Mr Sneeze

Thank you to boardie Mike22 for #11, the last book I needed to finish off my run of Avengers #1-100. I released said book from it's plastic prison and had a good read.

 

Some of these need an upgrade, which will happen over time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

Cole

 

Beautiful books! I am working on a run of these as well. Some of my favorite writing from Roy Thomas and art from John B. Nice to see someone collect more than keys.

Loved the bricks growing up. For me there were no plans, just building from the imagination.

We started getting Duplo for our daughter early on and quickly progressed to Lego. I am blown away by all the cool pieces. It's a blast playing with this stuff again. Our Daughter is six now so obviously most of the purchases have been for me or my wife. At six, she is getting to a good age to start piecing sets together by herself - I 'll sit with her and give her a hand if needed. I always try to have a small kit around for a rainy day. I'm hoping for the Millennium Falcon this year

why has the discourse decreased as the number of auctions increased?

 

Not much more to say?

 

Some don't want auction at all.

Some want auctions.

 

Almost all of Both camps think auctions should be in their own sub-forum if we are going to allow them.

 

Just up to the mods to create one for us and see how the cards fall.

 

Yep...a couple weeks back Arch requested that we provide more thoughts on the subject. We've done that. Now, I think we're waiting to hear back from Arch regarding his thoughts.

Not really for or against auctions but would definitely like to see them in their own sub forum. From what I've read it seems most people agree on this point.

I like Lichtenstein, I would like to see one of his pieces in person.

 

As for seeing Lichtenstein's work in person, you really need to. Seeing one of his paintings next to an identically sized photo of a comic panel on Barsalou's website could not be more misleading. Unfortunately, they didn't allow photographs at the retrospective in the National Gallery in D.C. last year, but here's a photo of me next to "Sleeping Girl" (which is much smaller than some of his other well-known works) when it was displayed at the Philadelphia Museum of Art last year.

 

Compare this to what would have been maybe a 3" x 4" panel in a comic book printed in muted 4-colors on newsprint. Well, to the extent you can, anyway. Only one of them attracts your eye and holds your attention with its bright, garish commercial printing colors, thick black lines and dotted face. There is no text (unlike the source material) - it leaves you to create your own narrative. In the comic, the narrative is spoon-fed to you - it was not meant to question or inspire, it was meant to entertain a 14-year old kid. That's not an insult, that's just a simple fact. To say that the art hasn't been transformed in a meaningful and interesting way is demonstrably false. All you have to do is physically compare that one panel in a comic book to this painting and look at the difference in color palette, size, texture, verbiage (or lack thereof), and, most importantly, context. You experience the comic and you experience Lichtenstein's painting in completely different ways.

 

If Lichtenstein had gotten express permission to use the images and Russ Heath, Irv Novick, etc. were enthusiastic fans of Lichtenstein, few of you would be calling this work the boring work of a thieving hack. Instead, because he didn't go out of his way to do so and win the hearts and minds of future comic book aficionados in 2014, many of you view him as a pariah, and none of the extenuating circumstances (work-for-hire, publishers not caring back then, publishers sometimes not even crediting the artist, things being far less litigious back then (let alone arguing for fair use), RL actually having positive things to say about comic artists, scholars and museums later acknowledging the source material in exhibitions and materials, etc.) will dent your single-minded fury at the artist. And that, to me, is just a bit sad and misguided, because, as comic fans, I feel we should be enjoying this work even more than others.

I've enjoyed reading this thread over the past few days. Great post (thumbs u

Context, Context is everything.

Oh and thanks to RMA for pointing out 4'33"

To keep it from becoming ebay:

 

One thread at a time.

Limit of one lot (max three) per thread.

No reserve

No bumping your own thread except once within the last eight hours.

No posting in a closed auction other than to announce the winner and close the thread.

 

 

All should be no reserve but I have nothing against a BIN price. If it's ridiculous it will just be ignored. If it's reasonable and gets hit. The auction is over early and clears space.

 

This would satisfy me, my feeling generally is that we should err on the side of strict simplicity to start, as it is always easier to loosen things up a bit later if the experiment proves successful.

 

As was already pointed out, by Revat I think, the simpler and stricter the more likely moderation will accept it and be willing to police it, the more complicated it gets the more drama and fatigue it will produce and the whole thing will get shut down, assuming it is ever allowed to start.

 

I like the restrictive aspects being brought up. I don't think anyone wants this to turn into ebay. The sales forums work well and it would be nice to move out the auctions to their own sub-forum. I agree that it needs to kept simple to fly with the mods.

Maybe when this highly speculative era is over the need (for an auction sub forum) will go away?

This just seems like an annoying nightmare if I'm the buyer...having to sift through a thread to figure out what the last bid was on an item I'm interested in. So, let me start one thread and put 50 individual books in there...it's constantly getting bumped from bidders on 50 books, each trying to figure out what the last bid on something was...nightmare. I'm not saying limit it to one thing, but put some reasonable constraint on it, given our technological situation...say, maximum of 3 items in a thread, or some manageable number like that (and I mean manageable for a buyer trying to navigate the thread)

 

Your absolutely right, it would be a nightmare and I would probably never even check in on it but at least the sellers mess would be contained to a single thread. There definitely should be a cap on the amount of books per thread.

 

I think that putting a cap on the number of "lots" would satisfy, so if say you wanted the option of up to 3 lots (or however many is agreed upon) you can put as much as you want in any given lot, 1 or 1000 but that would limit the number of separately generated bids being posted in a seller's thread.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Would people get to run more than one auction at once?

 

Generally I am very much in favour of making a separate area for auctions.

 

IMO to allow more than one at the same time would be a catastrophe, it would overwhelm the system, within a day you would have to scroll through a 100 pages to see what is "new". For the people who want to run auctions it would bury any given auction underneath an avalanche, and thus be self defeating.

 

My is that it is crucial that we have a consensus that each member can only run one auction at a time.

 

I dunno about that. If I want to sell ten comics, and I for some reason want them to be auctions, it's gonna take me like 20 days to sell them, assuming my auctions only run for two days. Why not allow two or three auctions to run concurrently?

 

I understand that limiting each member to running them one at a time sequentially seems extreme, but even with 2 or three allowed at a time, you have to multiply that by the number of members wanting to run auctions. My opinion is based on the assumption that auctions will continue to grow in use and the number of members using auctions will continue to grow.

 

And it should be considered also that one does not have to run an auction to sell books, the normal sales area is very successful as is for selling books.

 

 

I think it could be possible for a person to run as many auctions as they like - within their single auction thread. For example, if you want to auction 20 books, start a thread and list the books with BIN's etc and have them all end at the same time. It might be a little messy for the seller to clean up afterwards but all the information should be there to determine the winners.

 

This just seems like an annoying nightmare if I'm the buyer...having to sift through a thread to figure out what the last bid was on an item I'm interested in. So, let me start one thread and put 50 individual books in there...it's constantly getting bumped from bidders on 50 books, each trying to figure out what the last bid on something was...nightmare. I'm not saying limit it to one thing, but put some reasonable constraint on it, given our technological situation...say, maximum of 3 items in a thread, or some manageable number like that (and I mean manageable for a buyer trying to navigate the thread)

Your absolutely right, it would be a nightmare and I would probably never even check in on it but at least the sellers mess would be contained to a single thread. There definitely should be a cap on the amount of books per thread.

Would people get to run more than one auction at once?

 

Generally I am very much in favour of making a separate area for auctions.

 

IMO to allow more than one at the same time would be a catastrophe, it would overwhelm the system, within a day you would have to scroll through a 100 pages to see what is "new". For the people who want to run auctions it would bury any given auction underneath an avalanche, and thus be self defeating.

 

My is that it is crucial that we have a consensus that each member can only run one auction at a time.

 

I dunno about that. If I want to sell ten comics, and I for some reason want them to be auctions, it's gonna take me like 20 days to sell them, assuming my auctions only run for two days. Why not allow two or three auctions to run concurrently?

 

I understand that limiting each member to running them one at a time sequentially seems extreme, but even with 2 or three allowed at a time, you have to multiply that by the number of members wanting to run auctions. My opinion is based on the assumption that auctions will continue to grow in use and the number of members using auctions will continue to grow.

 

And it should be considered also that one does not have to run an auction to sell books, the normal sales area is very successful as is for selling books.

 

 

I think it could be possible for a person to run as many auctions as they like - within their single auction thread. For example, if you want to auction 20 books, start a thread and list the books with BIN's etc and have them all end at the same time. It might be a little messy for the seller to clean up afterwards but all the information should be there to determine the winners.

 

That is plausible, although if there is no limit on that you may have a tendency for members to maximize the number to ensure more frequent bumps for their listing, and while some will prove capable of managing 20 plus separate books some will not, and the more at once the greater the chances of things going wrong. It could in the end become a great producer of drama as much as profits.

If it were up to me, I would say one thread with a max of three books.

Would people get to run more than one auction at once?

 

Generally I am very much in favour of making a separate area for auctions.

 

IMO to allow more than one at the same time would be a catastrophe, it would overwhelm the system, within a day you would have to scroll through a 100 pages to see what is "new". For the people who want to run auctions it would bury any given auction underneath an avalanche, and thus be self defeating.

 

My is that it is crucial that we have a consensus that each member can only run one auction at a time.

 

I dunno about that. If I want to sell ten comics, and I for some reason want them to be auctions, it's gonna take me like 20 days to sell them, assuming my auctions only run for two days. Why not allow two or three auctions to run concurrently?

 

I understand that limiting each member to running them one at a time sequentially seems extreme, but even with 2 or three allowed at a time, you have to multiply that by the number of members wanting to run auctions. My opinion is based on the assumption that auctions will continue to grow in use and the number of members using auctions will continue to grow.

 

And it should be considered also that one does not have to run an auction to sell books, the normal sales area is very successful as is for selling books.

 

 

Good point - put me in the 'one auction at a time' camp. Boardies with more to sell can run an auction for a selected item, and sell concurrently in a regular thread...this will make people be more selective about what they choose to auction, and will help ensure that auctions don't become a dominant sales mechanism here...I think many of us would prefer "normal" sales threads to remain the norm, while allowing the auction format as a fun/interesting option when appropriate...'one auction at a time' would facilitate this structure.

I agree Ed, I just would rather see someone auction 3 books in one thread over one book in each of three threads concurrently.

Would people get to run more than one auction at once?

 

Generally I am very much in favour of making a separate area for auctions.

 

IMO to allow more than one at the same time would be a catastrophe, it would overwhelm the system, within a day you would have to scroll through a 100 pages to see what is "new". For the people who want to run auctions it would bury any given auction underneath an avalanche, and thus be self defeating.

 

My is that it is crucial that we have a consensus that each member can only run one auction at a time.

 

I dunno about that. If I want to sell ten comics, and I for some reason want them to be auctions, it's gonna take me like 20 days to sell them, assuming my auctions only run for two days. Why not allow two or three auctions to run concurrently?

 

I understand that limiting each member to running them one at a time sequentially seems extreme, but even with 2 or three allowed at a time, you have to multiply that by the number of members wanting to run auctions. My opinion is based on the assumption that auctions will continue to grow in use and the number of members using auctions will continue to grow.

 

And it should be considered also that one does not have to run an auction to sell books, the normal sales area is very successful as is for selling books.

 

I think it could be possible for a person to run as many auctions as they like - within their single auction thread. For example, if you want to auction 20 books, start a thread and list the books with BIN's etc and have them all end at the same time. It might be a little messy for the seller to clean up afterwards but all the information should be there to determine the winners.

Would people get to run more than one auction at once?

 

Generally I am very much in favour of making a separate area for auctions.

 

IMO to allow more than one at the same time would be a catastrophe, it would overwhelm the system, within a day you would have to scroll through a 100 pages to see what is "new". For the people who want to run auctions it would bury any given auction underneath an avalanche, and thus be self defeating.

 

My is that it is crucial that we have a consensus that each member can only run one auction at a time.

 

I completely agree with this.

yay!

 

Beautiful colours on that cover! Congrats!

And so but it is hard for me to have any attachment to the book while it's still slabbed. I don't feel that I officially own the book until I crack it out and peruse through it. Reading copies don't count either. I want the book in the slab. I can certainly appreciate that others like their books entombed, it's just not for me.

Oh, and comiclink stickers don't bother me a bit.

Whiteness…

 

I have some VERY whites in the higher numbers as well… I think that at some point they changed the cover paper stock, as otherwise it’s not explainable.

I have had a dozen (so to speak) of #67, but no one is white as issues in the #70s or #80s.

It's funny but I've had nice white midgrade copies of 67 both cover and inside stock (I now have a 9.2). I have yet to run into a nice white 73, they always show tanning,even if only slightly. Anyone?

Beautiful books Bob! Aren't the 'curators' the stuff of legend concerning whiteness?

Here is my 18. Deslabbed 6.5

First Super Skrull! One of my favorite early FF's!

I didn't read the fine print.

thanks, boardie.

 

Nice!!! Where's the 18?

one closer to the goal.

 

I've always loved that cover. Beautiful book!

Seeing that 52 from Straw-man got me thinking about mine. Here it is...

new one in 'da box.

 

 

That's one of the nicest looking FF9s I've ever seen!

Very nice!

Very sweet #52…

But the #9 is…

 

My #8… I already posted it, but here it is, my very first single digit FF, bought when I visited Los Angeles (and USA) for the first and only time in 1991, and signed by Jack.

("Gary Stillman" was the original owner, I guess).

 

 

Claudio, that is a beautiful 8. I am very envious!

lovely books!

Time for a due bump and… it finally arrived!

 

I can’t wait to deslab it – it will be a solemn moment…

 

Congratulations Claudio! Beautiful book!