sfcityduck

Because that was not the part of your comment I was addressing. I don't doubt your statement at all. But, I also don't know anything about your Uncle and why he retained his childhood comics. I do know the definition I proposed, and the objection you made to it. And that's what I addressed by asking the question I did.

Supply and demand. Here's what one very significant old time collector wrote me about an issue he's been searching for a high grade example of across a number of decades: 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.

How so? If it is not enough to seek out, buy and hold comics because you love comics, what else is needed? Keep in mind there are different collecting goals, for many of which condition and resale is not relevant. Heck, I thought folks on a CgC board might view my definition as too restrictive.

That's a strange assertion given that your "nobody said they weren't" was responding to my post. How about you just answer my straightforward question in the post above: Agree or disagree?

That's my point. Agree or disagree? You seem to disagree when you state:

You do realise my posts are up thread, right? Why would you even try to make such an easily disproven assertion? My comment was in response to the following statement by you - which I quoted:

An article in Newsday, reprinted in RBCC 52 (1967), had said about the Academy that "many collectors are men in their 20s and 30s who treasure boyhood memories of the derring-do of the costumed superheros," but that the "majority" of members were "children and teenagers." On this topic, Kaler was quoted stating:

Why do you hang on my every post? Cat got your tongue?

Apparently, you didn't have the same childhood I did. Because by age 12 in the later part of the 1970s I had a very decent collection. It didn't hurt that I also had my father's childhood collection he amassed around that same age from the late 1940s. Oh ... and this kid was 14 in 1948 when this picture was taken, and his collection (kept immacuately as you see behind him) was 5,000+ comics. This kid started collecting when he was 7: So, yes, kids are collectors.

First, that statement did not get a "complete and total pass." It has been discussed extensively. And, in fact, I've admitted that statement may be wrong (which would not, I believe, undermine the point that there were more than 1,000 comic collectors in 1970). Second, your assertion that there is "ZERO evidence" that by 1966 there were more than 1,000 collectors attending conventions is wrong. It is not without some supporting evidence. To wit: * You and I agree that the New York Comicon (July 23 and 24 at Park Sheraton), Southwestern Con (July 23 and 24 in Dallas, TX), and Academy Con (August 12 and 13 iat City Squire Inn in NYC) were held in 1966. * You and I also appear to agree that Jerry Bails' address list topped 1600+ comic fans in 1964. * You and I also appear to agree, per Bob Overstreet's statements, that 1964 was the year that comic collecting hit popular awareness (due IMHO to articles in national publications about the fact comics were worth money). * I recognise that there were other comic conventions and fan gatherings held in 1966 which did not make the wikipedia entries you have been quoting. An example is Gateway Con I (St. Louis (July 29-31) [I won't count it as its internationa, but also the Salone Internazionale de Comics was held in Lucca, Italy - showing that comic collecting went far past the Jerry Bails group by 1966]. So what was the attendance of conventions in 1966? Here's where we stand: * You and I agree that the only figure we've seen for the first Southwestern Con was about 70 people. * I have seen no figures for Gateway Con I (St. Louis), but it was a three day con advertised nationally in the RBCC and The Comic Reader, so I'd guess it was much bigger than Soutwestern Con. * Bill Schelly wrote an article about the comparative attendance of the two New York Cons for Alter Ego 64. I don't have access to that. Someone who does could probably get hard figures. Worth noting in relation to Academy Con, that wikipedia said (for whatever it's worth):

By any definition of "collector" there were more than 1,000 in 1970 (the statement by you that you are futilely trying to evidence). And the definition of "collector" I use is simple: Someone who seeks out, buys, and holds on to comic books because they love comic books. No need to seek out other collectors, author fanzines, or attend conventions to be a "collector" or comic "fan." And, yes, there were many many many comic collectors 12 and under - including those who kept collecting and are on this board. The division between kids and adults like Bails (31 in 1964) and Kaler (29 in 1964) was a point of friction in early fandom.

I believe it was because 56 was the number of registered attendees they had for that convention (and whose names made it a pamplet). But, people attended who did not pre-register. I have seen 100 bandied about as the actual number of attendees.

I think I've fully admitted our respective flaws in being overly argumentative to the point of killing this thread. I also think I've admitted my sin of overly enjoying argument. The difference between us is that when I see a superior argument I tend to admit it.

I went to Oregon and I'm proud to say that as crazy as Oregon uni's get, at least we're not Maryland.

Can I just interject a quick comment thanking everyone for disclosing the information they've disclosed? Thanks. And, Rich and Redbeard and Bob, on a completely unrelated note, as long time Tahoe residents what's your opinion on global warming. I was talking to an attorney I know with a house in squaw, the aptly named Tower Snow, who was telling me that the snow level in Tahoe are no where near what they used to be in the 70s. Are/were you guys skiers? Any opinions on climate change in Tahoe? (Back to comics). And next time I'm in Tahoe, I'd be happy to buy you guys dinner in Truckee and hear your stories.

Care to clarify? I now know you are not an attorney.

Hearsay is often admissible, and it's almost always testimonial evidence. But, the hearsay rule only applies to legal disputes, not social science (e.g. history) debates.

I agree. Again my apologies to the OP.

Neither one of is impressing anyone. We killed this thread. My apologies to the OP. You're right. I am wasting my time. You can bring a horse to water ...

First, the list dates to 1964 according to Schelly. Second, what I actually asserted is this, which went to the actual topic of this thread by discussing the relevant issue of the comparative scarcity of pre-1964 comics versus IH 181 (your desire to argue is what derailed the thread): And, yes, I think Jerry Bails' list of 1,600+ comic fans in 1964 is an indicia of a large and developed comic fandom. Another indicia is that fandom had grown to a point that publications like the NYT were running articles about comics and their value in 1964. Which had a profound impact on comic collecting, which is why Bob Overstreet said: 'nuff said.

You said this: "How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it's 'obvious' that that was just the 'tip of the ice berg (sic)'...? How do you know that didn't represent the entirety of comics fandom at the time?"

Why would there be "documentary evidence" of the people who were not in Who's Who in Comic Fandom 1964 edition (and supplement)? What would that "documentary evidence" look like? It is illogical to think that there was a census of comic collectors in 1964 and one of the questions was "are you in Jerry Bails' Who's Who?" Instead the evidence that we should expect to exist is oral testimony by and about comic collectors who were collecting in the 1960s, but were never in that clique or Who's Who. Exactly, the evidence I've given you. From such testimonial evidence, you can then extrapolate conclusions. This is what happens in a trial and in social science research. I'm not sure where you developed your sense of "evidence" and "proof," but it has no application to the issues we are discussing. You seem to view extrapolation as a flawed methodology. It is not.

In conversations, in contrast to legal briefs and scholarly articles, you speak off the cuff. Which means sometimes details are wrong. But, in a conversation, getting a detail wrong (Golden STATE Comic Con - I am in SF, I tend to type the worden "Gate" after "Golden" without thinking) is not a big deal. If that is pointed out, and admitted. Which I have.

I am free to judge you based on your words and conduct on the internet. Which is what I am doing. On the internet, you are what you type.

Let me detail the flaw in your argumentative style: I said: "I think it is obvious that those [folks listed Bails' Who's Who] were just the collectors who were at the tip of the ice berg." You respond by asking a reasonable question: "How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it's 'obvious' that that was just the 'tip of the ice berg (sic)'...? How do you know that didn't represent the entirety of comics fandom at the time?" I then provide you with a direct and clear answer by telling you: "Based on my own experiences and many conversations with collectors active in the 1960s. They weren't in Bails' Who's Who. They were just young kids collecting massive amounts of comics at that time." You then reject my statement on the following grounds: "So, a total guess based on what some unspecified people said to you over the years...?" Here's what's wrong with your response: (1) My statement is testimonial evidence that conclusively establishes that the folks in the 1964 Who's Who were not the "entirety of comics fandom at that time" because I personally know people who were very active collectors in 1964 (one who go on to found my LCS) who I know were never in the Who's Who. Consequently, it is beyond dispute that the list is not exhaustive. My statement is not a "total guess." I'm relaying a fact which unfortunately for you runs counter to your narrative. (2) Your contrary assertion is entirely devoid of common sense or the benefit of any reference to experience. Do you really think every comic collector in the country was on Jerry Bails' address list? (3) You are rejecting the experiences of others in your desire to not be "wrong." What you don't realize that even argument can be a search for truth if you test a hypothesis and then change your view when it is obviously warranted. In the end, you're not convincing or impressing anyone. So why be so argumentative. If you truly care about comic history, wouldn't it be better to try and elicit information than to try to shut down discussion?