RockMyAmadeus

You recall incorrectly. There's so much wrong with that sentence, it's probably not worth detailing. Suffice it to say, that is inaccurate, and relies on multiple incredibly far-fetched presumptions. That is also inaccurate. I have not "run a pressing service" since around the end of 2016. Why are you still here..? The mods must be asleep.

This is inaccurate, for multiple reasons.

It's been considered, but it's highly unlikely. It was highly unlikely for the 2nd print to have one, but it exists. But...it's possible. If it exists, someone will find it.

Nope. I just disagree with your classification of "collector" vs. "serious collector." More to the point, I don't think you understood my point, so let me speak more plainly: you called yourself a collector when you...by your own admission...started bagging and boarding your books. What does one bag and board books for....? To preserve them, right..? Is there any other reason for bags and boards, other than to keep them from getting damaged? So, if you call yourself a collector when you started...by your own admission...to preserve them, and seek out others....how does that differ from the definition I gave...?

"Strict standard"...? Please look at your last sentence. "I'd call myself a collector once I was bagging and boarding..." Question: why were you bagging and boarding...? Maintenance...preservation...is part of being a collector. Several of the people arguing against that...including Stu, who has been banned hundreds of times from these boards, hates CGC with a passion, and has an ax to grind the size of Texas....are ignoring/dismissing that fact of collecting that has been around longer than any of us has been alive. People have been collecting for centuries, and if you don't make an effort to preserve your collection, to prevent it from experiencing further damage, then you're not collecting. You're doing something else. When people show off their collections, do they show them off in piles on the floor, or on their desks, the dog stomping on them, the kids throwing them back and forth to each other? Or do they show them in boxes, or showcases, or bookshelves, or framed on the wall...you know, in a manner that would prevent them, in the normal course of things, from being damaged? But, hey, by all means, you folks should keep arguing about that all you feel is necessary.

Stu didn't even get the gist of what I said correct. It's misdirection, sleight-of-hand, to pretend that he was covered by saying "basically." No, "basically", I never said anything remotely like that, in any sense of his suggestion. Most collectors are readers. Many readers become collectors. Most readers, however, are not collectors, and never have been. That does not mean...in any way...that I'm "basically saying that if you read your comics you're not a collector." That's not even remotely true. Stu is correct, though, when he says "no false misrepresentation" on his part. The reader can sort out that triple negative if they'd like.

Because you read but don't comprehend what you are reading? That would be my guess, based on your comments so far concerning his opinions.....and because you are you. Yeah, that's a good example of the deliberate, bad faith misrepresentation of people like Stu. Nobody said anything even remotely like he's suggesting. You can easily see the twist that he applies to invent something that no one said, and then argue against that. It's an easy Venn diagram. Not all readers are collectors. Not all collectors are readers. Some readers are collectors. Some collectors are readers.

Stu's post wasn't misrepresented in any way. In fact, it was Stu doing the misrepresenting. Look what Stu says here: "Before it was any comic, now its negligence vs accidental." But is that what I said? Let's look at what I said: Of course, then Stu and others respond with dishonest, bad faith questions like (I'm paraphrasing, here) "oh, so I guess if I spill my coke on them, or the cat pees on them, I'm not a collector, then, HUH??" No. "Well, if I display them in a heated, lighted room, I'm subjecting them to deterioration!" Yes, in a very broad sense, having them displayed in a heated, lighted room contributes to their deterioration, SLIGHTLY. Obviously, however, the damage is slight, and wouldn't manifest itself...with proper care...for decades. What is missed...as usual with Stu...is distinction. If you toss your books on the floor, stepping on them, letting the cat pee on them, tearing them to bits and shreds...you're not a collector. You don't have any respect for the physical copies you're supposedly "collecting", regardless of your regard for the stories therein. So, no, it is not "negligence vs. accidental" where "before it was any comic"...it was NEVER "any comic", from the time I first stated it. It's pretty simple: if you're a collector, you take care of your books, accidents or no. If you're not a collector, you don't, and leave them littered all over the floor for the cat to pee on. It's not about "condition", it's not about "grading"...it's simply about taking reasonable measures to prevent further deterioration (in whatever condition it was when you obtained it), and if you don't do that...you're not a collector. You're just a hoarder/accumulator/reader/whatever. And that conforms with the very idea of what a "collector" is. Not complicated. No qualifiers, nothing changed from the very beginning of that particular topic. Easy.

Yup. It's Stu.

It's in dispute because because you're wrong. Or to put it your way, you're probably not necessarily not not right. Sooooo....there's no difference between accidental damage, and damage as the result of negligence...? Interesting theory!

I'll wait for confirmation before reporting. If it's Stu, it won't be long in coming. If it's not...not a problem.

This is inaccurate.

There continues to be bad faith, dishonest commentary in this discussion, so let me further clarify: accidental damage is not the same as neglect. Accidental damage can happen to anyone. That's why it's called "accidental." Damage that happens as the result of negligence, of purposeful neglect, demonstrates that the person doesn't care about the items they purport to be "collecting", and thus means they aren't collectors. Hoarders, accumulators, readers, whatever...but not collectors, and there's nothing "narrow" about that. It's the underpinning of the difference between a "collector" and a "hoarder", for example. Did the cat pee damage occur because the comic was laying around where the cat could easily get to it...? Probably not a collector...... Frankly, that that is even in dispute is very odd.

Correct. It makes you a reader. None of the above activities necessarily makes you a collector, even if there's overlap with how a collector would behave. Are you Stu?

That is inaccurate.

Classic strawman argument. Irrelevant. via Imgflip Meme Generator

True, but that doesn't mean it's time well spent for others to indulge it.

No one's answered but you, and that only one book.

Good call. "Across the street" has come to imply "legitimate competition." It is not.

Is that Stu...?