RockMyAmadeus

There is a LOT still to be told about CGC, and how it came to be, who, what, where, when, why. Maybe it's time to start making offers of interviews?

Yeah, Keith was REALLY dedicated to the whole process from a very early start. I wonder how much input he had into the formation of CGC, if any? Thanks for the response!

For context, here's what Roger Smyth, of Funny Business in NYC, was saying, to which Jon was responding: (slightly edited for typos and adding paragraph breaks for ease of reading.) All very fascinating to me, and it amazes me to see just how much these dealers and Jon Warren heavily influenced my formative years as a collector. Hey @valiantman...I thought this would be of particular interest to you, as well. Some of the questions I have are: What issue of All-Star is Roger referring to? ##13-20 and #33 are the only ones that come close to that "$600 in NM" figure in the 1988 OPG, but that could be the "half of Guide" figure that was common at the time. What really fascinates me is the idea that a NM copy would be $600...but a book that would grade, what, 2.5-3.5, restored, would be worth 1/3 to 1/2 the NM price!

I was thumbing through a copy of the Overstreet Update #7 (which would have been out in the late fall of 1988), and I again came across these comments by Jon Warren, editor at the time of the OPG. I thought people might be interested in seeing what people in the hobby thought of comic book grading, particularly Overstreet's stance. It's a fascinating glimpse into what the market was thinking at the time, nearly 12 years before CGC would open its doors, and only a year after the introduction of NGC for coins. Without further ado: Pretty interesting, huh? Full of all sorts of interesting insights, things that eventually came true, things that didn't. I do not know what, if any, influence Jon and Bob had over the formation of CGC, but this is what the collecting hobby was talking about, a full 30 years ago, in regards to the future of comic book grading. For anyone...if any...who has wondered why I refer to what the coin hobby was and is doing so often, and how and why it does or does not translate to comics, it's because these guys were doing it first.

This is "Stu", the guy who's been banned from this board for perhaps a decade and a half, who has made hundreds of new ids (wasting those for other users, by the way) to continue to post here, despite the fact that the administration has made it quite plain he's not allowed here. If there was ever a more apt "consider the source"...I can't think of one.

I didn't quote Wikipedia over Oxford of Cambridge. I quote Wikipedia alongside Oxford or Cambridge, because the Wikipedia entry has the room to expand on the idea contained in Oxford or Cambridge. Do you really believe...honest question, now, no silliness here...that preserving items you collect is not an element of collecting...?

Yo. @jcruzcollection What's the status...? Inquiring minds GOT ta know!

Hey. You gave them to me. I said to give them to kids. If you don't want to give them to kids, send them to me, and *I* will give them to kids.

Let's clarify a few things about that, shall we..? Let's set aside that all your definitions use the word "collect" in them, which is a form of the word whose definition needs to be established... Dictionary definitions don't get into great detail. They are, by nature, pithy, because they have to be. So just because NONE OF THEM includes the "requirement of condition" in the definition, doesn't mean it doesn't exist in an expanded understanding of the concept. Let's look at your first definition: "...objects because they are beautiful, valuable, or interesting." So, tell me...if one doesn't devote SOME effort to preserving and maintaining those objects...how are they going to REMAIN "beautiful, valuable, or interesting"...? Hmmm....? From Wikipedia: "The hobby of collecting includes seeking, locating, acquiring, organizing, cataloging, displaying, storing, and maintaining items that are of interest to an individual collector. " Maintaining, in the case, having to do with preserving them in some respect. Yes, it's Wikipedia...but someone out there, in an EXPANDED explanation of the concept, agrees with me. Also from Wikipedia: "Some collectors maintain objects in pristine condition, while others use the items they collect." "A ha!" some might argue..."their definition means that the item need not be preserved!" Not so fast. Using an item doesn't mean they use it UP, or, again, it would have to be replaced. Didn't quite get the answer you wanted from Redbeard, eh...? I find it endlessly fascinating that people are arguing for a definition of "collecting" which allows for the items being "collected" to have the potential to be destroyed via neglect. It's quite astonishing the pretzel twists folks will go to because they don't like the person on the other side of the argument.

No I haven't. Have you even read this thread? This is patently untrue. This is just repetition, using different words, of the same fiction you invented earlier: that I "asserted" that there were less than 1,000 collectors in 1970. Not only that, your thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said has inspired other people to repeat that fiction elsewhere on the board, specifically in Redbeard's thread...and his answer wasn't nearly as conclusive as was hoped, I imagine. My number was an estimate. A guess. Again, here's the quote: "If.....and this is a gigantic if....the number of collectors was more than 1,000 in 1970, I'd be very, very surprised." Further in the thread, I said "ok, fine. Make it 2,000. Not enough? Make it 3,000." It's still an ESTIMATE. A GUESS. A CASUAL COMMENT that was NEVER meant to be a definitive assertion, and yet...over and over and over again, it's been repeated as such. This entire argument has been about a casual comment that you seized upon....a total "GOTCHA!"...and then you have the chutzpah to accuse me of playing "gotcha." Dishonest to the CORE, and which none of the detractors have said a peep about. And...far more importantly....a guess that you cannot prove wrong. I cannot prove RIGHT...because, after all, it's still a GUESS...but you cannot demonstrate is wrong. You nitpick the details and then complain about me nitpicking the details. And there's nothing "desperate" about it. After all...you're the one who claimed you had to own a comic book to be able to read it. In your opinion. One need not "decrease" the "grade" by reading them. If your goal is to read them, without regard for what format they're in, or which issues you're buying, or whether you even NEED to buy them, you're not a collector...you're a reader. Again...says the guy who claimed that there was, in 1964, a "large and developed fandom", who claimed that there were "many more than 1,000 collectors attending conventions by 1966" (despite having no proof at all for this claim), and that you had to own a comic to be able to read it, among many other absurdities. I agree. What else IS there to say at this point?

 You've done this before. It's rather rude. Why don't you exercise some patience, and allow someone to respond before you make pushy posts like this.

Sure you did. You never answered the question, but you responded in the thread. Nonsense. One need not "decrease their grade" to read them. I can read a comic in "NM/M" and have it stay "NM/M." It's not difficult. It only requires a modicum of care. If one is "decreasing their grade from NM/M to F", then EVENTUALLY, in due time, they will CONTINUE to decrease their grade from "F" to "Good, Fair, Poor, to trash." Clearly, that person is not exercising reasonable care to preserve their books. Those people aren't collectors, because eventually, in due time, the objects they purport to be collecting will be no more, and then they will no longer have a representative of that issue in their "collection." If their purpose is to READ, rather than COLLECT then...watch me now...they are READERS...and NOT COLLECTORS. And if they trash their books over time, that, I don't think it needs to be explained, is the OPPOSITE of collecting.

Easy. Does a buyer seek to obtain, purchase, preserve, organize, and perhaps display what he/she owns? Then he/she is a collector, even if he/she is a speculator, as well. A collector who is not a speculator usually completes sets, as they define them, irrespective of value. A speculator who is not a collector usually has no interest in sets, but specific issues that they think will go up in value. A person who is both will collect sets, as they define them, AND buy copies for speculation. They're not mutually exclusive ideas, and one person can be one, the other, or both. WHY they obtain them is irrelevant to determining who is, and who is not, a collector. HOW and WHAT they do is what determines what they are. You're trying to draw hard lines where there are none. There is overlap....as I have said throughout...for most, if not all, of these classifications.

No. "...for the love of the comics" is incorrect. One need not "love comics" to be a collector. One need only seek out, obtain, preserve, organize them to be a collector. The WHY is irrelevant to the classification of "collector" (there's the diversity you were complaining about being "missing" earlier.) Only the WHAT and HOW is important in determining if someone is a collector. I asked you before, and you ignored it, so I'll ask you again: if you allow your books to be destroyed because you don't make an effort to preserve them, how are you "holding" them...? That's part of your definition, after all. How can you be a "collector" if all or part of your collection is subject to destruction because you don't make an effort to preserve them in any way?

This thread:

No, I'm fairly certain that's your issue, here. "Admiring their cover art" is not a "collecting goal." You can admire cover art without having to own a copy. And if you don't own a copy...what is it you're collecting? "That's not what I'm saying!! I'm saying you BUY and KEEP it because you like the cover art!! RAAARRGHHHH!!" Of course. But your motives for buying and keeping them DO NOT MAKE YOU A COLLECTOR. KEEPING and PRESERVING them is what does that. So you collect them to read. So you collect them because you like the cover art. So you collect them because you like the writer. So you collect them because you like the paper. WHY you do it is irrelevant to WHAT you are doing and HOW you are doing it. Doing any of the above does not make you a collector. It is the act of seeking, buying, preserving your items that does that. "I collect Frazetta Famous Funnies covers." Ok. Great. But your motive for wanting them doesn't make you a collector. It is the ACT of seeking, obtaining, preserving, organizing, displaying...THOSE are what make you a collector. WHY you are a collector is as varied as the stars. But HOW is what is the determining factor of whether or not you are a collector, a reader, an accumulator, a hoarder, a fan, or whatever. And you need not own a single comic to read them, or admire cover art, or whatever other motive you might want to throw up for WHY someone might want to collect them. It is the seeking, obtaining, organizing, preserving, displaying that makes you a collector. You with me now? I'm guessing "no."

Again..."reading" is not a collecting goal. You don't collect "reading." Yes, you can buy books TO read, but you're not collecting reading experiences...you're buying books to read. If your goal is to read, you neither need to be, or necessarily are, a collector. "I'm buying an X-Men #1 because I want to read the story!" X-Men #1 has been reprinted many, many, many times, in many, many different formats, starting with Marvel Tales #2 in 1964, a year or so after X-Men #1 came out. So, why would someone who merely wanted to READ spend the money on a copy of X-Men #1, when they could buy a reprint for a lot less...? "Being able to read the entire X-Men story" is not a "collecting goal." It is a READING goal, and it has already been long established in this thread that there were far more READERS of comics, then as now, than there are COLLECTORS of comics, and being a READER does not mean one was or is a COLLECTOR. And you STILL don't need to "possess the comic book to read it" as you irrationally claimed earlier. There are many ways to read a story without having to own a copy of it, then as now...and if you don't own a copy...what are you collecting?

Yet another strawman. via Imgflip Meme Generator

First, the guy in that picture, is posing with his comics. He's not overly concerned with their condition, that's apparent from the picture. Which does not mean he's not a collector. It does mean that collector's sometimes pose with the comics in ways you find alarming. But, nothing in that picture establishes he is a hoarder as defined by the DSM. To the contrary, we don't see floor to ceiling stacks of junk, and no room to move. And this is where you once again misstate what is plain English. The Psychology Today article states: Get it? "NOT ALL collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects." The guy in the staged picture you are complaining about, which causes you to conclude he's not a "collector," actually does have a neat room. And it's obvious from the picture that he normally, when not staging for a picture, keeps his comics in big stacks. There's nothing wrong with that. Some of the best collections in comics history were stored in big stacks. As the writer notes, he doesn't need to keep them always "nice and tidy" and there are no other indicia that he is a "hoarder." You really are off the deep end on your interpretation of the DSM. Ack! Format, man, FORMAT!! That is HARD on the EYES!

That's not necessary. What you can do is give them out to a couple of kids to read. Make sure they're on the younger side, though...those stories aren't really suited for anyone over the age of about 10. 7-9 would probably be perfect. Maybe find a girl, see if she likes Westerns.

Already explained, at great and very exhaustive length. I invite you to read the thread again; the answers you seek are already there. They are synonyms. You have NOT set forth any sourced defintions of those terms that distinguish between them. Just your own ramblings, which don't really amount to definitions at all. This quote "nest" is a mess. ...I'm beginning to suspect that you're not at full capacity. Perhaps this should be continued some other time when you are.

The posts "up thread" only have value if either one of these two things happens: 1. All participants operate in good faith, and faithfully represent what other parties have said, which has not happened... or... 2. People read the entire thread, critically. As to your claims: "* Jerry Bails had the addresses of over 1,600+ fans in his Who's Who published in 1964;" - you have no way of knowing how many of these people were comic COLLECTORS, so that figure is moot. "* The Rocket's Blast ComicCollector had a circulation of 1,100 in 1965 (and, no, it didn't reach every comic collector in America);" - you have no way of knowing how many of those subscribing were comic COLLECTORS, so that figure is also moot. As well, I don't recall you mentioning this circulation, but it's neither here nor there. I'll concede that it didn't reach every comic collector...obviously...if you'll concede that A. you have no idea how many of those subscribers were comic COLLECTORS, and B. you have no idea how many comic COLLECTORS OR FANS were in America in 1965. "* The "Academy" of comic fans had over 2,000 members in the mid-1960s;" - you're fudging the numbers, here. The number given in that newspaper article Ditch posted AND by Schelly is "2,000." Conveniently, you do not mention that that number in 1963 was a mere 90, and that the Academy, according to Maggie Thompson, was completely defunct by 1968, because, of course, those tend to DISPROVE your claims. "* That the RBCC's circulation had grown to 2,000 in 1968 (and, no, it still didn't reach every comic collector in America);" - same as above "* Bob Overstreet had a print run of 1,000 copies for his first OPG in 1970 (and, no, he didn't think he'd sell to every collector in America);" - a figure which *I* provided, and which we do not know if that number represents the FIRST printing, the SECOND printing, BOTH printings, and how many Bob actually expected to sell. You don't know what he "thought" he'd sell, because you're not a mind reader. If you are...quick, what am I thinking RIGHT NOW?? I think there's circumstantial evidence to that effect, to which my reply MANY, MANY, MANY posts back was "fine...make it 2,000. Make it 3,000." As far as "many testimonials that you...that you choose to ignore"...where are they? Point to them. I didn't "ignore" them. You haven't PRODUCED them. "I said so!" isn't proof. When you produce them, then they can be considered.

We have already discussed "All In Color For a Dime" previously in this thread. Once more: you cannot COLLECT "reading." You cannot COLLECT intangible concepts. "Reading" is not, and never will be, a "collecting goal." You can collect books SO THAT you can read them...but reading, ITSELF, is not something you can "collect." "Hey, are you collector?" "Yeah, totally man. I've read ALL the issues of X-Men!" "Cool! So you own a complete run?" "Nah, man...I've just read them all!" "So...you don't actually own any copies at all...?" "Nah, man, my collecting goal was to read the stories, not own the books!" "How have you collected anything if you don't own any of them...?" "Man, quit harshing my vibe! You can't tell me what my collecting goals can or can't be!" "Uh. Ok. I guess." Your mention of the "Fireside press books" and other books is a nitpicky, irrelevant detail. The fact is, a person did not need to possess...which you said they MUST...a comic book to be able to read it. And "reading" isn't a "collecting goal." It's a reading goal. You're trying not to "lose" the argument. You're trying to make believe that someone can "collect" the intangible.

Yes...grab on to that single qualifier, like a man on a sinking ship grabs onto a life preserver, which isn't even the point of the text. Again: "Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding." (Emphasis mine.) Read it again. Yes, the writer says "not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects"...but read the context. See what it says? "the hoarded items are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection." That is the point the writer is making. Here's more: "non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments" See that? The writer is stating, explicitly, that collectors put their possessions on display, RATHER THAN (that means "in opposition to") letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments." So, putting the "NOT ALL" back into that context, you find that the writer is NOT saying that SOME collectors have their collections strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order", but that not all collectors are AS neat and tidy about it as other collectors, and are much more likely to be very neat and tidy than hoarders. Do you understand that distinction...? You are misreading the DSM.