sfcityduck

As I said earlier, you like to argue. Not sure why you won't admit you're a frustrated former debater. I'm more interested in the accurate history and learning from the experiences of others. You are spending your time rejecting the opportunity to learn from other's experiences, and instead are attempting gotchas, wordplay, and semantic games. It is a missed opportunity for 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 disputed my comment, the import of which was the same as the Overstreet quote. And, yes, Bob's quote says quite a lot about the scope and breadth of comic collecting pre and post 1964. Many folks became comic readers because of their love of comics, but they became comic collectors after realizing comics had value.

For a fanzine, staying in publication from 1961-1969 is a major indicia of success, especially when you look at the growth in size and sophistication of the publication (which is undoutably a reflection of its ability to increase prices and circulation). But, since you love wikipedia, here's what it says: "Between issues #25 (published Dec. 1963) and #50 (1966), the zine's circulation grew from about 200 to over 1,100. By RBCC #75 (1968), the circulation was 2,000." Again, those figures are but a part of the mountain of evidence which demonstrates your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic fans in 1970 is foolish. The readers of RBCC were in all likelihood just the tip of the comic collecting mountain, the folks swimming in the deep end who were savy enough and motivated enough to subscribe to an adzine. I know I collected for several years before I finally started subscribing to CBG, and I had the benefit of a lot more information than someone in my city would have had just 12 years earlier in 1968.

Well ... I have to admit that I did 15 minutes of googling myself, and came up with this excerpt from Bill Schelly's website (from his book on the founders of comic fandom): Those are just the fans for whom Jerry Bails had addresses. I think it is obvious that those were just the collectors who were at the tip of the ice berg. The ones who wanted to be comic scholars, and were on the deeper end of the collecting pool. As I said, I know of guys in little old Eugene, Oregon who were just kids collecting massive amounts of comics far far far away from the structure of early fandom - but no one should deny they were collectors.

That's the quote that derailed this otherwise fine thread. Perhaps the below quote from a AP article issued on or about September 30, 1980 (appearing in some papers under the headline "Prices Of Old Comics Prove To Be No Laughing Matter") might bring some sanity back to the thread: This is the conventional wisdom that caused me to state what I did in the first quote about the difference between pre and post 1964 comics. I've been hearing this conventional wisdom since I started collecting in the later part of the 70s.

Grand Comic Database lists this as a Canadian one-shot "re-print," but it sure looks like remaindered comics to me. The GCD version is all Fawcett comics, whereas yours appears to be Timely/Altlas. My guess is that there would be different covers depending on what publisher they were remaindering. It's one of those attempts by someone to cash in on comic book returns, this time by re-packaging them for Canada. Would have been a deal for kids. I think it is one of those oddities like Weatherbird, except the cover makes this cooler.

That's just how Timely Comics editorially organized itself when that comic was published. (I assume it was an editorial grouping like All-American and D.C., but a Timely guy could nail this down for you.) I am going to correct myself, though, that particular editorial appeared from January 1948 to March 1949, which is a bit more consistent with remaindered comics which show up in a 1950 re-binding.

That's an anti-Wertham editorial that appeared in a few Timely books published in the U.S. in November and December 1948. Which tells me that you have one of those comics which rebinds remaindered comics together under a new cover.

Yep. And more than that. The success of RBCC tells you a lot about how established comic fandom had become. A lot of zines started in 1961 with RBCC, and ones like the Comic Reader, Alter Ego, etc. just kept going and growing.

Because I'm largely doing this from memory. A message board is not a legal brief or a scholarly article. It is a conversation. I'm glad, however, that you are starting to educate yourself on the true history of 1960s comic fandom. I am confident that soon you'll be comfortable in retracting your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.

Your assertion is just not consistent with the evidence. Here's something for you to ponder: RBCC was an adzine. It's purpose was to put collector's in touch with each other - either to communicate, sell each other comics, etc. How many issues of RBCC came out in the 1960s? It was hitting issue 68 at least in 1969. What does that tell you about the state of comic fandom in the 1960s?

Most of us can believe 10,000+.. And I think you're right about the room to grow. But only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970? That's not plausible or consistent with the evidence, most notably the recollections of the old collectors.

I never stated you could not be a "comic investor." (Although, I have seen financial advisers say that about comics, art, and other collectibles). Otherwise, I don't think we are disagreeing here.

Dude, if you are not going to admit that you enjoy argument more than you enjoy finding the truth, there's not much point in me playing this game with you. (I'm not shocked you side-stepped whether you were a H.S. debater.) So let's cut to the chase. You contend that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970. You have not presented a compelling case. You are not providing a simple succinct and compelling presentation of evidence to support your assertion. Instead, you are nitpicking my statements and trying to derail the conversation so you can score "points." But, no one is keeping score. Your burden is to prove your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970. However, I believe your own facts refute your position: * The attendance at the first Golden Gate Comic Con of 300 to 500 people does not support your position. It seems improbable that 1/3rd to 1/2 of comic collectors in 1970 attended that Con. Yet, that is your central piece of evidence; * The 1,000 volume print run of the first Overstreet also does not support your position. It runs counter to all I know of Overstreet to believe that in his brand new venture he thought he could sell one copy to every single comic collector in America. IT is even more improbable that he did so; * The inferences you are drawing from isolated, and sometimes incorrect, history of comic fandom are farfetched. For example: Collector's Bookstore opened in 1964 and the store now known as Golden Age Collectables traces it's history to 1961, yet you keep arguing the first comic book store opened in 1968. Which also ignores places like Cherokee which sold comics and books. There is no doubt that there were many outlets selling back issue comics in the 1960s. Your counter is to focus on the creation of the "direct market" in the 1970s, which was a profound development which did indeed lead to an increase in NEW COMIC stores, but also led to a corresponding marginalization of NEW comic books as they disappeared from 7-11's, corner markets, grocery stores, and book stores; * You are also misunderstanding what "evidence" is. There is no certainty in life. No one took a census of comic collectors in 1970. So we have to rely upon eye witness recollections, contemporaneous articles, circumstantial evidence, etc., all of which is imprecise. You take pride in floating an estimate, which is nothing to be proud of when it has no relation to reality. In the end, I'm confident based on the knowledge I've gained about comic fandom since I first started collecting in the later part of the 1970s that there were FAR MORE than 1,000 comic collectors in 1970. That knowledge comes from first hand accounts, including my LCS owner who opened his shop in 1970. I value that wisdom more than your spin, sophistry, and bald inferences. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. I also believe what I've heard from the witnesses is supported by what I've learned of comic fandom. I've seen ads in national magazines and newspapers seeking to buy old comic books and comic book original art that date to as early as 1949. I've seen classifieds in SF fanzines from 1950 by a collector seeking a specific comic title (Fantastic Comics). Those are hallmarks that should tell us that comic fandom didn't really begin in 1960 as we sometimes simplistically argue. The guys who became prominent in 1960, were the tip of the iceberg - the most active fans, the ones with the urge to write and lead. There were plenty of others whose names are relatively unknown. Indeed, one of the hallmarks I've noticed about old time collectors, is they value their privacy more than showing off what they got. 'nuff said.

My next sentence, which you do not quote, delved into the issue of "equity investments." Correct me if I'm wrong, but a purchaser of stock is not investing in the stock. It is not a baseball card. They are investing in the business. A stock share is a fractional ownership interest. The value of the share is tied to the business and fluctuates based on the revenues generated by that business. The business revenues are either plowed back into the business (raising the stock price) or paid out as a dividend (a profit distribution). Comic books do not generate revenues that can be plowed back into the comic or paid as dividends.

I'm guessing you might be an ex-H.S. debater who came of age in the 80s based on the Falco reference and the desire to address posts point by point instead of conversationally. I'm happy (I mean that sincerely) to play along. I'm not confusing anything. I'm speculating on what you meant when you asserted the first SDCC had 500 attendees. Apparently, my speculation is wrong. We all make mistakes. (See, it's easy.) Here, you appear confused. My assertion is that more than 1,000 comic collectors attended conventions (note the plural) in 1966. Not, 1,000 at any one convention, but 1,000 at all of the conventions. This is based on anecdotal evidence from hearing the stories about those conventions -- which is the only source for that information. You are intentionally reciting low end figures that are at odds with other figures people recall. But, it's inexact, and I get you are trying to "win the argument." I'd suggest you instead keep an open mind. My estimate might be high, but the point is that the number of folks who attend comic conventions is a fraction of the total collectors. I think that's laughable. Your view of the drawing power of a comic convention in San Diego is grossly inflated. San Diego is relatively out of the way for anyone South of Los Angeles (and even for them it's a pain). I know many many many collectors in the Northwest who never went to a SDCC (to be accurate, I know one guy from the NW, who has collected since the 60s and has every big book, who went to SDCC -- and that was only one time). The notion that the attendees at the first Golden Gate Comic Con represent 1/3rd of comic fans in 1970 is absurd, and you don't even attempt to offer a rationale to support this assertion. I'd say almost all. But they were opened because these guys thought that they could make money. And they had a very good reason for believing that. Comic collecting was a real thing in the 1960s and the market was established. Up thread you ignored the significance of an Action 1 sale for $250 being picked up and publicized by the AP in 1965. What that shows is the demand was real and the social impact was broader than you think. Read the letters pages of old 1960s comics, it's very interesting and will give you a sense that fandom was a bigger thing that you think. Actually, I did. Re-read my post. I'm not quantifying the number of collectors because no one took a census. But, the circumstantial evidence and oral histories make it clear that it was far more than 1000 collectors. Which is the assertion by you I am rebutting. That estimate is a joke. And this is where I question the intellectual honesty of your argument. Here, you are conceding that (1) the demand for back issue comics was such that prices of comics that were "only a few years old" and therefore still relatively plentiful were escalating to many multiples of cover price, (2) that the general public was aware of this, (3) that the market was sufficiently developed that speculators had entered it, but then argue that there were still less than 1,000 collectors because, wait for it, all those other people buying comics were "speculators." Sheesh. That's a pretty blatant moving of the goal posts coupled with a lot of cognitive dissonance. And this is where your argument shows a lack of wisdom. My recollection is that Bangzoom state he was selling comics at the 1965 New York Comic Con and was buying by taking out ads in national publications. Yellow Kid was selling comics by mail order in 1959. They have told a lot of stories that rebut your position. Go read them. They are "significant" because of their first hand knowledge of the era. There are other old guys posting from the 1960s. And there are many guys posting who were dealers in the 1970s. I don't think any of them would support your position that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970. Not even close. This is not an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, this is citing to first hand witness acounts as evidence. LOL! It does. It says that Oversteet thought he could sell 1,000 price guides in 1970. Which is a pretty compelling refutation of your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970. I seriously doubt that Bob thought he get 100% of comic collectors to buy his guide. He was probably aiming for a minority of the market. Oh ... and you do realize that Bob was not the first guy to publish a price guide, right? I enjoy banter. Being a former debater (and now attorney) and fan of Falco in the 80s I suspect I'd enjoy having this discussion over a beer. I try to suppress my argumentative streaks on this board, but I'm clearly failing a bit here. It's just that your assertions are, to me, wholly outrageous and revisionist history. So my apologies for the tone of my posts. Nothing personal. I'm focused on your arguments, not you.

Your first statement above evidences the opposite of what you are trying to prove. That the first SDCC, then called the Golden Gate Comic Book Convention, had an attendance of 500 people evidences the strength of comic collecting. It was a LOCAL one-day even organized by Shel Dorf, who had moved to San Diego, "as a kind of 'dry run' for the larger convention he hoped to stage." That a local San Diego gathering drew 500 collectors in 1970 pretty conclusively rebuts the notion that there were only "1,000 comic book collectors" nationwide in 1970. If you don't see the incongruity in your own statements, there is not much I can do to help you. The evidence shows that comic fans were widely distributed throughout the country. For example, also in 1970, the first comic book store was opened up in Oregon. Do you think that store could have opened if there were no comic collectors in Oregon? Or only a few? No it opened because comic collecting had become a phenomena in the 1960s that could support specialty stores. The history of comic conventions is notable because it shows the distribution of comic fans across the nation. In 1964, gatherings in New York, Michigan (several) and Illinois. The next year, there were more conventions, including multi-day conventions, and more attendees. The year after conventions were being initiated in places like Texas. These convention attending fans were a fraction of the total of collectors, and rebuts the notion floated by you that there were only 1,000 collectors of comics nationwide in 1970 (twice the number that attended a local gathering in out of the way San Diego). I personally know at least 10 guys who were collecting comics in Eugene, Oregon in the mid-1960s. It's a small town. I certainly don't know all the collectors active in that time period in that one small town. You are focusing on prominent personalities when the history of comic collecting is very egalitarian and there are MANY important and forgotten figures. Which brings me to the ultimate point: My contention is that there was a wide and developed comic fandom by 1964, by which I mean: (1) a lot of folks collecting and preserving comics, (2) dealers of comics, (3) scholars of comics, (4) advocates of comic collecting, and (5) buyers of comics such that comics were being recognized as something of value that should be preserved in a way that did not previously exist. Which is why the conventional wisdom is that after 1964 comics are much less rare than before. Part of this is also because as comic fandom hit the mainstream attention and blew up in the later 1960s those collectors (especially by actively acquiring comics from non-collectors) and ordinary people were conserving comics in a significant way which had not previously occurred. This included saving comics that were only a few years old that otherwise would have been tossed. You disagree. The folks who lived through that time period in the 1960s that I know and respect (including significant posters on this board) agree with my recitation of the history. If you want to argue that there were less than 1,000 comic collectors in 1970, you are going to need evidence your extraordinary claim with something way more compelling than noting only 500 people attended the first local gathering called the Golden Gate Comic Convention in San Diego. That you make that assertion just seem ignorant to me. THERE WERE MORE THAN 1,000 COMIC COLLECTORS IN 1970! But, I appreciate that you are researching the issue. I really hope your research straightens you out. Keep an open mind.

Your ignorance of the history of comic fandom is pretty appalling. First, comic fandom started almost as soon as comic books came out. In the 1940s, before there was an EC Comics, there were national media reports about a kid with 5,000+ comics that he had collected! Second, a lot of the first generation comic fans never stopped collecting. Biljo White bought Batman 1 off the stands as a kid and had a complete run in the early 1960s. Jerry Bails didn't start quite that early, but he is another example of a guy who got started and never stopped. He started corresponding with Gardner Fox in the early 1950s and was successfully negotiating to buy Fox's file copies of All-Star Comics in 1959. Comic collecting was a thing in the 1950s. Third, so was comic dealing. There is, in fact, a GA collector on this board who was doing mail order comic dealing with Leonard Brown in 1959! Leonard Brown, of course, went on to open the Collector's Book Store in 1964 with Malcolm Willits. Of course, there were also books stores and hobby shops like Cherokee, etc., selling comics early on. Comic book dealers were also selling comics at what were then considered high prices in the early 1960s in fanzine ads. Fourth comics fandom was always on the fringes of and in part grew out of SF fandom, which had conventions starting in the 40s. Lupoff was publishing Xero with its All in Color for a Dime Series in 1960 and first distributed it at the PittCon SF convention. Lupoff was doing cosplay of Capt. Marvel before FF 1 was ever on the stands. Fifth, after Gardner Fox sent Jerry Bails Xero 1-3, Bails and Roy Thomas launched Alter-Ego in 1961. Don and Maggie Thompson launched ComicArt also in 1961. Many fanzines followed in the first half of the 1960s. Sixth, the first comic conventions were in 1964, including the first New York Comic Convention which featured Steve Ditko as a guest. It drew only 100 people, but the concept of comic conventions rapidly spread to other cities. By 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions. In fact, there's little doubt that there were many more than 1,000 comic collectors by 1964. All you are showing here is your ignorance. Heck, the AP was reporting in 1965 than an Action Comics 1 had sold for the unheard of price of $250! I could go on and on. There are guys on this Board who were collecting in the 1960s who could tell it better than me. Go read the Bangzoom thread and get some frigging perspective on collecting in the 1960s!

Compared to IH 181, they are much rarer. Which was my point. We all know that SA Marvel's are much more common than GA comics. Which is, contrary to your assertion, in part due to the vibrant comic fandom that was developed in the early 1960s. Some folks forget that comic fandom was started by DC fans. Stan Lee gave it a big boost in the 60s, but it was up and running. Look at when comic fanzines got started, when the first comic con was, when mail order dealers first became a real thing, when comic stores opened, and you'll see that comic fandom did NOT, as you assert, become a significant thing sometime after 1974. That is absurd. From 1964 on, comics were being actively collected by droves of fans. It was a real thing. It impacts the availability of high grade comics pre- and post-.

Why will it take 20 more years of slabbing? Are you projecting that 1,000 IH 181 are sent to CGC per year or do you think CGC lacks the capacity to slab 10K comics in a year? The supply already outpaces demand. Unlike with the big GA keys, we've never seen a period when a IH 181 was not readily available for purchase -- really we're talking a 100+ on any given day. Hard to believe that Wolverine will ever become hotter than he is today.

Big big problem with your analysis. Which of those is not like the others? It is pretty common knowledge that any books published after 1964 were actively collected by a large and developed comic fandom. It's the pre-1964 books which are rare. Grouping IH 181 with those other books ignores supply and demand.

While I generally agree with your sensible statement, I do have two caveats. First, CGC has changed the hobby. Covers matter more than first appearances. That's exactly why IH 181 is worth more than IH 180. What's the cheapest 1963 Marvel first appearance of a big character and why? That's also why many books in the GA market are surging despite having ZERO pop culture significance - the most obvious example being Suspense 3. Second, as the plentiful keys increase in value out of reach of buyers, the market's potential for sustaining a correction due to the "I can't afford my own collection" effect occurs. This effect happens because a lot more folks were buying, and are now holding, keys when they were much more common on the market. As the keys increase in value, the incentive for those "ordinary folk" collectors to cash in multiplies, and the potential for a supply correction increases. This is also true if the demographic of the holders of those keys are similar (e.g., the kids who were born in 1950 and buying Marvel's off the stands in the 60s are now 68 and entering retirement, thus the potential that they (and those born later in the 50s) will exit the market in greater numbers around the same time is a real and increasing risk).

No. That's not it at all. For Maggie Thompson, who has long runs of everything, it is about enjoyment. Being able to read her comics without fear of damaging a "museum piece" like the Avengers 1 9.4. So she sells it for $90K, and then can buy a nice "reading copy" 8.0 for 1/10 that price, or a "beater" 5.5 for 1/20th that price, and pocket big bucks while also gaining the joy of being able to actually read her comics without concern or guilt. It's about enjoying your books, not enjoying the the numbers on the slab. Not that there is anything wrong with wanting high grade comics. But, owning a high grade comic to use for purposes that likely could impact the grade (casual reading and wall decor) just seems foolish.

Comic books are not an "investment" in the same sense that business or real estate ownership is. Why? Because a comic book does not generate a stream of income. Businesses can generate revenues and real estate can generate rents and crops. Comic books generate no significant income. "But wait!," you say, "it is an equity investment!" That is just a fancy way of saying that a comic is only worth what the next guy will pay for it. In other words, while demand can drive the price higher, lack of demand can cause the price to plummet. The history of the hobby has seen both occur. We all know of hot books where the bottom fell out. Pretending that prices can only go up is naive. If you want to see this with a sound effect, watch an episode of "Vintage Antiques Roadshow" where they show appraisals from 15 years ago and then re-appraise the item for today's market. Most items are plummeting in price because the demand for many categories of antiques has dramatically changed ($30K Bowie knife in 2003 now valued at $15K is one example I noted on last week's episode). The comic market on the highest end, Action 1, is not the same market on the lower end for IH 181. The supply and demand issues are different, but they both exist. For IH 181, it is highly questionable that the demand for IH 181 slabs outpaces demand. 10,000+ copies of have been slabbed, and there seems to be an endless supply for sale on eBay, at conventions, and at stores. Lots of deals out there. And many older collectors, like myself, have raw copies we bought in the 70s and 80s before CGC that we don't bother getting slabbed because we don't intend to sell ... yet. So the prospects for a supply surge is present. For Action 1, high prices have shrunk the supply and demand pool down into double digits. There are very very few market participants on the highest end of the market, and it is notable that the guy who has paid the top two prices for Action 1s is now sitting on the sidelines. The guy who paid the fourth highest price is now dead. At most there are only four active collectors have ever paid more than $1M for a comic book. So the notion that prices for a high end book like Action 1 will continue on the present trajectory is by no means certain. Especially if the many collectors sitting on unslabbed Action 1s decide to sell off their copies. Most GA collectors believe that the 69 Action 1s on the Census is a minority of the total copies, with conventional wisdom suggesting there are between 150 to 300 copies out there. Many of us know collectors who possess unslabbed Action 1s. And, for example, the guy I know with one has vowed to sell his when he turns 65 in a few years. He has already started liquidating his massive collection that he first started accumulating in the 1960s. He's not alone in that profile. So the prospects for an increase in supply that will impact Action 1 price trajectories is also high. I would not be surprised if IH 181 and Action 1 prices flatten out within the next five to ten years. Will they drop? Much more likely for IH 181 than Action 1, but anything is possible. Buy what you love, because you may end up holding it for longer than you want or having to take a bit of a loss for the privilege of ownership.