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

[James J Johnson]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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....?

Shall we recap. I stated something to the effect that "at one time, SM 1 and IMSM 1 were pretty much on par with each other".

To which Cal stated, "you are wrong. They were never on par in the Overstreet".

Is Cal right? Were they, in fact, never on par in any copy of the Overstreet?

For me to be wrong, which seems to be very important for you to prove, even though the facts aren't with you, you would have to suspend belief that issues 16 through 21 of the Overstreet exist.

Edited June 15, 2018 by James J Johnson

[James J Johnson]

24 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Your data is flawed. You just said this:

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.

 

So $7.50 to $35 isn't about a 5 to 1 spread? And when Sub 1 was $8, a year before, IM 1 was $45, a very similar spread.

[sfcityduck]

6 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

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?

In the 1980s?  The answer is Bob Layton. 

At least in the early1980s we collected full runs of titles, not "key issues."  The reason folks were more interested in Iron Man 1 in the early 1980s was because they got sucked into the Iron Man title by the great art and stories of the Bob Layton run.  Like "Demon in a Bottle." 

No one in the 80s was motivated to go back and get SM 1because that title was cancelled in 1974, so no one was getting hooked in to seek the back issues. 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

Shall we recap. I stated something to the effect that "at one time, SM 1 and IMSM 1 were pretty much on par with each other".

To which Cal stated, "you are wrong. They were never on par in the Overstreet".

Is Cal right? Were they, in fact, never on par in any copy of the Overstreet?

Yes, let's do recap. Let's look at what you actually said on 5/24:

Quote

Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1. For awhile, was keeping pace with IM 1. Those days are long over.

(Emphasis added)

I'm going to assume that "IM" means "Iron Man." And Cal is quite correct on that point: that has never, ever been true. Not even remotely true. Since those books were published, Iron Man #1 has far outpaced IMSM #1. And in this original quote, there's no mention of Sub-Mariner #1. It's still there, on page 3, 5th post down.

Cal's response:

Quote

 

Not true.

Iron Man and Sub-Mariner NEVER was on par w/ Iron Man and Subby 1 - look the prices up in ANY older Overstreet guides.

 

The first sentence is absolutely correct.

Now, this second sentence is, admittedly, a bit unclear. Is Cal talking about Iron Man #1 and Sub-Mariner #1, or did he make a mistake and mistype "Iron Man and Sub-Mariner" when he actually only meant to type Iron Man? Don't know; he hasn't responded since then to clarify.

Your response to that, however, shows that confusion about what Cal was actually referring to:

Quote

These two books, IMSM 1 and Sub were on par, and remained on par for a number of years. Their pricing synonymous, until the Sub 1 started to pull away. So, either you didn't open the Overstreet, aren't as familiar with the Overstreet past prices as you thought you were, or don't understand "on par". Another term would be "keeping pace".

But you weren't referring to Sub-Mariner #1. And I suspect that neither was Cal. And, I'll add, were unnecessarily snarky in your reply.

And since "on par with" means "equal to", then, without thumbing through all of them, I'm willing to bet that Sub-Mariner #1 has never been "on par" with IMSM #1 since the OPG was first published. If we're being technical, after all. $7 does not equal $8. If we're being technical.

All of which has nothing to do with Cal's refutation of your original point, which was not even correct in spirit. Your original point, which Cal refuted, had nothing to do with Sub-Mariner #1, but rather Iron Man #1. Your responses morphed from IMSM #1 and IM #1 to IMSM and SM #1. Quite a difference!

Here is your quote that spurred me to get involved:

Quote

 

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

 

Except that Cal never said anything like that. Cal barely mentions Sub-Mariner, and if I was taking a guess, from the context of both your original quote and his response, he wasn't talking about Sub-Mariner #1 at all.

In other words: Cal's correction of you was 100% completely accurate. It is not true that IMSM #1 was "keeping pace" with IM #1. And instead of asking for clarification from Cal, you went in an entirely different direction with SM #1.

Quote

But not to worry, I'm here, and I'm going to work up a spreadsheet to show par and pacing of the IM 1, SM 1, and the IMSM 1 from the 70s to the present. The data might surprise you.

I would enjoy looking at such data. 

Quote

For me to be wrong, which seems to be very important for you to prove, even though the facts aren't with you, you would have to suspend belief that issues 16 through 21 of the Overstreet exist.

I have zero interest in "proving you wrong." What I AM interested in is that everyone be correct, since these boards are read by a lot of people who don't know much about comics, and can easily absorb wrong information which can lead them to make decisions that harm them. We all have an obligation to each other to be as accurate as we can be and not get offended if someone corrects us. This is especially true if you state that someone else's "data is faulty", when you, yourself, haven't dotted all your "i"s and crossed all your "t"s, and especially true if you're going to take a stand on "hard data."

This is also why preserving quote chains is important: it preserves the context of the conversation. It was one of the major benefits of the original board, and one of the bigger drawbacks of this one.

[1950's war comics]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

This is also why preserving quote chains is important: it preserves the context of the conversation. It was one of the major benefits of the original board, and one of the bigger drawbacks of this one.

solid points were made ... i owe you a like........ 

[RockMyAmadeus]

52 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Your data is flawed. You just said this:

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.

 

So $7.50 to $35 isn't about a 5 to 1 spread? And when Sub 1 was $8, a year before, IM 1 was $45, a very similar spread.

Removing quotes from their context makes discussions very difficult, because now it looks like I wrote something that doesn't make any sense...because there's a quote missing in there. And no, my point has nothing to do with the individual "spreads" of these issues; I was talking about accuracy.

To address this particular point, I'll have to ask you for clarity: when you say "Sub 1 was $8, a year before", which year are you referring to?

In point of fact, Iron Man #1 was one of the VERY few Silver Age Marvels that was fairly immune to the big mid 80s tank that took place.

1983 Sub-Mariner #1 - $10

1987 Sub-Mariner #1 - $8

That's a 20% loss over those four years.

1983 Iron Man #1 - $35

1987 Iron Man #1 - $48

1983 Amazing Fantasy #15 - $1200

1987 Amazing Fantasy #15 - $1200

Yeesh.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, James J Johnson said:

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?

Lots of reasons, and a big chunk is what sfcityduck said: Michelinie and Layton injected new life into Iron Man in the late 70s and early 80s.

Iron Man has always been, since it was published, the most important 1968 Marvel #1, followed closely by Silver Surfer #1. I say followed by SS #1 because, even though SS #1 was at times more valuable, he couldn't carry a series (and still can't, though the 1987 series was a great run.)

Sub-Mariner also has never been able to carry a series...it runs for 5 or 6 or 7 years, then putters out for another decade or so. 

But Iron Man was, despite his lack of a title, one of the original Marvel Silver Age heroes, the first wave, from Nov 1961 to April 1964. He's the foundation of the Avengers, and easily in the top 10 of all time Marvel creations. So even though they printed Iron Man #1 in the gazillions, it has, for 50 years, far surpassed either IMSM #1....the bridge issue...or Subby #1.

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes, let's do recap. Let's look at what you actually said on 5/24:

(Emphasis added)

I'm going to assume that "IM" means "Iron Man." And Cal is quite correct on that point: that has never, ever been true. Not even remotely true. Since those books were published, Iron Man #1 has far outpaced IMSM #1. And in this original quote, there's no mention of Sub-Mariner #1. It's still there, on page 3, 5th post down.

Cal's response:

The first sentence is absolutely correct.

Now, this second sentence is, admittedly, a bit unclear. Is Cal talking about Iron Man #1 and Sub-Mariner #1, or did he make a mistake and mistype "Iron Man and Sub-Mariner" when he actually only meant to type Iron Man? Don't know; he hasn't responded since then to clarify.

Your response to that, however, shows that confusion about what Cal was actually referring to:

But you weren't referring to Sub-Mariner #1. And I suspect that neither was Cal. And, I'll add, were unnecessarily snarky in your reply.

And since "on par with" means "equal to", then, without thumbing through all of them, I'm willing to bet that Sub-Mariner #1 has never been "on par" with IMSM #1 since the OPG was first published. If we're being technical, after all. $7 does not equal $8. If we're being technical.

All of which has nothing to do with Cal's refutation of your original point, which was not even correct in spirit. Your original point, which Cal refuted, had nothing to do with Sub-Mariner #1, but rather Iron Man #1. Your responses morphed from IMSM #1 and IM #1 to IMSM and SM #1. Quite a difference!

Here is your quote that spurred me to get involved:

Except that Cal never said anything like that. Cal barely mentions Sub-Mariner, and if I was taking a guess, from the context of both your original quote and his response, he wasn't talking about Sub-Mariner #1 at all.

In other words: Cal's correction of you was 100% completely accurate. It is not true that IMSM #1 was "keeping pace" with IM #1. And instead of asking for clarification from Cal, you went in an entirely different direction with SM #1.

I would enjoy looking at such data. 

I have zero interest in "proving you wrong." What I AM interested in is that everyone be correct, since these boards are read by a lot of people who don't know much about comics, and can easily absorb wrong information which can lead them to make decisions that harm them. We all have an obligation to each other to be as accurate as we can be and not get offended if someone corrects us. This is especially true if you state that someone else's "data is faulty", when you, yourself, haven't dotted all your "i"s and crossed all your "t"s, and especially true if you're going to take a stand on "hard data."

This is also why preserving quote chains is important: it preserves the context of the conversation. It was one of the major benefits of the original board, and one of the bigger drawbacks of this one.

$7 is different than $8? And that's what's bothering you?

So, if there's an established hierarchy of ratio, for instance, IMSM 1 is a $10 book and IM is a $60 book, and after many years, that ratio still hold true, that's not keeping pace? Even now, 35 years later the ratio is about 6 to 1, just about the same as in the early 80s. So one might say that they have kept pace, the ratio anyway. Of course the dollar value increases exponentially, what was $50 is now $5000, so a similarly graded IMSM 1 brings 800 to $1000. Although the IM had pulled way ahead dollar wise, that ratio is still on par at 6 to 1. Isn't that right? Or do you dispute this as well? I mean, for the sake of people reading the forum that you want to save from any and all of my inconsistencies, do you really want me to factor everything down to the .0000000000001 place? I can do that if you feel it necessary to be completely accurate since dead accuracy is what you're looking for from me.

For most, it would suffice to say: 35 years ago, IMSM 1 was worth between 1/5th to 1/8th the value of IM 1, and that's still true today. The old Overstreets bear this out as does GP Analysis. But if that 1/5th to 1/8th is too vague, I can factor it to 10 decimal places for you and any other perfectionists who may miss whatever point you're trying to make about how inaccurate and wrong I am, data be damned. Let me know, I'll get out the sliderule and work the decimal points to 10 places for you if you'd like.

Edited June 15, 2018 by James J Johnson

[James J Johnson]

41 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Lots of reasons, and a big chunk is what sfcityduck said: Michelinie and Layton injected new life into Iron Man in the late 70s and early 80s.

Iron Man has always been, since it was published, the most important 1968 Marvel #1, followed closely by Silver Surfer #1. I say followed by SS #1 because, even though SS #1 was at times more valuable, he couldn't carry a series (and still can't, though the 1987 series was a great run.)

Sub-Mariner also has never been able to carry a series...it runs for 5 or 6 or 7 years, then putters out for another decade or so. 

But Iron Man was, despite his lack of a title, one of the original Marvel Silver Age heroes, the first wave, from Nov 1961 to April 1964. He's the foundation of the Avengers, and easily in the top 10 of all time Marvel creations. So even though they printed Iron Man #1 in the gazillions, it has, for 50 years, far surpassed either IMSM #1....the bridge issue...or Subby #1.

You really have a vested interest in proving me wrong about prices! It's really, really important to you, isn't it!. I just realized how inconsiderate I've been to deprive you of victory, but you know what. Not that important to me whether  a book was $7 or $8, 35 years ago, to me it's the same thing, they're equal. So OK. You're right, I'm wrong, since it means that much to you, far be it from me to deprive you of being 100% when I'm 100% wrong. I'll take the next train, this one is all yours with my blessing. Not that important to me.

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

$7 is different than $8? And that's what's bothering you?

Nope. Not even close. Read it again.

Your quote:

Quote

Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1. For awhile, was keeping pace with IM 1. Those days are long over.

That's not true, and, as Cal pointed out, never has been true.

20 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

So, if there's an established hierarchy of ratio, for instance, IMSM 1 is a $10 book and IM is a $60 book, and after many years, that ratio still hold true, that's not keeping pace? Even now, 35 years later the ratio is about 6 to 1, just about the same as in the early 80s. So one might say that they have kept pace, the ratio anyway. Of course the dollar value increases exponentially, what was $50 is now $5000, so a similarly graded IMSM 1 brings 800 to $1000. Although the IM had pulled way ahead dollar wise, that ratio is still on par at 6 to 1. Isn't that right? Or do you dispute this as well? I mean, for the sake of people reading the forum that you want to save from any and all of my inconsistencies, do you really want me to factor everything down to the .0000000000001 place? I can do that if you feel it necessary to be completely accurate since dead accuracy is what you're looking for from me.

None of that is relevant. You're the only one talking about "ratios." When people use the phrase "keeping pace", they use it to mean that the prices for the books are the same, or very close to it. For example: the value for Amazing Spiderman #36 has kept pace with the value of Amazing Spiderman #37.

They don't mean their value has proportionately "kept pace", or they'd say that.

There is no meaning to the phrase "that ratio is still on par at 6 to 1." That is a confused sentence that contradicts itself. In other words "that ratio is still equal at 6 to 1."

Obviously, 6 does not equal 1. "On par," as you're attempting to use it here, does not mean "maintained the same proportions over time."

No need for the snark.

26 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

For most, it would suffice to say: 35 years ago, IMSM 1 was worth between 1/5th to 1/8th the value of IM 1, and that's still true today. The old Overstreets bear this out as does GP Analysis. But if that 1/5th to 1/8th is too vague, I can factor it to 10 decimal places for you and any other perfectionists who may miss whatever point you're trying to make about how inaccurate and wrong I am, data be damned. Let me know, I'll get out the sliderule and work the decimal points to 10 places for you if you'd like. 

Again, not relevant, in the slightest. You're getting lost in the weeds. You're attempting to make this discussion about ratios and proportions; it has nothing to do with any of that. Your quote, again:

Quote

Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1. For awhile, was keeping pace with IM 1. Those days are long over.

If you meant "proportionately kept pace", you could easily have said that in a followup, and I would probably agree with you, instead of going off in the Sub-Mariner #1 tangent. I suspect what really happened is that Cal caught you in a pretty serious flub, and all of this sturm und drang is cover. Hey, whatever floats...

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

You really have a vested interest in proving me wrong about prices! 

I already told you that's not true. This discussion isn't about prices, and never was. Read it again.

20 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

It's really, really important to you, isn't it!.

Nope....but it seems rather important to you.

20 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

I just realized how inconsiderate I've been to deprive you of victory, but you know what. Not that important to me whether  a book was $7 or $8, 35 years ago, to me it's the same thing, they're equal.

Not relevant. Merely a side point, as already explained, at length, above.

If you're going to get snarky with people...as you did with Cal....then you have to be above reproach yourself. That means data perfection. 

My suggestion...? Don't get snarky at all.

22 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

So OK. You're right, I'm wrong, since it means that much to you, far be it from me to deprive you of being 100% when I'm 100% wrong. I'll take the next train, this one is all yours with my blessing. Not that important to me.

It's quite obviously very, very important to you, and that's a shame, because pride is an angry mistress. Again, your quote:

Quote

Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1. For awhile, was keeping pace with IM 1. Those days are long over.

This is not true, as Cal pointed out. 

[James J Johnson]

50 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I already told you that's not true. This discussion isn't about prices, and never was. Read it again.

Nope....but it seems rather important to you.

Not relevant. Merely a side point, as already explained, at length, above.

If you're going to get snarky with people...as you did with Cal....then you have to be above reproach yourself. That means data perfection. 

My suggestion...? Don't get snarky at all.

It's quite obviously very, very important to you, and that's a shame, because pride is an angry mistress. Again, your quote:

This is not true, as Cal pointed out. 

You're the one still going on, and on, and on, and on, about how wrong I am and how right you are after I've already declared you the victory. Seems to me that it's far more important to you than it is to me. Seems like Mistress Pride has made you a poor winner.

Edited June 15, 2018 by James J Johnson

[James J Johnson]

55 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I already told you that's not true. This discussion isn't about prices, and never was. Read it again.

Nope....but it seems rather important to you.

Not relevant. Merely a side point, as already explained, at length, above.

If you're going to get snarky with people...as you did with Cal....then you have to be above reproach yourself. That means data perfection. 

My suggestion...? Don't get snarky at all.

It's quite obviously very, very important to you, and that's a shame, because pride is an angry mistress. Again, your quote:

This is not true, as Cal pointed out. 

Reproach?? About my stating that a $7 book and an $8 book were just about on par 35 years ago!!!!!!! I should be ashamed that I lumped them into the same category?  

Again, you are correct. There's a huge difference between $7 and $8 and I hope I didn't confuse any newbies reading this by misrepresenting a $7 book as worth $8 or vice versa. I can full understand your concern over that grievous miscalculation!

Edited June 15, 2018 by James J Johnson

[RockMyAmadeus]

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's Act 3, scene 2 of the Danish Play, I say!

[FlyingDonut]

On 5/26/2018 at 2:11 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

By the way...if anyone is ever wondering what might be "worth money" in the future, check out what was hot in the past.

Valiant, for example, has had a couple of minor resurgences over the years. Danger Girl, apparently, is going to be "hot" again. And, of course, all the Bronze keys that you couldn't give away in the 80s, became SCORCHING hot in the 90s, then couldn't give away again in the 00s, and now are, once again, hot, or poised to be.

Batman #426-429 have had their ups and downs, but they were worthless in the 90s...you could have bought all you wanted. I hemmed and hawed on a 20 book lot of Bats #428 on eBay....for $42...because it was over $2/per.

Silver Surfer (Thanos) was, of course, smoking hot in the 90s....now, guess what?

Turtles is a great example, too. Dead. Dead dead dead by the late 90's. Junk. #1 first prints selling for $100 or less, everything else $10 or less...now look.

Nobody's ever going to be able to pick "1st Squirrel Girl" and books like that. Granted. But, there are tons and tons of books that were, at one time, smoking hot...and could be again. People remember. 

Just saw this. Perhaps you could call it a Rule, perhaps one that talks about 25 years passing. Call it the Rule of 25, maybe? Something that has held forever? Hmmmmm.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, FlyingDonut said:

Just saw this. Perhaps you could call it a Rule, perhaps one that talks about 25 years passing. Call it the Rule of 25, maybe? Something that has held forever? Hmmmmm.

Pusher.

[FlyingDonut]

On 5/27/2018 at 7:37 PM, Aweandlorder said:

There is not one instance in comic book history of a book that performed as high, lasted as long, then crashed as bad as the above hypothetical 

But an interesting book to examine is TDKR. This book could sell as high as $100+ raw or as low as $20-50 in VF-NM

There were times (before 2014) when you could get it for 20 consistently, then times when you couldnt get it for less than 80-100

I cant see how you can lose buying this NOW for $20-30 as a future investment

Yes there is.

Just off the top of my head.

1. Fish Police 1
2. Elementals 1
3. Justice Machine Annual 1
4. Magnus Robot Fighter 12
5. Magnus Robot Fighter 0 with card
6. Harbinger 1
7. Superman 75
8. X-Factor 5
9. X-Factor 6
10. Witchblade 1

again, that's without thinking. Every single one of those books spiked and were selling for extremely high prices, and then dropped to being worthless before (in some cases) rebounding.

I have said this story before, but in 1992 I had a stack of Magnus 0s with card and was trading them for high grade Silver Age Marvels without price hesitation. That book is worthless now.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, FlyingDonut said:

 

I have said this story before, but in 1992 I had a stack of Magnus 0s with card and was trading them for high grade Silver Age Marvels without price hesitation. That book is worthless now.

You TAKE. THAT. BACK.

 

[FlyingDonut]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You TAKE. THAT. BACK.

 

Eff me! I do take that back! To the backstock, Robin!

(note, however, if you inflation adjust the dollars, the $100 Magnus in 1992 is now worth $180, whereas the $30 Magnus in 2018 would have cost you $17 in 1992, but still, $30 is more than $0).