stephanm

all messages by user

4/15/2016 Topic: Flash 129 and other recent Flash changes stephanm	Hi, Yesterday Flash 129 (2nd GA Flash in SA) and some other issues went up in value. The new NM figure for Flash 129 of $800 looks correct in light of GA Flash's appearance on TV. But there seems to be an error for the lower grades. My own copy, at FN+, now shows as a staggering $400, and all other grades below NM seem equally inflated. Judging from the previous settings for Flash 129, as well as surrounding issues, FN+ should probably be 18% of NM ($ 144), not 50%. I'm using the example of Flash 129, because that's one I own, but I think the same applies to other Flash issues in the recent value change. Best, Steve edited by stephanm on 4/19/2016 edited by stephanm on 4/19/2016
4/19/2016 Topic: Flash 129 and other recent Flash changes stephanm	stevegreer1 wrote: I just became the proud owner of an issue of The Flash #324 (Death of Reverse Flash) and I noticed that it went up in value recently as well. If you look at the price guide here it also shows the ungraded 9.2 value at $80 and 9.0 at $105. That is obviously just a typo. True. In fact, the prices for Flash 324 are all over the place, constantly going up and down as you go down the grade scale. And chance, CPG, that you can fix these various "Flash" issues at some point? Totally understood that you are no doubt swamped with things to change, as the market for comics is quite volatile at the moment, but would be great to hear if these issues are logged and will eventually be fixed? Thanks and best wishes.
6/3/2016 Topic: Systematic Value Errors for all Grades below NM stephanm	Hi, I had written about this issue previously, regarding Flash 129, and in the subsequent brief discussion it became clear that it related to many more comics. CapnDoug confirmed on April 19 that CPG staff was aware, and that the issues would be fixed. In the meantime it wasn't fixed, and in fact, there seems to be an ongoing and systematic error applying to many (or all?) older comics, where prices were recently amended. (I think it applies to SA and the more valuable BA books. I didn't notice it on lesser value books, but that might just be because the amounts in question were too small to notice) The problem is always like this: The NM value for a certain comic is increased, in line with market movements. I assume correctly. As far as my comics were concerned, that part seemed perfectly realistic. (with one exception -- sorry about the quick excursion, but are you sure about Moon Knight (1980) # 23 being worth $20 in NM, when all the surrounding issues remain at $3? I do think the Moon Knight (1980) series is due an overall increase, but $20 feels like a typo. And, incidentally, looking at Moon Knight 23, the lower grades look even further inflated. Even if one were to assume that the $20 is correct, $10 for FN+ or $4 for GD/VG is definitely off). Anyway, what happens is that all grades below NM are (often dramatically, and systematically) overvalued. The way I understand you tend to handle values for all grades, is that you apply a fixed grid of percentages of the NM value. These grids may differ for varying periods, as the relative values between a NM and, say, a VF will be different for a Silver Age book than for a Modern Age book etc. (as far I can tell, for SA you apply 42%, for BA 50%, in that example?) But the principle remains the same. While this of course always had to be a little imprecise due to the generalization involved, it used to be consistent and broadly in line with how the market valued lower grade books. For example, very common percentages were VF at 42% of NM for SA books, FN/VF at 24%, FN+ at 18%, VG at 9% etc. However, on many books, where prices were recently amended, the percentages applied to anything below NM now seem wildly too high. So my aforementioned Flash 129 states that FN+ is $400 (50% of NM, instead of 18% as before, or for surrounding issues) Tales to Astonish 49 values my GD+ book at $171.45, i.e. 17.1% of NM, instead of 6% as previously and for surrounding issues My Marvel Premiere 15 (amended yesterday) in VF suddenly jumped from $200 to $304 (when NM only had a moderate and realistic rise from $400 to $425). VF is now 71% of NM, when before it was 50%. These are just random example -- I think it applies to hundreds of comics with recent value changes. The problem is that because only a very small proportion of books in existence are NM, this totally distorts the value given for a collection. The key advantages that CPG has over a print publication like Overstreet, apart from the obvious fact that you are more nimble in amending values, is that (1) you can given a much more precise differentiation of grades, down to the last plus or minus; and (2) that any value changes are immediately reflected in the value of the Comic Collection on your website Unfortunately, these recent systematic errors totally negate these advantages, as the values are no longer trustworthy -- especially for books with recent changes (which are the most interesting) I have 50 books in my collection with you, of which I know that at least 3 are very wrong. I have done a quick calculation, and my my collection is overvalued by $460, which is almost 10% of the total value of the 50 books. And I would have thought that the IT issues surrounding this are manageable. Applying a fixed grid of percentages to comics from a certain pedigree should be relatively easy to apply. Now, fair enough, I am a Bronze member, and you might say, don't look a gift horse in the mouth and all that, and I should be glad for the service. Which I REALLY am, by the way -- this is a brilliant service. But as this error also applies to your Silver and Gold members, I really think it is worth fixing, to keep ahead of the Overstreets of the world. Thanks !!!
6/6/2016 Topic: Systematic Value Errors for all Grades below NM stephanm	Coconice wrote: This may be only loosely related to your post, and rather than dealing with accuracy, it is dealing with an almost excess of specificity. Hi Coconice, I think you're right. This seems indeed related. In the past, the percentages for the lower grades tended be clear percentages of the NM value. And because the NM value was a round number, the percentages thereof were also reasonably round (until you got into the very low grades on low value books. A GD copy of a $3 book really is only worth cents, so fair enough. But when you had a valuable book, then it was round Dollar figures all the way.). But since the percentage grids for newly amended comics got out of whack, these weird prices started to appear. edited by stephanm on 6/6/2016
6/9/2016 Topic: Systematic Value Errors for all Grades below NM stephanm	OK, some further stuff I found on this. Because I primarily looked at my own books, I said earlier that I thought this error applied only to SA and BA books. But I've now looked at all the recent value changes (under "Price Guide" / "Recent Value Changes" -- great feature, by the way), and the incorrect pricing for everything other than NM applies to each and every recent update. For all such books, an incorrect grid for non-NM prices is applied. A convenient book to look at is Avengers 69. Why? Because the recently amended NM price happens to be exactly $100. Because of that, the percentages applied to non NM-grades can be seen at a glance (obviously, $50 means 50% etc.). You can the see all the weird percentages that are being applied -- not only to grades below NM, but above NM too (which in contrast to the lower grades are understated -- for example, 143% for a 9.8 grade is almost certainly too low etc.) POOR (0.5) is at 3.55% of NM (when in the past it was 1%), GOOD is 14%, VG 23%, FINE 43%, VF 71% and so on -- all massively inflated. Dear CPG: I totally understand that this poses a bit of a conundrum for you to fix. Once you apply corrections across the board, most collections of your users will immediately show a, sometimes massive, reduction in value. So you'll have to carefully explain it in advance, to avoid an outcry. And you'll need to make sure beforehand that you have identified ALL affected books, because you'll only want to do something like this once. But I don't think you'll get around doing this. More important than the confusion the value fix will cause, is CPG's ability to claim reasonably correct up-to-date comic values -- which is something that is made impossible by this ongoing error. And as a short term measure, what would really help is, if you at least applied the correct value grids for all upcoming vale changes -- otherwise the problem will just keep growing. Thanks :-)
6/9/2016 Topic: Systematic Value Errors for all Grades below NM stephanm	PS ... and for contrast, for those interested, take a look at, say, Avengers 51, which also happens to be valued at $100 for NM -- but which has been at that price for a while, and wasn't recently amended. Here you see a nice, clean value grid for Silver Age books, with POOR at 1% of NM, GOOD at 5%, VG at 9%, FINE at 16%, VF at 42% etc. Or, for an example of a Bronze Age Book, which also happens to be a NM $100: X-Men 111, with POOR at 0.5%, GOOD at 4%, VG at 8%, FINE at 18%, VF at 50% etc. Obviously one can always argue about the exact percentages, but at least all this is broadly realistic, unlike the recently amended comics.
6/9/2016 Topic: Systematic Value Errors for all Grades below NM stephanm	I take your point, Greg. And ultimately I don't know and CPG will have to answer that. But unfortunately I am certain that it is just that, an error. That's for two reasons: 1. true, the values of the old books, certainly of key books and series, tend to rise over time. And that's why CPG constantly amends values (in rare cases downwards, but in most cases upwards). But the error I mean is about low grade books suddenly being shown as much more valuable relative to the Near Mint value. And that is unlikely -- with the older books, if anything, the high grades become relatively more valuable as there are so few of them (whereas for Modern books, with glossy paper, and collectors having bagged them straight from the shop, there are lots and lots of high grade copies). Anyway, to look at one book I own myself, Flash 129 (2nd GA Flash in SA). Mine is in FN+, currently valued as $400 by CPG (against a NM value of $800). There is no way it is worth anywhere near that. After the old formula it would have been $144. Which, if you check Ebay, is about the right price. In that grade bracket, it is going for around $150, give or take. Only a few weeks ago, CPG valued it at $108 in FN+, against a NM value of $600. I agree with the NM rise from $600 to $800 (as the books got "hot" due to the Flash TV series), which should have resulted in a corresponding FN+ rise from $108 to $144. Not an "explosion" to $400. Or just look at Flash 117 (first Captain Boomerang), which wasn't recently amended, and which also happens to have a NM value of $800 -- lo and behold, the FN+ value is $144. 2. also, and i think that's the clincher, the same error also applies to the modern books. There, too, whenver there was a recent increase, the lower grade books increased much more, relatively speaking.
7/8/2016 Topic: Systematic Value Errors for all Grades below NM stephanm	Sorry to harp on about this. But, dear CPG, this error continuous unabated for any comics with recent price changes. Yesterday the NM value for Fantastic Four 45 (1st Inhumans) went down from $2,000 to $1,600. No doubt correct, given the big question marks over the planned movie. Yet the (perceived) value of my FN- copie shot up from $280 (14% of $2,000) to a whopping $594 (37% of $1,600). Which of course is crazy. The real value is probably $224 (the original 14% ratio for FN- copies, applied to the new NM value of 1,600) and that's roughly what you will find on eBay. That's nothing new, exactly the same error as described above, which applies to every single comic on CPG that had a value change within the last few months (I don't know when it started, but I think early this year). And as I said before, I also understand that it is quite tricky to change on those books that already have the error (as CPG will need to identify them all, and issue a strong explanatory statement beforehand, because users will get shocked if their collections go down by a big chunk overnight. Mine, I know, will be affected to the tune of almost $1,000. But what's the point deluding oneself about the value. I want to know the actual value). But, CPG administrators, what I would really urge you to do is to stop compounding the errors by using the wrong value grids on every new value change. At least please stop it going forward. Thanks !!!
7/13/2016 Topic: Can't find an issue? Check here first. stephanm	Hi Sue, if you just enter Marvel Tales under "comic title", and pick the first entry ("Marvel Tales" "1964-1995"), then you've got the correct series. If you then scroll down to # 29, you get exactly the comic you describe.
7/13/2016 Topic: Why are so few missing issues being added? stephanm	It would be very sad indeed, but unfortunately the errors keep compounding these last few months, in many areas. I really hope it is just an intermittent problem. I agree, it is one of the best comic sites around. The basic premise of being a more up-to-date & more realistic competitor to Overstreet is an excellent one.
7/14/2016 Topic: Why are so few missing issues being added? stephanm	well, I hope not. Compared to the outsider status they had, when I was a kid, I think comic books are doing extremely well, as a hobby. The problem with this site might be that it's not generating enough money, and can't afford the staff to keep it in order. Comics being added by users might be a good idea (it works well for IMDB, the Internet Movie Database, which is, by now, enormous). But it would go chaotic unless everything was vetted by staff (on IMDB, while users enter the data, it only goes "live" once it has been checked by IMDB staff). And there are things here, that users can't do -- namely, set the collectors' values. I really hope it is only an intermittent problem, and CPG get their act back together. It's not just the missing new issues, but also the price changes, which have been consistently mishandled all year.
7/14/2016 Topic: Can't find an issue? Check here first. stephanm	it's in there. Just type in "Action Comics", pick the first selection (1938-present), hit the "Annuals" tab, and there it is, as no. 6
7/27/2017 Topic: ASM 375 gold foil variant stephanm	Just noticed that ASM 375 (holo cover) quintupled in value on CPG (due to the Venom movie announcement, and the fact that this is the first appearance of the Bride of Venom). A bit optimistic, I would think, as ASM 375 is the Amazing Spider-Man issue with the highest print run, ever... but hey, maybe for a while speculation will keep the price high before eventually dropping down again (unless Ann Weying becomes a recurring key character in the films). But that's not really my question: I have got the gold foil (non-holographic) variant of ASM 375, which on CPG is listed, but has remained unchanged at $4. I tried to google about the variant, but found nothing, apart from sales sites offering it. Does anyone know: - is it a parallel variant to the holo cover? (by which I mean, released at the same time, maybe one to comic shops, one to newsprint?) Or is one or the other the second edition? - does anyone know about the print run? Apparently the print run for the holo variant was a staggering 1.1 million copies. http://www.hoknescomics.com/bestsellingcomics1990.htm I wonder whether the gold cover copies were part of that run, or separate? And if the latter, whether they are rarer (or I guess I should say, less plentiful...) than the holo cover variant? Thanks.
7/27/2017 Topic: Volatile Uncanny X-Men prices stephanm	I too noticed this massive price adjustment of Byrne era X-Men (mostly Dark Phoenix issues), and was a little puzzled -- especially because it came just after it was announced that the next X-Men film would feature Dark Phoenix (such announcements generally driving UP prices, instead of down; just look at ASM 300 or 375 recently...). While I agree that the Byrne X-Men values on CPG were a bit on the robust side (certainly compared to eBay auction results), I still thought this was a little extreme. Not least because if eBay auction results (I don't mean eBay "Buy It Now" prices, which tend to be wishful thinking, or rather, a first gambit in a negotiation) are the criterion, than almost all prices on CPG (with a few ultra-hot exceptions) are too high. I try never to bid more than 75% of CPG at auctions, and I tend to get more than half the books I bid for. With Marvel Silver Age (and some desirable Bronze Age books) I have to go a bit above that rule, but DCs (even Silver Age if they are not key issues) I often get at 50% of CPG or so. So I can't shake the feeling that these X-Men were a little unfairly singled out. To me, CPG, while a bit more realistic in general than Overstreet, doesn't so much represent what I am likely to achieve, if I were to sell my books on eBay (or wherever) as a private individual, but what I would likely have to pay when buying off a professional seller. Of course it would be fantastic if CPG were to truly represent collector value, i.e. what i could realistically sell for, but I think that would mean a complete overhaul of almost all the values on the site.
3/7/2018 Topic: "Recent Prize Changes" -- Bronze Members stephanm	Guys, this is cold... Just realized that you cut the number of recent price changes a Bronze member can view to a mere 20 ... Now, fair enough, I am a non-paying Bronze member, and you might point out things like "gift horses" and all that. However... ... honestly, this is not the way that you will entice Bronze members to upgrade. The best way to do that is make the higher echelons of your site MORE appealing -- not the lowest rung LESS so. Stunts like this just make me lose trust. The main reason why I am not interested in shelling out for Silver or Gold is that your site, while brilliant in many ways, does not, in my humble opinion, succeed in a key function, namely to serve as a tool to catalogue a collection, and in particular, to give it a fair total value. While I more or less think your NM values are about right, any lower grades for issues where you amended the price over the last year, are severely overpriced (essentially, you are applying the wrong fractions to the NM price) Just look at, I don't know, Fantastic Four 53 (where the value changed a few days ago): NM $400 -- OK probably right (odd time to cut the value in half, just after the film hit pay dirt, but it WAS severely overpriced before) VF $286 -- really? FN $171 -- seriously??? VG $103 -- Wow! For a VG ??? GD $57 ... That's SERIOUSLY bloated, and clearly out of line with reality, especially for the mid-grades. And that's true for all books with recent value changes. The result of this is, I'm no longer even looking at the total value of my 50 most valuable books I entered as a Bronze member -- I know it's a few thousand dollars off (for example my FF 53, in VG/FN, supposedly went UP in value quite a bit, even though, the NM listing went down from 800 to 400)... So I need to run an Excel sheet anyway, with realistic fractions of the NM values, to have correct figures for my collection. And if I am running an Excel sheet anyway, clearly I don't need a Gold membership. So, long story short, if I might make a suggestion, don't take away from us Bronze members, instead make life better for the Silver and Gold members, if you want to increase your paying membership. Also, don't diss us Bronze members too much. Admittedly, we're not paying. But in terms of advertising dollars, we are bringing up the numbers (I bet we make up something like 90% of the eyeballs on the site... And I'm guessing you're making a lot more money from advertising than from membership. That's just the way of the internet in general...) Thanks for listening. Best, Stephan PS don't get me wrong... the site is great, and I am glad it exists. But it could be so much better. And I was taken aback by the change to the "Recent Price Change" setting, which is a fun feature
3/8/2018 Topic: "Recent Prize Changes" -- Bronze Members stephanm	Thanks, Ron, for the quick reply. That's very much appreciated. Nevertheless, I still think reducing value for Bronze members (after all, up until a few days ago, Bronze members had access to the value changes, without the 20 issue limit) is a short-sighted marketing plan, which might not have the effect you imagine. However, it's your marketing plan and your prerogative to do so, on a free service, so hey ho, I'll stop grumbling. On the other issue, regarding the pricing errors, I think you misunderstood me. If you re-read my post, I wasn't talking about individual pricing issues. Of course I appreciate that the market is fast moving, that you are not omniscient, and that you can't nail them all. What I was trying to point out is a pretty massive systemic error. ALL values except NM on ALL issues where you posted value changes in the last year or so, are not realistic. The example I gave of FF 53 is just that, an example. The same systematic error (the fractions of NM value applied to the lower grades, are significantly too high) applies across the board. All issues with recent value changes apply the same unrealistic percentages to non-NM grades. I'll give you a nice, clear example of comics that happen to have a NM value of $100 (because that makes it easy to see the percentages), Avengers 89 and Avengers 96: Avengers 89 hasn't had a recent value change, and the values you list are as follows: NM $100 VF $50 FN $18 VG $8 GD $4 That's about right, in line with the market. Perhaps a bit stingy on the lower grades, but not too far off, I guess. Then let's look at Avengers 96, which DID have a recent value change: NM: $100 VF: $71 FN: $43 VG: $26 GD: $14 So supposedly both issues have the same NM value, but #89 has a FN value of $18 and #96 has a FN value of $43 ??? That's not realistic. Nobody would buy Avengers 96 in FN for 43% of the NM value, or in GD at 14% of the NM value etc. As I said, the same applies to, by now, thousands of comics (for anything that had a value change in the last year or so, the same error is perpetuated). And that's what I meant by the database constantly getting further and further removed from reality. I made this point before, a number of times, but never got a response (except the very first time, when I got "we are aware of the issue, and it will be dealt with", but it never was). Maybe you could bring it up with your programmers. It's not so much a valuation error, but the fact that the wrong formulae for calculating lower grades from the NM valuation is applied. Thanks for looking into it. Best, Stephan
3/9/2018 Topic: "Recent Prize Changes" -- Bronze Members stephanm	Ron, great to hear that this is finally being looked into. If you think about it, getting the scales for the mid and low grade books right is at least as important as getting the prime figure (the NM value) right -- for the simple reason that the vast majority of books out there (at least for GA, SA and BA -- MA might be different) are NOT in NM or anywhere near, but spread all over the spectrum. That there will be progress on this makes me hope that this site is finally on a good trajectory again, after a couple of pretty dire years. I totally agree that the old schedules for the lower graded books were on the overly conservative side. It's true that especially for older and key books, where lower grades are often the only way people can afford them at all, the true values are more than you show. It's just that the schedule you've used recently has taken it way over to the other extreme. So it would be great to see the realistic scales, in line with what you show above, being implemented soon. (although I have noticed that for your most recent value changes, Marvel Family 1 and 77, you seem to have gone to the other extreme again. But I have to admit that I know little about Golden Age pricing, and this may have to do with the extreme scarcity of high grade Golden Age books) And no need to apologize for digressing into theory ;-) I think that's the fascinating bit.
8/6/2019 Topic: Tales of Suspense 59 -- Letters Page stephanm	Hi there, I was wondering if a kindly soul could help me with the following. Personally, I am not in favor of slabbing comics, as I like to play with my toys, respectively to look at the comic, not just the cover (not a judgment -- I understand why people do it, especially on expensive issues. It's just not for me). Nevertheless, I just bought a nice 6.5 CGC copy of TOS 59 -- simply because it's a key book I wanted to have for a long time, because the price of the CGC copy seemed in line with what I would have been willing to pay for a Raw copy, and because it was a rather nice looking 6.5 (personally, I would have graded it 7.0, if I had bought the same copy raw. I bet whoever had it graded was disappointed with the grade.) Anyway, my plan had been to crack the case open. But given that admittedly it looks rather pleasing in its neat case, I decided against it (plus, I know it costs about $30 to get it slabbed -- actually, more, with the postage, as I live in Germany. An added value I would be destroying in an instant). No matter, I thought, I have reprints of the Iron Man and CA stories inside, and TOS doesn't have a letters column (or so I thought). So I am not missing much by leaving it unopened. But, to my surprise, I found that TOS 59 DOES have a letters page ("Mails of Suspense", haw haw), with some letters and a Special Announcement (presumably some nice Stan-ish hyperbole about this being Cap's first SA solo appearance, and about the fact that the House of Ideas listens to the multitude of readers who demanded this etc.) -- in fact, it seems it is the only issue of TOS with a letters page... I tried to find a copy of that letters page online -- to no avail. So here my plea: Does someone among the SA Marvel aficionados out there own a raw copy of TOS 59, and might be willing to post an image of it here? Thanks so much. All the best, Stephan
8/6/2019 Topic: Tales of Suspense 59 -- Letters Page stephanm	PS ... just to be clear, when I asked "to post an image", of course I meant only of the letters page, not of the comic itself... Thanks.
8/7/2019 Topic: Tales of Suspense 59 -- Letters Page stephanm	Thanks, Rixmaxx. You‘re a star !!!