underthebigw

Even back in the 70s, you never saw this book in any condition.  It just wasn't that common.  I'm amazed there are any copies in 9.8, with or without work.  That's beautiful.  Congrats

1 hour ago, ttfitz said:

 

4) Private institutions acting in a way that is not censorship

Pretty much any action that constitutes whether they support that speech/expression or not. In the case in hand, eBay hasn't stopped (ie prohibited) anyone from buying and selling these particular Dr Seuss books - they have just decided they don't want to be part of that transaction. They are, in fact, exercising their own free expression by deciding this.

And, once again, the reason that the exact same action changes from not censorship to censorship is the power of the state. Yes, a smaller public entity has a harder time these days in suppressing speech - your attempt to throw my browser statement back at me - but that does not change the nature of their actions, it just means the attempted censorship doesn't work so well. As said, when the entity is public it becomes a First Amendment issue.

So, you don’t think #4 is censorship, even if it is coordinated across multiple platforms, while a publisher yanks the books at issue and booksellers and libraries pull them off the shelves?  And, at the same time one of the online sellers prevents anyone from establishing alternate online platforms that might compete and provide other viewpoints?

That’s a very small number of parties that can pull books, thoughts, political thought etc.  

The entire situation is fraught with absurd danger to both free speech and the dissemination of ideas.  I have always thought comic creators and the CBLDF carried things too far, but this is the perfect example of the dangers of allowing any censorship 

What happens if anyone throws a label of racism at any major work of literature?  Does every online platform start purging book sales?  Say someone claims Ayn Rand’s works are inherently racist because merit and ability trumps all else, and race bears no consideration. Do Facebook, Amazon, etc band the sale of these books?  I don’t really give a about Rand, but that is pretty scary  

Think of Seuss as a test run. It can only get worse. 

(Just to be clear, it could be any other “....ist”, for that matter)

What's the cliche about monopolies--its not the fact that a company is a monopoly that is illegal, it's how they use that monopoly power.  Using it to ban books or ideas on their platforms may be within their rights, but using it to ban them on other platforms and inhibiting the ability of others to create a competing platform, is outrageous.  Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter have long ago crossed the line from private companies into quasi public institutions and should likely be treated as radio and television are.  Can you imagine if in the 1920's, ONE company monopolized radio and prevented all others from going live.  The country would be much worse off for it, and much less free.  This is essentially what is happening here.

I haven't read this entire thread, so my apologies if I'm rehashing anything or am missing the main point here.

Is ebay within their right to ban the sales of these books on their site, sure.  The problem is that these actions turn into a freaking disease.  This morning a woman in MA listed 4 of the 6 Geisel books on MA Marketplace Facebook page for a ridiculous price.  Within two hours the listing was taken down by Facebook.  Can the same standard applied to ebay apply to Facebook, which is even more of an individual to individual forum?  Maybe.  But there is no denying that there's a risk that ideas, both good and bad can be censored and kept from people by a few powerful parties.  Who decides what's good and bad?  It's a slippery slope.  I sure as heck don't want ebay or Facebook to decide.

On 9/27/2020 at 7:29 AM, namisgr said:

I'm happy to report that the market for high grade picture frame Marvels remains strong.  It's especially strong for top census copies, and record prices can be realized for those with few other copies in comparable grade.  It's also very strong for first appearances of characters slated to appear in the Marvel cinematic universe.  But 9.4 and 9.6 copies of issues for which there are 9.8 examples to be had often did not meet their expected fair market values, unless from pedigree collections.  And the reprint titles Marvel Tales, Marvel's Greatest Comics, and Special Marvel Edition underperformed expectations.

Of the 11 Conan picture frames, four sold for over $1000, while six of the 14 Fantastic Four issues also topped $1K.  Overall, of the 94 auction books, 17 went for four figures, with the Spotlight #5 cementing its position as the most valuable of the picture frame Marvel genre.

Once again, the auction results serve as a reminder of how wildly imprecise the CGC Registry is in assigning point values to the picture frame Marvels, with the 94 books going for a whopping 80% more than their Registry points, led as usual by the scarce top census copies but aided and abetted by books with extra cinematic universe juice like Spotlight #5 and Submariner #50.

Thanks to everyone in the thread for indulging the frequent postings of scans from my now former collection, and special thanks to those of you who bid in this or the previous auctions.  All that's left for upcoming auction are the picture frame Westerns, the stray Marvel Spotlight #6 scheduled for October, and a small handful of slabbed undercopies - when the books have been slated for auction, I'll post it here to let interested parties know.

Ok, I think I’m real sad. Then again, after disappearing for over a year (2?), I probably have no right to feel anything. Anyway, I come back to Bob having sold off his pf’s. Wow.  I  am shocked every time someone I have watched collect for decades sells off.  Sounds like you did well. Congrats. 

On 2/11/2019 at 3:01 PM, rube11 said:

Marvel Team-Up  #43  NM/NM+  $30

Marvel Team-Up  #44  FN  $1

 

I’ll take 43 at 30% off

19 hours ago, Quicksilver Signs said:

I watched the first epi of Jessica Jones and never connected the 2 until I read your post. The USA is the only book I sold out of the lot, it will help me pay for round 2.

Socko!

 

I do believe his backpack on the show was yellow and blue.  I thought it was an odd selection at the time.  I also had to explain the name to my wife, who was thoroughly confused between the Flash, Quicksilver, and the Whizzer.

26 minutes ago, namisgr said:

Wowie kazowie, that's a sweet copy!  The top census 158 isn't too shabby either.   

Thanks.  I've probably told the story before.  The 158 was from one of Chuck's sales, before he realized that high grade westerns had any real demand.  Got it for a song--the cost of slabbing, maybe a bit more.  The next sale, I bought a bunch of slabs from him, and they mysteriously went out of stock a week later and couldn't be shipped.  They later reappeared on the site.  On the 162. at the start of the 3rd NYCC, I walked over to Al Stoltz's booth and he announced he had something for me.  Said he pulled it out of a box and couldn't believe it. Went right to CGC.  Unpressed, essentially perfect as is.  Just a gorgeous book.

Yeah, I know.. Not an official PF.  To me, though, it's got the design elements and it's even a 20c cover.

Hopefully this pic is better than the one I posted years ago.

At one point, Barton was hoping for some nicer photos of some Western pf's I had posted crappy photos of years ago.  Here's one:

1 hour ago, Ghost Town said:

If you subbed this yourself, you should be able to check the grader's notes. I'd be curious what they say.

Yeah, I did. They claim there’s a stain on it. No way. Backs super clean also. 

More off the living room floor.

Great copy of one of my favorite childhood issues.  Loved the first 10 issues of MTU

1 hour ago, Black_Adam said:

Sweet looking PFS! But are those price stickers still on the bags? I've had problems before with glue from price stickers eating through the bag in time and damaging the comic 

Wow.  In 40 years of collecting and going through decades old inventory, I've never seen that. I think there's probably other environmental stuff going on to cause that kind of reaction.  Between a job, a business, and three kids, I don't have time to re-bag every book.

So, here's a real puzzler.  I sub very few books.  Found this at WW Philly about 10 years ago, $5 box.  Not only did I and multiple boardees look at it, but so did some of the tighter-grading dealers we know.  Thought it was an easy 9.2, maybe a 9.4.  Somewhere there's a magical "stain" no one can see.  

Oh yeah, one of my all time PF and Kane covers.

I think these may be more victims of the great photobucket massacre.  My apologies if they've been posted before (I have a vague recollection of the Bob commenting on the Jungle Action before).

OK, some more Chicago books (I think), going back to 2007 or so. Including another copy of SME 4.  This copy has to have the best production quality of any copy of this issue I've ever seen.  No ink issues, no transfer and super glossy.  Too bad it spent most of it's life mistreated in a long box of unwanted reprints.  I'm fairly sure I never scanned this, since I didn't even remember I had it.

On 3/6/2018 at 6:55 PM, LordRahl said:

Here's the thing, "corrections" much like "bubbles" are also temporary. If you bought "generic tech stock" during the tech bubble 15 years ago, you were probably "losing" a lot of money during the Great Recession. IF you sold. If you kept said generic tech stock through that down period, you are probably looking just fine now. Same with real estate during the downturn. Why wouldn't the same apply to comics, which are now viewed as investments by most of the people paying silly money for them?

Tulips have never recovered.

Or Big Little Books.

Or Stamps.

1 hour ago, greggy said:

 

Goregeous, but I meant 77 and 79.

Seriously, it looks like you'd get a paper cut handling it.  Unreal copy.

I've been looking for nice Young Love's 97 and 99 for a long time.  Greggy?

On 8/17/2016 at 9:59 AM, underthebigw said:

From the Boston show last weekend. Both were absolute bargains.

 

[/img]

Just looked back through the thread and noticed how many photobucket images are missing after the update.  Real shame.  Then I noticed on of my links was now broken.  I wish people could edit those posts, but there's no option to do so.  Here's my lame attempt to recover some great images.  From Boston 2016

On 3/6/2018 at 8:28 AM, F For Fake said:

I think in general a "mixer" at a con is exactly along the lines of what you're thinking, it's a small party meant for small social groups to gather at a larger event.  I guess my question, given the tone of the linked article, is whether the writer was truly looking for a white, straight, male mixer, or if they were just looking to stir up trouble because of the other mixers being exclusive? I can see why women, or black people, or LGBTQ people, or any other minority, might be looking to have a small event where they don't feel like they have to look over their shoulder. I'm not sure why a white dude at a comic show would ever feel that way, as they/we (again, straight, white male dude here) overwhelmingly represent the majority at these events. But as for whether or not the con itself is sponsoring discriminatory events, that could very well be a valid legal question, and I'd have to defer to the legal eagles on the boards to weigh in on whether or not that is kosher.

The  real matter becomes an issue because the con is sponsoring  these events and, if you’re an industry professional or an aspiring one, most of the reason you go to cons is to meet other professionals and make connections   These connections often turn into jobs. It’s not just a social matter for people in this position   In fact, certain groups have pointed this problem out in condemning exclusionary organizations and events that do not include minorities or women.  Go figure 

That WMD is fantastic.

Here's another batch from my living room.  I don't think I've scanned these before-pretty sure they're more Wizard Chicago books.