ExNihilo

Apologies in advance if I misinterpreted anything. I read most, skimmed the rest. 12 pages is a lot and some of us have work. I will start by saying there's nothing wrong with staying at home. In the US, we culturally make fun of people who don't move out soon after college. I've found that this same "friendly ribbing" occurs less frequently in other countries and that it is often widely accepted to live at home with your parents (at least longer than it would be in the US). Your unfortunate circumstance is that your parents are unable to support you, let alone themselves. Under normal circumstances, if you are working a steady job and saving towards your own place, then others will accept you living at home because there is a firm end goal that is established. However, if you bring nothing to the table financially, you're basically living off your parents during a period in your life where you should be padding your bank account to eventually support them. That said, I'm trying to get a better understanding of your financial situation. Several questions: 1) In 2018, did you work at an actual place of employment with consistent paychecks? If so, how long were you employed and how much were you making per month? 2) The larger bulk of your money (or at least a larger part of the discussion) has been the money you make in your "business" (selling comics, video games, and other assorted hobby items.) In 2018, what was your average profit per month from your "business"? How much time per month is devoted to your "business"? I get the sense you don't fully understand the bank/credit system. You state that the interest rate on the card doesn't apply anymore. Then state you're being charged daily for interest. The interest rate does in fact matter. 26% is the APR (annual percentage rate) which means on a daily basis, your total balance is being charged 0.07% (26% APR/365 days= 0.07%). If you multiply that by $2800 (the balance on your credit card last you checked), you arrive at a daily interest fee of $1.99 being tacked on to your account. Now, you said previously that you tried to ask the bank about it, but they had no record of your account. This can't be true because if it was, they wouldn't be charging you interest every day. Now, you also say you have crypto. When did you buy and what is it's current value? World markets have been crushed the last quarter and you need to evaluate your holdings to see if the money can be better used elsewhere. In this case, is it better to hold the crypto or to pay off the debt and avoid anymore fees? The answer is, if you are confident that crypto will garner returns in excess of 26%, then that's the way to go. If not, then you're better off paying off your debt. Here's the thing, markets are unpredictable. There is no way you can say with 100% certainty that crypto will yield you those returns. And that's before I even look at the metrics of cryptocurrency. By all accounts you should be funneling as much money as possible to pay off the debt. That level of interest is not sustainable for you in your current position. I've got more to say, but some of it is dependent on answers to my questions above.

I suddenly feel ashamed that I bought this book for the cover and have never opened it. I started collecting everything from 250 thru 305 and was waiting to get them all so I could read uninterrupted, but I might just have to go home and see this splash page now.

A solid 'stache adds at least a half a grade to any book. Have a Gem Mint 10.0 and a mustache that would make even Burt Reynolds jealous? Well, you just got yourself an Uber Gem Mint 11.0 my friend!

Who wants to break the news to him?

I don't doubt it. Have you changed your contract verbiage to include "payment by pen stroke" yet?

You dunno who Bob Layton is? Co-creator of Iron Man, Hulk, Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse, and the Ninja Turtles? Better hop on that train because his sig's gonna be worth big bucks soon.

Man, good luck with that. I hope your book eventually makes its way home to you.

Well, at least we've still got that 1st Stan Lee "appearance" thread...

Yarr, 'tis a wonderful idea matey.

I'll just leave this bit of advice for you to ponder/ignore again. As @ADAMANTIUM pointed out, we have rules around here to keep things orderly. Rules which you've blatantly ignored since joining 2 weeks ago. Generally speaking, the correct place to post additions to your collection is the ever popular "This week in your collection" thread which has a whopping 2000+ pages from boardies through the years. However, I can tell you're special, and I'm not sure that particular thread can handle your innumerable purchases and grab bags. But worry not, there's a home for you if you wish to continue posting every little thing about your journey and your purchases and this and that, and that would be the CGC Journal page. https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/blogs/ Knock yourself out and go for it, but for the love of TOAA, please start posting in the right areas and according to the rules.

Jim could draw faster if he wasn't reading Twitch comments, talking on stream, and inking/blotting the work. Also, the interiors seem less detailed than the work he does on his livestreams. I'm not saying it's not a time consuming thing to do, but don't let that "2 hours/panel" thing deceive you.

"CGC says" "CGC says" "CGC says" It's like a broken record with you. The rest of us have established a difference and definition for the verbiage used on CGC slabs. We've provided you with evidence of an earlier (actual) 1st appearance. In a legal setting, we've got physical evidence to provide to the judge while you've got hearsay. Your position is grounded in a circular reference of conversations with CGC reps that are hardly experts in the field of comics history. I could call CGC but A) I don't have much faith that Janet (or whoever on the other end) has the same breadth of knowledge as some boardies here, and B) it's your crusade, not mine. I mean, what about the appearance in Margie Comics #36 (1947) do you dispute? I literally don't understand how in a previous thread you acknowledged an appearance in the '40s, and now are back as though Black Rider came first despite it being the '50's. The only difference is that you now have this book. I also don't understand how an entire board, some of who actually collect Golden Age books, voices reasonable thoughts and opinions on the subject, but you continue to reject what they have to say. I know I know..."CGC says."

What part of "CGC is a 3rd party grading company" did you miss? What they say isn't fact. What they do is take what the market relays to them. And sometimes that's wrong. I've provided a reasonable amount of logical evidence which is more than you've brought to the conversation. You've yet to provide a reasonable argument as to why you believe Black Rider is the "1st appearance."

I want you to look at these 2 paragraphs. In your first one, you admit it says "1st Tiger Woods Cover". In those four words (well, one abbreviation and 3 words) where does it specifically say the word "appearance." You do understand there is a difference in comics between an "appearance" and a "cover" right? You may think it's a matter of semantics, but the specificity of the wording is very deliberate.

And yet here we are 3 pages in and you still don't get what we've expressed to you. Again, Alice Cooper is listed as a 1st appearance because the main character in the story is Alice Cooper. It has nothing to do with him being a real person. If that story was written and they decided to name the character Calice Ooper, the CGC notation would read "1st appearance of Calice Ooper". No such character by the name "Stan Lee" appears in Black Rider. That character DOES appear in Margie Comics #36 so if any book gets the 1st appearance distinction...that is the one (unless someone comes forward with an earlier valid appearance).

Again, CGC says Teen Titans #12 is the first appearance of the Batman Who Laughs. In fact, Teen Titans #12 and Metal #2 came out on the same day, yet storywise, Metal #2 occurs before Teen Titans #12 which should thus give it the tie breaker making it the 1st appearance. CGC is a 3rd party company and has no legitimate say in what is or isn't a 1st appearance. They go off what the market says. Why are you so insistent that Black Rider is the 1st "appearance"? Why are you so unwilling to accept facts contrary to your incorrect beliefs?

Says the guy who keeps denying evidence pointing to the actual 1st appearance of Stan Lee.

In the first panel he's referred to as "Mister Lee". Then a few pages, he says "Just call me Stan." That there is definitive proof of a legitimate 1st appearance contender. 1) Mentioned by name, 2) appears in multiple panels. Anything other than that is simply you misunderstanding what CGC is trying to tell you. And even if CGC mistakenly says "that's his 1st appearance" you're just gonna blindfully accept it contrary to proof that says otherwise? Scientific method much? Sorry, 1947 is the earliest appearance unless someone has a screenshot of Krazy Komics #12 proving otherwise. And AGAIN, if you would be less stubborn and just accept Black Rider as the "1st cover photo of Stan Lee" i'd give it to you. But you're so hung up on it saying "1st appearance" when it isn't an appearance by any definition of the phrase as used in the comics medium.

Should I let my boss know it's Friday and I won't be coming in tomorrow? Because this feels like a Friday post.

CGC also says Teen Titans #12 is the 1st appearance of the Batman Who Laughs. They're a grading service and shouldn't be the arbiter of what is or isn't a 1st appearance. Truth is, when i think of an appearance, I think the person named is making the appearance in some form in the story. If you want to be specific, then perhaps it should read "1st Stan Lee cover photo" You're honestly making a mountain out of a mole hill here. "IMPORTANT." "dishonors". I'm sorry I fell for some clickbait title.

So then yeah, your book should say "Stan Lee Photo Cover". It shouldn't say "1st appearance of Stan Lee."

I'm confused. Does he appear in the comic as "Stan Lee" or does he merely fulfill the role of an actor who's likeness is used for the character Black Rider. In the case of the Alice Cooper book, the character in the book is actually...Alice Cooper. I mean, it's a big difference and drawing parallels between the two is really comparing apples and oranges. I mean, without knowing any back story, but assuming the recent Conan cover with Arnold Schwarzenegger was his first appearance on a comic, no one in their right mind would say "That's the 1st appearance of Arnold Schwarzenegger" because he's not making an appearance...Conan is. There is a distinction between a role that is being played and playing yourself. In this case, Stan Lee's 1st appearance would be a comic in which he should be referred to by name. Like if Betty Brant made a comment to JJJ like "Stan Lee, your 3 o clock is here." and there's an image of Stan...then THAT'S an appearance.

Is diving through the dollar bins like that Hollywood trope where the main character is looking for answers but ends up leaving with more questions that they started with? I mean, my adventures through the dollar bins all started when I wanted to fill some runs. And then of course you see something that catches your eye. Sometimes it's an individual book, but other times it's a set. Or more often, a partial set. And suddenly you've got another book on your "find" list This happened to me again today. My LCS has about 8 rows of back bins for $0.50 books. They also love to spread the books out so it's never in any discernible order. You might find a set of 3-5 Avengers books in one row, then the continuation of another 3-5 books in another, and yet another continuation in another row. Ultimately you see the first grouping and think, "meh, I don't care enough about the title to pick those up." But then as you go through the rest of the rows you start going "man, there's at least 10 straight issues from this particular run." At that point, if you want to start the pile, you go back to the previous rows and pick out the books. So today, i'm rifling through and I see Original Sin #0, then a bit later, another issue, and then another. Now, three issues in an 8 part event isn't enough to make me grab them, especially since I was event fatigued when the series came out and just didn't care to pick it up. But then I noticed a pattern where one issue was in each of the 8 bins. Which meant, I started pulling them out. Lo and behold issues 0-2, and 4-8 were in there. By the time I look at the last book, i'm thinking "I must have missed issue #3". But we all know how time consuming it is to go through all those books and closely look for an individual issue. I just couldn't be bothered at that point. It was borderline maddening to walk away with every issue in the set EXCEPT for one issue. And it's not like I'm gonna buy the book online, unless I have a bulk order to spread out the shipping either. Which means my only solution is to hopefully find the missing book in the bargain bin at a later date, or to find it at a con. TL;DR - my list of books to fill runs gets bigger each time I go through the bargain bins...not smaller.