sfcityduck

Didn't know that adding gradations was under discussion. But isn't the real issue not adding grades because of price differences, but adding grades because they would say something meaningful about the comics? Let me put it this way: I recently sold a Four Color 456 (Uncle Scrooge No. 2) for a decent five figure amount in a private transaction. The most recent sale was of a 9.2 for a little shy of $6K. The census lists only two 9.4s (one a file copy, the other the one I sold - both with white pages) and three 9.2s. The other 9.4 had sold to a collector in Europe over a decade ago. So it's not surprising that I was able to get a very strong price for a top of census white paged book when no other equivalent copies were presently, and maybe not ever, going to be available. The price gape between 9.2 and 9.4 is large. But, that does not necessarily mean the grade difference was. So do we really need a 9.3 grade because of price gaps? I think not. I could be convinced we need a 9.3 grade if it made a meaningful and consistently ascertainable distinction between 9.2 and 9.4. But, I think grading is more an art form than a science, so I'm a bit skpetical. But, could be convinced if it worked in practice before CGC adopted it. I don't see anyone using it in practice now.

I think that is a fairly accurate analysis of the original subject. I don't. Whether you are a "collector" or not does not depend on the state of your economic resources. That may well impact what you collect, but it does not determine whether you are a collector. It is perfectly fine, for example, to collect reprints. The original point of the thread had nothing to do with the definition of "collector." That discussion is a thread derailing digression. I agree with Thunsicker's insight that demand will diminish as prices increase. And I agree that there the number of "truly rich collectors" is a small subset of all collectors. But, that gives us no real insight into what a "collector" is. "Collector" is not an economically determined status.

You might want to give some thought to these statements:: * "I don't see the need to be derogatory to you, though certainly not for a lack of material" (you manage to refute your first clause in your second); * "you really ought to shelve the personal commentary about others. Your opinion about what I "tend to misread" is merely an opinion, not at all supported by the facts, and made out of spite to discredit me, not as a good faith representation of what really is" (you contradict your first sentence condemning personal commentary about others, and then make the personal comment that the opposing poster is acting out of "spite"); * "If you kept above board" (another derogatory comment); * "If you set aside your personal animus" (another personal commentary and derogatory comment).

The act of seeking out, acquiring, and holding comics, for the love of comics, is what makes a collector. How you store your comics, or whether your comics degrade in your possession, is irrelevant. Those just go to what kind of collector you are. There is no doubt that collecting comics to read, over and over, causing finger bends, creases, and overal degradation, is a legitimate collecting goal. The term "reading copies" is a term dreamed up and used by "collectors" in recognition of a prominent collecting goal. Similarly, buying comics to store away without reading, in an attempt to perfectly preserve their condition, or to submit to a presser to attempt to enhance the condition, for entombment in plastic, is also a legitimate collecting goal. The term "collector" embodies a large number of different collecting goals. That RMA does not recognize this diversity in collecting goals evidence nothing other than that his own view is myopic.

Do you fear adoptive admissions? The notion that if you don't respond to a post, you've agreed with it is false. Similarly, simply disagreeing, without offering any explanation, is a failure to advance the conversation.

Hard for me to understand why you wouldn't recognize that two buyers bidding up the first appearance of Wolverine OA in 180 to $650K, $200K more than GL/GA 76 cover, is not evidence of its true import. But everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Redbeard over on the GA forums just floated this definition for "collector": "someone that reads comic books and then saves them versus one that reads and discards comic books." That's even broader than my definition, as I think "why" you save them matters. But, it is far different from the notion you must maintain their condition in the same state as when you got them. If you don't accept reading comics, over and over, despite the damage this does to the comic, as a legitimate collecting goal, then you are really just an investor, not a collector.

What assertion are you disagreeing with?

I think this thread has officially played out far beyond any hope of redemption. My apologies for my part in that.

The market spoke on the true import of 180 when the original art for Wolverine's first appearance and introduction in 180 sold for over $650K. I don't think any interior page of 181 would match that. Heck, Neal Adams' cover for GL/GA 76 and Miller's cover for DKR 2 couldn't get close to that price. We all know 180 is the true first appearance. It is undervalued relative to 181, but will remain so in a CGC world.

Good enough. If you seek out, buy, and hold comics because you love comics, I withdraw my comment. No need to talk about them on a message board.

A "collector" does not need to "prevent further deterioration" to be a "collector." You can collect to read a comic over and over, causing deterioration, because your collecting focus is "reading" not "investment" or entombment or preservation. This is really simple stuff. Many, really, most collectors in the 1970s and 1980s I knew bought comics off the stand, and then read them over and over, deteriorating the grade, but enjoying the stories immensely.

He does. I am anonymous. It is a conundrum. Or a sock puppet.

I checked out the last 6 pages of his posts, and his history supports your conclusion that he's no comic collector.

Hey RMA, I thought you didn't like this kind of conduct on the boards. How come you aren't condemning it?

I post mostly in Gold. You some sort of Copper/Modern guy? In any event, you don't use your given name as a board name and you list no personnel information. That's anonymous in message board terms.

How would you like me to explain this to you? In common parlance, or in legal terms? Let's go with common parlance. Simply put, an "accident" is "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury." Negligence is "failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another." Accidents are often caused by negligence. It is negligent to fail to stop at a stop sign and will result in an accident if you hit another car. You seem to believe that accidents cannot be caused by negligence. That's usually wrong. Acts of God causes are usually pretty rare.

Huh? An anonymous poster criticising another anonymous poster? Weird. The only thing Grumpygus got wrong in his post was the type of logical fallacy to which he was responding.

Apparently not.

We will assimilate you. See? I can make mindless assertions too. If I'm reading a comic book while drinking a coke, because I like to read my comics instead of locking them away, and I spill coke on the comic, how does that not "result from my activities" and thereby disqualify me from being a collector under your definition? You appear to be asserting you are not a collector if you read your comics and leave them unbagged on a floor, why does this coke drinking scenario fall outside your carve-out from "collector"? Can you consistently define the scope of your definition?

Don't you know that eating that much popcorn is unhealthy? I don't think that emoji means what you think it does.

Thanks for admitting that, although I think you didn't need to as you could have just pled to lack of clarity in your statement that "Have you ever thrown out a comic because, during the course of your "collecting", their condition deteriorated...because of your activities...to the point where they were no longer readable, at least without serious effort...?" If you had wanted "their condition deteriorated ... because of your activities" to exclude negligence, you could have just said so. As I said, I fully expect that by displaying comics in a heated lighted room, I will cause the displayed comics to deteriorate. This is not inconsistent with "collecting," it is inconsistent with "perfectly preserving." Your definition mixes those two concepts up and thereby excludes displayers or readers of comics from comic collecting.

Correct. It makes you a reader. None of the above activities necessarily makes you a collector, even if there's overlap with how a collector would behave. Nope, your definition is not narrow at all.

Good to know that the time that I spilled coke while reading some 80s comics now disqualifies me from being a collector. Nope, your definition is not narrow at all.

He's not alone in thinking that. There are a lot of collections amassed in the 60s to mid-70s that are "black holes," but which are starting to come to market. This will inevitably have some type of impact because it will represent an increase in supply. Will demand stay strong? Could be. Or it could be that we'll see the values of some comics which are selling at a premium (especially top of census books or SA "pedigrees") lose some of their luster. Edited Tuesday at 05:27 PM by sfcityduck I have been able to land a few OO collections like this in the late 90s through late 00s, and two observations I gleaned from them are: 1) grading was not as big of a deal back then as it is now, so a 1970s NM is more likely to be VF than NM; and 2) color touch and tape did not matter much if the collector bought books second hand. This will make true HG GA/ earlySA collections more difficult to find. I am not saying that high grade collections are not out there (I have had a line on a collection like this for a year and a half now but the owner can't quite let go yet despite his wife's orders . I need to bribe her to turn up the pressure! ), but the actual condition of the books tends to be less than expected more often than not. Edited 2 minutes ago by kimik The guy I quoted at the beginning of this string is trying to find a comic he bought off the stands in the 1950s. He was a very active collector throughout the 1960s. I don't think he's talking about OO collections so much as he is about collections compiled back in the 1960s when supply was so much greater. As happened with the Don and Maggie Thompson collection, he's betting that the old time collectors who are now retired or retiring (or dying) will be coughing up the good stuff they have which has not seen the light of day in 50 or so years. I think he's right. I know a guy who has an Archie 1 bought in the very early 70s which may well top the census. You see lots of similar stories like that on these boards, and also stories by some of these old time collectors regarding what they still have (or in Bangzoom's case, pictures). And many of that generation were very very private.