Logan510

On 7/28/2023 at 4:54 PM, Lazyboy said:

Yeah, you're not the one who said he was banned from here.

Too bad he doesn’t have the QR code as his avatar this time.

On 7/28/2023 at 2:37 PM, Cat said:

My story is honestly exactly as presented. I've since seen dodgier bannings too, though I gave up on that place many years ago. It used to be awful. He used to be awful. Maybe he's settled in his older age. Good for him. But I assure you, what I said is true and happened as stated. 

I saw him ban a guy for referring to speech balloons as 'speech bubbles' for goodness sake! 

Post a link to the thread and let others judge for themselves  

Are you sure this was a promo poster as opposed to a Marvel Press poster?

The reason I ask is because the only SW2 promo poster I remember is the one below. Either way, congrats on a VERY cool piece.

This is easily my most anticipated new Marvel release on Disney+

Most of what they've offered so far hasn't been my cup of tea, but I've enjoyed a couple of them very much.

On 10/21/2022 at 7:56 AM, namisgr said:

When building my bronze age collection the focus was on books with the best eye appeal I could find, tempered by the cost.  As others have mentioned here already, on occasion a book assigned a 9.4 by CGC will look better than other copies graded 9.6.  Same with some 9.6s looking as good if not better than others graded 9.8.  

CGC's numerical grading is all about judging structural defects, but they don't affect the eye appeal of books all the same.  Is a book not a 10.0 because of a tiny ruffling of a corner?  A lone small spine stress line?  A barely perceptible corner crease?  A surface impression that doesn't break paper or color?  A small speck of dirt on the cover?  A book not laying perfectly flat?  These defects don't all have equivalent effects on eye appeal, and collectors have different views on ones they find more acceptable than others.

Similarly, there are production issues that affect eye appeal but not the CGC structural grade.  Are the cover colors rich and the cover glossy?  How deep is the color strike?  Is the cover registered well front to back?  Is it registered well top to bottom? Is is straight or crooked?  Are there production defects like tiny bindery tears, paper creases, extra paper on an interior page?  Are the staples placed right on the spine, or are they on the back or front covers and, if so, by how much?

In this collectors' viewpoint, then, the CGC grade is a guide to the preservation and overall appeal of a book, but not the whole story.  How a book looks is paramount, and for bronze age comics that aren't especially scarce in high grade it is possible to select from among several different copies of a particular issue for the one that looks the best in one's subjective view, notwithstanding the assigned numerical grade.

Here's an example of a bronze comic that CGC graded 9.4 based on its structure, but that is nicer looking to me (having once owned it) than many other copies of the ish that they graded higher.  Next to it is a CGC 9.6 that I personally don't think is as nice a copy.

    

Agreed. For my collection I would prefer the one on the left, for flipping the one on the right.

On 10/13/2022 at 9:10 AM, MAR1979 said:

@CGC Mike - I ask again - especially given the last 10-12 pages, why is this topic is permitted in Comics General?

I wonder why it's permitted at all?

The doe eyed OP knew exactly what he was doing and anyone could see where this was going to go from a mile away.

On 10/13/2022 at 8:06 AM, kav said:

You go after me here, because you are obsessed with me, I respond here, and discuss elsewhere.  It all starts with you and your obsession.  You dont mention me I have no interest in you whatsoever.

Someone is projecting-  

 

On 10/13/2022 at 4:26 AM, kav said:

He do seem to obsess.  I never reply to anything he posts ( on the CGC boards ) unless he starts going after me.  I couldnt care less about the dude but he sure seems obsessed with me 

Projection.

Typical.

Sad.

FTFY

Sounds like a misunderstanding.

On 10/12/2022 at 3:25 PM, VintageComics said:

Anyway, this thread has become the De Facto grievances thread again, so I'm going to politely excuse myself out of it. 

Like I said, I was shocked nobody was discussing this move by Paypal and it's certainly changed how a lot of people will do business moving forward. 

On 10/12/2022 at 10:28 PM, kav said:

whatever makes ya feel good 

You're a strange dude, what happened to you? We used to be friendly as everyone knows and then out of nowhere you changed.

Maybe it's just a misunderstanding.

On 10/12/2022 at 10:25 PM, kav said:

see thats what I mean.

Should I start posting gifs of the pony doing his one trick so you feel at home?

On 10/12/2022 at 10:24 PM, kav said:

naw youre not as important to me as I am to you.

You're

And if I recall correctly, the doe eyed OP who "never lies" said he was exiting this thread, yet I've seen several posts since that spoken "truth" 

On 10/12/2022 at 10:18 PM, kav said:

I love it when us jackals go after each other!  

Hey, you still have one to go for today and the clock is ticking.

On 10/12/2022 at 9:05 PM, jaybuck43 said:

You're in the running.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

On 10/12/2022 at 4:26 PM, jaybuck43 said:

I’ll disagree with you here roy. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No. I did the numbers earlier. There was no drop in active accounts after the $600 threshold change in the beginning of the year, and their revenue actually increased.  A large, vocal group claimed then they were done with paypal when that change happened (and that change has very real implications, as people who would normally not pay the taxes they owe because they’re not forced to report are now forced to report) so if THAT change didn’t effect the business, why would a reversed change that may or may not have impacted individuals cause them to leave. 

Sounds like a misunderstanding.

On 10/12/2022 at 4:18 PM, Sigur Ros said:

Is this the company you want determining what info is good and what is bad ?!

 

It was a joke, my bad for assuming it was obvious 

Too bad CGC doesn't fine users for posting misinformation.

On 10/7/2022 at 2:13 PM, artdealer said:

Well, you could say 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 7/8, 

400 pages, 275 pages, 350 pages. 
Not a difficult question. 

And regardless who you heard it from, despite knowing Terry for “decades”, the number is probably incorrect. 

That's fair.

It was a difficult question because all I was told was "most of it", I didn't pester the guy for exact details or specific numbers.

Don't know why you put decades in quotes, it's a fellow artist who has known him for decades. 

On 10/7/2022 at 2:02 PM, artdealer said:

Define “vast majority”.

How am I supposed to define that? I heard this from someone who is friends with him and has known him for decades.

How about "a lot" 

On 10/5/2022 at 6:16 PM, zhamlau said:

I’ve heard the same thing. Someone on here crapped on that idea but I don’t remember any specifics as to why it was wrong. Terry sold a few pages but overall the story is he kept the strong majority of it.

He did keep the vast majority. There was a time several years ago that he brought them to John Byrne's house so JB could sign them, I remember pictures being posted on Byrne's forum of the visit. I thought it was in preperation to sell them but I guess that wasn't the case. I was told by someone who knows him personally that he was saving them for his "retirement". but he's 70 and the market is pretty hot. He must be well off if he couldn't use a 7 figure payoff.

RIP 

RIP