Do you ever think about comics at the atomic level? 0

[01TheDude]

as an experiment, you could take a 9.0 graded copy, remove it from its slab, place it in some sort of vacuum chamber that also shreds the book into a billion pieces. The atoms should be identical-- so the price should also be the same, in theory.

[Ken Aldred]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

No sub-atomic discussion is allowed in this topic.  What are we?  Nerds? 

As a science nerd, I approve of this thread.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Ken Aldred

[valiantman]

17 minutes ago, 01TheDude said:

as an experiment, you could take a 9.0 graded copy, remove it from its slab, place it in some sort of vacuum chamber that also shreds the book into a billion pieces. The atoms should be identical-- so the price should also be the same, in theory.

I already did that. It was inconclusive, so I figured I would just get opinions from people on the internet.

[Ken Aldred]

1 hour ago, The Lions Den said:

I'm convinced that perfection is in the eye of the beholder... 

There is variability.

Being highly obsessive-compulsive I'm going to be far more stringent than is typical.

[The Lions Den]

21 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

There is variability.

Being highly obsessive-compulsive I'm going to be far more stringent than is typical.

This seems to be a common trait among ephemera enthusiasts...

[Ken Aldred]

Staining, soiling, water damage or discolouration would add atoms to the 6.0 .

Additional levels of rusting or foxing will significantly change the molecular composition of the 6.0 relative to the 9.0 .

Extra colour-breaking creases on the cover will remove large numbers of ink atoms.

Chipping, or other pieces lost, remove large numbers of atoms from the 6.0 .

A pencilled or stamped date on the book adds a large number of atoms, which could boost either a 9.0 or 6.0's total.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Ken Aldred

[The Lions Den]

5 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

A pencilled or stamped date on the book adds a large number of atoms, which could boost either a 9.0 or 6.0's total.

This could explain my affinity for books with those particular imperfections...

Edited August 24, 2018 by The Lions Den

[Readcomix]

This raises a tremendous analytical opportunity for our analytically skilled insomniac OP! 

Presumably, the multiples in value as one goes up the grading scale for the same important (or non-important) book roughly corresponds with the scarcity in grade. However, I wonder if the percentage differences in price between grades correspond with the extant percentage of copies of said book at each given grade? 

This analysis might support the idea of uber-high pricing for high grade copies of some books, and refute it for others. 

Of course, one could easily argue that there are unknowns as the CGC census represents only a portion of copies in existence, as not all copies of a book are slabbed. Of course, one could argue that you are buying from within the slabbed universe, and we know what the percentage of a given grade of said slabbed book is within the slabbed universe.

Of course, more books could be added at any grade at any time as raw books become slabbed, but this is within limit as there are not infinite copies of any comic in existence. We just don't know how many copies exist at each grade to be submitted to affect the percentages.

Potentially, applying this logic could drive up prices for low grade copies of popular keys that exist on the census in much greater quantities at high grade than low, such as NM98 or Captain Canuck #1. Shouldn't those books be worth much more in low grade than high, since they exist in lower quantity in low grade? As low grade copies eclipse high grade copies on the census, they should therefore eclipse the more common high grade books in price.

Of course, this may even out over time as this increases the incentive to submit low grade copies, as they are perceived as scarcer and more valuable. But as long as there are fewer low grade than high grade copies of a book (say NM98) then the logic should hold and the low grade copies should be worth multiples of the common high grade ones.

Of course, this will lead to people artificially degrading some common, raw high grade copies to "create" more valuable low grade copies. This will require a new label color  and expertise at identifying artificially degraded books and distinguishing them from those naturally degraded in the wild.

Due to the era of bagging and boarding multiple unread copies of books, naturally occurring low grade copies will be quite scarce and therefore worth more than their artificially degraded counterparts.

Now what color should the label be?

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Readcomix
Autocorrect-induced typo

[01TheDude]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

1 hour ago, 01TheDude said:

as an experiment, you could take a 9.0 graded copy, remove it from its slab, place it in some sort of vacuum chamber that also shreds the book into a billion pieces. The atoms should be identical-- so the price should also be the same, in theory.

I already did that. It was inconclusive, so I figured I would just get opinions from people on the internet.

even a little shredding seems to show the point I was making....

[James J Johnson]

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

No sub-atomic discussion is allowed in this topic.  What are we?  Nerds? 

 

 

As far as sub-atomic discourse is concerned, the discussion of quantum mechanics as pertaining to comics should not only be tolerated but encouraged not only on this forum but everywhere. Are we not tolerantly diverse?  

Edited August 24, 2018 by James J Johnson

[Ken Aldred]

59 minutes ago, Readcomix said:

Shouldn't those books be worth much more in low grade than high, since they exist in lower quantity in low grade?

And, if they're heavily stained, water damaged, scrawled with writing, then that will add a large number of atoms to the book, which surely represents better value for money, atom-wise, and a current undervaluation.

[01TheDude]

28 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

And, if they're heavily stained, water damaged, scrawled with writing, then that will add a large number of atoms to the book, which surely represents better value for money, atom-wise, and a current undervaluation.

you want me to break something else?

[sfcityduck]

4 hours ago, valiantman said:

Off-white to white isn't bad either.

Unfortunately, this book is at least 5 times worse than a CGC 9.2.  Don't believe me? It has to be 5 times worse... check the prices!

Or 5x more plentiful.  Actually, checking the census, a 7.0 (12 copies) is 6x more plentiful than a 9.2 (2 copies), and that's ignoring the 49 books sitting at grades between 7.0 and 9.2.

Having said that, the beauty of your 7.0 is precisely why I am inclined to sell a 9.4 or 9.6 top of census book to downgrade to almost equally good looking book in the 8.0 to 9.0 range for a fraction of the price.

[kav]

5 hours ago, valiantman said:

Basically 20 years into CGC slabbing and now 80 years since Action Comics #1 debuted, we've seen a market that has decided that a CGC 9.0 comic is worth multiples of the CGC 6.0 price, even though 6 is 67% of 9 on the grading scale.  Try buying a CGC 9.0 for $900 when the CGC 6.0 regularly sells for $600.  Not going to happen.  If the CGC 6.0 is $600, you can be pretty sure that the CGC 9.0 is $1,200 or more.  So, the first natural instinct (especially if you're talking to a non-collector), that a CGC 6.0 is 67% of a CGC 9.0 is out the window when it comes to price.

Maybe we've gotten accustomed to the idea that higher grades are worth multiples of the mid-grade even though they're not "multiples better" in terms of the grading scale.  Does the CGC 6.0 have 67% of the CGC 9.0 page count?  No. It has 100% of the pages.  Does the CGC 6.0 have 67% of the front cover?  No, it has 100% of the front cover.  Does the CGC 6.0 have 67% of the ink?  No, it has 100% of the ink.  So, not only is a CGC 9.0 not multples of a CGC 6.0 in basic math, a CGC 6.0 and a CGC 9.0 are essentially identical in terms of page count, cover, ink... what's the difference?

So... do you ever think about comics at the atomic level? 

What is the difference between a CGC 6.0 and a CGC 9.0 when you ask how many atoms-in-common the two books would have?  Assuming the CGC 6.0 has a few more lines of wear and maybe a rounded corner at the spine, it's probably true that the CGC 9.0 has 0.00001% more of the original atoms than the CGC 6.0.

That 0.00001% difference is the reason we pay mutiples for the CGC 9.0.  It has to be.  Otherwise, what are we even paying for? 

Since adding anything to a book is restoration, even a single atom falling on a book makes it a PLOD sorry.

[jools&jim]

There is nothing logical, sensible, or scientific about paying a premium (= more than the original cover price) for antiquated, deteriorating children's pamphlets from 40-80+ years ago which ~ 99.9% of the people on this planet do not, and will not ever, need, want, or give a damn about. 

But we still do it anyway, for a variety of silly reasons, many of them gloriously irrational.

So what?  It's fun. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by jools&jim

[Senormac]

What if you went on this ride with your comic in hand ?  Then you would know the answer  

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Senormac

[justafan]

only when trying to submit cgc 9.9 or 10.0s.

as to why a cgc 9.x is so many multiples of a 6.x copy? because 2 or more rich guys really wanted it during each heritage or ebay auction. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by justafan
grammar

[James J Johnson]

3 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

And, if they're heavily stained, water damaged, scrawled with writing, then that will add a large number of atoms to the book, which surely represents better value for money, atom-wise, and a current undervaluation.

Especially the FF 48 with the blue Bic stripes in the logo! It's already of great value because of an unusually heavy accumulation of wear, typical of the ultra-desirable 2.5 grade range, but with the addition of those pen stripes, that should make it incalculably rare, valuable, and potentially a new record setter for that issue!. 

[Ken Aldred]

3 hours ago, kav said:

Since adding anything to a book is restoration, even a single atom falling on a book makes it a PLOD sorry.

Yup.  Reminds me of a tiny comic shop I’ve mentioned here before, whose owner had his faithful but constantly-farting dog with him.  I imagined the molecules suspended in its noxious emissions binding with the surfaces of the treasured pamphlets, marking them forever.  As stated earlier, I’m OCD.

I did return one more time, but the dog was doing the same, and I left its cloud of destruction without having bought even a single PLOD candidate.

For all I know, CGC could have a black light detection test for this.

[valiantman]

14 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

Staining, soiling, water damage or discolouration would add atoms to the 6.0 .

Additional levels of rusting or foxing will significantly change the molecular composition of the 6.0 relative to the 9.0 .

Extra colour-breaking creases on the cover will remove large numbers of ink atoms.

Chipping, or other pieces lost, remove large numbers of atoms from the 6.0 .

A pencilled or stamped date on the book adds a large number of atoms, which could boost either a 9.0 or 6.0's total.

Define "significantly" because I already allowed for 0.00001% difference.