Avenging Spiderman #9 0

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

But, there is value. Those books have no value if it were not for the previews. They would be in dollar bins otherwise. Don't you, as a collector want the comic with the name and character right on the cover? Again Hulk 180 / 181.

Hulk #180 and #181 also aren't relevant to this discussion. Hulk #180 isn't a preview of #181, in the sense that you're using it. 

The reason these previews have value now is because of the small, loud minority of people who are trying to drum up support...and, in many cases, spending their own money...to try and create demand for these books...and, obviously, that's going to create a measure of it. 

In 1996, the entire run of Marvel Age had no value, because no one considered them anything other than what they were: preview books.

In 2006, the entire run of Marvel Age still had no value, for the same reason.

However, it's true that a small but determined group of people can throw some pebbles into the sea and create some ripples. Getting those ripples to last is the trick.

[500Club]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The reason these previews have value now is because of the small, loud minority of people who are trying to drum up support...and, in many cases, spending their own money...to try and create demand for these books...and, obviously, that's going to create a measure of it. 

In 1996, the entire run of Marvel Age had no value, because no one considered them anything other than what they were: preview books.

In 2006, the entire run of Marvel Age still had no value, for the same reason.

However, it's true that a small but determined group of people can throw some pebbles into the sea and create some ripples. Getting those ripples to last is the trick.

Having an echo chamber helps.

Also, having a forum where you can outsize your opinion and views, also helps.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And anyone relying on CGC labels is doing themselves a disservice. That information is 1. not rigorously validated on a recurring basis, and 2. merely a courtesy by CGC, and not intended to be "the authority."

I fully understand that a certain amount of people...unknown and unknowable as to extent...use those labels as gospel.

That is a mistake.

[valiantman]

On 6/16/2018 at 12:55 PM, ygogolak said:

WOW

Value = supply / demand.

I hope you're joking.

Do the math, if supply was 1 copy and demand was every-person-on-Earth, you're saying value would be almost zero.

[500Club]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

On 6/16/2018 at 11:55 AM, ygogolak said:

WOW

Value = supply / demand.

I hope you're joking.

Do the math, if supply was 1 copy and demand was every-person-on-Earth, you're saying value would be almost zero.

• I don’t think he was posting it as an equation.  Switch out the slash for a +. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, 500Club said:

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

On 6/16/2018 at 10:55 AM, ygogolak said:

WOW

Value = supply / demand.

I hope you're joking.

Do the math, if supply was 1 copy and demand was every-person-on-Earth, you're saying value would be almost zero.

• I don’t think he was posting it as an equation.  Switch out the slash for a +. 

Which still doesn't make the original comment very clear. No one in this conversation was disputing that supply + demand = value. That's exactly the point. The logic...to go back to my original quote: "The value doesn't determine the first appearance...the first appearance determines the value."....is straightforward: the value of the book, WD #1...that is, the demand relative to the supply....is because it's the real first appearance of Rick Grimes and "the Walking Dead", as opposed to Capes #1, Agents #6, or even Previews magazine. The book is valuable precisely because there is a limited supply and a substantial amount of demand for it...which demand is driven nearly entirely by the fact that it's the real first appearance of (Kirkman and Moore's) "The Walking Dead." 

 

[valiantman]

8 hours ago, 500Club said:

• I don’t think he was posting it as an equation.  Switch out the slash for a +. 

It is an equation, if done correctly.

Value = Demand / Supply

The Value of an individual book is the Overall Demand divided by the Overall Supply.

 

So, yes, it is possible for some advertisement or preview to have an individual book value higher than a true first appearance, but it is not because the Overall Demand is higher for the advertisement. It is because Overall Demand is being split by a small Overall Supply, especially compared to the Overall Supply of a real, true, not-an-advertisement, first comic book appearance, the real thing.

 

Spawn is the perfect example.

 

Overall Demand for Spawn is so high that even a million copies of Overall Supply for Spawn #1 still have individual value.

Meanwhile, an advertisement like Malibu Sun #13 has a tiny Overall Demand, but an even tinier Overall Supply, and individual copies of Malibu Sun #13 have a higher individual value than Spawn #1.

 

That doesn't make Malibu Sun #13 the market's choice for first appearance of Spawn or even "best Spawn collectible" because the Overall Demand for Malibu Sun #13 is tiny compared to the Overall Demand for Spawn #1.

This is the same mistake that people who know nothing about stocks make all the time.  Stock A is trading for $50 and Stock B is trading for $5.  It looks like A is ten times "better" than B.  But that individual price doesn't tell you anything important about A or B, even if you know A is older than B.  You need to know that there are 10,000 shares of A and a million shares of B.  Use that knowledge with the individual stock price and you actually know something useful.

 

Advertisements, previews, coming soon publications are always A.  The real thing is B.

 

If there's a way to buy A for $2 and sell it for $50, then of course, do it. But don't be spouting nonsense about how A is more important than B because $50 is greater than $5. The overall market doesn't care about individual prices, just overall demand and the supply available to meet it.

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by valiantman

[ygogolak]

Supply / demand was meant to show a relationship (supply < demand, better?). There is no actual equation to determine value. It's a representation for why value is where it is.

[ygogolak]

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Which still doesn't make the original comment very clear. No one in this conversation was disputing that supply + demand = value. That's exactly the point. The logic...to go back to my original quote: "The value doesn't determine the first appearance...the first appearance determines the value."....is straightforward: the value of the book, WD #1...that is, the demand relative to the supply....is because it's the real first appearance of Rick Grimes and "the Walking Dead", as opposed to Capes #1, Agents #6, or even Previews magazine. The book is valuable precisely because there is a limited supply and a substantial amount of demand for it...which demand is driven nearly entirely by the fact that it's the real first appearance of (Kirkman and Moore's) "The Walking Dead." 

 

Ahhhh, nope, wrong again.

 

On 6/16/2018 at 1:24 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Says basic reason, common sense, and the entirety of the comic book collecting community, since the dawn of comic book fandom, because we know what the publishers' intentions were. 

Otherwise...Action Comics #12 would be called the first appearance of Batman, and not Detective Comics #27. Iron Fist #13 would be the first appearance of Sabretooth. And, if the cover of TTA #44, or X-Men #1, or Daredevil #4, or any of the other covers that Marvel previewed in their silver age books, then THOSE books would be the first appearances of Wasp, the X-Men, and the Purple Man, respectively. 

But they're not. Because comic book buyers...aka "the market"...has understood the intentions of the publishers, and even though many, many, MANY characters appeared in print PRIOR TO their first appearances, the market recognizes that those are merely previews....NOT actual appearances.

I didn't invent it...I merely repeat it. 

Nobody disagrees that there is a market for these things. Stating things with which no one disagrees does not a valid counterargument make.

 

No, now you're saying an advertisement with an image is the same as a preview story. It seems like you're off on this argument so you are just throwing out different scenarios that are not related in any way.

 

 

[ygogolak]

On 6/16/2018 at 1:57 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

The Overstreet Price Guide, GPA, eBay, the late, great Comics Buyers Guide, All In Color For A Dime, Tales From The Database,the Krause Standard Catalog of Comic Books, Comichron, etc etc etc.

The situation with Aliens is not relevant here. Why? Most importantly, even if, in some bizarre twist, DHP #24 came out BEFORE Aliens #1...and I don't believe that happened...the material in DHP #24 is UNIQUE to DHP #24. It is not an exact reproduction of pages destined to see print in another book.

Publisher intentions matter.

 

 

On 6/16/2018 at 1:59 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

"We" didn't.  Value doesn't determine a first appearance. A first appearance, on the other hand, determines value.

Nope, Scott Snyder said Metal #3 is the first Batman Who Laughs. Market is paying more for Teen Titans #12 and CGC has labeled it as such. Contrary to what the creator has said.

But, but, right above here I have a quote saying the publisher intentions matter.....

[RockMyAmadeus]

12 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Which still doesn't make the original comment very clear. No one in this conversation was disputing that supply + demand = value. That's exactly the point. The logic...to go back to my original quote: "The value doesn't determine the first appearance...the first appearance determines the value."....is straightforward: the value of the book, WD #1...that is, the demand relative to the supply....is because it's the real first appearance of Rick Grimes and "the Walking Dead", as opposed to Capes #1, Agents #6, or even Previews magazine. The book is valuable precisely because there is a limited supply and a substantial amount of demand for it...which demand is driven nearly entirely by the fact that it's the real first appearance of (Kirkman and Moore's) "The Walking Dead." 

 

Ahhhh, nope, wrong again.

That is, of course, a contravention of both the facts and the intentions of the creators and the publisher.

"Previews", by their very nature, are advertisements. They are not intended to be....and we know this from the creators and the publisher...actual representations of the material they are advertising.

You may dispute this...and good luck trying to convince people otherwise...but that doesn't change the facts of the situation. An appearance in "Previews magazine" or in preview form in another comic book does not, and never has, constituted an appearance, either by definition or by custom.

38 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

On 6/16/2018 at 10:24 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Says basic reason, common sense, and the entirety of the comic book collecting community, since the dawn of comic book fandom, because we know what the publishers' intentions were. 

Otherwise...Action Comics #12 would be called the first appearance of Batman, and not Detective Comics #27. Iron Fist #13 would be the first appearance of Sabretooth. And, if the cover of TTA #44, or X-Men #1, or Daredevil #4, or any of the other covers that Marvel previewed in their silver age books, then THOSE books would be the first appearances of Wasp, the X-Men, and the Purple Man, respectively. 

But they're not. Because comic book buyers...aka "the market"...has understood the intentions of the publishers, and even though many, many, MANY characters appeared in print PRIOR TO their first appearances, the market recognizes that those are merely previews....NOT actual appearances.

I didn't invent it...I merely repeat it. 

Nobody disagrees that there is a market for these things. Stating things with which no one disagrees does not a valid counterargument make.

 

No, now you're saying an advertisement with an image is the same as a preview story. It seems like you're off on this argument so you are just throwing out different scenarios that are not related in any way.

That is incorrect. You are misinterpreting/misunderstanding the point. YOUR argument is that an appearance in a "preview" is the ACTUAL "first appearance" of comic book characters, despite the intentions of the creators and publishers. Extending YOUR argument out, then any appearance in print prior to the intended "first appearance" is, therefore, the "actual first appearance."

Therefore...if Daredevil #13 has a house ad for Fantastic Four #45, clearly showing the Inhumans on the cover....published prior to the actual appearance of the Inhumans in FF #45...then Daredevil #13 (and any other Marvel publication showing the cover of Inhumans #45) is the "real" first appearance of the Inhumans.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

That's according to YOUR argument. You can't make a distinction between a preview that is ONE page (in this case, the cover) and a preview that is SEVERAL pages (4-5 or whatever length the preview is.) It is either all "appearances", or none of it is.

I really can't believe there's argument about this, but....I guess that's the comic book world for you. You sure you're not just having fun, here...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

On 6/16/2018 at 10:59 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

"We" didn't.  Value doesn't determine a first appearance. A first appearance, on the other hand, determines value.

Nope, Scott Snyder said Metal #3 is the first Batman Who Laughs. Market is paying more for Teen Titans #12 and CGC has labeled it as such. Contrary to what the creator has said.

But, but, right above here I have a quote saying the publisher intentions matter.....

You're practicing sophistry.

This argument isn't about unsettled issues like the above "Batman Who Laughs" situation. Obviously, that needs to be sorted out by the market. 

You cannot pluck isolated examples that are exceptions to the rule and claim you've made your point. 

And when I say "publisher intentions matter", it doesn't mean "determining what is an actual first appearance when there's a question/conflict."

The publisher of Walking Dead #1...Image...and its creators...Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore...call Capes #1 and Agents #6 previews. Their intentions do not conflict. There is no question, according to their representations, about what the first appearance of Rick Grimes and The Walking Dead is.

Again....no idea why this is even an argument.

Are you "shrewbeer" on Voldemort's board...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I feel like this is an episode of Punk'd.

Ashton, is that you....?

[ygogolak]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That is, of course, a contravention of both the facts and the intentions of the creators and the publisher.

"Previews", by their very nature, are advertisements. They are not intended to be....and we know this from the creators and the publisher...actual representations of the material they are advertising.

You may dispute this...and good luck trying to convince people otherwise...but that doesn't change the facts of the situation. An appearance in "Previews magazine" or in preview form in another comic book does not, and never has, constituted an appearance, either by definition or by custom.

That is incorrect. You are misinterpreting/misunderstanding the point. YOUR argument is that an appearance in a "preview" is the ACTUAL "first appearance" of comic book characters, despite the intentions of the creators and publishers. Extending YOUR argument out, then any appearance in print prior to the intended "first appearance" is, therefore, the "actual first appearance."

Therefore...if Daredevil #13 has a house ad for Fantastic Four #45, clearly showing the Inhumans on the cover....published prior to the actual appearance of the Inhumans in FF #45...then Daredevil #13 (and any other Marvel publication showing the cover of Inhumans #45) is the "real" first appearance of the Inhumans.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

That's according to YOUR argument. You can't make a distinction between a preview that is ONE page (in this case, the cover) and a preview that is SEVERAL pages (4-5 or whatever length the preview is.) It is either all "appearances", or none of it is.

I really can't believe there's argument about this, but....I guess that's the comic book world for you. You sure you're not just having fun, here...?

Nope, mixing things all around as usual. Does the character not appear in the preview, in a story?

How do we know this from creators and publishers? They just want to sell comics. They don't care who says what is a first appearance.

[ygogolak]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

I feel like this is an episode of Punk'd.

Ashton, is that you....?

Found him!

 

[ygogolak]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're practicing sophistry.

This argument isn't about unsettled issues like the above "Batman Who Laughs" situation. Obviously, that needs to be sorted out by the market. 

You cannot pluck isolated examples that are exceptions to the rule and claim you've made your point. 

And when I say "publisher intentions matter", it doesn't mean "determining what is an actual first appearance when there's a question/conflict."

The publisher of Walking Dead #1...Image...and its creators...Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore...call Capes #1 and Agents #6 previews. Their intentions do not conflict. There is no question, according to their representations, about what the first appearance of Rick Grimes and The Walking Dead is.

Again....no idea why this is even an argument.

Are you "shrewbeer" on Voldemort's board...?

Oh, well, I will get started on putting a list together to meet your requirements. See you in 2025.

I don't post on the other board. It's the most unorganized forum I've ever witnessed. I think a GeoCities board would be better.

Edited June 18, 2018 by ygogolak

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, ygogolak said:

Nope, mixing things all around as usual. Does the character not appear in the preview, in a story?

How do we know this from creators and publishers? They just want to sell comics. They don't care who says what is a first appearance.

You're either practicing sophistry, or you have a compulsive need, a la Sheldon Cooper, to be completely literal, incapable of understanding metaphor, which would explain why you consider previews to be first appearances. I don't know that further discussion will prove fruitful for anyone reading.

[ygogolak]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're either practicing sophistry, or you have a compulsive need, a la Sheldon Cooper, to be completely literal, incapable of understanding metaphor, which would explain why you consider previews to be first appearances. I don't know that further discussion will prove fruitful for anyone reading.

 

8 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Nope, mixing things all around as usual. Does the character not appear in the preview, in a story?

How do we know this from creators and publishers? They just want to sell comics. They don't care who says what is a first appearance.

[ygogolak]

I have already mentioned this one (yet it was ignored because the market has spoken).
All-New Marvel Now! Point One

1st full appearance of the, new Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan).

[ygogolak]

On 6/16/2018 at 1:59 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

"We" didn't.  Value doesn't determine a first appearance. A first appearance, on the other hand, determines value.

Oh, and I think everyone on these boards and at every convention would agree on these first appearances (that have zero appearance in the actual pages between the book). After all, these are the most valuable, therefore the first appearance.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by ygogolak