• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Previews vs. First Appearance - Introducing RULE 31.
1 1

101 posts in this topic

16 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Agreed, there won't ever be any concrete formulas that are 100% accurate for the hobby of collecting "funny books", however, there are almost 20 years of CGC sales data and more than 4,000,000 slabs on the CGC census. It's definitely time to look at what data is available now compared to the pre-internet, pre-CGC, pre-Ebay days of annual paper price guides giving us a few retailer opinions primarily driven by retailer's continuous need to provide for their families and an author's desire to put out a price guide each year with flat multipliers across all titles regardless of reality.

We don't have a "rule" that CGC 9.8 modern is always twice the price of CGC 9.6 modern, but it's true often.  What makes it untrue?  When CGC 9.8 is significantly harder to find than CGC 9.6, then the price can be more than double for 9.8. How do we know those things? Actual sales and the CGC census.

We've established lots of "norms" in this hobby, many of them from "gut feeling", but you could still run calculations on the results even if the prices were completely random (which they aren't). 

There are still some questions in the hobby, what's a reasonable price/premium for a preview? How does it relate to the price of the first appearance? Does the market have a standard for preview pricing? Can we put together the data for case studies? How does the CGC census impact the results?

...and here we are.

Agreed, and I love the math and think it's super interesting. I was just making sure all knew that a formula like this should only be used to predict the sale of an item. But not to be used to actually value the item, because the value should simply be determined by the market. Which as previously stated is what determined the formula, and not vice versa.

Edited by HuddyBee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HuddyBee said:

Oh yeah I love the math and think its super interesting. I was just making sure all knew that a formula like this should only be used to predict the sale of an item. But not to be used to actually value the item, because the value should simply be determined by the market. Which as previously stated is what determined the formula, and not vice versa.

In the most general terms, Rule #31, based upon the More Fun #31 preview of Action Comics #1, would suggest that preview books should be worth almost nothing compared to the first appearance market value if we go back to the beginning of the hobby.

Rule #13, based upon the preview of Spawn #1 in Malibu Sun #13, would suggest that preview books should be worth about 20% of the first appearance market value, and adjusted for the CGC census count differences if we're trying to find a good estimate using modern books.

Taking these rules together, you can make the case that preview books should be worth anywhere from "basically nothing" up to around 20% of the first appearance market value, giving us a solid range of prices that's easy to calculate. Then, once that dollar range is calculated, the preview price should be adjusted according to the CGC census counts.

That's it. That's all.

RULE 20: Previews are worth 20% of the first appearance price, then adjusted for CGC census differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Quicksilver Signs said:

You can also have the exact same condition 9.8 book just not in an over priced slab for a fraction of the money. 

You're not wrong, but...

Tough to find and even tougher to inspect myself, prior to purchase, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, comicdonna said:

Centerfold to Action #13

action13centerfold002.jpg

Superman #1 was a book of reprints, including the cover, which is from a panel inside an earlier issue of Action Comics.  So, this advertisement is "the first appearance of the cover of a reprint book with reprint cover art"?  Nifty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 8:46 AM, valiantman said:

way to completely ignore anything I wrote in regards to your slipshod methods and answer with a link. I suppose that is the appropriate response based on the general lack of investment you made in coming up with some bogus rule based on a sample size of 1 and without any clear parameters. "Hey look-- my model based on this situation exactly fits that situation! Clearly a rule can be ascertained from that which generally applies to anything remotely similar- or even totally different. And if it doesn't fit-- I will create another rule that is based on sample two that fits exactly to sample 2."

I am not saying that a rule cannot be constructed-- but I find your assumptions and general lack of effort in building it faulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 01TheDude said:

way to completely ignore anything I wrote in regards to your slipshod methods and answer with a link. I suppose that is the appropriate response based on the general lack of investment you made in coming up with some bogus rule based on a sample size of 1 and without any clear parameters. "Hey look-- my model based on this situation exactly fits that situation! Clearly a rule can be ascertained from that which generally applies to anything remotely similar- or even totally different. And if it doesn't fit-- I will create another rule that is based on sample two that fits exactly to sample 2."

I am not saying that a rule cannot be constructed-- but I find your assumptions and general lack of effort in building it faulty.

I think the entire premise of the OP was just for fun.

I think you're taking it a little too seriously.

Correct me if I'm wrong. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwoPiece said:

I think the entire premise of the OP was just for fun.

I think you're taking it a little too seriously.

Correct me if I'm wrong. :/

I am perhaps-- but saying something is a rule is offensive to me. The thread starts off like they are trying to impress upon us some universal truth but almost none of the variables seem to be well thought out, and the evaluation methods are based on almost no comparable data points.

If it was meant to be all for fun -- great. Have a good time. I find the whole premise a waste of time if the OP has decided to go that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 01TheDude said:

I am perhaps-- but saying something is a rule is offensive to me. The thread starts off like they are trying to impress upon us some universal truth but almost none of the variables seem to be well thought out, and the evaluation methods are based on almost no comparable data points.

If it was meant to be all for fun -- great. Have a good time. I find the whole premise a waste of time if the OP has decided to go that route.

He could correct me if I'm wrong, but it did just look like an exercise in fun. Doesn't look to be taken seriously at face value. I could be wrong, but that how I interpreted all of the "math" and "preview appearance" and :censored:.

Doesn't seem worth arguing about IMO. That's all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valiantman has supplied some very pertinent and interesting data about trends in the hobby for several years - I took this thread as a bit of fun trying to address an ongoing debate about the value of previews & ads.

Think we all can agree that the value of anything is only what someone else will pay for it - and that changes over time.

Plus, I'm a math nerd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

He could correct me if I'm wrong, but it did just look like an exercise in fun. Doesn't look to be taken seriously at face value. I could be wrong, but that how I interpreted all of the "math" and "preview appearance" and :censored:.

Doesn't seem worth arguing about IMO. That's all!

Did it occur to you that I am also "arguing" as an exercise in fun? I suppose that would be impossible. I am always serious. Or are you defending them all in fun as well? This whole thread has gone to the dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1