Determining value of used books.
shareyour...@hotmail.com
instances the same book in similiar condition and edition varied in
price from $8.00 to $100.00. So is there such a thing as a used book
price guide to narrow down the actual cost of a book?
Some Guy
There is no such thing as "actual cost." The value of a book is what
the market will bring.
I suggest using this site to find cheap used books:
shareyour...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Excellent source. Thanks. I had checked some of the sites indivdually,
but this is better. Regards.
Bill
No. Any sort of printed price guide is essentially out of date by
the time
it is published. (The only exception perhaps being a price guide to
books
so old and so scarce that they very rarely appear for sale in any of
the
large bookselling or bookfinding venues.) I have said before that if
I
go into a used bookstore and ask the price of an unpriced book and
the person behind the counter pulls out a printed price sheet of some
sort, I get out of there fast because I know I am dealing with a
dinosaur.
It is the market which tells the story: what people are willing to
pay
for something (which of course is often very different from what
someone is trying to get for something).
With many listings you find fantasy prices. Those are prices so
high that no one in his right mind, having read all of the listings
for the same book in the same general condition, would be willing
to pay for the book with the fantasy price.
On the other hand, you will find that some of the very low priced
listings are suspicious. Often they are deliberately vague, giving
you only the title but no publisher or date of publication.
Also, a lister might describe a book's condition as "good" without
bothering to explain why its condition is merely "good" as
opposed to "very good" or "used, like new".
As a general rule I will only consider buying a suspiciously
low-priced book if it is offered for sale by someone with
very high customer ratings. It needs to be described in
sufficient detail with regard to publisher, copyright date, etc.,
and the condition must be described thoroughly if the book
is rated anything below "used, like new."
[Memo from the upstairs office.]
Francis A. Miniter
Just to add one comment. A book in "good" condition is
generally purchased for content only, not for collecting,
unless it is fairly rare.
--
Francis A. Miniter
ως ουκ αν αιων' εκμαθοις βροτων, πριν αν
θανη τις, ουτε ει χρηστος ουτ’ ει τω κακος.
Bill
wrote:
I agree that is often the case. But not always. For instance,
it is not at all unusual for vintage paperbacks to have defects
which might (assuming we are talking about an ethical lister)
prevent a "very good" rating. One example might be a paperback
with quite a few reader creases on the spine, or with dust-
soiling on the page edges, or maybe with page yellowing.
It is conceivable that a paperback could have all of
those things to a certain degree and still be described as
"good." On the other hand, most people who like old
paperbacks have a high regard for cover art. Well,
a paperback WITHOUT the three things I mentioned above
might still be arguably rated as "good" with a large crease
across the cover, even though that crease would ruin the
book for most serious paperback collectors. A book with
the three flaws I mentioned above would not necessarly
prevent me from buying it, if the price was right. But with
a big cover crease ruining the effect of the cover art?
No way.
My point remains that listers need to describe why a book is
merely "good", because different defects affect some buyers
more than they affect others. If sellers are listing a good reading
copy, they, in their description,should add something like
"Unmarked and complete in all respects, this book makes
an excellent reading copy." That sort of thing, I mean. The
book might have five other things wrong with it, but at least it
is unmarked and complete in all respects, and is all the buyer
with good sense would expect of his or her purchase.
Added thought: With Google making a great number
of complete texts available, no doubt more people will
prefer to print a book for themselves rather than order
a shabby "reading copy." I don't really know which
would provide the worst reading experience: a beat
up old "acceptable" reading copy with cloth-bleaching,
cracked joints, etc. etc., or a "book" consisting of a
pile of 140 pages or whatever that the reader printed
out himself. Actually there is something
worse than both: reading a book over three-
pages in length on a computer screen...
[Memo from the upstairs office.]
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
>
> ως ουκ αν αιων' εκμαθοις βροτων, πριν αν
> θανη τις, ουτε ει χρηστος ουτ’ ει τω κακος.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
foad
"Bill" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:45f63610-996e-436f-b946-\
No. Any sort of printed price guide is essentially out of date by
the time
it is published. (The only exception perhaps being a price guide to
books
==========
Way to set those margins newbie.
Bill
> "Bill" <palmer.will...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Excuse me, fellow, but since when have I claimed to be
engaged in any such boring-sounding activity as "setting
margins?' I stopped "setting margins" when I put my
Smith Corona out to pasture quite a while back... Whee...
Now lets talk about YOUR annoying habit of perpetually
loitering around in newsgroups where you are over your
head in deep water in ANY discussion but continually
pester your betters with stupid little flame attempts,
merely -- in your own feeble consciousness -- to validate
your rather shabby existence.
[Memo from the upstairs office]
Mark B.
and move along.
"Bill" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5df2a3ec-8049-4903...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
foad
On Dec 26, 6:07 am, "foad" <ogu...@kjdfh.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <palmer.will...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:45f63610-996e-436f-b946-\
>
> No. Any sort of printed price guide is essentially out of date by
> the time
> it is published. (The only exception perhaps being a price guide to
> books
>
> ==========
>
> Way to set those margins newbie.
Excuse me, fellow, but since when have I claimed to be
engaged in any such boring-sounding activity as "setting
margins?' I stopped "setting margins" when I put my
Smith Corona out to pasture quite a while back... Whee...
==========
Exactly newbie, you hadn't set your margins, which is why your post looked
so retarded. You're new to the usenet obviously, but there are a bunch of
conventions such as line length that you'll be expected to follow. Some of
them, such as x posting (that's when you post to more than one group at a
time) you might be able to master, despite how stupid you seem. Others will
probably be beyond your limi9ted intelligence. Anyway, if you need any more
pointers I'll be happy to help you out. I am well known in the usenet for my
helpfulness and philanthropy.
Francis A. Miniter
Beyond the facts that (1) Bill is not a newbie and (2) this
rant of yours is beyond silly, his messages showed up
perfectly fine on my news reader. Perhaps, the problem is
that you have set your margins to narrowly.
Bill
wrote:
Sensible words, but what you may not know is that
the troll in question is "Fundoc", who has been slinking
around under a new name since I raked him over glowing
newsgroup coals a while back for both his ignorance and
his impertinence. This odd and paltry fellow has been
pestering me for attention almost since I came into
Usenet in 1995. In essence, he is a notorious, though
minor, newsgroup pest, annoying to most readers and
downright repugnant to a good many others.
While your comments make sense, be assured he
won't listen and will no doubt flail back with wet-noodle
sentiments befitting a medfly. Sad.
[Memo from the upstairs office]
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
>
> ως ουκ αν αιων' εκμαθοις βροτων, πριν αν
Bill
He's ashamed.
foad
Sensible words, but what you may not know is that
the troll in question is "Fundoc",
==========
Be fair BiLp, you didn't know who the troll in question was until the troll
in question told you who the troll in question was, you being too stupid to
figure it out yourself, depite its obviousosityness. Before that you were
cowering behind the couch ranting about Menjy and wetting yourself.
who has been slinking
around under a new name since I raked him over glowing
newsgroup coals a while back for both his ignorance and
his impertinence.
===========
Hardly true, and for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that
you were to get anywhere near a rake and a bunch of coals you'd no doubt
step on the end of the rake, causing the handle to fly up and smash you in
the forehead, causing you to fall into the coals, where you'd burst into
flame due to the enormous quantities of gas you emit. Better safe than
sorry. As to my new identity - not that it's any of your business - but it
was as the Germans say an affaire de coeur, and I didn't have to murder any
of her siblings either. Nothing you'd understand, so don't trouble yourself.
This odd and paltry fellow has been
pestering me for attention almost since I came into
Usenet in 1995.
===========
If by pestering me for attention you mean "kicking me until his leg gets
tired to the great amusement of his many fans" then yes. Elsewise no.
In essence, he is a notorious, though
minor, newsgroup pest, annoying to most readers and
downright repugnant to a good many others.
While your comments make sense, be assured he
won't listen and will no doubt flail back with wet-noodle
sentiments befitting a medfly. Sad.
==============
OTC, Palmjabber, I am a well regarded - and surprisingly well behaved -
member of of this group in good standing. As such I even enjoy your little
essays about the shoebox full of Harvey comics you call a book collection,
although I suspect you over estimate their desireability. As other group
members have mentioned, the semen stains encrusted on Little Audrey will
affect both value and collectibility.
foad
"Francis A. Miniter" <fami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gj401j$95p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Beyond the facts that (1) Bill is not a newbie and (2) this rant of yours
> is beyond silly, his messages showed up perfectly fine on my news reader.
> Perhaps, the problem is that you have set your margins to narrowly.
No. Here's the google version of the bLiP post in question. See the first
paragraph. See the line breaks.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.books/msg/5f1bd18399dab933?dmode=source
Francis A. Miniter
Ah, you are using Google as a reader. Use a Usenet reader.
Motzarella is a free one. Go to http://motzarella.org
foad
> foad wrote:
>>
>> "Francis A. Miniter" <fami...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:gj401j$95p$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>>> Beyond the facts that (1) Bill is not a newbie and (2) this rant of
>>> yours is beyond silly, his messages showed up perfectly fine on my news
>>> reader. Perhaps, the problem is that you have set your margins to
>>> narrowly.
>>
>>
>> No. Here's the google version of the bLiP post in question. See the first
>> paragraph. See the line breaks.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.books/msg/5f1bd18399dab933?dmode=source
>
> Ah, you are using Google as a reader. Use a Usenet reader. Motzarella is
> a free one. Go to http://motzarella.org
I'm not using Google as a reader, no. I'm showing you the post as it exists
in the Deja Mountain, the offical compendium of BiLp's idiocies, or as I
prefer to think of it, Mount Rushmore carved out of twaddle.
Bill
> "Bill" <palmer.will...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
[Fundoc's perverted slurs snipped. It amazes me
how often this sort of troll gives himself away by
trying to attribute to others the nasty perversions
which fester in the match-head sized bundle of
neurons he flatters as his brain.]
By the way, what people may not realize is that
back in the early 1950's Harvey published some of
most terrifying horror comics ever. Harvey was not
all about Richie Rich, Casper, and Little Dot. However,
after they dropped their horror comics line in the
mid-1950's with the coming of the Comics Code
Authority, Harvey (meaning whoever owns the
current rights to Harvey Comics) seems to have
become ashamed of their horror comics. They
should not have be:they had artists like Bob
Powell and Howard Van Nostrand, some of the
best in the business in those days. I don't
know if the Harvey horror stuff has gone into
the public domain, but recently I have found
some excellent reprints which have included
Harvey stuff with no mention of Harvey. {One
possiblity might be that whoever put out the reprints
I refer to paid for the re-publishing rights but agreed
not to use the Harvey name, in order to "protect"
their image, which is now associated with Little
Audrey, Richie, etc.}
It might be added, Fundoc,that I have not collected
comic periodicals in years. At one time, I had a
superb and frankly quite vast collection from what
some now call the "Atomic Age", the period from
after World War II to the mid-1950's. (To people
who know nothing about comics: This period is
not so well-known because it came between the
end of the Golden Age of the super-hero period,
and the "Silver Age" superhero-period of the 1960's.
Conversely, the "Atomic Age" was not about
superhero comics,but rather, horror, science fiction,
crime, western,war, romance, and teen-age comics,
although Classic Comics and some funny-animal
comics by Disney and others remained immensely
popular. Probably the most famous comics of the
"Atomic Age" comics were the EC's, but there were
many other great comics published during that era.
At one time, I had a sizeable percentage of them,
with almost all the EC's., including the first 23
Mads which were ten-cent comics before Bill
Gaines went over to his magazine format in
the mid-1950's.
[Footnote: At the most recent Comic Con
convention I noticed that one of the dealers was
offering the comic book I had once referred to
in a posting -- not in this group --, about a comic
which,in the early 1950's in a terrifying manner
seemed to predict Charles Manson! That cover
still gives me the shudders, Anyway, the
seller at the Comic Con was asking around
$3,000 for it.]
I sold my comic collection many years ago
because the comics were getting too old and
too valuable and needed too much protection
and maintenance, My own view is that
collecting should be fun: having thousands of
sealed comics you don't want anyone to
touch because the pulp paper makes them
extremely delicate is not my idea of enjoyment
through collecting.
Many of the great old comics deserve to be
reprinted and it seems to me that more of
that is occurring, though not nearly enough.
Just imagine a situation where if you wanted
the read Charles Dickens you would have to
obtain a first edition. That's about the way
it is with some wonderful old comics (and
I mean both newspaper comics and comic
books)
Fundoc's ignorant cheapshots rely
on the notion that I should be ashamed over
any reference to comics in a distinguished
book collecting forum such as this. His
very narrow consciousness does not seem
to grasp at all the validity of comic art as
an authentic medium for both communication
and artistic expression. That'''s what I mean
when I refer to him as a paltry fellow. He
considers himself a great wit when quite
the opposite remains true. It seems to me
it was Wallace Stevens who coined the
phrase "...a lustered nothingness.." but
with poor Fundoc, the luster on his
nothingness seems shabbily foxed and
pathetically distressed...
[Memo from the upstairs office.]
>
Bill
[...]
>
He' knows he's caught red-handed now! He's wracking that
small, cognitively-malnourished brain of his trying to think of
something to scurry back with. 'Twill be of no avail...I am
waiting for him to actually prove dumb enough to lash back
at me by decreeing that comics should not be discussed
in a book collecting forum. His mind will prove far too dim to
grasp that comics have been published in hardcover form
since before World War One, and many-hundreds of them
have been published since then, including newpaper reprints
of strips like "The Yellow Kid" and "Little Nemo", comic book
reprints, such as all the Marvel and DC hardcover reprints of
superhero comics currently on sale, as well as comics such
as "Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth" which are
published as hardcover originals. Contray to the ignorant
jibes of "The Paltry One", hardcover comics of one type or
another have been sought as collectbles for decades. But
don't tell him that, and ruin his "devastating" rebuttal before
he taxes his feeble mind to type it...
foad
On Dec 27, 5:39 am, "foad" <ogu...@kjdfh.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <palmer.will...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
[Fundoc's perverted slurs snipped. It amazes me
how often this sort of troll gives himself away by
trying to attribute to others the nasty perversions
which fester in the match-head sized bundle of
neurons he flatters as his brain.]
========
The alleged flame giant begins his soon to be hosed Ode to Tedium with: an
IKYABWAI. Some things never change: all aboard Cleveland.
By the way, what people may not realize is that
back in the early 1950's Harvey published some of
most terrifying horror comics ever.
=============
I for one have no doubt that you shit your pants in terror while reading
Baby Huey. Don't worry though, most birds don't get that big, so they won't
hurt you. Emus sure, and maybe ostrich. Not chickens though. And they don't
wear diapers either if that's what you were worried about.
<snip>
[Footnote: At the most recent Comic Con
convention I noticed that one of the dealers was
offering the comic book I had once referred to
in a posting -- not in this group --, about a comic
which,in the early 1950's in a terrifying manner
seemed to predict Charles Manson! That cover
still gives me the shudders, Anyway, the
seller at the Comic Con was asking around
$3,000 for it.]
==================
The true story is somewhat different, viz: PliB once read a comic book and
being somewhat retarded and a big girls blouse it caused him to soil his
trousers and left him "afraid to go to bed." So moved was he by the
experience that he wrote an interminable and stupid essay about it that was
relentlessly pilloried by everyone who managed to read any part of it before
falling dead asleep. This savaging BiLp trumpeted as a literary triumph
until an intrepid soul managed to wade thru the both BlIp 's tripe and the
ensuing mockery - which can be summed up thusly, "Palmer has not lost his
ability to out-stupid himself." -- and collect the detritus here. After all
these years it still makes an amusing read.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/0cb9a44582fa3389?hl=en
I sold my comic collection many years ago
=======
In that case I've taken the liberty of hosing the rest of your interminable
screed, as this group is for collectors, not former collectors. Still, if
you run across another rare and terrifying Herman and Katnip first edition
that seems to predict the Kenndy assassination or whatever and you wish to
share the matter in group, feel free.
foad
On Dec 27, 1:38 pm, "foad" <ogu...@kjdfh.com> wrote:
[...]
> comics
> comics
> "The Yellow Kid"
> "Little Nemo"
> comic book
> Marvel
> DC
> comics
> "Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth"
> comics
Following up your own posts is bad form newbie. It's especially bad form in
your case, since you had nothing interesting to say the first time around.
Bill
> "Bill" <palmer.will...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Your have proved my point again. You are too much the dim
bulb to grasp the fact that your feeble comeback had already been
predicted in my post. Yes, comics have been published in
hardcover form for around one-hundred years, and many of
those hardcover editions are eagerly sought by collectors.
Deal with it. Childishly picking words out my post and listing
them isn't going to impress anyone and its not going to change
anything.
foad
===========
No. Your "prediction" had to do with your Harvey comic collection, whereas
my response had to do with what a numbfuckingskull you are, which are two
completely different things. See, you collect comics because you are a
nitwit, but all nitwits don't collect comics.
Bill
You don't read very well, do you, Fundoc/FOAD?
Is it not possible to get one of those battery-operated
reading lights installed in whatever dumpster you
currently reside in? No, as I made clear, I sold my
comic book collection (probably one of the greatest
"Atomic Age, ie, 1947-1955" comic collections ever
assembled, I am proud to report) and in fact I have
no doubt that I sold it for far more money than Fundoc
will ever grasp in his grimey dumpster-diving claws.
By the way, I still appreciate great comic art, and I
am not the least embarrassed by that. While it is
possible that I may have read more comics than
the ignoramus who morphed from the well-spanked
Fundoc to the currently spinning and sputtering
"Foad" , his posted heorsefeathers in this forum
make it clear that I have also read far more BOOKS
than he has, or ever will. By the way, since
Fundoc has long been known as one of the most
prolific posting non-writers in the newsgroups, it in
no way strains credulity to conclude that if Fundoc
is a book collector at all, he is a non-reading
collector...In short, Fundoc is simply a grubby
little net pest who has been annoying me (and
a great many of his other betters!) for attention
for years. He's a sad, shabby specimen.
[Memo from the upstairs office]
>
> [Memo from the upstairs office.]- Hide quoted text -
Bill
> news:8b9ad089-050a-423e...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 6:11 am, "foad" <ogu...@kjdfh.com> wrote:
He's off someplace licking his wounds, that's where
Fundoc/FOAD is! This guy is incredibly predictible.
Just watch: In a day or two, when and if he manages
to recover, he will come in on the thread whirling those
"devastating" wet noodles a dervish. Then, he will run
out of steam and take a pratfall, writhing around on the
floor with those soggy noodles twining around him.
After that, he will lurch off again, perhaps bolstering his
courage and wheeling around to fire off some lame
put-down before he skulks off... .
[Memo from the upstairs office]
>
>
>
>
>
foad
>
>> news:8b9ad089-050a-423e...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 28, 6:11 am, "foad" <ogu...@kjdfh.com> wrote:
>
> He's off someplace licking his wounds, that's where
> Fundoc/FOAD is! This guy is incredibly predictible.
> Just watch: In a day or two, when and if he manages
> to recover, he will come in on the thread whirling those
> "devastating" wet noodles a dervish. Then, he will run
> out of steam and take a pratfall, writhing around on the
> floor with those soggy noodles twining around him.
> After that, he will lurch off again, perhaps bolstering his
> courage and wheeling around to fire off some lame
> put-down before he skulks off... .
So to recap: it took you a week and a half to come up with this prattle and
yet another interminable essay about your shoe box full of Richie Rich
comics.
John Dough
Will you two lovebirds just get a room?
foad
"John Dough" <jdo...@spammerssuckthebigone.com> wrote in message
news:73g5m41isc81d8mov...@4ax.com...
Go fuck yourself.