Crazy Run up on price than crash and burn. And I mean BURN! 3 3

[James J Johnson]

43 minutes ago, NoMan said:

.I've got a raw IMSM around a 6.0. It's a cool cover, cool story.

It is. It's like the TOS issues except that IM and SM meet, they hit it off, then decide to adopt a baby, at that time, very risqué business for two men to do, and much later on that baby is finally revealed to be our own CGC forum illuminati, none other than Cal! 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by James J Johnson

[NoMan]

20 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

It is. It's like the TOS issues except that IM and SM meet, they hit it off, then decide to adopt a baby, at that time, very risqué business for two men to do, and much later on that baby is finally revealed to be our own CGC forum illuminati, none other than Cal! 

 

I collect what I like. That being said, I think IMSM is a WAY cooler book than IM 1 or SM1.

If I had the cash, seriously, I would be all over that IMSM 1 cover art that was (is?) for sale. 

[Ken Aldred]

1 hour ago, James J Johnson said:

It is. It's like the TOS issues except that IM and SM meet, they hit it off, then decide to adopt a baby, at that time, very risqué business for two men to do, and much later on that baby is finally revealed to be our own CGC forum illuminati, none other than Cal! 

I've never actually read this issue, and so this synopsis would've been better hidden away in a spoiler.

Almost like an early, relevance storyline rather than a predictable, Silver Age slugfest.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Ken Aldred

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, Ken Aldred said:

I've never actually read this issue, and so this synopsis would've been better hidden away in a spoiler.

Almost like an early, relevance storyline rather than a predictable, Silver Age slugfest.

Sorry for giving away the storyline! Mea culpa!

[Ken Aldred]

1 minute ago, James J Johnson said:

Sorry for giving away the storyline! Mea culpa!

Cool story, though. 

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, Ken Aldred said:

Cool story, though. 

it's still a compelling read. In particular, how IM and SM burst into tears of joy when they signed Cal's adoption papers! Very powerful.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

Nonetheless, Cal's data on the relative pricing of the three books in the historic succession of Overstreet past guides is faulty at best. Sub 1 and IMSM 1 are priced within a dollar or two of each other in successive Overstreets

Which ones...?

[James J Johnson]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Which ones...?

Start by looking in 16 and 17. Sub 1 is $8 and IMSM 1 is $7. They stay very close until at least 21. In the same issue, IM 1 is 45.  I'd say that $7 and $8 are fairly on par with each other, don't you think? $8 is obviously 15% or so more than $7.00, but prices $1.00 apart, I'd say that's "on par".

[James J Johnson]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Which ones...?

I only have a few Overstreets and years apart. But from what I saw in them over the long haul, IMSM 1 and SM 1 have pretty much kept pace, from the 80s at about a 1:1 disparity, fairly even, that gap widening to today's market, which is about  1: 2.5/3.  The spread between IMSM 1 and IM 1 has always been at least 6-8 to 1. And that's pretty much kept pace. Now the proportions are about 1: 3: 6-8, IMSM1/Sub 1/IM 1

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Start by looking in 16 and 17. Sub 1 is $8 and IMSM 1 is $7. They stay very close until at least 21. In the same issue, IM 1 is 45.  I'd say that $7 and $8 are fairly on par with each other, don't you think? $8 is obviously 15% or so more than $7.00, but prices $1.00 apart, I'd say that's "on par".

So, back when they were essentially worth "the minimum" for Silver Age Marvel #1s...? When they were, aside from the reprint titles, among the cheapest SA Marvel #1s? Nick Fury was $6. That's not much more expensive than Thor #337 ($6) and ASM #252 ($5)...? 

I get your point, and you're technically correct...but don't you think you're missing Cal's point, when you call his reasoning "faulty"...?

 

[James J Johnson]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

I get your point, and you're technically correct...but don't you think you're missing Cal's point, when you call his reasoning "faulty"...?

 

No. And here's why. The same proportions that existed 35 years ago, when the IMSM 1 was $7, the SM 1 was $8, and the IM 1 was $45, are pretty closely in effect today! The SM 1 has moved up slightly towards the middle of that spectrum between $7 and $45, but 35 years ago, the IMSM 1 was priced just about as it is today; at about 1/6th to 1/8th the price of an IM 1! The price ratio of IMSM 1 to IM 1 is unchanged in the past 35 years! They've pretty much kept pace.

Edited June 14, 2018 by James J Johnson

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, James J Johnson said:

No. And here's why. The same proportions that existed 35 years ago, when the IMSM 1 was $7, the SM 1 was $8, and the IM 1 was $45, are pretty closely in effect today! The SM 1 has moved up slightly towards the middle of that spectrum between $7 and $45, but 35 years ago, the IMSM 1 was priced just about as it is today; at about 1/6th to 1/8th the price of an IM 1! The price ration of IMSM 1 to IM 1 is unchanged in the past 35 years! They've pretty much kept pace.

IMSM #1 has always been "third" in a choice between Iron Man #1, Sub-Mariner #1, and IMSM #1. Cal's point is correct: IMSM has never been "as popular" as Iron Man (obviously) OR Sub-Mariner, even if the price guide didn't necessarily reflect that. The "proportions" aren't relevant to that point. 

[James J Johnson]

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

but don't you think you're missing Cal's point, when you call his reasoning "faulty"...?

The hard data transcends all points. If he's basing his assertions on the data, his assertions are faulty. If he's basing his data on his assertions, than his data is faulty.

[James J Johnson]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

IMSM #1 has always been "third" in a choice between Iron Man #1, Sub-Mariner #1, and IMSM #1.

And going by GP data from the last 10 years, there's no change there.

[James J Johnson]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 The "proportions" aren't relevant to that point. 

They're not? I would think that proportions based on market data are extremely relevant to any points comparing the market performance, thus popularity, of the three books against each other. Can you imagine the stock market if the lights go out and brokers start trading based on "feel" or points alone?

Edited June 15, 2018 by James J Johnson

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, James J Johnson said:

The hard data transcends all points. If he's basing his assertions on the data, his assertions are faulty. If he's basing his data on his assertions, than his data is faulty.

Your data is flawed. You just said this:

Quote

The same proportions that existed 35 years ago, when the IMSM 1 was $7, the SM 1 was $8, and the IM 1 was $45, are pretty closely in effect today!

But 35 years ago, in 1983, IMSM was $7.50, Sub-Mariner #1 was $10, and Iron Man #1 was $35. So the data doesn't fit your assertions.

Except that I don't take you literally when you say "35 years ago", because I understood what you were referring to. I understood the spirit of your point, even if you aren't technically correct.

Same with Cal.

You can't hold Cal to technical perfection if you're going to be loose yourself.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

They're not? I would think that proportions based on market data are extremely relevant to any points comparing the market performance, thus popularity, of the three books against each other. Can you imagine the stock market if the lights go out and brokers start trading based on "feel" or points alone?

I'll repeat what I already said, with emphasis added:

Quote

Cal's point is correct: IMSM has never been "as popular" as Iron Man (obviously) OR Sub-Mariner, even if the price guide didn't necessarily reflect that. The "proportions" aren't relevant to that point. 

...and that's especially true when the books are essentially in the basement in terms of value, which was true of both Submariner #1 AND IMSM #1 in the mid 80s.

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

I would think that proportions based on market data are extremely relevant to any points comparing the market performance, thus popularity, of the three books against each other.

One more thing...comparing proportions "based on market data" does not determine "the popularity" of anything except in the broadest of terms.

Harbinger #1 in CGC 9.8 sells for substantially more than New Mutants #98 CGC 9.8. Is Harbinger #1 in CGC 9.8 more popular than New Mutants #98? 

Obviously not. 

Proportions are useful, but they don't tell the whole story. 

IMSM #1 and Subby #1? There are about 15% more submissions for Subby #1 than IMSM #1, but Subby #1 destroys IMSM in 9.8...there are almost 5 times as many 9.8 Subby #1s as there are IMSM #1 in 9.8. As a result, IMSM #1 in 9.8 sells for quite a bit more than Subby #1. Does that mean IMSM is more popular...? Comparing those proportions....?

[sfcityduck]

2003 - The "pay copy" of Marvel Comics 1 sells to Jay Parino in private transaction for $350,000

2007 - The "pay copy" of Marvel Comics 1 sells for $204,999 on Heritage ("OUCH!")

2010 - The "pay copy" of Marvel Comics 1 sells for $227,050 on Heritage (A mere "ouch" when fees taken into account)

 

And then there's the Edgar Church copies of Flash Comics ...

Edited June 15, 2018 by sfcityduck

[James J Johnson]

13 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

...and that's especially true when the books are essentially in the basement in terms of value, which was true of both Submariner #1 AND IMSM #1 in the mid 80s.

These books were going on 20 years old already. They weren't "new hot issues". And although SM 1 and IMSM were in the basement, how do you account for IM not being in the basement with them?