$5000 To Spend On Comics..?4767

Originally Posted by X51
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foghorn_Sam
Quote:

Originally Posted by X51
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foghorn_Sam
Buy silver, (not silver age comics, silver, the metal). It's at $17.12 an ounce and guy on TV says it's headed to $200 an ounce. Sounds like guaranteed windfall profits to me. Only thing is he didn't give time frame, are we talking next year or 2 to 3 hundred years from now???

It's been hovering in the same price range for over a year. For some reason, Palladium is selling for more than Platinum recently. It was selling for closer to half the price in the past few years. Maybe cold fusion does exist and research labs are stocking up. LOL!

Palladium is fairly rare and has numerous industrial applications (think catalytic converters, computers and of course cold fusion ) and the limited supply sources result in considerable investment interest. It is very near its all time high again, so that ship has probably already sailed as far as potential returns go; at least for now. Personally, I've never even considered it as an investment vehicle because gold and silver seem to get all the attention. A lot of the world's supply comes from Russia and South Africa, but there is some mining of it here in the United States and Canada.

The Gold and Silver markets are manipulated by hoarders. Palladium, not so much. Platinum has always had a critical role as a catalyst. Palladium may also, but I don't think it's uses have been explored as much. A study reported that there is not enough copper in the Earth to industrialize China up to the level that the U.S. is industrialized. There is not enough Platinum on Earth to last 500 years at the rate it is being used. I think the reason you aren't seeing cars run on Hydrogen is that the cost of Platinum will skyrocket as a catalyst if they start mass producing fuel cells. That and storing the hydrogen has some technical issues because metals undergo a process change called Hydrogen Embrittlement. Anything you store Hydrogen in will become brittle over time. Regardless, I think there is a strong case to say that Palladium & Platinum should or could skyrocket due to their unique properties. Scientists are looking for cheaper alternatives. When you hear scientists talking about mining asteroids, the real things they want are water and rare Earth metals. The value of these is evidently perceived to be worth the expense of launching rockets into space. Environmental laws have curbed the mining of rare Earth metals in the US. China on the other hand has been stockpiling them and they have no environmental restrictions.

Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:

Originally Posted by X51
Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown
Suffice it to say, especially in high grade, X-Men from #94-up are probably the most common books in existence from the era (and, legitimately, that was true for the following 20-25 years.)

Miller Daredevils might've ramped up higher than X-Men for awhile, but that's just a guess.

No, Miller wasn't on the book long enough for the market to react. #158-#175 or so are fairly difficult books to find compared to contemporaneous X-Men, and the really common books...#181-191...are just a short set.

For example, #171? Good luck finding a 9.8. There are only 38 9.8s, including 3 SS copies.

Compare that to X-Men #146, out the same month, and there are 288 9.8s...and #146 isn't a "book worth slabbing."

And it only gets worse before that. When you compare an X-Men #141 (571 9.8s, 3857 total subbed ) with a DD #168 (177 9.8s, 3576 total subbed), and you really see the disparity between the two runs in high grade.

As far as copies sold...DD #194 has 180k copies sold for the previous year, which would cover roughly #178-189, while X-Men #169, covering the same period, had 313k paid circ.

Miller DDs never even came close.

Originally Posted by Beardown
Buy the best copy of Tales of Suspense #39 you can afford and never look back.

Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan510
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drogio
@DocBrown killing it with the stats! Can't argue facts!

To be fair, books subbed to CGC aren't an accurate reflection of anything other than the amount of copies subbed.

To be fair, that was the point. If someone thinks "the amount of copies subbed" means nothing, and has no implications beyond that, that person doesn't understand population statistics or why censuses exist.

After all...the US Census isn't an accurate reflection of anything other than the amount of people the Census Bureau managed to get information about, voluntarily or not, and yet, all sorts of important decisions are made by it.

To explain for you further: there aren't hundreds of unslabbed "9.8" copies of DD #168 hiding out there in collections, such that their numbers would ever achieve parity with X-Men #141. Sure, there will be additions made to the census, for various reasons, but that's also true of X-Men #141.

What we know will NOT be true is that the census will "explode" for such books in the future. We have, after 18 years now, a clear idea of what exists for a lot of books, and in what general shape. There are 13,693 total copies of New Mutants #98 on the census. That number is going to change, but it's not going to double or triple (or centiquadragintiseptuple), like it did in the past, especially at such a rapid rate.

As the census continues to expand, we get a clearer and clearer picture...the TENDENCY...of what exists, and in what grade. As with ALL statistics, it only shows TRENDS and TENDENCIES, and is not meant to be mathematically precise.

What the census demonstrates is that there is a vast difference in the amount of high grade copies of each book (DD #168 and X-Men #141) in existence, despite having very comparable total numbers of copies submitted.

What the circulation numbers show is why that might be the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan510
The circulation numbers on the other hand cannot be argued.

Sure they can. Do you think those numbers are mathematically precise? Setting aside the fact that those are averages, all sorts of human error is involved that makes those numbers estimates, rather than mathematically precise figures.

Originally Posted by Logan510
Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan510
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drogio
@DocBrown killing it with the stats! Can't argue facts!

To be fair, books subbed to CGC aren't an accurate reflection of anything other than the amount of copies subbed.

To be fair, that was the point. If someone thinks "the amount of copies subbed" means nothing, and has no implications beyond that, that person doesn't understand population statistics or why censuses exist.

After all...the US Census isn't an accurate reflection of anything other than the amount of people the Census Bureau managed to get information about, voluntarily or not, and yet, all sorts of important decisions are made by it.

To explain for you further: there aren't hundreds of unslabbed "9.8" copies of DD #168 hiding out there in collections, such that their numbers would ever achieve parity with X-Men #141. Sure, there will be additions made to the census, for various reasons, but that's also true of X-Men #141.

What we know will NOT be true is that the census will "explode" for such books in the future. We have, after 18 years now, a clear idea of what exists for a lot of books, and in what general shape. There are 13,693 total copies of New Mutants #98 on the census. That number is going to change, but it's not going to double or triple (or centiquadragintiseptuple), like it did in the past, especially at such a rapid rate.

As the census continues to expand, we get a clearer and clearer picture...the TENDENCY...of what exists, and in what grade. As with ALL statistics, it only shows TRENDS and TENDENCIES, and is not meant to be mathematically precise.

What the census demonstrates is that there is a vast difference in the amount of high grade copies of each book (DD #168 and X-Men #141) in existence, despite having very comparable total numbers of copies submitted.

What the circulation numbers show is why that might be the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan510
The circulation numbers on the other hand cannot be argued.

Sure they can. Do you think those numbers are mathematically precise? Setting aside the fact that those are averages, all sorts of human error is involved that makes those numbers estimates, rather than mathematically precise figures.

I’m asking politely, please do not speak to me.

Thank you

Originally Posted by DocBrown
You're looking at the argument from the wrong angle. The CGC census isn't a scientific survey, any more than the US Census is. It's not meant to be. The CGC census is not a random sample, true; but it's not meant to be, nor is it appropriate to use it as if it is.

The very fact that submitters (I don't refer to them as "collectors", because that would exclude a whole host of people who submit and are not, themselves, collectors) choose what to submit gives us great insight into what is considered "worth submitting", and not just with regards to monetary value.

Understanding that, first and foremost, the vast majority of submitters do so for financial considerations, and coupling that with sales data gleaned over the years from sites like GPA, and you find very steady, predictable patterns as to what is submitted, and why, and what it all means.

I don't know what your "1:1 correlation" comment is referring to. Could you please explain?

Originally Posted by X51
Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown
You're looking at the argument from the wrong angle. The CGC census isn't a scientific survey, any more than the US Census is. It's not meant to be. The CGC census is not a random sample, true; but it's not meant to be, nor is it appropriate to use it as if it is.

The very fact that submitters (I don't refer to them as "collectors", because that would exclude a whole host of people who submit and are not, themselves, collectors) choose what to submit gives us great insight into what is considered "worth submitting", and not just with regards to monetary value.

Understanding that, first and foremost, the vast majority of submitters do so for financial considerations, and coupling that with sales data gleaned over the years from sites like GPA, and you find very steady, predictable patterns as to what is submitted, and why, and what it all means.

I don't know what your "1:1 correlation" comment is referring to. Could you please explain?

If you are not quoting the CGC census numbers in an attempt to determine a statistical representation of what's out there, then I don't see your point in mentioning them. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by x51
I feel that my "1:1" reference is self-explanatory. Essentially the books that collectors define as "worth submitting" skew any statistical (mathematical) evaluation of what's out there floating around in the hobby.

CGC census may have 10 copies of a book listed.
10 copies may have been submitted because it's a characters 1st appearance and there are 500,000 copies out there. More people own high grade copies.
10 copies of another book may have been submitted because only 50 exist, and there was a warehouse find.

There isn't a 1:1 correlation between the two. Both have demand, but the reasons for submitting are entirely different.

Originally Posted by DocBrown
Quote:

Originally Posted by X51
Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown
You're looking at the argument from the wrong angle. The CGC census isn't a scientific survey, any more than the US Census is. It's not meant to be. The CGC census is not a random sample, true; but it's not meant to be, nor is it appropriate to use it as if it is.

The very fact that submitters (I don't refer to them as "collectors", because that would exclude a whole host of people who submit and are not, themselves, collectors) choose what to submit gives us great insight into what is considered "worth submitting", and not just with regards to monetary value.

Understanding that, first and foremost, the vast majority of submitters do so for financial considerations, and coupling that with sales data gleaned over the years from sites like GPA, and you find very steady, predictable patterns as to what is submitted, and why, and what it all means.

I don't know what your "1:1 correlation" comment is referring to. Could you please explain?

If you are not quoting the CGC census numbers in an attempt to determine a statistical representation of what's out there, then I don't see your point in mentioning them. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I think I've explained at pretty great length what the statistical use is, but I'll give it a shot again: the CGC census shows TENDENCIES. It gives us a general idea of what is out there, and the longer is exists, the more it is filled out, the better picture we have of what exists and in what general condition.

Because of the general laws of economics and human nature, we know that people will TEND TO submit those books which have, first and foremost, monetary value. Because, as in all things, condition determines value more than any other factor besides identity itself (that is, a 1.8 AF #15 isn't worth more than a 9.8 Man of Steel #17, but a 9.6 AF #15 is worth more than a 1.8 AF #15), we know that the census TENDS to be top heavy: the less value a raw book has, the less likely it is to be submitted in lower grades.

So, knowing that, we CAN make a statistical representation of "what's out there" under the parameters of the above. If you keep the above firmly in mind, many statistical representations can be made. You simply have to take your "random sample" from within the "non-random" sample.

Statistically, DD #168 is rarer in 9.8 than X-Men #141, though they came out the same month, from the same publisher. We know that because, despite 18 years, several thousands submissions of each, and the fact that both books are "worth submitting" in that grade, the DD #168 is represented on the census in that grade in far fewer numbers.

So, how do we interpret that data?

Several ways:

1. We have to understand the disparity in sales between the two titles.

2. We have to understand the mentality of the buyers of the time period.

3. We have to understand the market history of the two books.

4. We have to understand the production issues, if any, which helped/hindered the production quality of these books.

5. We have to understand the collectability of both books; the reason why people are attracted to them.

When we understand those things, we can form a valid interpretation for why the disparity in ultra high grade slabs exist...and it's not AT ALL "just because people like to submit high grade X-Men #141s more than DD #168s."

And then rinse, wash, and repeat for other issues as warranted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x51
I feel that my "1:1" reference is self-explanatory. Essentially the books that collectors define as "worth submitting" skew any statistical (mathematical) evaluation of what's out there floating around in the hobby.

CGC census may have 10 copies of a book listed.
10 copies may have been submitted because it's a characters 1st appearance and there are 500,000 copies out there. More people own high grade copies.
10 copies of another book may have been submitted because only 50 exist, and there was a warehouse find.

There isn't a 1:1 correlation between the two. Both have demand, but the reasons for submitting are entirely different.

I never made such a correlation, nor would I, which is probably why I didn't understand what you were referring to.

In comics, there's no such thing as that "1:1 correlation", because every single book is unique. However, that doesn't mean a reasonable correlation can't be made, such as two books that come out the same month, from the same publisher. It's reasonable to correlate such books.