Top 10 comics from the 1970s: the highest amounts actually requested

The site already offers a ranking from the 1970s based on reading judgment, with its levels S, A, B and C. This article does not pursue the same goal and does not compete with it. We will find no appreciation of a scenario, no hierarchy between designers, no purchase recommendation presented as an investment. A single criterion organizes the list: the number entered in the “price” field of an announcement, on a given day, for a copy whose condition has been checked by a third party. This criterion is narrow, it is easy to verify, and it says nothing about the value of a story.

We must set the limit straight away, because it conditions the reading of each line that follows. An asking amount reflects what a seller hopes to get. There is no guarantee that a buyer has accepted it, or that they will ever accept it. The reading was taken on a single date: it cannot therefore show any movement, neither rise nor fall, since there is no second measurement to compare it to. Any phrase like “this number is going up” would be a pure invention here. We describe a snapshot, and a snapshot doesn't tell a story.

How this statement was constructed, and what it cannot prove

The process is deliberately simple, to remain reproducible. A general auction site was surveyed on August 30, 2026 on three separate vintages — 1971, 1974 and 1978 — retaining only the examples accompanied by a condition inspection by an independent organization. The amounts are those displayed by sellers, in dollars, on the American market. Three years do not make a decade: it is not a census, it is a sample, and it must be treated as such. The volumes themselves are modest - 27 advertisements for 1974, 21 for 1978, only 5 for 1971 - which prohibits speaking of "market prices" and only allows us to describe the objects actually seen that day.

A word on the choice to only count verified copies. A booklet whose condition has been assessed by a third party and sealed carries stable information, comparable from one advertisement to another. A copy freely described by its seller does not offer this comparability: “very good condition” does not mean the same thing depending on the hand that writes it. By restricting the survey to controlled copies, we gain in homogeneity what we lose in representativeness, since we exclude by construction the entire lower part of the market, that of reading copies sold without certification. The following classification therefore describes a particular segment, not the entire 1970s.

The four highest amounts on the statement

The 1974 sequel establishes itself at levels beyond measure. A complete series ofOMAC, eight numbers from #1 to #8, all checked in a range of 7.0 to 9.0, was listed at $560.00 for the set. AThor#225 rated 9.0, flagged for Firelord's first appearance, was asking $489.95. Between the year's ceiling and these two lines, the ratio exceeds fifty to one — within the same vintage, on the same place of sale, on the same day.

Six observations that the survey allows

1978: a ceiling thirty times lower than that of 1974

The year 1978 brought back 21 announcements, a number comparable to that of 1974, but an unrelated scale of amounts. The highest demand of the vintage is aMs. Marvel#17 rated 9.8, featured for the first appearance ofMystique, at $349.22. The 1974 cap was $29,995.00. The ratio between the two exceeds eighty to one if we retain the top, and remains above thirty if we dismiss the highest ad as atypical and retain its twin at $19,999.99. In both cases, the order of magnitude changes in nature.

The rest of 1978 is held in a narrow band. ASteel The Indestructible Man#1 rated 9.8 was listed for $295.00, exactly at the same level as theDetective Comics#476 variant rated 8.5. Two copies ofSuperman#321 follow, at $139.95 for the 9.4 with white pages and $129.95 for the 9.0 from a documented collection. ASpider-Woman#1 rated 9.0 closes the list at $119.99. Between the first and last lines of the vintage, the ratio is less than three - where 1974 had a ratio of more than fifty within the same year.

This difference in dispersion deserves to be noted for its own sake, without being transformed into an explanation. In the advertisements seen that day, 1974 appears to be a year with a very strong internal hierarchy, drawn by two or three lines, while 1978 forms a compact group. We can describe this shape; we cannot deduce a rule on the decade, nor assert that it would recur on another statement date or another place of sale. To speak of the 1970s as a homogeneous block would, in the light of this single sample, make no sense.

A detail from 1978 deserves the attention of those who keep an inventory: two copies of the same number coexist there with crossed characteristics. One displays the best grade, the other the documented provenance, and their claimed amounts are only ten dollars apart. The two sellers therefore, each in their own way, valued a different attribute to achieve an almost equivalent result. This is a useful reminder: the status note is not the only field that weighs in the construction of an application.

1971: five announcements, and therefore no ranking

The 1971 vintage brought back only five ads meeting the criteria. It must be said frankly rather than covering up this void: such a number does not allow any conclusion on a price level. Five objects do not draw a market, they draw five offers, of which we do not know whether they have found a buyer. The following figures are given for the transparency of the statement, not to be classified.

On y trouve unSub-Mariner Annual#1 rated 9.2 at $179.99, oneMister Miracle#4 rated 5.0 reported for a first appearance, that of Big Barda, at $125.00, aMister Miracle#1 rated 7.5 with off-white pages at $120.00, and aNew Gods#1 rated 4.0, also featured for a first appearance, at $82.99. The top and bottom of this handful of listings are separated by a ratio of just over two.

Three of these titles —OMACcôté 1974,Mister MiracleetNew Godsside 1971 — are associated with the same author,Jack Kirby. This is the only editorial commonality discernible in the sample, and it is not accompanied by any regularity in amount: these lines range from $82.99 for a low-rated copy to $560.00 for the complete eight-issue series. The signature of an author, in this statement, does not order anything.

The low numbers in 1971 may have several origins — a choice of keywords, the way sellers provide the year, the composition of the offering that day. None of these hypotheses is verifiable with the data in hand, and it would be dishonest to favor one. What we can say is limited to this: on this request, on this date, five advertisements were returned, and five advertisements did not rank.

Why the state note does not order the amounts on its own

A quick reading would suggest that a higher note corresponds to a higher amount. The statement contradicts it as soon as we cross-reference the vintages. AMan-Thing#1 rated 9.8, almost a maximum score, demanded $1,375.00; AIncredible Hulk#181 rated 4.5, a significantly more marked copy, fetched $2,699.99, almost double. The note therefore only prioritizes copies of the same number among themselves, never numbers that are different from each other.

Within the same issue, on the other hand, the relationship can be clearly read. The two copies ofIncredible Hulk#181 offers the cleanest illustration of the statement: $4,395.00 for the 7.5, $2,699.99 for the 4.5. Three points difference on the status scale here corresponds to a third less demand. This report applies to these two specific announcements and does not constitute a scale; it simply shows which way the note is working. The mechanism is detailed in theguide dedicated to the relationship between rating and price.

A third factor further confuses the reading: the mention of a signature affixed under control, present on the two most expensive advertisements in the statement. It transforms a copy into a doubly attested object — the condition on one side, the authenticity of the signature on the other. But since the two advertisements carrying it display amounts separated by ten thousand dollars, this characteristic does not explain, on its own, the level requested. No single attribute is enough to predict a number.

Finally, two announcements in the survey do not relate to a single copy. The complete series ofOMACbrings together eight fascicles in a single set, with a range of notes rather than a single note. Its $560.00 asking comes to $70.00 per controlled issue if divided mechanically, which places it below almost all individual lines from 1974. A lot sells by the lot, and direct comparison with an isolated copy is only meaningful if you say so.

What to note in your own inventory after this reading

Record the date of each amount you record.All of the above only applies to August 30, 2026. A number written down without its date becomes a timeless statement that no reading supports. In a collection sheet, the date of observation is as important as the number itself, because it alone will later allow two measurements to be compared and to note — or not — a movement.

Systematically distinguish between an amount requested and an amount obtained.The twenty lines of this statement are requests from sellers. None proves that a transaction took place at this level. If your inventory mixes displayed prices and concluded prices in the same field, it will automatically produce an inflated estimate, and you will no longer know, six months later, which line is based on which.

Note the number of announcements that were used to form your idea of ​​a level.Twenty-seven announcements for 1974 and five for 1971 do not read the same way. A sheet that says “around $120, seen in 5 ads” can be read without error; a form that simply says “$120” will be taken as a certainty after a few months. The workforce is part of the information.

Record the attributes that accompany the grade, not just the grade.Controlled signature, documented provenance, variant linked to a readership survey, color of the pages: each of these elements appears in the announcements of the statement and each changes the comparability of two copies of the same issue. An inventory that only records the number of the note loses exactly what explains the differences between neighboring lines.

Treat batches and complete series as separate entries.The lineOMAC#1–8 is not comparable to any individual line in the statement. If you have a complete set, note it as a set and note the condition of each issue separately: the day you want to compare your lot to an ad, you will need both levels of information, and piecing together the detail after the fact is much more time-consuming than entering it once.