VintageComics

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

As someone who has been mercilessly attacked on this forum 100s if not 1000s of times, this should have been in practice 4 years ago. In fact, I asked for it openly, multiple times and was ignored.
What changed?
I'm all in agreement for this. 
Having said that, from the small bits I've seen (and the general consensus here in this thread) the book goes on to attack Stan Lee openly with fervor and doesn't seem to take a balanced approach to criticizing his past. Even the title is an open attack.
The man is dead, and the book looks like it's written in a way that's makes it sound like it's supposed to sound divisive. Comic collectors are primarily emotional and not rational and you can understand why tensions are running hot on the topic. 
 

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

As someone who has been mercilessly attacked on this forum 100s if not 1000s of times, this should have been in practice 4 years ago. In fact, I asked for it openly, multiple times and was ignored.
What changed?
I'm all in agreement for this. 
Having said that, from the small bits I've seen (and the general consensus here in this thread) the book goes on to attack Stan Lee openly with fervor and doesn't seem to take a balanced approach to criticizing his past. Even the title is an open attack.
The man is dead, and the book looks like it's written in a way that's makes it sound like it's supposed to sound divisive. Comic collectors are primarily emotional and not rational and you can understand why tensions are running hot on the topic. 
 

...but let's avoid using Wolverine in the next X-men film...

I think CGC should make a statement on whether they think OJ was guilty. The community needs to know.
Here's my rationale. 

 

Coming from an OG, that's quite a compliment. 

I think CGC should make a statement on whether they think OJ was guilty. The community needs to know.
Here's my rationale. 

 

Coming from an OG, that's quite a compliment. 

Based on the Bleeding Cool review, the book sounds like a rant. 

I was being facetious.
CGC doesn't owe anyone an opinion on anything except for the grade of your comic book. 

I think CGC should make a statement on whether they think OJ was guilty. The community needs to know.
Here's my rationale. 

 

Based on the Bleeding Cool review, the book sounds like a rant. 

I was being facetious.
CGC doesn't owe anyone an opinion on anything except for the grade of your comic book. 

I was being facetious.
CGC doesn't owe anyone an opinion on anything except for the grade of your comic book. 

I think CGC should make a statement on whether they think OJ was guilty. The community needs to know.
Here's my rationale. 

 

I was being facetious.
CGC doesn't owe anyone an opinion on anything except for the grade of your comic book. 

I was being facetious.
CGC doesn't owe anyone an opinion on anything except for the grade of your comic book. 

Based on the Bleeding Cool review, the book sounds like a rant. 

I was being facetious.
CGC doesn't owe anyone an opinion on anything except for the grade of your comic book. 

I think CGC should make a statement on whether they think OJ was guilty. The community needs to know.
Here's my rationale. 

 

I'm behind someone all the time. You win some, you lose some. 

Oh great.  So this thread was started and then recanted, but now more eyes will be on the auction.  This is not what a guy with a $68.37 budget wanted to see.

I'm behind someone all the time. You win some, you lose some.