Analysis of Tales to Astonish issues 27 and 35 to 101

Amazingly Secret Approach Using an Incredibly Novel Data Analysis Procedure for Comic Book Investing and Speculation. 

Analysis of Tales to Astonish issues 27 and 35 to 101

Welcome Twitter Followers
I have posted a schedule of future blogs! Enjoy!

Introduction and Material and Methods

            In order to isolate potential key issues to focus my investing efforts on, I used a data analysis approach based on established values from two collecting universes within in the entire run of the silver age Tales to Astonish (TTA issues 27, 35 to 101), I gathered value data from a variety of sources representing both serious investors (Insiders – I) and not serious investors (Outsiders-O).

            This data is current as on 3/2015. I choose to keep my methodology and data gathering proprietary at this time but am giving my readers a simplified representation of my data that I currently use for my decisions.

Results - Tales to Astonish (TTA issues 27, 35 to 101)

Table 1. Bias Scores (B SCORE) of All Issues in the Run

            Using the data based on that described in the introduction, I calculated the I/O bias (B Score) between the two groups and adjusted the scores to account for the extreme issue of TTA 27. Very high insider bias is denoted with dark purple (range 1768 to 25) and high bias is denoted using light purple (range 10 to 3). Minus numbers reflect a bias by the unsophisticated outsider group while positive numbers reflect bias by the sophisticated insider group. I have denoted the issues that have the insider bias with a dark grey fill-in.

Issue	B Score		Issue	B Score		Issue	B Score
#27	1763		#57	3		#80	-4
#35	231		#58	-1		#81	-4
#36	25		#59	3		#82	-4
#37	6		#60	5		#83	-4
#38	9		#61	-3		#84	-4
#39	9		#62	-2		#85	-4
#40	9		#63	-1		#86	-5
#41	10		#64	-2		#87	-4
#42	4		#65	-4		#88	-4
#43	-4		#66	-2		#89	-4
#44	-3		#67	-3		#90	-4
#45	5		#68	-4		#91	-5
#46	34		#69	-2		#92	-4
#47	3		#70	-9		#93	0
#48	2		#71	-3		#94	-5
#49	9		#72	-2		#95	-5
#50	-3		#73	-2		#96	-4
#51	-2		#74	-4		#97	-5
#52	1		#75	-4		#98	-4
#53	1		#76	-4		#99	-4
#54	2		#77	0		#100	-4
#55	-1		#78	-4		#101	-2
#56	-1		#79	-4

    The data suggests a bias does exist and invites a deeper focus (see Tables 2 and 3). I think these data show promise in this run and that surprisingly no extremes exist in issue values biased to outsiders’ opinions. That finding may need further thought.

    I note the few issues that show a slight bias (#48, 52, 53, and 54) as denoted in yellow. I would put these on my watch list to expect change. Issue 48 is the last Ant-Man as the next issue #49 brings Giant-Man and #52 is the first appearance of the Black Knight.

Table 2.  I/O SLN numbers calculated for issues 27, 35, to 101  

    In order to begin this deeper analysis I developed a measure called SLN. The SLN looks at the slope of the values in both the I/O databases from 9.4 to 6 conditions. Table 2 shows the SLN values between issues 27, 35 to 101.

    As I look across the data landscape, I have to focus on issue 27 and 35, which is the first and second Ant-Man appearance. Clearly they are the stars of the show in this run. I see that the SLN numbers are near but the insiders are valuing #27 more that outsiders (430.5 vs. 85.1) while #35 has 65.7 to 34.1 SLN numbers. Next I focus attention onto the issues that insiders are valuing higher vs. the outside group: issues 40, 41, 45 to 49, 53 to 56, 63, 66, 69, 77, and 101 (I note that extreme high grades equal or above 9.4 are always going to be valued greatly by both groups just due to the rarity). I note issues 36, 37, 43, 44, 50, 51, 61, 62, 70, and 91 are clearly biased to the Outsiders

           

Issue	I SLN	O SLN		Issue	I SLN	O SLN		Issue	I SLN	O SLN
#27	430.5	85.1		#57	2.8	2.6		#80	0.4	0.3
#35	65.7	34.1		#58	1.3	1.3		#81	0.4	0.3
#36	11.0	12.8		#59	3.3	3.0		#82	0.4	0.3
#37	4.5	6.0		#60	3.0	2.6		#83	0.3	0.3
#38	5.4	5.1		#61	0.8	1.1		#84	0.3	0.3
#39	4.6	4.3		#62	1.2	1.7		#85	0.4	0.3
#40	4.9	4.3		#63	1.2	0.4		#86	0.2	0.3
#41	4.6	3.4		#64	0.8	0.4		#87	0.3	0.3
#42	3.2	3.4		#65	0.5	0.4		#88	0.3	0.3
#43	1.7	3.4		#66	0.9	0.4		#89	0.4	0.3
#44	7.2	12.8		#67	0.6	0.4		#90	0.6	0.8
#45	2.9	1.1		#68	0.5	0.4		#91	0.2	0.9
#46	9.1	1.0		#69	0.9	0.4		#92	0.4	0.5
#47	2.3	1.0		#70	0.6	1.3		#93	1.8	1.8
#48	2.2	1.0		#71	0.5	0.3		#94	0.2	0.3
#49	5.2	3.4		#72	0.7	0.3		#95	0.2	0.3
#50	1.0	1.7		#73	0.7	0.3		#96	0.2	0.3
#51	1.2	1.7		#74	0.3	0.3		#97	0.2	0.3
#52	2.0	2.1		#75	0.3	0.3		#98	0.2	0.3
#53	1.7	0.6		#76	0.3	0.3		#99	0.3	0.3
#54	1.9	0.6		#77	1.2	0.3		#100	0.5	0.4
#55	1.2	0.6		#78	0.3	0.3		#101	0.9	0.4
#56	1.2	0.6		#79	0.5	0.3

   In conclusion based on this data, I suggest the green issues are the investment targets to focus on the highest grades possible while the red issues are targets for less focus. The grey’s are put on my watch list to monitor for any changes. 

Table 3. Adjusted Average Differences of I/O Data at Selected Grades

     Given the I/O differences in the data across grades, I focused on the average of those differences between the I and O data. I adjusted these averages to normalize it and allow a sharper clarity in the results. That data is presented in Table 3. $ represents I bias while x represents O bias.

Issue

C9 ADF

C8 ADF

C6 ADF

Issue

C9 ADF

C8 ADF

C6 ADF

Issue

C9 ADF

C8 ADF

C6 ADF

#27

$

$

$

#57

$

x

x

#80

x

x

$

#35

$

x

x

#58

x

x

x

#81

x

x

$

#36

$

x

x

#59

$

$

x

#82

x

x

x

#37

$

x

x

#60

$

x

x

#83

x

x

x

#38

$

x

x

#61

x

x

x

#84

x

x

x

#39

$

x

x

#62

x

x

x

#85

x

x

x

#40

$

x

x

#63

x

$

$

#86

x

$

x

#41

$

x

x

#64

x

x

x

#87

x

x

x

#42

$

x

x

#65

x

$

$

#88

x

x

x

#43

$

x

$

#66

x

$

$

#89

x

x

x

#44

$

$

$

#67

x

$

$

#90

x

x

x

#45

$

$

$

#68

x

x

$

#91

x

x

x

#46

$

$

x

#69

x

x

$

#92

x

x

x

#47

$

$

$

#70

x

x

$

#93

x

x

x

#48

$

$

$

#71

x

x

x

#94

x

x

x

#49

$

$

x

#72

x

x

x

#95

x

x

x

#50

x

x

x

#73

x

x

x

#96

x

x

x

#51

x

x

x

#74

x

x

$

#97

x

x

x

#52

x

x

x

#75

x

x

x

#98

x

x

x

#53

$

$

$

#76

x

x

x

#99

x

x

x

#54

$

$

x

#77

x

x

x

#100

x

$

$

#55

x

x

x

#78

x

x

x

#101

x

$

$

#56

x

x

x

#79

x

$

x

            Analysis of the Table 3 data revealed that I/O data in Table 1 and 2 might not reflect the whole truth. It can be seen that 6 issues are highly favored (Dark Purple) across the three grade levels by the I crowd (27, 44, 45, 47, 48, and 53). In contrast, 8 issues show only the I/O bias by the insider investors in the Grade of 9.4 (35 to 43, 46, 49, 54, 57, 59 and 60) (Light Purple). In those issues the unsophisticated outsiders favor the other grades of 8 and 6. The yellow denoted ones are on the watch list as some evidence is there for focus. Finally the outsiders bias all the other issues in the run over the insiders’ opinions and buying habits.

     Based on this data, I would conclude one might focus on the 4 dark purple denoted issues in the lesser cheaper grades while the lighter purple issues would those you should focus on only in highest grades or not at all. Other issues are not recommended for a focus effort at this time. Note this table may be of greater usage and certainly suggests a different approach as did the data in Table 2.     

                     

                       Legend for Focusing on Table 3’s Data

$ $ $ ----- I-bias is strong across the grades ---- High Focus

$ $ x ----- I-bias is stronger in the higher grades ---- Mid Focus

$ x $ ----- I-bias is only in the high grade 9.4 ---- Mid Focus

$ x x ----- I-bias is only in the high grade 9.4 ---- Mid Focus

x $ $ ----- Some I-bias but not in the high grade ---- Mid Focus

x x $ ----- Some I-bias but not in the high grade ---- Light/Low Focus

x $ x ----- Some I-bias but not in the high grade ---- Light/Low Focus

x x x ----- O-bias across all grades ---- No Focus