RockMyAmadeus

LOL! You are far afield of the mainstream of comic collectors now. And you are floating another strawman here. I have said over and over: A collector seeks out comics, buys them, and holds them, for the love of comics. Folks whose collecting goal is to read, over and over, the stories they love, must possess the comic, or they can't read it over and over. You're still using "strawman" incorrectly. I really don't think you grasp what that means. "Reading" is "reading." "Reading" is not a "collecting goal", because there's nothing TANGIBLE about reading. You cannot collect "reading." And you are quite incorrect that "folks whose collecting goal (sic) is to read...must possess the comic, or they can't read it over and over." I guess you're just not aware that libraries have carried comics and graphic novels for decades...? Or that digital copies have been available for over a decade now...? I can read the entire Marvel Silver Age catalog, and never possess a single copy of an actual comic. You're toast, man. Give it up already. Those defending your arguments would do well to recognize the silliness with which you are willing to go to not lose an argument.

Now you're trying to speak for ME. Here are two pictures for you to ponder: and: And now, the text of the DSM: "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." Read that again. The answers you seek are there. And THANK YOU for posting that bit from the DSM! Much appreciated!

Already explained, at great and very exhaustive length. I invite you to read the thread again; the answers you seek are already there.

So your contention is actually that there were less than 1,000 collectors in 1970. I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. How many fewer than 1,000 collectors in 1970 do you think there were?

You have the definition correct, but lack the understanding of what that definition means. Not treating your possessions with reasonable care to prevent further damage will eventually result in their loss by destruction. Your "newsstand fresh" pile that degrades to "fine" will eventually degrade to DESTROYED if you make no effort to preserve them. Who is "we"? Do you have more than one person in your head? Why are you attempting to speak for anyone but yourself? Unrelated aside, I try never to lose pies. They're much too tasty.

Still don't know who "RAM" is, but I think you missed this part: "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.) Given those definitions...would you classify the picture posted above by @Ditch Fahrenheit as more indicative of a COLLECTOR, or a HOARDER....? I'll hang up and wait for your answer on the air.

I'm not "RAM." Thanks. And that picture is of a guy who is most certainly not a collector. He's an avid fan, for sure. Accumulator, you bet. Collector? Yeah, no.

1. You don't know what a "strawman" is, because you keep using the term incorrectly. 2. Comparing the disagreement of the definition of the word "collector" to a lack of recognition of "the diversity that exists in this great hobby" is complete and utter nonsense. 3. You don't speak for anyone but you. And certainly not for "almost all of us." 4. You have stubbornly and persistently misrepresented, for 15-20 pages now, what I have said, and then argued against what you imagined I said...not what I actually said...which is what a "strawman" actually is. Example: I never said a collector couldn't be someone who buys only new issues. And yet, there are you saying I did, and then arguing against it. (But do you know what happens when the next issue comes out? The previous issue is no longer new! Imagine that!) 5. "Reading" is not collecting. "Reading" is not a "collecting goal." If their goal was to "read the story", they didn't even need to OWN those books to "achieve" their "collecting goal." It's like the Vertigo ad from the 90s, which encouraged readers to "speculate on ideas"...a subtle shot at the rampant speculation on actual comic books taking place at the time. Trying to shoehorn your definition of "collector" to an intangible concept is not a valid argument. You've made several statements in this conversation which you can't prove, won't define, and with which hardly anyone has agreed, like "comics fandom was large and developed by 1964" and "there were way more than 1,000 collectors attending comic conventions by 1966." You should be grateful that people aren't calling you on those statements like they should. 6. You keep repeating statements I never made, like "Indeed, the original context of this debate was your foolish assertion that there were only 1,000 "collectors" in 1970." Here, again, is my actual quote: "if...and this is a gigantic if...there were 1,000 collectors in the US by 1970, I'd be very surprised." That is not an assertion. It is an estimate. A GUESS. You have been corrected on that multiple times, but you keep repeating it anyways. What conclusion is one supposed to come to about you, when you keep repeating things that were never said, that you have been corrected on multiple times, but which you continue to repeat anyways...? What does that make you...? 7. The quote that started this ENTIRE argument was your nonsensical actual assertion that "comics fandom was large and developed by 1964." Enough. Is. Enough.

at all I was just talking about undergrounds, not the price stickers of this thread.

For the undergrounds?

By the way...my interest in stickers is with the early 70s undergrounds, like this: These were, as I understand it, copies that the publisher, in this case, Apex Novelties, had leftover, but the price for new books had risen, so they made/bought these stickers, and slapped them on over the original price. There are $1 stickers, 75c stickers, 50c stickers...all sorts of price stickers.

This is not true. Several people here specialize in these sorts of comics oddballs, especially the aforementioned ShieldAgent, Metarog, and Cosmic-Spiderman. There used to be an entire website....stl comics...devoted to these 70s anomalies. So...yeah, the speculations of people who have spent a couple of decades seeking out and documenting these books are much better than yours. No offense.

Sweet. Free comics!

I think that's been posted before. Thanks for posting it again. What a great glimpse into the past. You see Jerry Bails' fingerprints all over comic fandom. Gotta have those first editions!

Just the ones you visit.

BE WARNED!! On comics with any other colored back cover besides white, and you stand a good chance to have COLOR RUB on your comics at the high points of the staples. Any sort of jostling or any other type of movement allows the comic resting against the backboard to move, Given enough time and enough jostling, you will turn your 9.8s into 9.4s because of this color rub. If you have any exceptionally nice and/or valuable books that fit this description (like Batman Adventures #12, for example), I recommend DOUBLE bagging: first, put just the book into a CURRENT or MODERN bag. Then, put that bag WITH backing board on the OUTSIDE of that first bag INSIDE a REGULAR or SILVER bag.

Found it! I used to love these as a kid. We always made Christmas ornaments with them...

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me. I love it, and thrive on it. What you do isn't disagreement; it's degradation. It's always personal. You don't like me, so you engage in the politics of personality, taking shots at me when and where you think you can get away with it, utterly irrespective of whatever topic is at issue. Look how you invoke "everyone" in your quote above, as though you speak for everyone. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. But you invoke "everyone", in an attempt to segregate and discredit...as McKnowitall said earlier, "us vs. them." And that's just one example. And again, I understand why: you're offended. Is your offendedness justified? Maybe. But probably not. I sure hope that's the end of it.

PS. The picture of the Cherokee book store is a picture of dealers, rather than collectors. And even the dealers show a measure of an attempt to preserve. Notice the bags? That was a rather novel idea in 1965.

Boooooo! Aren't they, though? I don't think I've ever seen a picture of those that old. I thought for sure they were a hipster invention.

You've proven yourself to have especial animus towards me, so your "call outs" aren't intellectually honest examples of critique, but opportunities to degrade. If you were interested in genuine dialogue, you would not have engaged in the defamatory comments you have. With you, it's very personal. I understand that...but you can't really expect your critiques to carry any weight when you fire all cannons at me, while habitually ignoring those with whom you agree doing the exact same thing you complain of me. As such, any explanation by me is rejected by you, and indeed, has already been rejected, because you aren't interested in arriving at understanding, but in "proving" me "wrong." I've already given you the explanations you seek. If you reject them, you reject them. By logic and reason, if one does not seek to preserve the items they are accumulating, and those items are damaged beyond repair or destroyed, they are doing the opposite of collecting, which is gathering items to study, appreciate, organize, maintain, and enjoy.

What is the difference between the "broad" definition, and the so-called "narrow" definition...? A desire to preserve the items, which is what, far from "putting people into buckets" is what separates a collector from every type of accumulator. The kid in your 70s pictures demonstrates very little desire to preserve his comics...he's got his foot on some of them. (Interesting early example of the 5 toed shoe, though.)

Thank you for presenting your opinion. I, and others, disagree. It's not my definition...it's a definition that has existed since before any of us were born. Your personal animus, like that of others, drives you to criticize me, while ignoring others doing the exact same thing, for the exact same reason. That is dishonest. It is bad faith.