|
stephanm Posts: 35
6/3/2016
|
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 !!!
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Coconice Posts: 12
6/5/2016
|
This may be only loosely related to your post, and rather than dealing with accuracy, it is dealing with an almost excess of specificity.
I've seen several titles today where the graded 10.0 was in the neighborhood of $2000. Everything looks tidy until you glance down at 9.2 and 9.0. Those values are like $179.20.
I understand that for cheap books, maybe the cents are important, but 2 dimes on a $200 book just don't matter.
It would be nice if cents were truncated over a certain dollar figure. Like as low as $10, even.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
stephanm Posts: 35
6/6/2016
|
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
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
stephanm Posts: 35
6/9/2016
|
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 :-)
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
stephanm Posts: 35
6/9/2016
|
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.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
gregbrookins Posts: 132
6/9/2016
|
I understand your analysis, but I'll play devil's advocate for a minute. Is there any chance that as we get further from the publication dates, the relative values change due to scarcity? Are there any other contributing factors to the price differential? Does the current market affect the displayed prices in the database? If there is a new interest in these books, could higher demand(which naturally raises the base value) affect the database in a comparative ratio?
There, I played the advocate. That being said, yes, I really want a realistic accurate number being applied to my collection.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
stephanm Posts: 35
6/9/2016
|
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.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
stephanm Posts: 35
7/8/2016
|
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 !!!
|
|
|
+1
link
|
