masterlogan2000

You can find a #75 earlier on in the thread on Page 1… and it’s 10% off right now.

$2 - Wolverine (1988) #50 NM

$1 - Wolverine (1988) #50 VF

Let's start back up... All the comic companies used to celebrate every 25 issues with a double sized issue or a gimmicky cover… nowadays we’re lucky if a Marvel book makes it past 1 year without getting rebooted. Let’s celebrate some issues here that are multiples of 25. $4 - Wolverine (1988) #25 F/VF

@ 10% off  PM incoming

Last book for tonight. A lot more coming tomorrow. I usually have a hard time keeping this book “in stock” whenever I pick up an extra copy… $45 - Wolverine Weapon X #1 (Kubert sketch) - SOLD! VF/NM

$7 $6 - Death of Wolverine #1 (Canadian) NM

More “death” books here… thanks Marvel! Fallen Son: The Death of Captain America - Wolverine $6 $5 - Michael Turner Cover A (5 available) NM $4 $3 - Leinil Yu Cover B (5 available) NM Or take both for $8 $6

You don’t see many of these come up, and the ones that do are usually a bit overpriced. $10 $7 - Wizard World Chicago Comic Con Program 2014 NM (Death of Wolverine #1 Cover Preview)

$6 $5 - Old Man Logan (Vol 1) #1 (Skottie Young variant) NM Beautiful book and would have been NM+, but the corner of the back cover was folded over in the bag/board.

Who thinks of these ridiculous variants?!?!? $10 $8 - Wolverine (Vol 6) #1 (Hastings/Kidrobot) NM/NM+

For this next book, most of these came already pre-signed. Here’s your chance to get a high grade copy that is unsigned. $22 $18 - Wolverine (Vol 5) #1 (Forbidden Planet variant) NM+

Here’s some more ironic HFW books… By the way, how many Deodato variants can they possibly jam into this one title? Individually priced below, but take the pair for $60. $25 $18 - Hunt for Wolverine (Deodato Variant) Sold elsewhere (not to be confused with the Deodato 1:50 Variant) NM+ $45 - Hunt for Wolverine (Deodato Virgin B&W Variant) - Sold! NM+

Let’s start off Round #4 with two new Dell’Otto’s / Hunt for Wolverine variants. How is that for IRONY... I’m selling HFW comics to get HFW comics. Individually priced below, but take the pair for $70. $30 $20 - Hunt for Wolverine (Dell’Otto) Sold elsewhere NM+ $50 $32 - Hunt for Wolverine (Dell’Otto Virgin) Sold elsewhere NM+

It’s time to start up Round #4, as I’m looking to raise some funds to cover the ridiculous amount of Hunt for Wolverine books and their respective variants that are being released. As of today, I count a total of 63 (arg!) Hunt for Wolverine issues, but that number seems to increase daily. Let’s open up the other rounds for the last time and offer 10% off on them. This excludes the Best There Is #1 Dell’Otto variants. I’ve decided to keep Copy B, and Copy A was recently graded on site at C2E2. I’m pleased no one snagged this from me previously, as it came back a 9.8. I’m undecided if I’ll be parting with it, but I did want to show it off in all its glory…

x1 Raw

The DMM doesn't care about expiry or validity. The fact is that these were once advertisements promoting products, services, or events that were current. They continue to be advertisements that are simply promoting products, services, or events that themselves have expired. The fact that you use the term "expired ad" makes the argument that it is still an ad (just expired). I'm even fine with calling this "historical reference material"... but why can't it be both? You can't just say it's an expired ad, then argue it's not an ad because it's expired. That, to me, is illogical. Let's make a couple analogies... I bought a carton of milk a month ago. It has gone sour and has passed the expiration date. By virtue of its expiration, is this no longer considered milk? Should I refer to it as "historical reference material"... afterall, that would indeed be a reminder to me that I should have drank it faster. I'm buying my wife flowers for Mother's Day. Those flowers will likely die in a week. In other words, they'll expire. I'll have about a dozen dead flowers, but by virtue of their death, are they no longer flowers? Can you imagine the look on my wife's face when I tell her to throw out the "historical reference materials" that were once (but are no longer) flowers. That ad is not promoting "action figures in general." That is not its intention, nor what it was produced for...and that goes for X-Men comics, X-Men movies, DVDs of the old AS, etc. No, that is not what ads are meant to do. Ads are meant to promote specific items, products, or events. No one would seriously suggest that a poster promoting a Phish appearance could therefore be said to also promote Phish CDs, Phish t-shirts, instruments that Phish happens to be using, concerts in general, music in general, and pot smoking.  You misinterpret my words here. I'm stating that the ad is promoting more than the action figures. It is promoting Marvel comics. It is promoting the X-Men. I'm NOT stating that it is specifically promoting the comics, DVDs, movies, etc... just using those as examples of what comes to my mind through the promotion of both Marvel and the X-Men through this ad. With that, I both agree and disagree with your Phish example. Does a Phish poster specifically promote Phish CDs, Phish t-shirts, etc... ABSOLUTELY NOT (we agree). However, does the poster promote the Phish appearance and ONLY the Phish appearance? Or, does it also promote Phish themselves? Your argument suggests the former, and would lead to the conclusion that a Phish poster does not actually promote the band Phish. Now, as a side note, I will clarify that IF the Phish poster conveys images of their t-shirts, the instruments they play, or people enjoying themselves some marijuana... then I would contend that those items are indeed being promoted, and by virtue, this is also an advertisement for those materials. You do realize that, with any advertisement, we are dangerously close to arguing over the interpretation of its original intention (assumingly of the original purchaser of said advertisement). How could we possibly know what that intention is? Who's to say that the action figure ad was actually "intended" to sell action figures? Are we sure it wasn't intended to desensitize our children, promote juvenile delinquency, or convert all young men of America into comic geeks that will forever live in their parents' basements with no hope of ever reproducing with members of the opposite sex (let alone talking to them), thus lowering birth rates for the next generation and making America weak and vulnerable to a communist agenda? The fact is that I can make any argument here (as crazy as it may sound) of what I assume is the original "intention" of the ad, whether true or not. It is also a fact that my own interpretation of the message conveyed by the ad (again, whether correct or not) is likely not the same interpretation that another may have. And, if the advertisement means something to ME that is valid TODAY, does that not mean that the ad is therefore VALID? Who's to argue that someone else's opinion or interpretation is wrong? (The "YOU CAN'T TELL ME HOW TO THINK, MAN!" argument.) If even one person in this universe interprets the ad as valid, it is therefore, by virtue, valid. I would therefore argue that the only way to contend that an advertisement becomes expired and (according to your definition) not an ad, would be to ask every single person in the universe their interpretation of the ad, and ONLY if you get 100% consensus from the entire universe, is the ad invalid. (Though, save yourself the trouble and just ask me... I'll tell you it's still valid). I'm simply stating that your interpretation and mine are different. We can agree to disagree. If this were to go to a court of law, the forum in which laws are ruled upon and interpreted, I believe your argument would be struck down. Afterall, if even one person (myself in this case) interprets the law to conclude that these are advertisements, then it is feasible to believe that another within the court system or jury may share those same interpretations. What you've implied here is that your logic and interpretation would win out over my logic and interpretation, even though it would never get to that level.

Do you have any references confirming this standpoint, or is this just your interpretation of what YOU define as an "ad"? (I hate to derail this thread, but...) I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here, as my interpretation is "once an ad, always an ad". Ads aren't limited to selling goods. Ads can simply be promotions of people, concepts, or intellectual property. Take the following example... This is an advertisement from 1991 coming right off the back of a comic book. I can tell you right now that neither KayBee Toys nor ToyBiz are actual companies TODAY. These toys are no longer being manufactured TODAY. Does this completely invalidate the ad? Now, ask yourself the following: What about the promotion of the X-Men themselves? Or Marvel comics? Heck, what about action figures in general? Could this image not invoke feelings of 90s nostalgia and entice me to make a purchase of action figures? What if it makes me want to pick up an X-Men comic? See an X-Men movie? Buy DVDs of the old X-Men Animated Series? Isn't this what advertisements are meant to do? Wouldn't that mean that this is still valid? Sure, I can't purchase the product that is being DIRECTLY marketed to me here, but this image is about much, much more than trying to get me to purchase a 6" Colossus figure in 1991.

This just seems like an opinion piece to me. I would NOT take any of this as gospel, as this comes from a random blogger with no actual association with the USPS and no references to official or documented USPS policies. The part stating "This kind of behavior is what will lead the USPS to start charging for their priority supplies." is all just speculation on her part. (Speculation that I completely disagree with!) Based on @Logan510's initial post, we're discussing the legality of using these USPS supplied boxes for double boxing shipments. I'm no lawyer, but I speculate that in a court of law, based on the verbiage found on the boxes themselves, that the manner in which the comic was shipped would technically be completely legal. "This packaging is the property of the U.S. Postal Service and is provided solely for use in sending Priority Mail shipments. Misuse may be a violation of federal law. This packaging is not for resale." As long as the boxes were not resold, and as long as they were shipped via the Priority Mail service, this fits the definition set forth on the packaging material itself. No where does it state the manner in which the box must be sent using Priority Mail, only that it must be sent using Priority Mail.

I had to do some searching, but recall that @BeachBum addressed this on a couple different books in a couple different sales threads of his. Take a look at the following posts, as I'm assuming this is the same deal here:

Raw on both covers

Rich bought a Sonic C2E2 variant from me. Great communication and a pleasure to work with! Thanks again!

Just wanted to add a note about @mmmkam's quick payment and amazing communication. He's a great guy and an awesome addition to this community of collectors.