HuddyBee

Many people keep bringing up the idea that just because something is within the legal rights of the companies it's therefore not censorship. This simply isn't true. Large private businesses can indeed engage in corporate censorship. This censorship isn't direct and it's no where near akin to Government censorship, but it still fits the mold. My point wasn't that it is a "bad thing" therefore it is censorship. I've addressed why it categorizes as censorship in the post you quoted and my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself. However, I would argue that rather than me stretching the meaning to include private entities, you are shrinking the definition to a very limited result which I would argue is more dangerous. The reality is, whether we categorize it as censorship or not, (I see reasons to, and I understand why some do not want to) this is simply a matter of semantics. But I think we can all agree it certainly is a very odd and alarming occurrence.

Ebay is suppressing and prohibiting the sale of all 6 Dr. Suess books. Ebay is keeping you from obtaining these books via their site (which happens to be the largest in the world). They are doing so out of political motivation. No one is saying eBay is censoring the books completely. Obviously eBay has no authority over my owning or selling these books personally. But they do have authority over their website and are thus censoring it from their website. Yes this form of censorship is a far-cry from what's happened in the past. But just because it's small and maybe done poorly doesn't mean it isn't a form of censorship. Anyone should be alarmed when the worlds largest auction website that happens to permit the sale of Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and pornographic material decides to completely ban 6 seemingly innocent children's books out of political fear and motivation. Sure, this a relatively small and minute (and maybe even poorly executed) occurrence but to say that it isn't at all a form of censorship doesn't really make much sense to me.

Also I would like to point out that the posited idea that eBay pulled the books because of negative press and/or potential boycotts is rather unfounded. Amazon has kept all 6 books available on their site via sellers selling used copies and have garnered very little if any negative press.

The reality is that sure this isn't the same censorship as government banning books and making it illegal to buy/possess them. But to say this isn't at all a form of censorship seems pretty foolish to me. Ebay is the largest platform to sell books and collectibles like these Dr Seuss books, and when they decide to ban all selling of these books, yes it is a form of censorship. Sure it's not illegal, but censorship doesn't have to just occur with a government or authority. And just because you can find a pdf of these books on the internet doesn't mean it isn't a form censorship. Pdfs of books, and physical books aren't the same thing, and the physical media in this case is being subject to a form of censorship. Definition from google: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

Okay, thanks. Do you think it would probably be a similar number for 2 & 3?

If McGelligot's Pool can be banned from the site for using the word "Eskimo," all that needs to happen is for some self-proclaimed "activist" to see a picture of a book like Captain Marvel Adventures No. 23 and a huge chunk of Golden Age comics will be simply gone from eBay.

This whole thing just seems absolutely absurd to me. Not only is eBay missing out on a lot of money ~14% sales for each book, but no-one was even calling them to do this. Heck, I read an op-ed by the LA times about how eBay pulling these books is unnecessary. Ebay permits the sale of certain pornographic materials on its site, yet McGelligot's Pool is not allowed because it simply uses the word "Eskimo" (a word that completely unbeknownst to me became offensive seemingly overnight). I can buy Mein Kampf, Marx's Communist Manifesto, and pornographic material on eBay, but not Dr. Suess. This is absurd.

Hey quick question, does anyone know, or know where I can find (at least a rough estimate) how many copies were printed of Bone 1-3 first print respectively? Thanks.

As you can see from the pictures, it seems almost impossible that the folded piece of paper with the ink on it was somehow scraped from the first page. The part missing the ink shows no damage whatsoever and is just as thick as the rest of the page.

I recently came across a copy of Bone #3 first print for only $1 at a flea market! Sadly it has a very odd error. There's a hole in the first page, at first I thought this was simply a large tear caused by some damage, then I noticed that part of the tear had a piece holding on to it that when folded up had the correct printed ink from a section on the first page that was missing ink. I have since come to the conclusion that this error occurred during printing, as there is no paper missing on the part of the comic where the ink is gone. The pulp is just as thick as anywhere else. My guess is that somehow this paper was made incorrectly and there was something wrong with the pulp on this one spot, and then part of it folded over during printing. There also isn't any water damage which I thought could've caused damage like this. Let me know if you think this is some kind of a production error or not, I could be completely wrong. Thanks. Edit: If this is just a production error, how would it affect the grade?

Thanks, the book is complete, but I did not think to check the page order. I will definitely give it a look. I hope it is just a manufacturing error, but either way at least it's one of a kind. What I wouldn't give to see what actually happened in the factory, because I'm sure it was plenty interesting. Edit: Just checked, and the pages are printed in the right order.

So, I recently picked up this copy of Star Spangled Comics #105, and it was immediately clear this book had a lot of issues. The first and obvious issue is the bottom right hand corner, which at first I thought was simply trimmed by someone at an odd angle. However after examining the book further it is clear to me that there's a lot more going on. First off the book is clearly miscut (at an angle) on the top and bottom (including the bottom edge not being cut straight), although I will say I feel like this is fairly common. What I thought was the most interesting was the right edge of the book. This book is abnormally wide for a book published in 1950. This is evidenced by the strip of white showing on the right edge of the book. I have seen this before, but only on miswraps, and as noted by the staple position this book does not suffer from a miswrap. There is substantial white showing at the edge of the front and back cover. I also noticed, about the right edge, that the pages were very roughly cut (as shown in the pictures) something that is not usually the case. I first thought that the only trimming was done to the bottom right corner, however now I'm not quite sure if ALL edges, or if NO edges are trimmed! I would appreciate any insights into what you guys think might have happened to this book during manufacturing or with trimming afterwards. Thanks.

IMO Hulk 180 is his first appearance. I own both so I don’t care but the first time anyone could see Wolverine was in Hulk 180. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t care that the market has landed on. Everyone can have their own opinion. You're right that 180 is his first appearance. A first appearance in "cameo" (or in brief) is still a first appearance, but it isn't a first full appearance.

Why do people feel the need to suddenly reevaluate the terms, "cameo" and "full" as if they haven't been around for over half a century?

One of my favorites as well, with a great story and fight scene on top!

I agree. I've never been a fan of Spawn. I can stand the early McFarlane stuff, just because I think is art is at least interesting but after that I just have no interest. I remember finding and selling a handful of issues in the early to mid 200's for a decent amount of money, around $15-20 a pop, supposedly because they are "low print" run books. I was pretty surprised at the going rate of these books considering the inside art was pretty terrible and Spawn wasn't even in a lot of the stories. But I was happy to sell, cuz I sure didn't want 'em. No wonder they were "low print run" books.

I'm fairly young, but my favorite comic writer now is Otto Binder, and I in no way grew reading him . I think it's really just a matter of taste. I love reading the old GA Captain Marvel stories because they take me back to a different time. Every page is just dripping with history, and the stories tend to be pretty entertaining and even humorous. I feel the same about SA DC (an era most people find unbearable).

"First SA appearance of ___" and "First appearance of SA ___" are two VERY different things. The term "SA Atom" is just a way to differentiate Ray Palmer from Al Pratt or the "GA Atom." They do have the same name after all and some differentiation is needed. CGC says on their label: Origin and 1st appearance of, the Silver Age Atom (Ray Palmer) This is VERY different from "first SA appearance of the Atom," as that would indicate Al Pratt appearing in the SA. Instead the label says "first appearance of the SA Atom (Ray Palmer)," indicating a completely NEW and DIFFERENT character only related to the other by name. Hence the need for differentiation using the terms "SA" and "GA" alike. Another example of characters sharing no common characteristics besides a name is Red Tornado, differentiated as the GA and SA versions. P.S. Something even more fun is Flash No. 123 noted as "the first SA appearance of the GA flash."

Have you read both Hawkman's GA and SA origins? Going from reincarnated Egyptian prince to Thanagarian Alien Police Officer is a pretty big change Sure they have similar looks and powers, but they definitely do NOT have similar backstories.

There're proper ways to tell a history lesson. Including the REAL seance like this in a comic book isn't handling these weighty events with proper respect. It's just poor taste.

Otto Binder was one of the most prolific comic book writers ever, and this was one of the darkest periods of his life and it's what led to him quitting comics and eventually passing away. It just doesn't feel respectful of the man Binder was or what he accomplished to just throw this weighty subject in to make a point in Tom King's narrative. It really just doesn't seem respectful to me, and that's what bugs me.

I just was reading up on some of the Watchmen characters and saw some things surrounding Tom King's latest Rorschach comic. I don't usually read modern comics, but when I saw this page it made me pretty mad. It was from issue No. 1 published back in October, so I know that this must be old news, but I don't think many noticed as I didn't hear anything about it. Otto Binder is one of my favorite writers of all time. I love collecting and reading early Captain Marvel stories, and was actually lucky enough to hunt down a book with his signature. Binder wrote thousands of stories for Fawcett and DC, but sadly he had a pretty tragic life and lost his daughter of 14 in 1967 when she was hit by a car, and later starting drinking heavily before passing away himself in 1974. This page from Tom King's Rorschach No. 1 uses that tragic factoid as an "Easter egg," and I personally find that pretty disgusting.

I feel like tank is the wrong word. To compare comics to stamps, stamp collecting clearly isn't what it once was but it's still a large hobby, and I doubt it will ever go away. Plenty of stamps hold decent value. I definitely don't think comics will continue to rise in value like they are now. But I think plenty of books will still see some gains over a long period of time. I don't think many modern & bronze books will, but I think silver and gold are fairly safe. Superheroes have been a HUGE part of our culture for close to 100 years now, and I doubt that will change. They're kind of like America's version of Greek Mythology. I doubt comic collecting will reach similar heights again, but as long as superheroes are popular (which I think will be a loooong time) I don't foresee comic collecting tanking.

Awesome! Issue No. 4 is definitely my favorite cover in the run.