Previews vs. First Appearance - Introducing RULE 31.
2 2

97 posts in this topic

229 posts
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,283 posts
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,505 posts

Rule #1: Previews are worth as much as the market dictates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,283 posts
2 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:
44 minutes ago, valiantman said:

That... is why you fail. 

image.jpeg.bcf40d4d6114d6bf8a2d560a8eaf3f8d.jpeg

At what..?

Carrying me around in a backpack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,707 posts
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, valiantman said:

Carrying me around in a backpack.

There should be a comicbook calculator,than I wouldnt have to check up Ebay everytime I'm trying to make a deal.

Edited by Hollywood1892
Incomplete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,166 posts
8 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

It's not the same copy.

9.8 is better condition and more rare. Those aspects appeal to me. "Value" does nothing for me.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,166 posts

Coincidentally just got this on a Facebook page yesterday, got a good deal on it. FIRST appearance of Spawn

408DFAF4-55CB-4A83-8D78-3474F41912CE.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,213 posts
55 minutes ago, Quicksilver Signs said:

Coincidentally just got this on a Facebook page yesterday, got a good deal on it. FIRST appearance of Spawn Advertising.

408DFAF4-55CB-4A83-8D78-3474F41912CE.png

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,600 posts
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,283 posts
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,749 posts
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,600 posts
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. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,749 posts
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,600 posts
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,637 posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,749 posts
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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
2 2