Hard to say. Marvel has a powerful brand under Disney but a movie with Aquaman made one billion. I could see Namor doing well, though I believe his rights are tied up with Universal still, which is why he hasn't appeared in the MCU or the X-Men.

I guess that would be a good comparison: did the first appearance of Aquaman go up significantly after his solo movie (or WW)?

Yeah, Namor is with Universal.

If the situation is like Hulk, then they can use Namor in a movie (like as a villain in Black Panther 2) but not as the title character.

Technically, they can make a Hulk movie, but they would have to let Universal distribute it. Which they aren't going to do.

Anyone who believes this shit is a fucking moron. Individual comics being worth a lot of money are isolated issues, not most or the majority of issues being released.

The writers of this article are probably the same assholes that hood-winked a lot of collectors into believing that the 1990's Image & Marvel X-men/Spider-man re-booted series were going to be worth hundreds down the road. What bullshit. In actuality, most of these '90's comics were garbage (cookie-cutter art, terrible stories) and actually went down in price over the years. These days, they're only good for one thing - for use as toilet paper.

Glossy 90s comics make for terrible toilet paper.

Welcome to the discussion from three years ago?

Current comics are generally not worth cover price either. It is a terrible investment strategy. But here's hoping that when I emptied my life savings to buy up every issue of the Batman and Catwoman marriage comic that I'll make a mint.

Wait.... what happened in that issue?

Hate to be that guy, but Marvel #1 isn't Namor's true first appearance. But Marvel #1 has always been much more valuable than Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1, and it's considered his first appearance in a comic that had any kind of actual distribution.

CGC really loosly grade that book for it to be a 9.4. They are clearly letting defects slide on these older key books that they wouldn't on a modern book printed last month. Their grading SHOULD be consistant regardless of what issue they are grading or how old the book is.

Motion Pictures Funnies Weekly was never published, so the first appearance of Namor still Marvel Comics 1


Agree. This is a huge complaint among collectors and one in which we believe that CGC manipulates the market by doing this.

Even worse than this is labeling books as "pedigree". I've gotten in a debate with several fans over the pointlessness of pedigree books that usually goes someting like this:

Fan: "This book is a pedigree so it's worth at least 50% more than the same copy that doesn't have pedigree status".

Movieguru: "Why would you want to pay so much more for a book when you can virtually buy the same issue in the same grade for much less"?

Fan: "You don't understand. This book was once sitting in a same box in the same house with other books that the original owner purchased off the newstands and kept in excellent condition for many years. That is why pedigees are worth more".

Movieguru: "But a non pedigree book in the same condition was also bought off the newstand by the original owner and that owner kept it in excellenct condition as well".

Fan: "Yes, but this pedigree book was once owned by the original owner".

Movieguru: "Every book that is purchased off the newstand was once owned by the original owner. Your pedigree book no longer has had just one owner and is no longer in the same box or in the same house with all the other books that the original owner once purchased. The book could have exchanged hands many times since it was owned by the original purchaser".

Fan: "Yes, but this is a pedigree book".

I don't know what "pedigree" means in comics.

"Provenance" means that an antique has a known history, which means it probably isn't a fake. My grandmother got this autograph from King Edward VIII. This painting has a bill of sale from a reputable gallery. Does anyone worry about fake comic books? I've been assured that they're out there.

A friend of mine bought a box of old comics, and found that several of them were labeled "Johnny Byrne". The age was right, so it was kind of a cool thought that he had the boyhood comics of John Byrne. But it didn't make them worth any more.

Yeah, basically they are talking about Provenance. The thing is, most of the time there is no way to tell if the pedigree book in the collectin was truly the original owner. Often when collections are labeled as "pedigree" the owner of the collectin is deceased. There is no real way of knowing if some of the books were purchases from other collectors weeks, months, or years after they were on the newstands.

Also there are pedigree collections where the original owner wrote his name or put a stamp on the cover of every book. This should actually significantly decrease the grade of the book and none should be near mint after being written on. Instead they give them the "pedigree" label and charge more for boo even though it has a defect on it and should not have been graded as high as it was.

Really? Ex Libris stamps decrease the value of books.

So, does anyone worry about fake comic books? The same guy could have parlayed himself into the world authority of TMNT #1. We all lived within 3-4 miles of Eastman and Laird, and he knew them. He drove around New England trying to convince comic book shops to buy the title. He had boxes of them in his car. He told me about it a few years later, and said that he was seeing a lot of fake #1s.

Cerebus #1 was another one that had counterfeit copies in circulation. At one point the Overstreet Price Guide listed a market value for the counterfeit copies as well as the originals. After many complaints, Overstreet listed the counterfeits as "no value" and had a paragraph blurb in their priceguides about it for years. I don't know if the newer price guides have it listed at all any more.

I can remember hearing years ago that some people were taking the front covers off of the oversized DC Treasury editions and selling them as the originals. That won't work now with CGC and the internet but it apparently occurred often enough during the 1970's.

Did Chuck Rozanski come up with the first pedigree collection with the Edgar Church "Mile High Collection?"

Wouldn't surprise me at all... He bought a basement full of key Golden Age issues in high grade for a song, and found a way to sell them for double what they were worth.

I can sort of see the appeal of having a pedigreed book, but I personally wouldn't pay a premium for one. Or John Voight's old Chrysler LeBaron.

Yeah, pretty sure that was the first one. The whole concept seems a bit silly. About 17 years ago, I bought an unslabbed pedigree book once. It was Anthro #1. Looking at it I figured it would grade a 9.4. I ended up paying double guide for it, but the book was hard to find in high grade. When I bought it, the dealer gave me a quarter page certificate that a basic blurb, "This is to certify that this book _____________, issue number____ is a certified pedigree from the ***** Collection. Signed_________________. The dealer just filled in the blanks.

I ending up sending the book in with others from my collection to get it CGC graded. I realized, had I wanted to and if I had anoher high graded copy, I could have easily swapped the real pedigree book for the other one and no one would would ever know. I didn't have another copy of the book nor would I have done that even though I could, but it makes me wonder how may of these slabbed "pedigree" books really are actually the real thing and not a swapped out copy. Also how does anyone know that the dealer didn't really get the book somewhere else and just hand out these pedigree certificates on books that werent ever part of the collection just to command a higher price for what he sold. It seemed CGC would label the book as a pedigree as long as that piece of paper was sent with it. Also the certificate was just printed on some premium heavy weight resume grade paper you could buy at Staples. What's to stop someone from forging these certificates to get a pedigree label on their high grade books for resale. The whole thing just seems more of a marketing gimmick to charge more for the books and to get CGC to not lower the grade or get a qualified label on books with people's name hand written on them.

Yeah, the whole Pedigree thing is bullshit. When some of the guys at CGC explain the reasoning behind it, it made it even more confusing and more bullshit. Basically, it's a way to recognize "original collectors. People from the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's who bought books out of newsstands and kept them in NM condition. When I asked why one of the famous Pedigree collections was considered NM when the guy stamped all his collection with a star and a letter, CGC said that those things made the book identifiable with the collection. I said that's considered a restoration under their own guidelines, and CGC said that is a discretion the company is willing to take.

The funny thing is that every high grade book from that period was bought by the "original" owner. Once a new owner buys that book it is no longer owned by the "original" owner so it is just like any other book in high grade from that period. it has now had more than one owner.

Yeah, I was one of the suckers in the 90's who bought a bunch of copies of several titles - McFarlane's Spider-Man and Spawn being the ones I bought the most of.

I bought 13 copies of Spider-Man#1. 6 with the regular cover, 5 with the black cover, and 2 with the gold cover. I finally sold most of them this year (along with 2-20, which I bought multiple copies of). I'd say, adjusted for inflation, I still quadrupled my money. Now, given the relatively small amount I paid and the length of time involved that was most certainly NOT a good investment.

I bought multiple copies of some other stuff back then, too, and that stuff I've either lost money on or just broke even.

And I totally missed the boat on most of the big value comics from that era. I did sell a late 80's Amazing Spider-Man that had far higher value than I ever thought it would (I got $150 for it, despite some flaws in the condition).

Buying comics as an investment is just plain stupid. You're better off gambling in Vegas.

Yup, I grabbed a bunch also. At least the prices then weren't insane per issue as they are now.

One title I did do well on was SHAZAM! #1. Picked up ten copies when it came out and sold them earlier this year for around $40 each. So, one success out of hundreds of bad guesses.

^ I’m surprised you were able to make that much. I’ve seen those SM issues in dollar bins over the years.

Probably depends on the printing. That is one book that got reprinted by Marvel a lot.

I bought an Amazing Spider-man #300 off the shelf for 10% off of cover price when it first came out. I had it graded last year and sold it for $2500. Back when I was collecting comics in that period, I probbly spent no more than $4-5,000 over the 1980's so selling that one book made up for about half the total I spent when I was collectiing. I'm sure I've more than broken even over the years even though I bought multiple copies of some clunkers.

By the time Spider-Man #1 came out, Todd was already a superstar creator and Spidey was a top-tier character, so there are still enough copies of the book out there to satisfy demand. The stories being wholly forgettable probably doesn't help their value much either.

It was the height of the speculator boom, right before they left for Image. See Lee's X-men number 1 and Liefeld's X-force number 1, compared to the relative value of their earlier stuff in Amazing Spider-man, Uncanny X-men and New Mutants. When everyone and their mother is buying multiple copies for the sole purpose of keeping them in "mint" condition, it's going to be overproduced.