Badger

Nice bunch Bill. I do like those All Stars. Wow, I'm not usually into DCs but seeing them altogether like that is

Thanks!

Well, of course you do!

Very nice! What do you think the grade is? Here's mine.

Wow, that is a stunner! Especially for a 4.0!

I tried to buy a 6.5 from GrahamCrackers last week but they had sold it the previous weekend and had not removed it from their web site yet. I console myself with this copy!

I just ruined my keyboard with drool.

I have to agree with this sentiment. I was only going after the Cap USAs but the more I look at the pre-cap USAs the more I like them. (thumbs u

I have not seen any super hero Timelys cut quite like this before but I have seen a couple of their funny animal mags with horrendous miscuts. Still, it happened to every other publisher of the time so I wouldn't be surprised if it happened to Timely superheroes.

It can be intimidating to post our lower grade examples but they are great to see for those of us who don't have the resources for higher grade. Nice book! (thumbs u

I loved those Lancer books. They introduced me to the Silver Age!

I love all of the motorcycle covers and, yes, the USA #16 is a Harley. It looks like a stylized one of these: A Harley-Davidson WLA. Looks like rusty gold, American Pickers style Too true.

I love all of the motorcycle covers and, yes, the USA #16 is a Harley. It looks like a stylized one of these: A Harley-Davidson WLA.

My USA quest continues!

No such thing as terrible pictures of Timelys! All-Select #1

Very nice!

Two?

Just getting caught up on your thread, Marty. This is a great splash!

Great book, Ben!

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences. For CGC though, not at all. Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it. Sad but true as I think we'd be much more advanced in those fields if there were more knowledge sharing going on. You'd de- incentivize the entire industry. Without the prospect of a profitable monopoly you can't get the research funded. NOT sharing is what makes research possible That's definitely a point against it and I really do understand that. I still believe in a lot of a cases a better system could be developed which could benefit more people by the advancement of knowledge and still retain profitability. Greed just plays too big a part in the whole equation for that to happen. Edit: Here is a super simplified example of what I'm trying to say: Company A puts $10 million into R&D for a specific drug that they predict will be a $20 million a year drug. Company B is doing the same thing. Company A and Company B have both figured out a few different things working to create this drug that the other hasn't yet. They don't want to share that information because they don't want to share the $20 million a year they will get from the drug. However, if they had worked together they could have put the drug on the market 2 years earlier, split the profits and be working on another project. Again, over simplified but that's kind of the concept I was implying with the knowledge sharing being a beneficial thing. What you are talking about happens all the time. I worked for a small biotech research firm and we had partnerships with Proctor and Gamble and SmithKline. When a major company, like P&E, puts out a new drug, process, or piece of equipment there is frequently a smaller partner in the wings making a profit off of it as well. That's why I said super simplified. That was the easiest way I could think of to make my point. I guess it wasn't a good example. You actually gave a great example though: "The hard-science labs will publish findings in journals, it is a requirement to keep tenure, but you are smoking crack if you think these scientists aren't secretive about their experiments until they are ready to publish. Many, not all, but many file for patents before they publish. The patents usually belong to the University but the scientists get the praise and the tenure; occasionally they will even get a cut of profits when the patent, or company, sells." Just replace my Company A and Company B with Scientist A and Scientist B. Your analogy still doesn't work. Academia is a different environment than for-profit research. There are massive amounts of inter-company cooperation and partnerships which disproves the whole line of drug companies not working together. Of course they work together; there is money to be made.

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences. For CGC though, not at all. Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it. Arts and Sciences, not Industry. Besides, academic scientists monetize their commercializable technologies through patents and the University technology transfer system. It doesn't stop them from teaching undergraduates, graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and junior colleagues how to perform complex techniques they've mastered over many years, and how to think about how to select and address key scientific problems (the art of scientific investigation). No, it does stop them. The engineering labs at large schools are quite top-secret with only the employed grad students and the employed post-docs knowing what is going on. They do not teach their findings until a patent is secured or a spin-off company is spun-up. They may even write a textbook and get profits from that. The hard-science labs will publish findings in journals, it is a requirement to keep tenure, but you are smoking crack if you think these scientists aren't secretive about their experiments until they are ready to publish. Many, not all, but many file for patents before they publish. The patents usually belong to the University but the scientists get the praise and the tenure; occasionally they will even get a cut of profits when the patent, or company, sells. Professors teach what is in the text books, "common knowledge", and profit off of their own research before sharing with the plebian undergrads.

That's how it works routinely in the Arts and Sciences. For CGC though, not at all. Not really. It depends on the area of art and science. If it's proprietary (like a biological firm's drug or medicinal secrets) they won't release it until they can monetize it. Sad but true as I think we'd be much more advanced in those fields if there were more knowledge sharing going on. You'd de- incentivize the entire industry. Without the prospect of a profitable monopoly you can't get the research funded. NOT sharing is what makes research possible That's definitely a point against it and I really do understand that. I still believe in a lot of a cases a better system could be developed which could benefit more people by the advancement of knowledge and still retain profitability. Greed just plays too big a part in the whole equation for that to happen. Edit: Here is a super simplified example of what I'm trying to say: Company A puts $10 million into R&D for a specific drug that they predict will be a $20 million a year drug. Company B is doing the same thing. Company A and Company B have both figured out a few different things working to create this drug that the other hasn't yet. They don't want to share that information because they don't want to share the $20 million a year they will get from the drug. However, if they had worked together they could have put the drug on the market 2 years earlier, split the profits and be working on another project. Again, over simplified but that's kind of the concept I was implying with the knowledge sharing being a beneficial thing. What you are talking about happens all the time. I worked for a small biotech research firm and we had partnerships with Proctor and Gamble and SmithKline. When a major company, like P&E, puts out a new drug, process, or piece of equipment there is frequently a smaller partner in the wings making a profit off of it as well.

Holy fudge! Nice book!