divad

I'll remember that buying "technique" in the future . . .

Fury of Firestorm 23 - 1st App Felicity Smoak This book has been selling very well.

Not what I have heard so far. And not that it matters to me, given her poorness both artistically and morally speaking. Elaborate Somewhere else please.

All good sales. (thumbs u Great work.

Can't find that book out in the wild at all, I've found the 49 but not the the 50 Sweet. I picked up a run of #37 until the end a couple of months back and was not aware that any other issues were worth more than a few dollars. (Courtesy of Bosco) Swampy 53 also appears to be heating up

Swamp Thing 50 continues to heat up!

Bats 417-420 KGBeast continue to be hot!

Thank you for using facts to dispel what is a commonly stated idea. (thumbs u I've been saying this forever, but apparently no one was paying attention, even with an immediate second printing starting them in the face. If it had a "huge print run", a second printing wouldn't have been necessary. I'd sure like to know where this "ASM #361 had a huge print run" myth really came from. Yes, let's use facts to see who keeps using the words "huge print run" in reference to Amazing Spider-Man #361. This is what I wrote: However, at no point did I use the words "huge print run". Not once. What's weird though, is how you wrote "huge print run" three times, and "large print run" once. Huh. Either way, the facts seem to indicate that your statement should now be changed to "I'd sure like to know where this 'ASM #361 had plenty of copies' myth really came from." Short answer: that comment wasn't directed at you. So no need to get bent out of shape about it. Not everything is about Petey's Wheatcakes. Long answer: That was a general comment (made clear by the context of both mine and 500club's comments), not directed at you specifically. No need to be offended, nor is there a need to parse casual comments that use vague adjectives like "large" and "huge", neither of which have any specific meaning. You are not the first, and you won't be the last, to make the claim that ASM #361 had a (insert whatever adjective best describes your position about the actual size of the print run here) print run. Yes, and they were posted here. You didn't read what I wrote, did you...? Come on, now, you can admit it, don't be shy. Most don't. It's nothing to be ashamed about. (I'm just tweaking you, don't be offended.) You should probably just speak for yourself, and not include me in your (polite) accusations of intellectual dishonesty and pedantry. I'm not terribly offended...you're not the first, and won't be the last...but you have neither been misquoted nor selectively quoted so as to misrepresent your position...one more time, the statement was not directed at you specifically... Nor has the "minutiae" been "dissected." If I "dissect" a point, it is because I think it is germane to the discussion. How else does one establish the facts of any matter? Vague generalities? That's what causes the problems and disagreements in the first place. I won't go into detail about why people make that particular accusation, but it's usually because the data shows they are in error. Facts, shmacts! Who needs 'em? Vague generalities are the way to go! No one cares about the difference between "huge print run" vs. "large print run" vs. "plenty of copies" except you. Which, I agree, is irrelevant minutiae. If you choose to be offended...whether it's legitimate or not...you will be. Good! No one is. This is a discussion, not a courtroom, regardless of how you may think I come across. On the contrary. There have been some excellent details brought forth in this conversation that have informed quite a few readers, if nothing else. And people now have a data-set to work with, so they aren't operating under false impressions about just what exists, and in what quantities. That's very valuable, especially in a "what's heating up?" thread. The more details one has, the better informed their decision making is. And, to my way of thinking, that's ALWAYS a good thing. Classic.

Not to spoil anyone's party, but has anyone ever mentioned what an ugly, ridiculous cover this is?

Wow. Definitely hadn't heard of that one... Impressive!

Awesome pic! (thumbs u

Everyone knows it's the 1st black costume in the title - it's on every CGC label. Go back under your bridge troll.

Bah, cameos! BWA-HA-HA-HA... -slym Those hacks will never amount to anything . . .

The first Grime was "truegrime", which was a play on the True Crime Comics title from the GA. "Urbangrime" came to me while I was waiting for a city bus one day and another bus came by and blew "urban grime" off the streets into my eyes while standing on the sidewalk. I once even had "Grimedoesnotpay" but changed that after thinking about it for a bit . . .

I rarely understand a thing you say . . .

Here's a few BA books with good sales: Captain America 106 Weird War Tales 3 Shazam 3

Spider-man Annual 22 continues to see good sales. And how about Green Arrow 101

Which, of course, leads us back to the conclusion that the whole assignment of value to the "1st Appearance" concept (cover or otherwise) is silly . . .

I think it is 59 Always been hot . . . and not just because it's her 1st - Just. Plain. Hot.

My Fan Club!

Bats 423 McFarlane and SSM 90 Black Cat continue to heat up.

that's been the battle cry all year long. Here's my longbox copy!

So anything hot? (except NM98)

Out of curiousity where do you obtain the "pre-cut cardboard that fits perfectly"? Papermart. About $117 shipped for 600 sheets of 8.5 x 11 200# cardboard. I used to cut my own cardboard. My time is worth 20 cents a sheet. Ahem, remember who turned you on to that . . .