RockMyAmadeus

Episode IX will have flying Super Ewoks doing hands-free light saber tricks with Darth Maul. You mark my words. You heard it here first.

You're not paying attention: it doesn't matter where "the list" came from; it matters where it was published first. I'm not sure how you know what I "want there to be." You have been gone for months, and you come back to blitch about this...? Sure, except that it's correct. They're all part of the same program. It's bad scholarship to not even mention the bullets or Zero Hours. Same program. Nobody is talking about "just the list." You DO KNOW there's an entire article there, don't you...? ...after the fact. ....in a COMMENTS section. And no, the effort didn't go "way beyond" what is offered here. Have you read THIS thread...? That's right...that's why I used the word "like." "Like" doesn't mean "the same as." You have an odd understanding of what trolling is, considering this back and forth was initiated by you. Comment sections are, by definition, not part of a published article. Nice try, though! It is true, however, that I can't admit "your" didn't bother to read the comments....that darn your, he never reads anything! "Have some courage to admit fault." If you did some research, you'd notice that I REFERRED to those comments in the very post you quoted which started this silly back and forth. Kinda hard to refer to comments in the comments section if I didn't read the comments....dontcha think...? Oops. Color you embarrased! Lies...? You mean, like "your didn't bother to read the comments", despite the fact that I referred to those comments which I'm not supposed to have read...? Those kinds of lies...? Obnoxio ...that's the comment in question. It's not a good article. It's got errors, the most glaring of which is calling all the DCUs "reprints." There's zero evidence to suggest they are ALL, or even MOSTLY, reprints. The ones that are...like the Death of Superman issues, or the Green Lantern #36, #51, etc...are CLEARLY NOTED as reprints. The rest of them, especially as we got further into the program? There's NO evidence to suggest these weren't printed at the same time as the first printings, because it would have been cheaper for DC to do so. Another error: they say "the last known 20 pack was from 12/96." That is wrong. By that time, the bricks were 10-packs, not 20. So, no. It is not a "good" article. It's an ok article. Whatever you say.

The bullets, Zero Hour, and DCU are all part of the same program. "Saving" it "on purpose" for "another article" is bad scholarship. Credit was given to generic "online sources" in the article. Woohoo! There is no problem with lists...the problem is when things are already published, someone takes that information, tweeks it a little, then publishes it themselves as if it is "original research." That USED to be call "plagiarism." If the list already exists, published by others...then it is a requirement to NOT be considered plagiarism to GIVE CREDIT...IN THE WORK ITSELF...to that which is already published. It's like someone claiming they "discovered" something by making more people aware of it. "Writing the article" and "knowing the intent of the writer" has nothing to do with any claim you're trying to make here. A comments section is, by definition, a SEPARATE section from a published article, and not PART of that article. You sure reach "alot" and make a lot of assumptions, Ween. Who said they wanted to "steal credit?" Being sloppy and not giving proper credit where it belongs is just as bad. They had to be "reminded" to give credit. Your perspective is backwards. CGC isn't "lucky" to be mentioned by name. It's the other way around: CBSI and whomever wrote that article owes a DEBT to this thread, which they address after the fact, in a comments section, as "oh, uh, yeah, totally, we got all our info from the CGC thread, so, uh...yeah."

If you don't like what someone posts, or the way they post, ignore them. Making aggressive, hostile, personal comments about PEOPLE is toxic, has no place here, and is a violation of this board's rules. This board is NOT "reality." This board has rules. I have to follow them. Ostensibly, so do you. That means that I don't get to say whatever I want to you, and must exercise self-control. So do you. If you want to have a discussion, keep the personal garbage out of it. "Opposing viewpoints" is one thing...your previous post was quite another. So spare the attempts to say "I'm just DISAGREEING with you!" No, you came after ME, personally, and went for the jugular. You want to have a civil discussion? Let's have it. But keep your personal comments about other members to yourself.

Back to the movie... I think the casting of Tom Hardy is fantastic. Far, infinitely better than that Topher Grace debacle. But every time I see the trailer, and Venom comes up, there's a plastic, inorganic quality to the look that just takes me right out of the film, and almost makes me want to laugh. And, of course, they went with the "I'm Erik Larsen, and I hate Venom, so I'm going to make him look as clownishly ridiculous as I possibly can" 50,000 sharp, spikey teeth, and the stupid, 10 foot long tongue. Plus...Eddie was always in control of the Symbiote...but in the movie, the Symbiote is clearly in the driver's seat. That said, I did like the tagline "the world has enough superheroes." So, we'll see how it goes.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of subjectivity to the discussion. One of the more difficult aspects of determining classic covers is making the distinction between what came before, and what came after, you started collecting. For example...you bring up Batman #608 2nd print. I like the cover, but I saw it brand new on the shelf, so I have a hard time considering it a "classic" cover. I like it, and I especially like it in contrast to Superman #204. Plus...there's a lot to be said about stuff that was exceptionally popular when you first started collecting (as opposed to reading), and saw what was at the local comic shop that was priced way above what you could afford. Do I think the way I do about the cover to Batman #428 because it was thoroughly unobtainable when I first started collecting? Maybe! Probably! It has to be considered. But I look at what Overstreet has designated a "classic cover" and I look at what CGC has designated as well...plus various other publications and even quite a bit posted here...to see what other people consider classic, and what made an impact on other collectors at the time. Just because one person says it is, doesn't make it so...but if a cross section of people, over time, say the same thing, then the case begins to take on a little more weight. I formulated my qualifications based on what these various covers had in common, and I began to see the common threads that these books possessed. As far as the covers you mention: Spidey #1 (McFarlane) - While I don't necessarily think that homages are a sign of a "classic" cover, especially because of the impact that title had on the reading and collecting public had at the time...it was, by far, the #1 selling book of 1990...it was ubiquitous...I think, in the way McFarlane executed the cover, the case could be made. For comparison, here's a cover that made a massive impact on me when it came out just a couple of weeks later: I think that's a fantastic cover, the best Gulacy ever did. Would it ever get a "classic" cover designation in the future? Probably not. X-Men #141...again, lots of duplication, but is the cover really a standout if it wasn't for the historical impact of the story? Hard to say. Of that run, I have a hard time finding one that would fit the definition of "classic." Had the last panel of #132 been the cover...? Oh yeah. Cap #109 - Cap #109 is a personal fav of mine, too, but I think it suffers when compared to Cap #111 and #113. #111 I think especially has the claim to being a "classic" cover. If #113 didn't have the Hydra agents and Rick Jones on the cover, busying it up, I think it would clearly qualify.

It might. You do have to watch out for people who are so offended by other people having and expressing opinions with which they disagree, they accuse them...from a single thread, mind you, with a simultaneous point-for-point counterargument...of "forcing" said opinions down the "entire message board's throat", despite, of course, the fact that "the entire message board" doesn't agree on anything, certainly wouldn't agree on that, and no one is forced to read anything anyone else posts. "Forcing your opinion down X's throat" being code for "why won't you shut up and stop disagreeing with me already???" That total ignore feature cannot come soon enough.

I don't always follow along as well as others because I fell on a wheelbarrow when I was a kid and hit my head. Hard. But..... Why would CVA buy back books that CVA gave a sticker to in the first place? From John Albanese, founder of CAC: (MR is the interviewer) (Full interview can be found here:) https://www.caccoin.com/cac-in-the-news/an-interview-with-john-albanese-by-maurice-rosen/

There are lots of ways for the community to help. No need to debate it. When enough of the customers of CGC want it, it will happen. Nuff said.

Is everyone just angry because of the weather, or what...? Of course I read the article. That credit was given in the comments, not the body of the article, AFTER it was pointed out by "Obnoxio" that this thread existed, which the manager/whatever of CBSI made a snarky retort. I read the article again, and still see no mention of the Zero Hour issues or the DC bullet issues, which were all part of the same program. So they're mentioned in another article. And? They're not mentioned in this one, despite being part of the same program. Being "discussed in the comments" has no meaning; it's not in the article itself. Are you one of those people there? The problem with articles such as this is that when there is already competing information on the web, already published, without acknowledgement, it gives the appearance of "copying and pasting" I've been collecting and researching DCUs since long before this thread, too...but I didn't do any of the heavy lifting here of compiling and publishing the information.

If you don't like what someone says, or the way they say it, there's an ignore function. This is provocation, contentious posting, meant to create conflict.

They're present on most of these, to one degree or another. They were graded the first half of July.

Is there a reason why you're being confrontational? Again, is there a reason why you're being confrontational? Was my comment directed at you, or anyone in particular? No. No, it wasn't. So why do you feel the need to make a scene, and critique someone else personally? Is it your job to police the board, so that everyone posts in the manner in which "Martin Sinescu" approves...? There are lots of people who post here whose posts make my teeth hurt. Do I criticize them, or attempt to analyze them, or even interact with them if they don't engage me? No. I just ignore them. Problem solved. So why do you think it's ok for you to do so? If you don't like what someone says, or the way they say it, there's an ignore function. It works. Really. You should use it. Provided I'm not violating the board rules, what business is it of anyone to tell someone else how and what they can post? Are my rules for what makes a classic cover my own? Yes. Obviously, as I clearly state. Are they "arbitrary", as you claim? No. Do you offer a counterargument? No, you don't even bother. You just presume the outcome. My initial suspicions regarding your previous post have proven correct. My "emoji" was because your initial question was disingenuous, as this all proves. You were offended that I offered my definition, which was clearly stated to be my own, so you asked a loaded question. Someone mentioned #300 as a "classic cover", which was my springboard for...discussion. Which is what a message board is about, no...? You then post a lengthy reply to my position, which would be fine and perfectly accepted, had it been offered in the spirit of honest discourse...but should I remind you that this is the "Venom movie thread", and you're doing what you're complaining of me doing...? For a thread that is on page 26, with several hundred posts already...? Seriously: put me on ignore. Problem solved. All the conflict on this board is caused by people who refuse to simply ignore those they don't like.

Gil Kane!

I had the uncanny same thought at close to the same time as you. The naysayers of 2008 at least had a lack of precedence to (not) point to....

In some cases, it's almost like they're just copying and pasting the arguments from 2008, that's how spot on the naysaying is...

CVA isn't grading the book. They're simply looking at it in the slab and determining if the grade given by whomever (really, just CGC) is commensurate with the APPEARANCE of the book in the case. Sometimes, it's quite obvious that a book was overgraded. Those cases are easy to spot. Sometimes, a book looks much better than graded, and perhaps there's a flaw on the interior that no one but the graders know about. In that case, they're only giving you an assessment based on what they can see. If there's a 9.6 copy with a CVA sticker...provided I know that CVA knows what they're doing...I'm absolutely paying a premium for that book as a 9.6, because there's a good chance I can make it a 9.8. A much better chance than flying blind (and I have plenty of slabs that I discovered weren't remotely upgradeable when received in hand.)

That is not the "exact Model". If anything, the independent inspector serves the role CGC fulfills. You are confusing what he's referring to. Ignore the house. It's not relevant. Focus on the "getting a second opinion" aspect.

Says the guy who compared "hiring a painter to paint your house" to what CGC does...

There you are! I was hoping my last post didn't scare you off. No one said it was a perfect analogy...and neither is yours. Of course, neither was his in the first place, CGC isn't painting (or doing anything else) to the comic. They're simply assessing its condition. Last time I checked, you don't hire a painter to tell you what condition the house is in. Flawed analogies abound.

Well, there you go. I knew newton rings had no potential for damage, but I didn't want to speak out of class, since plastics is not my area. "When has that ever stopped you before, huh??"

What he doesn't realize is that CVA doesn't exist to make the customer happy...but to convince prospective buyers. So, using his house analogy, if he hires a painter, no, he doesn't need someone else to tell him if he's satisfied...but if he's planning on selling the house, the buyer, if they're wise, will insist on an independent inspection.

And is the equivalent as rampant in comic collecting? I have assumed so for the last few years, based on reading posts here. Hard to come up with an exact analogy, since natural toning doesn't have an analog in comics. Quibble: there's no such thing as a "fourth party." There are only three parties in the entire universe: First party: you Second party: other person in the transaction Third party: literally everyone else that exists. I understand your usage...but I don't support it.

That's not what John says, but you know how that goes. But, negative opinions to the contrary, the presence of a third party assessing another third party is self-evidently beneficial, depending on the quality and ability of the people at CVA. Just the mere presence of such an entity keeps other third parties on their toes, to the degree that the additional third party is accepted by the buying public. Artificial toning is a blight, for sure. There are, sadly, attack dogs and naysayers for everything. Sometimes the attack dogs work for you...sometimes they eat you.

All other issues aside, I don't think anyone is going to be able to determine if there's damage from the newton rings over time through the inner well and outer case.