EvenInHisYouth

I have only sold a few times here, but I was of the understanding that it was MY responsibility as a seller, to close a thread if the items were no longer for sale. I recently went back to find a sales thread of mine that hadn't seen a post in a week, just to edit it as closed...specifically so no one would post a two weeks later. I guess I assumed it is free to sell here, the least we could do is keep track of whether we have open sales threads or not

What else can you tell us from the future?

The copy that sold for $15+ had shipping of $5.50, so you made a BS comment there. Peace, Chip Apparently you don't understand the psychology of that ONE EXTRA DOLLAR tacked on to shipping charges. It's enough to make MANY buyers, not even give your auction a second look. Or, maybe it's just bad luck... But hey...PEACE, right Chip?

Rough. $6.50 shipping on a single book will do that.

99.999999999% - All of us except MrWeen and the guy who just listed SA #4 on eBay for $99. I mean... it's a bit ridiculous, right? I am all for collector weirdness. If I want to collect all things Thanos, SURE I want to pick up that issue of Marvel Age, why not? I see no problem with simply pointing out weird/oddball stuff like that. Just don't try to point to, a non story, "first time the image of a character sees print" and try to call it a "first appearance". Just pointing to the literal definition of the word "first", and the word "appearance", does not an argument make. This hobby, which is built on people reading stories, is mostly interested in characters that appear, in stories. This is what a "first appearance" means, in comic collecting. There is nothing wrong with collecting the first time the image of a character appears in print. Nothing at all. If it floats your boat, buy every Malibu Sun 13 that your heart desires. Just understand what you are talking about. The first time the image of a character appears in print. NOT the first appearance of the character. Though I would never use a Thanos appearance in Marvel Age as an example when discussing oddball collectibles I can assure you that I understand what I am talking about. Go take a look at the Overstreet definition or a litany of other definitions. I have yet to see one that lists the need to be part of the story as a first appearance requirement. In fact Overstreet defines a first appearance as: Same as debut. And they define debut as the first time a character appears anywhere. Yea you read that right...anywhere. By the way it looks like the market has already spoken about Malibu 13, it regularly sells for significantly more than Spawn 1. For those who type the word market in response to my plea for historical accuracy then what say you concerning a book like Malibu 13? The point is you can't have it both ways. Hey bud I collect weirdness too! Let me be clear. You have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you go and try this in the Golden Age, Silver Age and Bronze Age thread and see how far you go. Trust me you won't go very far. What part don't you understand that your view on first appearances is utter nonsense, No one has taken you seriously in months. To be honest, you are just wasting your time even posting on the boards. Take some time off, re-evaluate your stance on first appearances and come back when your views change or you are willing to listen. People are entitled to their opinion. Whether you agree with them or not is entirely up to you. Everyone on here can voice how they feel or what they believe.... To insult people or try and people into an arguement is immature, unproductive and doesn't do anything except start flame wars. I am not hear to start an argument or flame war. It is not a insult to MrWeen. MrWeen has been the butt of jokes for months now. Nothing new. MrWeen occassionally has some good insight but if MrWeen wants to be taken seriously that stance on first appearances has to change. MrWeen's views are just confusing the new collectors to the hobby. Malibu Sun #13 has a few things going for it (in no order of importance): 1. The size closely resembles a comic book. 2. It has practically the same cover as Spawn #1, but the eyes are red (think "prototype design"). 3. It says "SPAWN" on the front cover. 4. The back cover features Spawn. 5. It's much scarcer than the tons of Spawn #1's floating around. All of these things combine to make that book desirable to own (I do not own one). Is it a first appearance? Not in story, but it's hard to ignore the same cover art... I agree, all of these reasons (especially the scarcity) make it a very cool example, of the first time the image of a character appears in print. It would bookend well with this.

99.999999999% - All of us except MrWeen and the guy who just listed SA #4 on eBay for $99. I mean... it's a bit ridiculous, right? I am all for collector weirdness. If I want to collect all things Thanos, SURE I want to pick up that issue of Marvel Age, why not? I see no problem with simply pointing out weird/oddball stuff like that. Just don't try to point to, a non story, "first time the image of a character sees print" and try to call it a "first appearance". Just pointing to the literal definition of the word "first", and the word "appearance", does not an argument make. This hobby, which is built on people reading stories, is mostly interested in characters that appear, in stories. This is what a "first appearance" means, in comic collecting. There is nothing wrong with collecting the first time the image of a character appears in print. Nothing at all. If it floats your boat, buy every Malibu Sun 13 that your heart desires. Just understand what you are talking about. The first time the image of a character appears in print. NOT the first appearance of the character. Though I would never use a Thanos appearance in Marvel Age as an example when discussing oddball collectibles I can assure you that I understand what I am talking about. Go take a look at the Overstreet definition or a litany of other definitions. I have yet to see one that lists the need to be part of the story as a first appearance requirement. In fact Overstreet defines a first appearance as: Same as debut. And they define debut as the first time a character appears anywhere. Yea you read that right...anywhere. By the way it looks like the market has already spoken about Malibu 13, it regularly sells for significantly more than Spawn 1. For those who type the word market in response to my plea for historical accuracy then what say you concerning a book like Malibu 13? The point is you can't have it both ways. Hey bud I collect weirdness too! I don't know what you all drink when reading Matt Kindt comics but I go with banned Lokos. 1. No one cares what an Overstreet definition, or what the myriad of dictionaries say about those words. Period. There are first appearances, and there is the first time an image of a character appears in print. Feel free to chase the latter, you are wrong if you believe otherwise. You will continue believing what you believe, and everyone will keep telling you you are wrong. THE END. 2. I find it funny that you bring up that the "Market" has spoken regarding Malibu Sun 13. If I may quote you... "Market prices do not concern me in this matter". FYI...it doesn't command a premium, because it's the "true first appearance" of Spawn. The only reason it commands a premium, is because the number of Spawn #1's out there, DWARF the number of Malibu Sun 13's. (probably because people don't usually hold onto advertisements) If the Malibu Sun 13 had even close to the numbers of Spawn 1 in the market, everyone would rightfully ignore MS13. For the record, I do consider collecting an advertisement which was made to promote a collectible, a bit oddball...but that's ok.

99.999999999% - All of us except MrWeen and the guy who just listed SA #4 on eBay for $99. I mean... it's a bit ridiculous, right? I am all for collector weirdness. If I want to collect all things Thanos, SURE I want to pick up that issue of Marvel Age, why not? I see no problem with simply pointing out weird/oddball stuff like that. Just don't try to point to, a non story, "first time the image of a character sees print" and try to call it a "first appearance". Just pointing to the literal definition of the word "first", and the word "appearance", does not an argument make. This hobby, which is built on people reading stories, is mostly interested in characters that appear, in stories. This is what a "first appearance" means, in comic collecting. There is nothing wrong with collecting the first time the image of a character appears in print. Nothing at all. If it floats your boat, buy every Malibu Sun 13 that your heart desires. Just understand what you are talking about. The first time the image of a character appears in print. NOT the first appearance of the character.

There is a general understanding, that there is a huge difference between a character's first appearance, and the first time the image of a character appears in print, right? I mean, for 99.9% of us at least?

Your " I'm nostradamus" attitude towards every comic that gets hot is getting quite old. Almost every single book that you talk about was hot sometime in the past. This book was hot the day it was published for the same reason its getting hot today, its a first appearance. Big whoop. " I saw this coming" Yeah me too buddy, thats why I bought 10 copies the day they were released.... 20 freaking years ago.... You're a little late bub. Considering there are what.. about a million copies of this book out there, if it continues this pricing in 9.8 it will go down after mass submissions and stabalize around $75. Simply too many copies out there in high grade. Supply in 9.8 is currently lower than it should be, that explains the price.

I think there is a ton about Origins that sucks (Zombie Deadpool, Gambit, Black Eyed Peas guy, Blob)... but there is a LOT in that movie that was really good. Reynolds as Wade was great Liev as Sabertooth was great Huston as Stryker was great

"Now Max loves Spiderman, but in about 30 seconds his mind will be changed completely, the -script needs him to hate Spiderman so that there's a villain, but clearly nobody there gives enough of a mess to bother developing it". ^Sums up how awful the -script was, pretty nicely.

Spider-man only has a couple A-list villains, so I wouldn't consider most of the Sinister 6 to be a big deal until they are in fact together as a group. I thought Spidey's rogue's gallery is generally held in esteem as one of the best. I would be interested to see if others feel the same as you. I would say of the villains featured so far, only Rhino is B-List. Even still his 5 minutes of total screen time was actually some of the film's best. Don't get me wrong I consider Raimi's Spider-man #2 the best Spider-man film of all time by far, but I am still really enjoying Webb's take as well. I am sure they will hear the criticism and try to rectify going forward. I think Webb is really good at the relationship stuff. The best of the film is the Peter/Gwen I have nothing against Webb. 500 Days of Summer is really good. I don't think he has the clout, quite yet, to stand up to the powers that be at Sony, and really bring his story to the screen. To me Rhino and Electro were just in the film so there would be some action sequences, but the overall plot of this movie was Gwen and Harry which I thought they did very well with. Gwen and Peter were handled very well. I don't think they handled the Goblin character well at all...and Harry did not have a realistic character arc, at all. Especially considering his whole 40mins he was on screen. Now if they mess up Venom yet again then you will hear me rant. Of course they will Spider-man and Batman have the best rogue gallery which I assume everyone agrees on. (X-men would be 3rd place). So for your question I am saying that most superheroes have 1 or 2 A-list followed by a bunch of jobbers, so being a B or C-list is still fairly good behind Spiderman's premiere villains. Spider-man IMO category list: Green Goblin (A-List) Doc Ock (A-List) Venom (A-List) Scorpion (B-List)-IMO the Villain who should have been on film well before Electro Rhino (B-List) Carnage (B-List) Kraven (B-List)-who I really want to see on screen Hobgoblin (B-List) Sandman (B-List) Spider Slayers (B-List) The Chameleon (B-List) Vulture (C-List) Mysterio (C-List)-cool visual on screen I would like to see Electro (C-List) Lizard (C-List) Molten Man (C-List) Shocker (C-List) Hammerhead (C-List) The Jackal (C-List) Tarantula (C-List) The rest are jobbers..... ***Kingpin I really associate now with Daredevil*** So sure I agree Spider-man has one of the best Rogue Galleries so like I said I find it interesting to me that I enjoy these two movies so far with C-list villains at the helm. However seeing one of Spider-man's all time supporting cast of friends new on the screen with Gwen helped. Well, you just saw what they could do with Green Goblin. One down, two to go. Anyway, I think marvel studios has proved, that you don't need to use an A-List villain to have a good story/movie.

Spider-man only has a couple A-list villains, so I wouldn't consider most of the Sinister 6 to be a big deal until they are in fact together as a group. I thought Spidey's rogue's gallery is generally held in esteem as one of the best. I would be interested to see if others feel the same as you. I would say of the villains featured so far, only Rhino is B-List. Even still his 5 minutes of total screen time was actually some of the film's best. Don't get me wrong I consider Raimi's Spider-man #2 the best Spider-man film of all time by far, but I am still really enjoying Webb's take as well. I am sure they will hear the criticism and try to rectify going forward. I think Webb is really good at the relationship stuff. The best of the film is the Peter/Gwen I have nothing against Webb. 500 Days of Summer is really good. I don't think he has the clout, quite yet, to stand up to the powers that be at Sony, and really bring his story to the screen. To me Rhino and Electro were just in the film so there would be some action sequences, but the overall plot of this movie was Gwen and Harry which I thought they did very well with. Gwen and Peter were handled very well. I don't think they handled the Goblin character well at all...and Harry did not have a realistic character arc, at all. Especially considering his whole 40mins he was on screen. Now if they mess up Venom yet again then you will hear me rant. Of course they will

That you're not longer 8 years old, and your mind is demanding entertainment befitting an adult. That is why I get frustrated with you over 40 year olds who want an adult movie from a movie that is supposed to be Twilight in nature. The beginning era of Spider-man is for kids not adults. What do you expect from the early issues of Spider-man that were made for middle school and HS students? (Whether it was Amazing or Ultimate) It is actually possible, for a form of entertainment that is specifically geared to the youth demographic, to actually be enjoyable for ALL AGES. The Incredibles Now, it requires effort and talent, to pull it off, but to just write off people's opinion's because the movie "Isn't made for them", is just lazy. Sony doesn't just want the twilight money, they want ALL the money. They didn't just try to make a movie for "the youth demographic". You don't make Avatar money doing that. They tried, and failed, to make a movie that appeals to all ages. If you don't believe that, you are dead wrong. Fact is, a property like Spider-man, should be treated with the kind reverence from the movie studios, that would ensure at the very least, a film that can be enjoyed by all ages. We are talking about a property, that SHOULD be able to break box office records. Marvel Comic's most licensed and most recognizable character for gods sake! Instead, it is a passible summer popcorn flick, which will underperform at the box-office. What a damn a shame. I can never relate anymore to HS relationships in films, so for me it is very cut and dry. Spider-man can NEVER apply to all ages in my eyes. Twilight only. I still think Sony did just fine with this movie to make a bunch of free money. I'm sorry that you don't have higher standards for the character I assume you love. Perhaps you aren't that big a fan, I don't know. I can assure you, NO big wigs at Sony, are happy about that underperforming opening weekend. Garfield set to me the highest possible standard for the character that Tobey never achieved. I agree completely, best on screen Spiderman yet. Considering we haven't seen any of the real big villains yet to me makes these movies quite interesting actually. "Real big villains"? Like half of the Sinister Six? I never said this was the best comic movie of all time, but I enjoyed it enough not to think it was horrible. I also enjoyed it enough, to "not think it was horrible". That's quite a high bar you've set. The fact is this movie showed the most amazing Spider-man fight and swinging scenes to date, yes? The video game graphics were fine. Story and acting are the issues. C-Level villains on film were just that, what did you expect? A villain portrayal that was not embarrassingly bad. Maybe one was more than just a bad cliche'. I am sorry your expectations are set too high. One man's mediocrity is another man's excellence. Enjoy (thumbs u I think the Sony executives bonus check will be just fine from this movie. Sucks they can't get two extra cars instead of three. Since you know they aren't happy with the opening weekend receipts, may as well change the topic. Yep, they sure are rich.

That you're not longer 8 years old, and your mind is demanding entertainment befitting an adult. That is why I get frustrated with you over 40 year olds who want an adult movie from a movie that is supposed to be Twilight in nature. The beginning era of Spider-man is for kids not adults. What do you expect from the early issues of Spider-man that were made for middle school and HS students? (Whether it was Amazing or Ultimate) It is actually possible, for a form of entertainment that is specifically geared to the youth demographic, to actually be enjoyable for ALL AGES. The Incredibles Now, it requires effort and talent, to pull it off, but to just write off people's opinion's because the movie "Isn't made for them", is just lazy. Sony doesn't just want the twilight money, they want ALL the money. They didn't just try to make a movie for "the youth demographic". You don't make Avatar money doing that. They tried, and failed, to make a movie that appeals to all ages. If you don't believe that, you are dead wrong. Fact is, a property like Spider-man, should be treated with the kind reverence from the movie studios, that would ensure at the very least, a film that can be enjoyed by all ages. We are talking about a property, that SHOULD be able to break box office records. Marvel Comic's most licensed and most recognizable character for gods sake! Instead, it is a passible summer popcorn flick, which will underperform at the box-office. What a damn a shame. I can never relate anymore to HS relationships in films, so for me it is very cut and dry. Spider-man can NEVER apply to all ages in my eyes. Twilight only. I still think Sony did just fine with this movie to make a bunch of free money. I'm sorry that you don't have higher standards for the character I assume you love. Perhaps you aren't that big a fan, I don't know. I can assure you, NO big wigs at Sony, are happy about that underperforming opening weekend.

That you're not longer 8 years old, and your mind is demanding entertainment befitting an adult. That is why I get frustrated with you over 40 year olds who want an adult movie from a movie that is supposed to be Twilight in nature. The beginning era of Spider-man is for kids not adults. What do you expect from the early issues of Spider-man that were made for middle school and HS students? (Whether it was Amazing or Ultimate) It is actually possible, for a form of entertainment that is specifically geared to the youth demographic, to actually be enjoyable for ALL AGES. The Incredibles Now, it requires effort and talent, to pull it off, but to just write off people's opinion's because the movie "Isn't made for them", is just lazy. Sony doesn't just want the twilight money, they want ALL the money. They didn't just try to make a movie for "the youth demographic". You don't make Avatar money doing that. They tried, and failed, to make a movie that appeals to all ages. If you don't believe that, you are dead wrong. Fact is, a property like Spider-man, should be treated with the kind reverence from the movie studios, that would ensure at the very least, a film that can be enjoyed by all ages. We are talking about a property, that SHOULD be able to break box office records. Marvel Comic's most licensed and most recognizable character for gods sake! Instead, it is a passible summer popcorn flick, which will underperform at the box-office. What a damn a shame.

I don't want Ditko/Romita Spidey really...(grew up on McSpidey myself) Is it too much to ask for villains that are not utter garbage? Unfortunately that's all this reboot has crapped out. It's too bad, because Spiderman/Gwen are so well done. I hear year but what villains besides a couple are A list are there really? The 3 A-list villains will be back for yea in the next two movies no? It has nothing to do with "A-list or B-list"...it's about execution. Writing....acting...etc. There is nothing wrong with The Lizard, Electro, or Goblin...but they have managed to make ALL THREE suck. It all comes back to the producers,writers,etc. I saw nothing wrong with any of the villains portrayals in ASM 1 or 2. Well, that says it all I guess. Enjoy your spidey films! I did. Sorry you wanted to see C level villains instantly become Joker/Magneto A-listers on film. First off...the Green Goblin is every bit the A-list villain as either Joker or Magneto, If handled properly (you know, well written or acted). Secondly, Electro COULD have been a great movie villain. Instead, he was a POORLY written, caricature of a nerd...hitting all the stereotypes (oversized glasses, terrible comb-over, bad teeth) that for a reason they didn't feel the need to expand on (well written characters are hard) he turned EVIL. Basically he became a bad guy, because people didn't respect him, and Spider-man got ALL the attention. Boo hoo. But hey who cares, he got to shoot lots of cool lightning, that looked neat in 3D. Pew pew.

You really need to stop referencing Ultimate Spider-Man. Electro was nothing like his counterpart in USM. Appearance maybe… Plus, everyone loves the CLASSIC Gwen Stacy death, from the USM comics...

I don't want Ditko/Romita Spidey really...(grew up on McSpidey myself) Is it too much to ask for villains that are not utter garbage? Unfortunately that's all this reboot has crapped out. It's too bad, because Spiderman/Gwen are so well done. I hear year but what villains besides a couple are A list are there really? The 3 A-list villains will be back for yea in the next two movies no? It has nothing to do with "A-list or B-list"...it's about execution. Writing....acting...etc. There is nothing wrong with The Lizard, Electro, or Goblin...but they have managed to make ALL THREE suck. It all comes back to the producers,writers,etc. I saw nothing wrong with any of the villains portrayals in ASM 1 or 2. Well, that says it all I guess. Enjoy your spidey films!

I don't want Ditko/Romita Spidey really...(grew up on McSpidey myself) Is it too much to ask for villains that are not utter garbage? Unfortunately that's all this reboot has crapped out. It's too bad, because Spiderman/Gwen are so well done. I hear year but what villains besides a couple are A list are there really? The 3 A-list villains will be back for yea in the next two movies no? It has nothing to do with "A-list or B-list"...it's about execution. Writing....acting...etc. There is nothing wrong with The Lizard, Electro, or Goblin...but they have managed to make ALL THREE suck. It all comes back to the producers,writers,etc.

I don't want Ditko/Romita Spidey really...(grew up on McSpidey myself) Is it too much to ask for villains that are not utter garbage? Unfortunately that's all this reboot has crapped out. It's too bad, because Spiderman/Gwen are so well done.

You're right. Kirby made this same mistake With that said, you're entitled to like what you like and build your collection how you want to. It is what makes this hobby great. My dislike for Liefled is in no way belittling what you enjoy. I just hope they don't use that same exact lineup. I really liked Remender's run of UXF. This Cap image is basically the single image everyone points to...and with good reason. It sucks. Not arguing that at all:) But sticking with the Cap analogy, here's a quick example of a Kirby hand I've seen a few times. Do those really look like fingers? Does he have a thumb? I'm not even pushing for the same lineup per se, just that it would be cool if it followed the original concept of X-Force, which was mutants going past goodie two-shoes approach Xavier pushed for and treating it more like a take no prisoners war. It was a very different take at the time. A. You are actually comparing, a high profile, published art piece...by an artist in his PRIME, to a quick fan sketch...by an artist in the twilight of his career. B. Faults aside, the Kirby sketch STILL blows the Liefield piece out of the water.

Nope

No mention of Clone....

great art, great story, hard book in 9.8, rumors of rumors of rumors of a 1000-episode tv-show already filmed in secret, girls like it, next Walking Saga, I have 430 copies of issue #1, but I am always looking to buy more, I'd never sell, its just for my personal collection! woot! woot! Beige?