Bookery

Actually, that's not entirely true. I quoted 3 different people, not just 2. And one of them I don't recall encountering beyond this thread, so couldn't possibly be saying they do this in every thread. I could have used other quotes... there were at least as many more by others than the people I quoted. But I'll grant I should have not have made the comment if for no other reason than that one person might be incorrectly assumed to be one of the ones I was referencing, even though when I was scanning the quotes, I actually wasn't paying attention to which poster stated what. And the statement was obviously hyperbolic... clearly I can't have read ALL the posts these folks might have made in other threads. I was making a point about the attitudes expressed... If I faulted in that one sentence or made the point unclearly, then it's a valid argument. HOWEVER... mot sure why you are obsessing over this one sentence in my various posts (at length, actually). And your defense that no one (other then me) was being dismissive nor saying the app shouldn't exist is incorrect. There are only two ways to interpret the comment "If you're going to be just another contributor to the spread of misinformation, go away" other than (1) your app should go away, ie, not exist... or (2) you should go away and not post here... your opinions are not valid. Hmmmmm. Selective outrage. Not to mention it doesn't seem to bother you that 2 others board members were disparaged who haven't even posted in this thread at all? Seems that would have gotten a finger wag from you, no? Huh? I didn't mention Ebert (wow-- you're apparently as ancient as I am)... I mentioned movie reviewers, period. They recommend or dismiss MOVIES (not each other). They give their opinion that you should not waste time, or money, with a given film, ie a given filmmaker's work, ie, his method of expression. People will either accept that opinion, or they themselves will dismiss the opinion of the reviewer. That doesn't mean the reviewer had no right to his opinion. I was of the opinion a couple (or more) posters like to be nasty and disruptive for the joy of that alone, and not to disseminate useful information or debate. It's my opinion. Some will agree with it, some don't. I may even change my mind and hold a new opinion later. It happens.

I'm just saying that Marvel could have just as easily seen it the other way... this is a neat idea, so let's present it in a 3-pronged attack and really drive it home! They didn't, as it turns out... but the dilution argument still doesn't make sense, no matter how many times you repeat it. The publication records make your case. The above speculation on Marvel's intent is just that, and add no gravitas to the argument. Maybe it's basic information if a good bit of your research time is on just this one issue. When you're compiling thousands and thousands of issues, and you have up until this moment been given no good reason to disbelieve something, it simply isn't going to be on your radar to change it. OPG was shown their error, and changed it. I made errors in my first guide, and when pointed out, fixed them in my second, when those corrections panned out as accurate. As I've stated, I buy a lot of reference material. If it's on a subject that I have serious knowledge about, I have never found one... not even the best of the best... in which I did not find errors. It happens. Based on this, then the publication data is useless. Why are you assuming the date isn't a typo? Just a simple slip on the keyboard. There are thousands of lines of publication data out there. Are you willing to argue that typos never occur?

How does it muddy the waters? All one had to do was flip back a couple of pages if they wanted to know who said what. And it doesn't matter anyway. My comment was on the tone... the quotes speak to that tone. It doesn't matter who said it. So? It definitely was not the case here. What do other blogs have to do with this thread?

Just because you don't like jazz... You mean... kinda like you're doing right here? I didn't name them... in fact, I purposely left those opinions up to others... in MY opinion, my statement actually applies to 4 or 5 posters here (not 2)... letting each person decide for themselves who they are is part of the fun. Criticism and haranguing are not the same thing. Many here don't understand that. This is silly. All opinions are to various degrees meant to influence others. Why have a movie review? What purpose can it possibly have if not to try and influence? The reader will then make up their minds on whether they wish to be influenced or not by it. Opinions can change too. At the time of my posting, it was my opinion that 2 (unnamed) posters had little useful to offer, based on my experience with their history of posts. But they might suddenly change and state something brilliant. Then I would adjust my opinion accordingly. It is also my opinion that I am not in need of pompous lectures on what subjects of which I am entitled to have said opinions. We seem to be teetering on a hypocrisy precipice here.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. In 1984 publishers were not catering to the "investment" collector such as they are now. Why would presenting your idea in 3 titles at once not increase impact rather than dilute it? I don't see how he was being dismissive of criticism. He said he wanted hard evidence, not anecdotal. The first time anything approaching hard evidence appeared was in your post with publication data. It would have been handy had this been posted 10-pages earlier. I'll be honest... I had no idea there was a debate on this issue until THIS thread. Years ago, it was always stated 252 was the 1st app. Then at some point it was announced it was a 3-way tie. Okay, fine. I was unaware it had changed back again. Neither Ovestreet nor CGC should be the final word on anything (I've found a number of errors in OPG) -- but compared to the massive amount of data both entities deal in, factual errors are fairly few, and should not be assumed to be wrong until shown otherwise. NEWS FLASH -- not everybody lives on these boards. I have not seen the other threads, no matter how many times this debate was supposedly presented ad nauseum. Not everybody has 54,000 posts here, and most of us hit a few threads here and there that look interesting. Your post presented useful data that neither I, nor presumably Key Collector, had seen. Great! As I come across these issues I'll adjust my labels accordingly. But to belittle someone for being unaware of specific debates on these boards is silly. Frankly, I find most threads after a few posts devolve into exactly what this one has... a few supercilious individuals brandishing their holier-than-thou cards. It's why good information is indeed lost in a morass of snide poseurs.

In partial response to the above post... I just paid for an annual subscription on my desktop. Have only had a couple of minutes to scan the site, but it appears everything is there. Looks interesting. I didn't realize how inexpensive the subscription is. That's a lot of work just from what I've seen for $19.95 (year) (about the cost of a package of mylars). As one might glean from my previous posts, I'm a reference book and data junkie. My office is lined with hundreds of reference books. Some are excellent, some not so great, but it is rare not to find something useful in all of them. You (Key Collector) have set yourself up for a major workload, keeping up with all of the myriad changes and fluctuations out there. I had it lucky with pulps... since they pretty much died out in the 1950s, not a lot of new information popping up on a daily basis, and few variants to deal with (but, yes, there actually are a few in the pulp world).

Don't worry... I never for a minute assumed that you had. And I really doubt that's what Deputy Mike intended... but it could be interpreted that way by his post. I posed the question to him to inquire if he really meant to put it that way, since that would indeed be a different matter (and a serious charge). For what it's worth, I was also accused of plagiarism on my book (weeks before it was released!) by a dealer that assumed (since he didn't know me) that if someone outside the official collector's circle had dared to put together a guide, surely he most have stolen it from somewhere! So yes... it's a sensitive area and a charge I don't like seeing posted... even if it's only implied. Buy=t yes, as for the rest, I will check out the web page.

I haven't seen his app, because as I understand it, it's for cells only? I don't use a cellphone for business purposes, so it's more useful to me to have something I can use on a desktop. That said, I imagine there's any number of ways one can organize information. I've compiled 3 pulp guides, a 500-page comic book price guide (just for me-- not for publication), and am working on a 1500-page paperback guide (that will likely never see the light of day). But they all arrange information differently, based on what I feel is the best way to present it for that specific medium. Now, if what you are asserting above is that the app essentially plagiarizes Overstreet and adds a new way of highlighting things, then that's a different charge, and matter, altogether...?

Is that the Minister of Pulps? I stand corrected then. I'd read about him, but thought it was a myth. (He does kind of look like some of the old-guard pulp guys... I could be in trouble...)

Anytime you break out an issue from the pack to identify something special about it, somebody might call it a "key", since like it or not, the term is fluid and subjective. I might not use the term that way, but then again if I had an app devoted to such a thing, it probably sounds better and gets the idea across to call it a "key collector app" as opposed to the "comics issues that have something noteworthy about them" app. And I have no idea how many issues I've broken out for "noteworthiness" in my guide... but yes, it would be in the thousands, and yes, in the end, it's my guide and issues get broken out and determined of note because I say so. I'm not aware of a ministry that one must appeal to and be sanctioned on this subject.

Well, I'm sure there would be arguments on what constitutes the nuances of a "personal attack". Suffice it to say that there are criticisms that can be helpful... both to the designer and the potential user... and then there are others that are just meant to deride and demean. Maybe it can be agreed that there has been a less-than-respectful tone-- "Those guys [who highlight keys to buy] were a waste of space and air at every con they attended, and now we have you to thank for the new batch" "This is gonna be a go-to tool for the tools who want to "invest" in comic books... it highlights the aspect that appeals to those tools." "if you're delusional enough... then ignorance truly is bliss" "comic flippers, who are a disservice to the hobby, will be attracted to the app" "I saw a YouTube video on how to use the app, had a big belly laugh, and moved on with my life" "If you're going to be just another contributor to the spread of misinformation, go away"

Key Collector... every new resource that comes out receives the same naysayer and snarky treatment. When I produced the first pulp price guide (back in 2001) just the advance word that it was coming out produced an uproar. I was attacked and called names by people who had never met me nor had seen the guide (since it wasn't even released at this point). They were certain it would just be used to inflate prices and "ruin the market" the same way those terrible comic folks ruined theirs (the pulp collectors at that time bitterly despised comic collectors). They also resented that all of this information would now be made public... key stories, 1st author appearances, pseudonyms, 1st app. of a character, etc. They wanted this information to themselves so that they could buy collections cheap. When I set up at the pulp convention that year to premiere the book, they even had my dealer table turned toward a wall at the back. I made few sales that day, as attendees didn't want to be seen carrying around the book. But I was swamped with mail orders from those same people a week later. The pulp guide had all sorts of information... not just prices. And in fact... though they were worried it would be used to "force up" prices, it turned out that those dealers in the room that were strongest against it all had their stock priced above my listings. Anyway... the point is, don't let them bother you. The guide is now the standard in the industry and is no longer a subject of controversy. EBay and auctions are the main factors determining price escalations (if any) not price guides. And it is not a resource author's responsibility to worry how his reference material is used by others, if that information is accurate and informative. Moreover... at least 2 of the posters attacking you here do this in pretty much every thread... they live to be nasty and disruptive, so their arguments can pretty much be dismissed out of hand.

Thanks. But... in the fullness of accuracy, I have never been an Overstreet advisor (never sent them any market reports). But I have written 3 guides to pulps (3rd one in process), and like comics, they have "key" issues too.

I was assuming that DC would gobble up the rights since Great Publications is no longer extant. But yep... that's the character I was thinking of!

Ah.

You're arguing just to argue because you've ceased to make any sense. Nobody has a clue as to what you're trying to get at. Popularity doesn't make a key according to you. Standing the test of time doesn't make a key according to you. You've not given a definition of "key" other than some vague comments about 1st appearances... but every character ever created has a 1st app., so without popularity and standing the test of time, what does that mean? I gave you a perfect example with "The Riddler". Nobody (rationally) argues his 1st app. isn't key. And nobody (rationally) argues his popularity and importance in the Batman universe wasn't the result of his introduction into the TV series. Why is the 1st app. of Spider-Man important? He wasn't especially innovative (pretty much a re-make of The Fly). He's important because he became immensely popular. And it doesn't matter how that popularity came about... within the comic medium itself, from a radio show, a TV program, a movie, or because a famous individual announces it's their favorite and the public suddenly takes notice. Two things make something "key"... (A) of historical importance because it begins a trend, or makes other events possible; e.g. Famous Funnies #1 is a key because of its historical value, despite it not being especially popular with collectors-- most aren't seeking to own one... same thing can be said for The Yellow Kid. (B) A character becomes so popular that they become important to the medium... Batman's popularity is important to the medium, Kangaroo Man's lack of popularity makes him less important. But if they make a movie of Kangaroo Man, and it's hugely successful AND DC then goes on to make Kangaroo Man an integral part of its universe, and thousands of collectors start trying to find his 1st app., and he remains integral from now on (not just a passing fad) then eventually that 1st app. will be considered a key issue.

A collector about an hour from me just donated his 180,000 comics to a university. I guess the "magic level" for taking a break is 180,000.

A perfect example. She was invented by TV. DC picked up on this and began promoting the character in the comics. She is now one of the most significant characters in the whole DC universe. Popularity is one (perhaps the primary) factor in determining a Key issue. And popularity can be ignited by all sorts of things It's the reason the 1st appearance of Batman is a Key, and the 1st appearance of Kangaroo Man is not (yes... he's a real character). In the past comic characters were made popular within the comics... good stories, or great art ignited interest in the character. The publisher notices this, and begins using the character more and more. Sometimes this happens quickly... sometimes it takes years. But other things can spark popularity too. And TV and movies are part of that... and becoming an ever-more significant factor in modern times.

A "key" example... The Riddler appeared in I believe just 2 golden-age issues. He was just another of dozens of Batman villains that came and went after just a couple of appearances. To this day nobody would have ever cared about him. EXCEPT... he was picked up and used in the "Batman" TV show. The character became popular. DC worked him into more and more stories because of this. One thing leads to another. I don't think anyone could argue that the first golden-age appearance of The Riddler is not a key. Thus movies/TV CAN make an issue into a key.

How so? He states it right there. "CONSIDERED ESPECIALLY DESIRABLE BY COLLECTORS"... I can't think of an example in which an "especially desirable" issue isn't worth more than issues that are not "especially desirable". He didn't forget to state it... he just didn't need to be redundant.

This is actually just plain wrong. You may be right in many cases... a short-term burst in popularity and value may not make something "key", but if a movie or TV show ignites the popularity of a character and it stands the test of time, then certainly it can turn a character's 1st (or most noteworthy) appearance into a "key".

The problem is not in the stars (CGC), but in our selves. Comic collectors adamantly refuse to accept what a grading service is, and what it's limitations are. I believe with today's technology it is probably possible (though likely not financially feasible) to invent a machine that could consistently scan and grade coins. This will never happen with comic books. Grading comics will always be a matter of OPINION. When you send in a comic for grading you are paying for an opinion ... an educated opinion, hopefully, but an opinion nonetheless subject to all of the limitations that entails. CGC (or any other company) will never be as consistent at grading as I am (or any other careful long-time dealer or collector) simply because they have employed dozens of graders over the years. All of the training in the world isn't going to transform those human beings into identical infallible robots. Point 2 -- the slabs reduce the chances of future damage, but certainly don't preclude it. Besides internal movement within the slabs, if you leave a slab outside in bright sunlight, the comic will still fade and the grade will not be the same as is stated on the label. A CGC case is like a mylar bag on steroids... but it can't prevent all sorts of potential damage down the road. All CGC can do is give you their OPINION of the book before them in this particular time and place. And that opinion might (will) change over time with different grading crews. I personally don't see how it's possible to "guarantee" an "opinion". And as for people paying 10-fold for a 9.9 over a 9.8... in MY OPINION that is silly bordering on psychosis, and should not be CGC's concern. It has been proven, time and again, that even the professional graders will switch back and forth over time from a 9.6 to a 9.8, let alone now down to a tenth of a point. And yet there are those crying for yet even greater divisions of grades... all for a multi-faceted fragile paper product graded by an ever-changing array of human beings who have good days and bad days and are not robots.

Why is it a logical progression? In the relatively short history that comics have been traded as collectibles, they have rapidly escalated the number of grade distinctions. Yet rare books have been sold for 500 years, and though there have been a variety of grading systems employed, I don't think any of them have exceeded 10 different grading points. Movie posters, magazines, pulps... none even have the level of comic distinctions we have now. Coins... a fixed metal object that wears in exact and predictable ways topped out at what is it... something like 65 grades? Yet as has been pointed out, comics at various times have been graded on a 100-point scale! When it comes to comic collectors... I don't think the word "logic" should be employed in the discussion.

Okay... I know one of the primary missions of these boards is to forever bash comic shops, but I must be missing something here. Comic shops (like rare bookshops before them) are the kinds of businesses that often can't afford prime real estate downtown rents. So a lot of them tend to be "inconveniently located". Given that, this seems to be an enterprising dealer who decides to counter that by not only offering what customers want, but decides to carry what the other shops don't. I'm assuming he didn't have the power to prevent them from ordering imports... they just chose not to. And it worked, because customers felt it was worth the effort to get to his shop. So I'm not understanding how this is in and of itself either arrogant or a "monopolistic attitude". It seems like he was providing a service... it would be the other "more convenient" shops that were arrogant by not providing product their customers wanted.

I am working with a professional publisher right now on a completely revised and updated 3rd edition. Too soon to give any more details than that.