Dispelling the myth of the INCENTIVE variant4358
 Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @CFP_Comics Kind of "Crazy" isn't it? | ||
| Post 51 • IP flag post | ||
 I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers).Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @shrewbeer I work with statisticians. My comment is purely related to not ignoring flawed data. One can make assumptions and decisions from valid data. If data is found to be flawed, go back to drawing board. That is and was my sole and only point. One cannot make any valid determinations from data that is flawed |
||
| Post 52 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Nuffsaid111 If you wish to only draw 100% accurate conclusions in life, sure, ignore any non-factual data. Its a bit black and white though isnt it? By that logic, if one were to ignore any flawed print run or incentive data, then one must assume those books are just as common as the regular cover (which they clearly are not), or just pretend they dont exist! Thus my census comparison. ALL of that data is flawed. Do you pretend it doesnt exist? |
||
| Post 53 • IP flag post | ||
|
I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers). Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @shrewbeer again - when dealing with data as data is defined, it must be valid data in order to make valid conclusions. What you are referring to is called opinion or feeling or some other word/phrase that escapes me. As to the rest of your points about print runs or whatever point... they're fine. But they're your opinions based on your observations, perspective, etc... | ||
| Post 54 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Nuffsaid111 Correct, any conclusions not derived from accurate data are opinions. My point is just that DB instructing to ignore the data completely is foolish. Yes, one cannot derive an accurate conclusion; but if you ignore the flawed data completely, you are left with drawing no conclusion/opinion whatsoever. |
||
| Post 55 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
moodswing private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Is anything in this thread based on fact? Still seems like all opinions. Who knows what the print runs on these comics actually are. They may be really rare or they may not. | ||
| Post 56 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by drchaos Nobody said anything even remotely like "variants are not rare and somehow worthless." First, rarity is relative. Action Comics #1 is rare, relative to AF #15, but AF #15 is rare, relative to X-Force #2. The vast majority of incentive variants ARE rare, relative to regular books. The issue is HOW rare, and if it's reasonable to come up with estimates of that rarity. Second, nobody, at any time, even hinted that variants are "somehow worthless." In fact, if you carefully read what I wrote here: Quote: Originally Posted by DB ...where you'll note that I talked about the fact that those books are very much NOT "worthless." The thrust of this thread, and my point, is to ignore the FABRICATED NUMBERS of the people who don't know what they are talking about. These people make numbers out of thin air, using other numbers in ways that they were never intended to be used, to come up with figures that they then claim are "valid estimates." They are not. Again: no one but the publishers and the printers knows the real numbers printed of these incentive variants, and they're not telling. Therefore, CAUTION should be exercised when buying these items, and SKEPTICISM should be used when considering someone's "estimated print runs." Or do you think caution should be thrown to the wind...? I suggest you read the thread again. It's not reasonable to make claims about what people said that they didn't actually say. |
||
| Post 57 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
NilesPaine private msg quote post Address this user | |
I didnt even have my coffee yet!!!!!! |
||
| Post 58 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @shrewbeer The variant market is driven by ___________? Could it be the supposed limited amount of them on the market? Could it be that an artist has captured the attention of the collecting world? Could it be a combination of both? Could it be something else entirely? Could it be a bunch of different things? I don’t know the answer. The simple explanation is that what causes that demand is based upon conjecture, the likes, dislikes, and the bias of those looking at that niche of the comic collecting world, and those that are a part of it. In other words, you can bend your answer to reinforce whatever it is that you want to make or not make out of it. I have never understood why people are interested in print run totals or why anyone would want to come across as some authority on it. It shouldn’t really matter what they are or were. Too many other factors play into the why’s of this or that becoming sought after in the collecting world. If something is limited it may play a part in why it is sought after but it never is the total reason. |
||
| Post 59 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer You assume incorrectly. The CGC census...and the CBCS census, when it arrives...is an IMMENSELY valuable tool to give us an IDEA of what actually is. The CGC census gives us cold hard fact: the upper limit of copies that CAN exist (but do not NECESSARILY exist) in a slab, and what grades they were given. So, if a book has 473 copies on the census, we know that, at MAXIMUM, 473 copies exist in slabs. The census doesn't give us a FLOOR...but it DOES give us a CEILING. Now, we also know that there might not be 473 actual unique copies on the census, because of resubmissions and cracked out books...but we DO know that there aren't 474 copies, or 572, or 6,293 copies graded. We know that for a fact, assuming the census has been diligently updated (and we have no reason to think otherwise.) The census IS NOT "flawed data"...it is merely INCOMPLETE data. And INCOMPLETE data absolutely has value. Example: Quote: Originally Posted by DB That's a question that cannot be answered, because we do not know how many apples Dave has. But that DOESN'T mean we don't know how many the others have, and we can make educated, reasonable guesses based on that INCOMPLETE data. What we CANNOT do is use "flawed data" to come up with anything even remotely resembling something true. Example: Quote: Originally Posted by DB Without knowing the DATA, someone would say "oh, that's easy...82!"...when the actual total is 33. Of what value, then, are the first numbers...? None. They only tell you that people have apples (and that's not even true for Steve, who has none.) One more time: incorrect information IS NOT DATA. It is inaccurate information. Technically, it's not even information. There is really no such thing as "flawed data" in the first place. That's an oxymoron. Here's the definition of the word data: "facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis." For something to be data, it has to be TRUE...it has to be a FACT. "The print run for Avengers Assemble #7 1:15 variant is 1,523" is NOT a fact. It is a GUESS. And, worse than that, it's not even a reasonable, educated guess. It's a guess that takes a ratio that is intended solely for ORDERING ("1:15" ) and then trying to apply it to the SALES in NORTH AMERICA, to come up with some idea for a PRINT RUN of said variant. In other words, misusing one number with another number, to come up with a third number. Not at all scientific, and not even close to a valid methodology for estimating. Therefore, it's not DATA, flawed or otherwise. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer Look, shrewbeer, it really is possible to have a discussion...even a disagreement...without the use of invective. It really is. Disagree, debate...but why the need for the dismissive language...? I'm not telling anyone to ignore data. I'm telling people to ignore fanciful guesses, arrived at using wildly flawed and inaccurate methodology. There's a real, genuine difference between those two things. Yes, be mindful of ALL evidence...the key word there being EVIDENCE. It's not EVIDENCE if it's a BAD GUESS. And it's a BAD guess because it relies on INVALID methodology. If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, by all means...demonstrate it! People will listen if you present a reasoned, rational counterargument. "You're wrong!" isn't a valid counterargument. None of this "suits my argument", because I have no stake in this topic. I do not BUY these variants, and when I did, I did not buy them in any environment where I could be reasonably accused of trying to "soften the market" as it were. There is no value in wild guesses using utterly inaccurate methodology. That's not data. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer Not in dispute, other than your use of "an estimated incentive run of 500." Who said so? How did they arrive at that estimation? What methodology did they use to arrive at that estimation? And if that methodology is nothing but guesses used to make more guesses, why would anyone "not go thinking it has thousands of extras sitting in a warehouse somewhere"...? You can't START with a premise...that the "estimated run is 500"...if that premise has no reasonable foundation. It's just a guess. And 500, or 5,000, or 50...all completely valid, absent corroborating data. |
||
| Post 60 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater That is not correct. Here are the facts...actual, provable facts...related to this issue: 1. Comichron only reports sales of comics in North America. That is not "opinion based", that is a fact. 2. Publishers, with very few exceptions, do not reveal the print runs of their books. That means no one but the publishers know That is not "opinion based", that is a fact. 3. The ratios being discussed are for one thing, and one thing only: ordering. They have nothing to do with the print runs of the books; they are a number that means just one thing: if a retailer orders X copies of the regular book, he/she will receive/may purchase 1 copy of the variant. That is not "opinion based", that is a fact. 4. Trying to apply an ordering formula to a sales number to arrive at a print number is invalid methodology. The numbers aren't related to each other in any way. That is not "opinion based", that is a fact. 5. The entire thread has not only NOT been about "conjecture and guesswork about what a print run might be for certain publishers", it's been the very OPPOSITE...that is, one CANNOT use conjecture and guesswork about what a print run might be." That has been the entire point of this thread. That is not "opinion based", that is a fact. As for your "Oz" comments and memes...there's no reason why...I mean, at all...people cannot have a discussion, a disagreement, even a vigorous debate, without the simmering hostility, resentment, and anger. None at all. It's possible...indeed, it's preferable...to have these discussions without making personal comments about the people involved in the discussion. It's possible to disagree with someone without insulting their intelligence, denigrating them, or tearing them down. And just to be clear: telling someone they are wrong IS NOT insulting their intelligence, denigrating them, or tearing them down. And responding to snark with snark is not the same thing as initiating it. That some of you have consistently, throughout the lifetime of CBCS, chosen otherwise is unfortunate. But that has been YOUR CHOICE. I welcome any reasoned, rational debate. Nobody knows everything. Everyone can learn, no matter who the teacher, and no matter who the student. Getting emotional because someone doesn't agree with you, or tells you you are wrong, and therefore choosing to reply with invective and derision, is antithetical to science and the pursuit of knowledge. |
||
| Post 61 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by moodswing Yes, see post above. In this case, we don't know what we CAN'T know..the print runs...but we DO know what CAN be known...which is that guessing what print runs might be using ordering formulas and sales numbers is not accurate in any way. |
||
| Post 62 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer What you're doing is called a "straw man"...that is, you invent something that you think, or want others to think, I have said, and then you argue against that...that is, tear down the straw man...as if that was actually what I said. It is not. I'm not telling anyone to ignore any data. I'm telling them to ignore guesses that are based on ordering formulas applied to sales figures to arrive at a print run. That's not data...it's wild guessing. It's not even educated guessing...which renders it useless. "Data" that isn't remotely true isn't data in the first place. |
||
| Post 63 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Nuffsaid111 Exactly. |
||
| Post 64 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer There is no such thing as "non-factual data." I mean, you DO understand that, right...? If it's non-factual, by DEFINITION, it's not data. The census is NOT flawed...aside from the very tiny errors that ALL such databases contain...it is INCOMPLETE. There is a massive, colossal difference. Can you admit that...? |
||
| Post 65 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by CFP_Comics No, and comments like this don't advance the discussion. Got something to positively contribute...? I think the whole board (though I don't speak for anyone but me) would appreciate that. |
||
| Post 66 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater As I said before, and which you are still disputing, intangible factors such as information about the print run have an effect on demand. "Print run totals"...as invalid as they might be to the number of EXTANT copies...still provide information that influences people, one way or the other, with respect to demand. If someone knows that the print run of Comic X was 4 million copies, that will have some sort of effect...the exact amount is, of course, unquantifiable...on their demand for it. As to "why anyone would want to come across as some authority on it"...I'm not sure to what you're referring. Perhaps people who know what they're talking about appear to be "wanting to come across as some authority on it"...? Do you think people CAN'T or SHOULDN'T be authorities on something...? Or is it just people you don't like and don't WANT to be authorities on something who can't be...? The variant market...like all markets...is driven by supply and demand. Not "demand only" or "supply only"...the two are inseparable. The issue, then, is to determine HOW that demand manifests itself, and WHY it does so. And there's nothing wrong with understanding those things, and it's not a great, unsolvable mystery, about which only mere conjecture and "bending the argument to your will" is possible. We know why Pokemon Go was downloaded a bazillion times: it was fun. People enjoyed it. They liked it. |
||
| Post 67 • IP flag post | ||
|
I'm waiting.... (tapping fingers). Splotches is gettin old! |
Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @DocBrown you are far more eloquent and exhaustive in your delivery than I am! Lol. Bravo! I just about already had given up with the validity of flawed data |
||
| Post 68 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Yeah...some people complain about the "exhaustive" part, but there's a reason why primary and secondary education lasts for 12 years in the US.  "Repetitio mater studiorum est." - Latin maxim |
||
| Post 69 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
OrbitCityComics private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown It's lower than 1000 to meet Diamond's requirements. Internally they may be saying we need 1000 copies to justify their internal cost, but no one here can say that with any certainty. I use to manage a major comic shop and served as the company's purchasing agent for all of its stores. I met with the Diamond rep every Thursday and every couple of weeks we would go over various incentives. We'd make deals where I would commit to X amount of books and he would commit to X amount of incentives. The books weren't always necessarily the same title. Let's say that a Batman book is 1:50 incentive and Superman had no incentive: He may tell me, "if you commit to 1000 copies of Superman issue xxx next month, I'll give you double the amount of Batman incentives next week. And if the deal made sense I would do it. |
||
| Post 70 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Its not a straw man. You are insisting upon ignoring estimates because you believe them to be not even remotely true. Making an educated guess is better than nothing at all, ie ignoring flawed evidence. An educated guess is taking into consideration any pieces to the puzzle, and guessing the overall puzzle with said pieces. You can go ahead and discount evidence, and even making guesses. I will not. If I take a 1:100 variant and multiple that by the number of copies sold, that gives me the maximum amount of copies given to dealers under that program. That is only one piece of the puzzle. Yes, there are likely more printed. But why ignore that number entirely? It is data. It is a piece. It helps approximate a very rough idea of copies available, much like the census. The data is not complete trash just because it is incomplete. Another piece to that puzzle is market availability. If the book is not readily available for years and remains rare, it is likely that the original estimate is at least hand grenade accurate. The printers are in the business of printing books to be sold or given out, not in the business of hoarding books. Take the WW38 book. 1:100. ~50k copies sold, no way every retailer ordered an equal 100, but that gives us a rough ceiling of 500. David finch loves that cover, he uses it at his booths at cons and sells prints. Does he have a stash? Maybe. Do others at DC have stashes? Maybe. We do know that the market is not currently flooded. When considering a purchase, we can then approximate that there could be a few thousand in circulation, with the possibility of a few stashes that hit the market in the future. Why ignore all that? Call it wild guessing, but its better than not guessing at all. |
||
| Post 71 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by OrbitCityComics Sources...including Richard Evans, owner of Bedrock City in Texas...have said that, at least for Marvel and DC, the minimum is 1,000. For Image, if one wants to commission a variant, the minimum is 1,000 as well, though they do internal variants to less, sometimes far less. Probably not a hard and fast number, but certainly a lot more than 200 or 300. Quote: Originally Posted by OCC Sure, that makes sense. I have no doubt that stores use this sort of leverage to make deals like this all the time...which, again, even further erodes the idea that "1:X" can be applied to a sales number to guess at a print run. |
||
| Post 72 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer No. I have explained, at exhaustive length, why "wild guessing" isn't better than no guessing at all. I have explained at exhaustive length why trying to apply an ORDERING FORMULA ("1:100" ) to a SALES FIGURE for the REGULAR cover (~50k) to derive a PRINT NUMBER for the VARIANT is invalid methodology. Making an EDUCATED guess means EXCLUDING false information, not INCLUDING it because, well, it's "better than nothing!" If you can't, or won't, understand why that is, there's really no point in further discussion. I cannot make this any clearer than I have. If you are going to insist on using invalid methodology to arrive at a conclusion because it "makes sense to you", who is really the one ignoring the data, here...? And...I will continue to point out that alllll of the people making these estimates are NOT saying "well, you know, these ARE just wild guesses." Why not...? Because it doesn't suit their argument. |
||
| Post 73 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I sure am glad I'm not giving my opinions in this thread. | ||
| Post 74 • IP flag post | ||
 I had no way of knowing that 9.8 graded copies signed by Adam Hughes weren't what you were looking for.
|
drchaos private msg quote post Address this user | |
| If we are concerned with the valuable books (as opposed to all variants), wouldn't the CGC Census be a good place to start? Sure there are ungraded copies waiting to come out of the woodwork and other copies graded by CBCS but I would think that if a book (above grade X) is worth $100 or more the Census would give us a fair idea of how many copies are available. Thoughts? |
||
| Post 75 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
det_tobor private msg quote post Address this user | |
| interesting in many ways. I know for a fact that in the 1960s, Marvel had a dept that sold back issues. Printed but not sold in stores yet...Marvel was selling them. Interesting that they were willing to initiate making variants. For me, all I can factually see are the listings in Previews for a particular issue to be sold with the different artists cover options. Why do I care about numbers? Not to be an authority, but to let me know will those artists I like have a good chance to do more covers. Will a certain type of cover scheme be used more or not. Will it make a diff to how I collect for this title? I know my tastes aren't the same as the majority. Might I get an extra for the sake of future trading? maybe. I have a limited budget, so it's very few. Funny part of all this? On other threads, there is wondering of how soon comics will go all digital. What would that do to possible variants? |
||
| Post 76 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer Let's consider this paragraph, piece by piece. First: if you take a 1:100 variant and multiply that by the number of copies sold, that gives you the potential maximum amount of copies necessary to fulfill qualifying orders, right...? But how accurate is that potential maximum...? Doesn't it rely on a statistical impossibility...? That every single store, or nearly every single store, ordered an exact multiple of 100, leaving no, or very little, remainder...? And we know, in practice, that that doesn't happen, right...? How many stores actually qualified to order this variant...? We don't know. How many stores ordered 36 copies, or 78 copies, or 127 copies...? We don't know. How many stores that qualified actually ordered it (and yes, this DOES happen, odd as it may sound)...? We don't know. How many stores used their financial leverage to get MORE copies than they qualified for, as OCC points out...? We don't know. So, while yes, your "maximum" number of copies could potentially exist, it is a THEORETICAL number, not a REAL number. The truth is, no one but Diamond and the publishers know how many copies are necessary to fulfill qualifying orders. All you have is a THEORETICAL maximum, a POTENTIAL maximum, which, in practice, never turns out to be an ACTUAL maximum. After all...if only 238 (total guess, here) stores qualified, then only 238 copies would be necessary. What if only 113 stores qualified...? 478? 12? We have no idea, and no way of knowing, and we have no idea how, if at all, that affects the print run decisions of these variants made by publishers. Now, let's consider the word "sales": sales where...? To whom....? Diamond only reports sales in North America. How many are sold in the UK? We don't know. How many are sold in Australia? We don't know. How many are sold in Hong Kong? We don't know. And there are people in the UK, Australia, Hong Kong, and around the world, who are just as rabid about these variants as people in North America. And further, is "fulfilling qualifying orders" the publishers' only, or even main, concern in establishing their print run...? Other than establishing a minimum necessary, we don't know. Whole swaths of unknown variables that have a direct and real effect on the information you're trying to claim can be used to make an "educated" guess about these variants. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer Not just likely, we KNOW there were more printed than qualifying orders, because Finch has them for sale at cons. We also know, from past experience as detailed in this thread, that both DC and Marvel use ratio incentives for promotional purposes AND sales long after their release, in numbers substantially higher than what was necessary for qualifying orders. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer Because there comes a point, when too many variables are unknown, that a certain "data point" becomes irrelevant. It doesn't "help approximate a rough idea of copies available", because there are variables that have a statistically significant effect on the number you're trying to estimate that are simply unknown and unknowable. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer No. The census represents ACTUAL HARD NUMBERS, that is, how many grading events for a particular issue have taken place, and at what grades. Those aren't THEORETICAL numbers, those are REAL numbers. CGC has ACTUALLY graded that book THAT many times. And while the census does not account for resubmissions where the old labels weren't turned in, and does not account for books that have subsequently been cracked, it DOES represent an ACTUAL NUMBER of times that issue has been graded by CGC. Your "potential maximum" is a THEORETICAL, as opposed to a REAL, number. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer Correct. It is complete trash because it relies on multiple variables that are unknown and, currently, unknowable. Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer That statement has no meaning. What is "hand grenade accurate", and how do you put hard numbers to such a statement? "Market availability" only tells us one thing: how many are available on the market. It gives us a clue as to how rare something might be, but it's only a clue, a hint. There have been lots of books that had "limited market availability" that turned out to be quite common after all (Silver Surfer #4, Conan #3, etc.) Quote: Originally Posted by shrewbeer No, and no one said they were. But it is a mischaracterization to call it "hoarding books", as if the publishers are holding these books back to influence the market. They are not. They warehouse them...oh yes they do...to deal with as they see fit, when they see fit. That doesn't mean they have "100k" of them...let's not be silly...but they do maintain supplies of them, for promotional and other purposes, sometimes years after the fact. |
||
| Post 77 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
det_tobor private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by drchaos If the slab services are "new" and in very small numbers, if I want to sell a book I'll use them. If I don't, I won't. Books slabbed say they have been reviewed, but that's it. These books can still further deteriorate. If I want to read that book again for the full flavor of that time,I'm not going to slab it. Some heavy duty acid free bags and cardboard will do the same job as long as I'm keeping the books. SLABS are not air and water tight? I don't need to slab it if I don't want to sell it. Thousands of collectors may feel the same way if they have the same book. Yes, I might slab a variant because I only have that for the cover but not my single issue collection. |
||
| Post 78 • IP flag post | ||
 past performance is no guarantee of future actions.
|
KatKomics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Minimum print run size....the printers my company uses for our products (labels mind you) have a minimum print run size. You want 500 - you will pay for 1000, now we don't give labels away as promo so if minimum run size is more than you need and you will pay for it anyway...why not get at least the minimum that you are being charged for. Want 1000 you will get 1000+ 5-10% as the machines aren't that accurate and the supplier always gives you more. Really really only want 1000, order slightly less so that the 5-10% overage brings you closer to the actual 1000 |
||
| Post 79 • IP flag post | ||
|
past performance is no guarantee of future actions.
|
KatKomics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @det_tobor Yup...selling is a major factor in deciding if I'm going to slab (and I almost never sell). I see some books going for crazy$ in my opinion...if I and others sent in our books to slab then that 9.6-9.8 rarity goes away | ||
| Post 80 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.