Jump to content

Douglas W. McCratic

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Douglas W. McCratic

  1. In the Livestream today, Pete brought up the question of an algorithm or multiplier for pricing on CGC books. At least that was the gist of what I got while trying to tune in at work. I'm not certain that there is any formula that will ever apply across the board. My entry into the slabbed book realm was through CGC Signature series. The trouble is that slabbing an issue may affect the value of a relatively modern book immensely but not so much for an older book unless you're getting in the 9.0 and above range. Then you need to factor in the signatures. A great example is in my collection. I have a copy of Fear Agent: The Last Goodbye #1 Jack Davis variant cover in CGC 9.9 signed by Jack Davis. A 9.9 is already a premium and in many cases, the signature adds even more value. The trouble is the signer. I feel certain that a 9.9 signed by Jack Davis will bring significantly more than one signed by Tony Moore (no disrespect intended, Mr. Moore) because of Davis' status as an artist and that fact that he is not here to sign any more books. It can get even weirder. Stan Lee was a timid signer for a very long time. I don't think it is news to anyone that in the last few years of his life, he signed like a machine. Especially in the short time after he passed away, roughly one in three CGC SS books on eBay had Stan Lee in their description Just now, CGC SS bring up over 17,000 books while CGC SS Stan Lee brings up over 1,700 books, so one in ten is signed by "The Man." Currently on MySlabbedComics.com, there are 1179 Stan Lee signed books the next closest signer is Todd McFarlane at 353. That's less than a third! Frank Miller is next with 286 and he used to be notoriously hard to obtain. Keys never play by the rules on pricing, that's not news . It only gets worse when slabbing them. New Mutants #98 (first Deadpool) in CGC 9.8 will have a significantly larger multiplier than Amazing Spider-Man (2014) #4 (first Silk) but lower than Fantastic Four #1. Slabbing is a bizarre niche market. When I pulled together Frank Miller's Ronin years ago, #6 cost me around $250 (I think). At the time, it was the only one in the census, there are 15 now. I admittedly went high on it but it would complete my 9.8 run of the series. If I hadn't already had the other 5, I would never have considered paying more than $50 or so. The book isn't particularly rare, but it is a little more rare in high grade. All of this to say what Pete expressed so well in the Livestream. You could probably come up with some kind of algorithm if you could gather data from hundreds of sources and monitor it day in and day out but that's just not possible. I don't know that anything a simple as a multiplier could ever get close to following value on these books.
  2. Sorry, that one makes me giggle every time. So yeah, I agree with everything above and have been bringing it up from time to time. My personal fix has been moving the various FCBD books (the actual ones) into their respective titles, entering them as FCBD 2017 or whatever year they were released. An alternative that I originally came up with was creating a "Free Comic Book Day" title for each year, putting all the titles in alphabetical order and then entering them 1, 2, 3,... I'm really glad I didn't do that now as the individual issues in their respective titles works really well. Additionally, I make it a point to add "Free Comic Book Day 20xx" to the notes so I have a fighting chance to locate all of the individual books for any given year. I've been working on pulling together every FCBD book and have been grouping them by year in my collection. I've struggled with Atomic Avenue as well. I'm frustrated with myself for never thinking of trying to add it in order to make my case.
  3. I was young and foolish then! I've grown and matured significantly over these last two months! It's still not easy moving across formats but the thing that makes doing that difficult would be solved in renaming the titles. What I had difficulty with was that both the comic and the magazine version of "Rampaging Hulk" were titled identically so when it came time to change formats I had to pick from a list and didn't know which was which. They read exactly the same, so it was/is difficult (for me anyway) to know which was which. My solution was to name the title that would be soon deleted to "Rampaging Hulk COMIC" before transferring anything. This is still how I do it. It's not exactly fast but it is accurate. We get a notice when a new version of CB is available with a list of changes being made, why not give users a notice of a monumental shift in cataloging titles or a notice urging them to check the Unrecognized Titles list? I agree that it should be significantly easier but that simply doesn't appear to be in the cards. I honestly believe I do spend more time curating my database than my collection. Adding pics, correcting info, and so on has become a hobby unto itself.
  4. I may be oversimplifying here but how is changing a title any different from changing a format? Comics to magazines, comics to books, and so on have been done with relative ease. When the changes began, it was a little confusing but now it's just routine. The corrected title is added, information for the old one ceases to be updated or even recognized and it comes up in the "Unrecognized Items" list following an update so users know to move the items in the old title to the new one.
  5. I've got an issue of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle: The Last Ronin #1 with "Online Exclusive" on the cover but "Fifth Printing" in the indicia. It doesn't look like the fifth printing already listed and has a different UPC. I added the cover of my book below. It's similar to #1-A but I'm hesitant to use 1-A-5 because there is no 1-A-2 thru 1-A-4 listed in the database. The UPC doesn't follow the rules either, it's 82771401991900161, making it look like a variant rather than a fifth printing because of the last digit. What's the preferred way to move on this?
  6. There are several titles that work the same way and it makes me crazy too. Wait until you look at Star Wars. The first listing is Marvel from 1977 and makes perfect sense. The following title listing is Star Wars (2nd Series) from Marvel, 2015-present although it ended in 2020. The third series is also Marvel and started in 2020. Never mind those pesky Dark horse series with the same titles that ran 1998-2006 and 2013-2014. I know CB and how to find the series I'm looking for....most of the time. Imagine a newb looking for a book though. There are a total of 15 series titled just "Star Wars" (16 if you count Dark Horse's "The Star Wars") with 5 of them being published by Marvel when you throw in the Canadian Edition and the Newspaper Strip books. Granted, Metal Men is different in that they all came from DC but ultimately it's the same inconsistent cataloging. Personally, I would prefer the title followed by the year. My second choice is the title with the publisher in parentheses and then the year. More than once I have tried to enter what I sincerely believed to be a new title only to later learn that those books were already in CB just under a different publisher from the one actually listed in/on the book. I'm struggling to name any now other than "G.I. Joe, a Real American Hero" which was Marvel's baby from #1-155. IDW took the reins at #155.5 but it's still listed under the Marvel title. Then you have Fantastic Comics (Image) is was literally created with the intent of being the next issue of Fantastic Comics (Fox) but received its own listing even though it was #24. Crack Comics has two entries, one from the original Quality series and a second titled "Crack Comics (2nd Series)" even though it was the same thing that Fantastic Comics (Image) was, a part of what they called the "The Next Issue Project." They also did Silver Streak the same way as Crack calling the single issue from Image the 2nd series. I prefer the way CGD does it with each new publisher getting a new entry with a notation in the previous publisher's title to the effect of "numbering continues in Title X from Publisher Y."
  7. I don't have the background to comprehend this kind of thing. Is it something the average user should be worried about?
  8. I have brought it up in another thread about information disappearing but now I'm looking to put this particular book to rest. #0 had four versions. There was the standard version with a blue background There was a red version There was a gold version And finally a platinum (or silver) edition Years ago, when I could still remember this kind of thing, I had entered these into CB. The information attached to them is now gone, no big deal, it is what it is. I do still want to set the record straight on these if at all possible. Topps Comics had a few titles that were a part of their Kirbyverse. In the first issue (I believe) of each title was a coupon to submit to get your Kirbychrome edition of Secret City saga. I cannot recall if the Kirbychrome was the gold or platinum version. I was completely unaware of the red version until years after the fact and have no idea where it came from. I feel like the platinum was something of a "thank you" or retailer incentive but again, cannot remember at all. Does anyone know about these? Is there a way to go through the old databases or corrections to pull this information out? There is little information available on the interwebs and much of it conflicts with other sources.
  9. This worked! I'll let you know if it should strike again. Thank you!
  10. They are different variants. Like most things Lady Death, there was a lot of variants for this issue. Unfortunately, #1-I has the image for one variant and a description of another. #1-I should look more like this: In the lower left corner, of this image, there is an "MM" for Marat Mychaels, the artist. It was likely limited to 15 copies described as artist proofs. The regular red edition was limited to 175 and had the individual number on each issue in place of "MM." #1-J has the correct cover and description: The blue edition was limited to 185 copies, also numbered in the lower left corner. There was also an artist proof edition with the "MM" in place of the limitation and it was likely limited to 15 copies as well. The are also the printing error edtions that have the faded appearance.
  11. Straight from DC's website: "In celebration of its 85th anniversary, DC Comics reprints for the very first time its first-ever published comic book, New Fun #1, the comic that transformed the fledgling industry by being the first ongoing title made up of new stories instead of reprints of newspaper comic strips." So the New Fun is the first and only version so far of that particular reprint. Using the GCD, C-62 was "All-New Collectors' Edition" and was all related to, but not an adaptation of, Superman The Movie. Apparently tabloid sized and the C-62 was used in the indicia.
  12. Follow Me Into Darkness #1-B and #1-C have the pics reversed. I didn't think changing pics would be picked up as a correction, so I traded UPC codes instead. The issue below should be UPC 85002766716400131 and is labeled Cover C on the back The issue below should have UPC 85002766716400121 and is labeled Cover B on the back
  13. I'll give it a shot next week. Reloading the new update doesn't do it, it's only on the first pass.
  14. Over the last few updates (4 or 5?) I've been having the same error occur. CB confirms that a new update is available and I begin the download process. The new pane opens and the status bar appears and it reads "initializing." That is all that is does, no progress, nothing at all. I cancel the download and receive a message to the effect of "there was a problem with the update, it may not be fully uploaded" or something similar. I clear the error message, immediately check for updates again, initiate the process and it works like a charm. I'm using v22.0.1.1601.
  15. My experience has been that they are slow to ship, ship the wrong items, and then are impossible to contact. They do occasionally hit upon a good idea, though. John Romita Sr. and Alex Ross have done some sketch covers for them and both are near impossible to get sketches from at all. If I'm getting anything produced by them, it's definitely going to be on the secondary market.
  16. Correct. The name on the cover indicates "Ashcan" but I would compare them to mini comics. The paper is slightly heavier than copy paper. I would guess that they were made on a what was a high end copier at the time and are roughly 5.5" x 8.5" I'm not certain how they were distributed but think that I remember ordering them at my local shop. It has been far too long on a very obscure book.
  17. Agreed. They're all signed. I've only seen one AP come up for sale and, as I recall, the price was not significantly different from any of the numbered copies. I'm not sure what it is about Moebius, but anything he signed seems to hold value far better than most.
  18. By that logic, do we need 275 variants? Each one has a different number written on it. 1/250, 2/250, 3/250...
  19. This is correct. The limited edition is 250, numbered 1-250. Artist Proofs are generally the first copies, but given that these are more or less photo copies there is no real difference in quality between the first copies and the last copies. I have a few Artist Proofs of other items and they are numbered similar to "AP/25." In comics, there is generally no real difference between the regular run and artist proofs. The proofs tend to be given to the creator(s) of the material. In the art world, Artist Proofs can take on a different meaning. They are often the first prints reproduced and sent to those involved in the production of the print/lithograph in order for them to verify the quality, paper, colors, and anything else that may arise. AP's are usually more desirable because they are a smaller limitation of an already limited edition. As a rule, no. There is no discernible difference aside from the numbering.
  20. The signatures appear consistent and both have a limitation with with signature, so I would say yes.
  21. Looking around, I can't find any evidence of a stand alone series "Traci Lords" in 1992. She was the subject of Personality Comics #2 in 1991 which is the same publisher listed in "Traci Lords." I think we're safe to remove the "Traci Lords" title.
  22. When you say "missing data" do you mean that the fields are present but are now empty? Or are the fields/columns not there at all?
  23. I think magazines would be more appropriate solely based on my memory of it. I believe it is slightly larger than digest sized, probably 8-12 pages. I will try to pull it out today to verify.
  • Create New...