that something happens with 3 of my blue marbles doesn't mean anything when you only have 2 total red marbles in the first place.  50% of yours and 50% of mine would be comparable.

Absolute numbers tell the tale better than percentages, just as historical averages are more instructive than one single year (that still saw a grand total of 8 submitted, which even you must admit, is a pittance).

-J.

[valiantman]

1 minute ago, Jaydogrules said:

Absolute numbers tell the tale better than percentages, just as historical averages are more instructive than one single year (that still saw a grand total of 8 submitted, which even you must admit, is a pittance).

-J.

It's 10 during 2019, so 10 out of 46 is much more than a pittance... it's extremely significant.  It's 22% of all graded copies suddenly appearing on the CGC census in the 9th year.  You can say "a pittance" all day, but 10 is also a pittance worth of kidney stones, unless they all happen to the same person in a single year, nine years after their first one. 

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, valiantman said:

It's 10 during 2019, so 10 out of 46 is much more than a pittance... it's extremely significant.  It's 22% of all graded copies suddenly appearing on the CGC census in the 9th year.  You can say "a pittance" all day, but 10 is also a pittance worth of kidney stones, unless they all happen to the same person in a single year, nine years after their first one. 

I had kidney stones once. God, they didn't half hurt.

[Jaydogrules]

10 minutes ago, valiantman said:

It's 10 during 2019, so 10 out of 46 is much more than a pittance... it's extremely significant.  It's 22% of all graded copies suddenly appearing on the CGC census in the 9th year.  You can say "a pittance" all day, but 10 is also a pittance worth of kidney stones, unless they all happen to the same person in a single year, nine years after their first one. 

Actually, it's 9, and two were resubs, not that it changes the substance of my point, and the fact that while other variants from the same time period have fully one third to HALF of their announced/estimated ~400-500 print runs in slabs, the 667 has only about 18% (an average sub rate of a measly 5.5 per year) and that's just assuming a print run of only 250, EVEN AFTER THIS YEAR lol.

-J. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Get Marwood & I]

3 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Actually, it's 9, and two were resubs, not that it changes the substance of my point, and the fact that while other variants from the same time period have fully one third to HALF of their announced/estimated ~400-500 print runs in slabs, the 667 has only about 18%, an average sub rate of a measly 5.5 per year, and that's just assuming a print run of only 250, EVEN AFTER THIS YEAR lol.

-J. 

I had ASM #667 once. Sold it for £500 thinking I was a genius. God, that didn't half hurt 

[valiantman]

18 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

This is interesting, and thank you for doing that, but I don't see the relevance.  

And why not use total copies submitted, rather than percentages? Is it because "8", is still an infinitesimal number of copies submitted IN A YEAR for a modern that has been selling for $700 in a slab since 2012?

(Another interesting book to look at is the walking dead 100 red foil Lucille book, with its announced 250 copy print run and over 130 copies submitted to CGC since 2012, over HALF of the print run submitted over the same time that the 667 has been out.)

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, Get Marwood & I said:

I had ASM #667 once. Sold it for £500 thinking I was a genius. God, that didn't half hurt 

Nice copy.  Looked minty too.  You still made a killing though on the sale, given the time period.  

-J.