• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Walking Dead #1 Black Label vs White Label - an Answer! UPDATED 2/4/14
2 2

304 posts in this topic

Poking the bear :facepalm:

If anyone can find a flaw in this Jay will and I appreciate him for that and exposing other books that are being manipulated. (Not saying this is manipulated at all). TEC JAY don't play! Yes, I believe that's his new name. He just doesn't know it yet.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it's interesting that, of the 113 data points listed in the spoiler tag, only 18 of them are black label.

 

For anyone that doesn't think the black is rarer than the white, that's a pretty solid sample size that points to the contrary.

 

+1

 

I just don't ever hear anyone saying hey I will trade my black label for your white label :sumo: Is there anyone here that truly would do that trade even up? (Same grade condition obviously apples to apples)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone knows that dollar for dollar a nice early TWD page is much better than an #1 ... what a waste of internet.

 

Hi Garf :hi:

 

You are correct !!!

But I like Walking Dead comics too :preach:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ovr4h.jpg

Don't man you don't want that guy running around in here. You meddling with powers you don't understand.

 

Ted 2 lol

 

That movie was a riot, I just simply wasn't ready for the funny. Probably the best comedy I've seen in years.

 

Jaydog,

 

Enough mythbusting!!!! All we REALLY want to know is WHEN and for HOW MUCH are you selling each of the books in your signature line. :)

 

Aaaand the ones not currently in your sig line :taptaptap:

 

 

Jerome

Edited by jump_ace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to bffnut's efforts, his analysis is deeply flawed and misleading.

 

There's only been about a half dozen copies of Walking Dead #1's of either label colour that have broached the $2300 mark in the last year. There is certainly no "average" sales price of $2300, regardless of the label colour, at least not for the last 24 months. And what colours were those few copies that realized at least $2300 ? Who knows. Bffnut's analysis doesn't include all of them, because he doesn't know.

 

Point being, bffnut's sampling size is hopelessly incomplete, because he does not know and cannot know the break down of which sales had which colour label. No one knows that because CGC does not mention it on their labels. Because CGC doesn't care to mention it and they never will.

 

Further, if bffnut's analysis was truly legitimate, it should be observable in the marketplace at any given time, not just when he "believes" it should be present. Yet it is not. I have, on multiple occasions, over a two year period shown that there is no price difference realized. I have linked to dozens of sales for direct comparison, all sales that have occurred within mere days of each other. Indeed, the best way to conduct such an analysis is in real time, with current sales data as all things and sales are more likely to be equal and more readily comparable. Right now on ebay comic link, etc there are a multitude of sales that show no price differences, not in any grade, slabbed or raw. And there certainly is not a "$300" price difference.

 

Further still, according to even bffnut's 2015 "averages", the white labels are selling for more. What does that mean ?

 

It means nothing.

 

Just as it did when the black labels appeared to sell for a little more. As we have seen, it all averages out and equalizes in the end.

 

Hopefully that won't keep too many people up at night. lol

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to bffnut's efforts, his analysis is deeply flawed and misleading.

 

There's only been about a half dozen copies of Walking Dead #1's of either label colour that have broached the $2300 mark in the last year. There is certainly no "average" sales price of $2300, regardless of the label colour, at least not for the last 24 months. And what colours were those few copies that realized at least $2300 ? Who knows. Bffnut's analysis doesn't include all of them, because he doesn't know.

 

Point being, bffnut's sampling size is hopelessly incomplete, because he does not know and cannot know the break down of which sales had which colour label. No one knows that because CGC does not mention it on their labels. Because CGC doesn't care to mention it and they never will.

 

Further, if bffnut's analysis was truly legitimate, it should be observable in the marketplace at any given time, not just when he "believes" it should be present. Yet it is not. I have, on multiple occasions, over a two year period shown that there is no price difference realized. I have linked to dozens of sales for direct comparison, all sales that have occurred within mere days of each other. Indeed, the best way to conduct such an analysis is in real time, with current sales data as all things and sales are more likely to be equal and more readily comparable. Right now on ebay comic link, etc there are a multitude of sales that show no price differences, not in any grade, slabbed or raw. And there certainly is not a "$300" price difference.

 

Further, according to bffnut's 2015 averages, the white labels are selling for more. What does that mean ?

 

It means nothing.

 

Just as it did when the black labels appeared to sell for a little more. As we have seen, it all averages out and equalizes in the end.

 

Hopefully that won't keep too many people up at night. lol

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

J

 

I am working right now, and do not have the time to respond in full. However, you have not read my comments correctly and thus some of your comments are flawed. Please re-read what I have written and then reconsider the points you have made.

 

And honestly, I made no analysis. I simply compiled the data is that is available for everyone to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to bffnut's efforts, his analysis is deeply flawed and misleading.

 

There's only been about a half dozen copies of Walking Dead #1's of either label colour that have broached the $2300 mark in the last year. There is certainly no "average" sales price of $2300, regardless of the label colour, at least not for the last 24 months. And what colours were those few copies that realized at least $2300 ? Who knows. Bffnut's analysis doesn't include all of them, because he doesn't know.

 

Point being, bffnut's sampling size is hopelessly incomplete, because he does not know and cannot know the break down of which sales had which colour label. No one knows that because CGC does not mention it on their labels. Because CGC doesn't care to mention it and they never will.

 

Further, if bffnut's analysis was truly legitimate, it should be observable in the marketplace at any given time, not just when he "believes" it should be present. Yet it is not. I have, on multiple occasions, over a two year period shown that there is no price difference realized. I have linked to dozens of sales for direct comparison, all sales that have occurred within mere days of each other. Indeed, the best way to conduct such an analysis is in real time, with current sales data as all things and sales are more likely to be equal and more readily comparable. Right now on ebay comic link, etc there are a multitude of sales that show no price differences, not in any grade, slabbed or raw. And there certainly is not a "$300" price difference.

 

Further, according to bffnut's 2015 averages, the white labels are selling for more. What does that mean ?

 

It means nothing.

 

Just as it did when the black labels appeared to sell for a little more. As we have seen, it all averages out and equalizes in the end.

 

Hopefully that won't keep too many people up at night. lol

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

J

 

I am working right now, and do not have the time to respond in full. However, you have not read my comments correctly and thus some of your comments are flawed. Please re-read what I have written and then reconsider the points you have made.

 

And honestly, I made no analysis. I simply compiled the data is that is available for everyone to see.

 

Yes I understand that, however your data is also simply a snapshot and is therefore incomplete. Your data only included sales where you claim to "know" which label was which. However you do not know them all, you only know of a tiny fraction. There would need to be some kind of distinguishing notation on GPA for it to be reliable. As it is, it is just as "anecdotal" as the current data that shows white labels selling for more now. Which only proves my point- at any given time, one may sell for more than the other. There is no reliable or quantifiable price difference that can be observed. U presented some examples when black labels sold for a little more. I have presented examples where white labels have sold for a little more.

 

So why should anyone care either way ? (shrug)

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so confused. Just because GPA doesn't differentiate the difference between white and black label doesn't mean it is impossible to determine. It just takes a LOT of work and digging and I guessing that is what he did.

 

I guess we'll just keep:

 

65pbhk.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so confused. Just because GPA doesn't differentiate the difference between white and black label doesn't mean it is impossible to determine. It just takes a LOT of work and digging and I guessing that is what he did.

 

Yeah. That's what he did with the ones he says he knows of.

 

But again, he doesn't know them all. In fact, his obvious bias has more likely than not only caused him to pinpoint the few black label examples that seemed to out perform white labels at one point, a year or more ago.

 

And yet here we are now, with a multitude of white label sales seemingly outperforming the black labels, with data points that are still readily visible and available on more than one platform for all to view and therefore not have to simply take the word of someone else.

 

Go figure.

 

Just don't let it drive you nuts. lol

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to bffnut's efforts, his analysis is deeply flawed and misleading.

 

There's only been about a half dozen copies of Walking Dead #1's of either label colour that have broached the $2300 mark in the last year. There is certainly no "average" sales price of $2300, regardless of the label colour, at least not for the last 24 months. And what colours were those few copies that realized at least $2300 ? Who knows. Bffnut's analysis doesn't include all of them, because he doesn't know.

 

Point being, bffnut's sampling size is hopelessly incomplete, because he does not know and cannot know the break down of which sales had which colour label. No one knows that because CGC does not mention it on their labels. Because CGC doesn't care to mention it and they never will.

 

Further, if bffnut's analysis was truly legitimate, it should be observable in the marketplace at any given time, not just when he "believes" it should be present. Yet it is not. I have, on multiple occasions, over a two year period shown that there is no price difference realized. I have linked to dozens of sales for direct comparison, all sales that have occurred within mere days of each other. Indeed, the best way to conduct such an analysis is in real time, with current sales data as all things and sales are more likely to be equal and more readily comparable. Right now on ebay comic link, etc there are a multitude of sales that show no price differences, not in any grade, slabbed or raw. And there certainly is not a "$300" price difference.

 

Further, according to bffnut's 2015 averages, the white labels are selling for more. What does that mean ?

 

It means nothing.

 

Just as it did when the black labels appeared to sell for a little more. As we have seen, it all averages out and equalizes in the end.

 

Hopefully that won't keep too many people up at night. lol

 

-J.

 

 

 

 

J

 

I am working right now, and do not have the time to respond in full. However, you have not read my comments correctly and thus some of your comments are flawed. Please re-read what I have written and then reconsider the points you have made.

 

And honestly, I made no analysis. I simply compiled the data is that is available for everyone to see.

 

Yes I understand that, however your data is also simply a snapshot and is therefore incomplete.

 

:roflmao::roflmao: Wait, aren't you the same guy who made this post and many others that are similar?

 

Your data only included sales where you claim to "know" which label was which. However you do not know them all, you only know of a tiny fraction. There would need to be some kind of distinguishing notation on GPA for it to be reliable. As it is, it is just as "anecdotal" as the current data that shows white labels selling for more now. Which only proves my point- at any given time, one may sell for more than the other. There is no reliable or quantifiable price difference that can be observed. U presented some examples when black labels sold for a little more. I have presented examples where white labels have sold for a little more.

 

So why should anyone care either way ? (shrug)

 

-J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to bffnut's efforts, his analysis is deeply flawed and misleading.

 

There's only been about a half dozen copies of Walking Dead #1's of either label colour that have broached the $2300 mark in the last year. There is certainly no "average" sales price of $2300, regardless of the label colour, at least not for the last 24 months. And what colours were those few copies that realized at least $2300 ? Who knows. Bffnut's analysis doesn't include all of them, because he doesn't know.

 

I never stated that the price over the past year was $2300. That is an average of just black labels that are in my sample over about 2.5 years. I also stated that the average white label sold for $2,032.71, which, if you look at GPA, is really close the total average over the same period of time ($2,057.23). I never claimed to be looking at prices over the course of one year.

 

Point being, bffnut's sampling size is hopelessly incomplete, because he does not know and cannot know the break down of which sales had which colour label. No one knows that because CGC does not mention it on their labels. Because CGC doesn't care to mention it and they never will.

 

I do not think you understand what "sampling" means. By it's very definition, a sample is incomplete when compared to the population. The very reason why this thread exists is because we cannot know the population of black labels - not because CGC doesn't know (you assume they do not care), but because every strata in the line of production of the comic never thought to keep track of it.

 

"No one knows that because CGC does not mention it on their labels." Please realize that, even if CGC had kept track of label colors from day one, we wouldn't know the true population of black and white labels, because the census would still only be a sample of the population, as not every comic gets graded.

 

I suggest that you read up a little on statistics and sampling. While not perfect and not 100% representative of the population, it does give us a very close idea of it.

 

Further, if bffnut's analysis was truly legitimate, it should be observable in the marketplace at any given time, not just when he "believes" it should be present. Yet it is not.

 

The prices I posted are from GPA. While not representative of all markets, it does represent what is arguably the most active market (eBay). Prices fluctuate and change over time

 

 

I have, on multiple occasions, over a two year period shown that there is no price difference realized. I have linked to dozens of sales for direct comparison, all sales that have occurred within mere days of each other. Indeed, the best way to conduct such an analysis is in real time, with current sales data as all things and sales are more likely to be equal and more readily comparable. Right now on ebay comic link, etc there are a multitude of sales that show no price differences, not in any grade, slabbed or raw. And there certainly is not a "$300" price difference.

 

Further still, according to even bffnut's 2015 "averages", the white labels are selling for more. What does that mean ?

 

It means nothing.

 

I will agree that prices, as a whole, have gone down a bit over the past few years. That is why I included the averages over each year so people can look at trends. However, unless a book a swinging wildly in price, then you need to look beyond just the current data to find a long running average, to gather more data points. The current sales do not always tell the whole story, especially when you can only look a back a month or two like eBay.

 

Providing dozens of data points is not comparable to providing over a hundred of data points. The logic you have used to draw your conclusions is fallible. You should obtain a better understanding of how sampling and statistics work before you can throw out words like "flawed and misleading".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2