sfcityduck

Simply put, a collector is: "Someone who seeks out, buys, and holds on to comic books because they love comic books." Why they love comics and why they seek them out, buy them, and hold them can vary. And it is certainly true that a "collector" can stop being a "collector" by selling off their collection or otherwise disposing of it. But that does not mean they were never a "collector." My broad definition does not exclude from its scope people who have legitimate collecting goals. RMA's does.

And this is where you try to import your very narrow definition of the proper collecting goal to the vast universe of comic collectors. One of the most beat up comic I have in my collection is a copy of an early Byrne X-Men I bought off the stands. Why is it so beat up? I loved that comic book. I re-read it numerous times. It was a magical comic that inspired me to collect a full run of X-Men. It's cover is now creased and rumpled and the staples are probably loose. I've never felt the desire to upgrade it. I never felt the desire to preserve it in an unchanged state. And, yes, I probably left it on my floor. Why? Because my collecting goal was not buy to "mint" comics and keep them in that state. My goal was to buy every X-Men appearance and read them all, multiple times. The point was to read them because I loved the story. Condition didn't matter because I had no intent to re-sell them. That's a legitimate collecting goal which does not require an OCD attitude towards the preservation of the condition of the comics. Your definition excludes a lot of comic collectors that buy comics out of a love of the stories, the interiors. More than that, I am now collecting some comics for the goal of displaying them on the wall. I know that will degrade the condition of the comics I buy. If I want to keep them entirely preserved, they'd be stored in a cool dark place, not a light filled heated room. But, my collecting goal for those comics is to display them. My definition recognises we are both comic collectors.

It might be helpful to list various collecting goals I've seen: * Read character's stories; * Gain wealth; * Preserve the objects; * Display the objects (which is often incompatible with preservation); * Enhance self-esteem; * Enjoy the search; * Enjoy the culture and network of collectors; * Own all of something (variants of a particular issue, every certified pedigree, every issue in a run, every issue by a publisher, every comic by an artist; you name it); * Enjoy the cover art; * To possess a piece of history; and I guess I could go on. Our definition of comic collectors should include and recognise the diversity of collecting goals.

Let me be clearer. Comic collectors can and do have diverse goals. For some, the goal is to collect the best examples of a comic they can, even if it is entombed in plastic such that they can never read the thing, just to possess it and preserve it. For others, the goal is to read every story about a particular character. They don't necessarily care what condition their comics are as long as they are readable, and they don't stress that their reading of the comic - probably multiple times - will cause the comic to descend in grade. My own experience in the 70s and 80s was that most comic collectors fell into the later category. These days, or at least on these boards (which is a self-selecting sample that likely biases my perception), there are a lot of collectors who fall into the former. But they are both legitimate collecting goals. There are many other collecting goals. My definition of what a comic collector is tries to encompass whatever your goal is. "Someone who seeks out, buys, and holds on to comic books because they love comic books." You may love comics because you want to read the stories over and over and over again, you may love them because they are minty fresh and you want to possess and preserve high grade examples, you may love them because of the cover art, or love them for the back cover ads, or whatever. It just doesn't matter under my definition. Which is why I reject RMA's statement above. It's reflective of one comic collecting goal, one I view as akin to viewing comic books as coins - the focus is on condition and variants. Entombing started with coins, and basically converts a comic meant to be read into an object with just a front and back like a coin. So I get its a common and legitimate collecting goal and attitude, it's just not the only common and legitimate collecting goal and attitude.

I just became aware of the Superman Unchained checkerboard variants (emulating DC comics checkerboard circa 1966-1967): Was the checkerboard used on any other variants? Any help appreciated. I need to get these. Why? This is one of my vintage comic racks:

You speak like a coin collector - fixated on condition. There are plenty of comic collectors whose fixation is on storylines. Kids who collect comics to read, not preserve. Who buy runs because they want to know the full story of __________ (fill in the blank - for me it was X-Men primarily when I was a kid), not because they want to "preserve" the comics unread and in unchanging condition. To pretend that this is not a legitimate collecting goal pretty much denies the whole non-investing purpose of buying comics.

Dreams come true. https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/08/23/murphy-brown-targets-trump-latest-promo/

I'm not sure it tells us that much about trends because the coiners of the first two terms used - the Golden Age of Superhero Comics and the Silver Age of Superhero comics - were really primarily focused on just one genre (and mainly one publisher) As used originally, those terms referred to the emergence of Superman, and by extension other superheros, and the emergence of a rebooted Flash, followed by other reboots of GA DC characters that had gone out of print. That doesn't really tell us much about the things you mention. It does tell us a lot about DC and DC's subsequent convoluted continuity. The Platinum Age used to be defined by emergence of the "comic book" format for presenting comics - many of which were reprints of comics originally printed in a different format. But, now, it appears to be defined as just whatever happened before Action 1 - a period of time that is far larger than the present Modern Age. While the Golden Age is defined by emergence of a new type of literary character - the superhero, superhero comics were only the majority type of comics produced in 1940 and 1941. In all other years of the Golden Age (meaning until Showcase 1), superhero comics were not even the majority genre and yet that's how we define the Golden Age? Heck, after 1946, superhero comics were not even the biggest genre. The term tells us nothing about the many other genres and the trends in the comic industry. Some folks propose an Atomic Age defined by the use of the Atomic Bomb. This is not even a comic related event. The Silver Age is commonly defined by the first revamp of a DC Golden Age hero - the new Flash - in 1956. But that year was actually the nadir of superhero comics. There were actually more revivals of Golden Age superheros in 1954 (HT, CA and Subby) than 1956. The focus on the Flash has actually created a lot of misinformation about the state of superhero comics in the 1950s. I don't know if there is any agreement on how to define the Bronze, Copper, and Modern Ages. To me, the things you mention (printing practices, editorial shifts, artistic trends, etc.) are all worth exploring. The focus on ages, though, does not help explore these subjects. It actually obscures a lot of these topics. Far better, if you want to discuss the emergence of independent publishers, to focus on the timeline of that topic without recourse to "ages" which don't really help the analysis. Ditto for Romance Comics, horror, etc. Likewise for an examination of the selling trends. All the "ages" do is create some watercooler talk and help dealers organize their inventory. They could do that better just by using decades, or references like pre-WWII which reflect relative scarcity, pre-Code which reflect content, etc., I think.

Or 5x more plentiful. Actually, checking the census, a 7.0 (12 copies) is 6x more plentiful than a 9.2 (2 copies), and that's ignoring the 49 books sitting at grades between 7.0 and 9.2. Having said that, the beauty of your 7.0 is precisely why I am inclined to sell a 9.4 or 9.6 top of census book to downgrade to almost equally good looking book in the 8.0 to 9.0 range for a fraction of the price.

Personally, I think it is because comic historians woke up to how artificial these "ages" are. Partly because the collecting focus for many on the higher end have shifted from just superheroes to PCH, GGA, Romance, and other genres where the "ages" are not meaningful concepts. Partly because the definitions have become so unwieldy, debated, illogical, and inconsistent in criteria from one age to another. So why do we need to keep cutting up "comics history" into "ages"? What purpose does it serve?

It's very hard for any entertainment producer to connect with the public in a world that where there are infinite options for our attention. It used to be we were all a captive audience. We had four tv channels (ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS). Which meant that we all had shared cultural references for "water cooler" talk. We might not all be watching the same channels every night, but you can be sure we were on some of the seven nights of the week. That went away starting in the early 80s. Suddenly we had MTV, ESPN, and other cable options. That was the true beginning of the end for pop culture homogeneity in the U.S. I don't know anyone watching Will & Grace, Roaseanne, or Murphy Brown, and I'm of the demographic which watched the originals. Instead, most people have t.v. viewing interests that just don't jive any more. My wife favors HGTV, the Crown, and wedding dress shows, my kid watches Stranger Things and House of Cards, I don't watch much tv anymore but like Flash and Big Bang, and all our friends are constantly recommending their own favorite shows (many of which I've never heard of and never watch). I see people watching more youtube and more on demand, than watching scheduled tv. Aside from sports, there just aren't that many "viewing events" any more. Truth be told, video games are a much bigger pop culture unifying force than anything short of big screen movies. There are limited platforms and limited good games. You talk video games with someone, and you'll probably discover its more likely you both play Fortnite, Pubg, CoD, GTA, Elder Scrolls, etc. than you both watch the same tv shows. Comics and books are now a small part of the pop culture puzzle -- when before they were a huge piece. The direct market probably did more to marginalise comics as a pop culture force than anything else - but it also did more to free the creativity of the medium. So its a higher quality but more niche art form. Big screen movies, on the other hand, still are sold to a captive audience. There are only so many big screens. So moviegoers do have those shared viewing experiences and water cooler talks. That superheros dominate movies today says very little about comic books. But, in the end, we live in a world where the number of choices is just not comparable to the limited options in earlier times. Consequently, it is hard to blame the comic industry for its diminishing pop culture reach -- the same thing is true for network comedy and drama, network news, music, really everything but big screen movies and video games - both which have more limited options available than all other mediums.

Which means you are now a member of a protected class: Those old enough to sue for old age discrimination in employment.

Actually, I think the revolutionaries won sometime between 2000 and 2018. History has passed us by.

It's the first Superman pin-up front cover (Superman 1 has the pin-up back cover), has the cool signature by Clark Kent, and to my eyes captures the very essence of early GA Superman art. NYWF? As a cover, it's busy, has an overly large logo, a cartoon character I don't recognize, and five tiny little cameos. It's not as good a cover. I agree that from my perspective, which rates comic history above cover content, NYWF is a cooler comic. But, the way I think is not consistent with the CGC mentality. We live in a world where Suspense 3 is valued above many comics that are much much more important to comic history because of their content.

The interval between 2000 and 2006 was only six years. The interval between 2000 and 2018 is 18 years. I'd say that's a huge factor. It's not that the NYWF became more odd, it is that the importance of covers has increased as CGC's influence on the market has grown and changed buyer behavior.

I'd posit the following demand based explanations for the discrepancy: * NYWF has a lousy cover. It does not feature a superhero, and they mis-colored Superman's cameo head shot. In contrast, Superman 6 is a cool early Superman cover. In the GCG world, this may be the only explanation you need. * Superman is part of one the most actively collected runs of GA comics by DC collectors. NYWF is an oddity. * Superman 6 trades for less money. In 2018, it is still less expensive than NYWF was in 2006. Less cost means bigger buyer pool. The dollar increase in value of Superman 6 is less than the dollar value increase in value of NYWF. That alone can explain why it has increased more in value percentage-wise than NYWF. Finally, to your bigger point. There are examples of rare books which have tremendously appreciated in dolar value with little (or even no) intervening sales. It all goes back to demand. The WW ashcan might be an interesting test case for your theory.

Your post is more than a bit ironic and self-indicting, but, by all means, carry on as you see fit!

You hate conflict? You are concerned with derailing threads? News to me. In any event, I'm happy to forego further analysis of what might be motivating you to act the way you do or my attempts to convince you to act otherwise. I doubt you will change, so there's no point. But, don't expect outrageous comments to get a free pass. Do expect good comments to get a "like."

More boring stuff that can be ignored.

Lemonade King with EyeOpeners? That seems wrong. But, I love some of those EyeOpener covers!

This is revisionist thinking. The creators of the terms "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" were solely focused on superhero comics, and really only DC superheros. The Golden Age of Superheros commenced with Action 1 because Superman was deemed the first superhero. Showcase 4 was deemed to start the second great age of superheros because it was the book with the first reboot of a Golden Age DC superhero. Worth noting that superheros never went away in the 1950s, and there were both revivals (including of Capt. America, Submariner and Human Torch) and new superheros created in the 1950s before Flash. But, Showcase 4 became a demarcation point because the guys who penned the terms were mainly DC collectors. For all other genres, Action 1 and Showcase 4 make zero sense as a demarcation point. I agree that pre-Code and post-Code are far more relevant to a number of non-superhero genres, but not all. Which is why the quest for omnibus terms is really a joke. I think collectors are focused on the terms because they crave organisational schemes and selling points.

Let's face it, the "Ages" concept lost its utility long ago, outliving the original purpose of its creators. The concept was perverted by dealers for use as a marketing tool, and has even outlived that purpose. These days, we're all better off just using decades or real world time period markers (pre-War, pre-Code, etc.) to describe comics, not "Ages" as the concept doesn't really work for any time period.

The project was supposed to be posting objects once a week. I think they are struggling to post at a rate of once a month. So far, they are on object 9. It's a really impressive presentation, though, and worth the wait. https://50objects.org/ They have updates on facebook.

Feel free to ignore this sidebar.

Rockmyamadeus is right about this book. I won the Man of Steel Raffle in 1987 and still have the book and letter. Collectors knew about the book. It wasn't considered to be worth anything significant because Man of Steel had been purchased by everyone in multiples at the time, and it was just the books thrown into a cheap cardboard cover. I was never tempted to sell it for the few bucks over the cover price of the comics contained therein I'd have gotten. It used to be available for purchase cheaply, has that changed?