RockMyAmadeus

That's your opinion. But if you "treat them like poop", let me ask...do you collect poop...? If the answer is "no", then you don't collect comics, either. Have you ever thrown out a comic because, during the course of your "collecting", their condition deteriorated...because of your activities...to the point where they were no longer readable, at least without serious effort...? If so, then you're not a collector. Accumulator? Sure. Collector? Not by anyone's realistic understanding of the term.

From Newsarama: "The family of Russ Heath has confirmed the comic book legend passed away Thursday evening at the age of 91 in Long Beach, California, after battling cancer. Born in 1927, Heath broke into comic books working on Western stories for Timely Comics (now Marvel Entertainment), including Two-Gun Kid. Moving on to horror and war stories, Heath worked for EC Comics for a time before co-creating the Haunted Tank at DC Comics and drawing the first appearance of the Losers. Heath’s illustrations were well known outside of comic books as well. Several panels of fighter jets from his work on DC war comic books were appropriated by Roy Lichtenstein for his paintings, including his works “Blam,” “Brattata,” and “Whaam.” Heath also contributed to Playboy’s comic strip Little Annie Fanny – even living at the Playboy Mansion for a brief period. Heath also worked in commercial art, illustrating battle scenes to advertise toy soldiers which ran in comic books for many years. Credit: Russ Heath In his career, Heath was recognized with a 1997 Inkpot award, a 2010 Comic Art Professional Society Sergio Award, and the National Cartoonists Society’s Milton Caniff Award in 2014. In 2009, he was inducted into the Will Eisner Comic Book Hall of Fame." I had the opportunity to get to know the crusty old guy earlier this year, for which I am immensely grateful. He lived about a mile away from where I moved last year, so I got to visit many times before he relocated to Long Beach in the spring. He was a kick in the pants, let me tell you. Thanks for letting me into your life, old fella, and I'll see you again.

Conflation of well known and classic covers is also caused by some covers being constantly and highly visible because the issue is important rather than the cover itself being anything special. Agreed. When you go to conventions, year after year, and see the same covers on display over and over again, it makes an impact that is indisputable.

This is inaccurate.

It is not an argument, it is a discussion and (was) a very interesting one...until some point. I'm using the word "argument" in its meaning of "a series of statements employed to determine the degree of truth of a conclusion." ...not in its meaning of "a heated exchange."

Indeed. As I noted above, it's not a matter of truth or correctness with a certain segment...it's about proving to everyone (and especially to self) that someone else is **wrong**...about an ESTIMATION, no less...so they can feel "right." "If so and so would just admit that they're WRONG"...when they don't even know or understand what the other party has said. If you don't grasp the basic principle of someone's position, how can you possibly know that they are wrong...? That's not good faith. And discussion with those types of personalities is fruitless.

While I generally agree with this, not every collector has an identical personality or equal resources. No, I understand, and that's absolutely true. I'll take "general agreement", because there are always exceptions.

I've given, at several points, how I define what a collector is. Understanding my definition...whether or not one agrees with it...is critical to understanding my ESTIMATION (not contention, as has been inaccurately repeated multiple times at this point.) If one refuses to acknowledge...again, whether they agree or not....the foundation of my argument, anything based on that foundation won't be understood, and will be dismissed. While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that can happen with the current discussees.

This is inaccurate (sentence above preserved for context.)

This is inaccurate.

I'll point to Lazyboy's example above, and counter with "not every copy was saved by collectors." I have things that I have saved for 30 years...not because I'm "collecting" them, but because they're not in anyone's way.

Precisely.

When people "reject" arguments that no one made, when people argue obvious exceptions as if they "disprove the rule", those arguments aren't rational, no matter how impassioned they may be, nor are they particularly honest. Discussing in good faith means giving the benefit of the doubt, listening to what the other party is saying, and making a sincere effort to understand where they are coming from, regardless of agreement. Inventing positions that no one took and then arguing against those, arguing exceptions...that's not a good faith effort. It's grandstanding to prove to everyone (and, perhaps most importantly, yourself) how "right" you are. If people clearly have no interest in operating in good faith, there is no common ground, utterly regardless of the issues involved, and such discussions become meaningless. Further discussion with those individuals yields nothing, and at that point, you walk away and disengage. You will never find common ground with such people.

Indeed, so convoluted as to be meaningless. The very premise isn't accurate, so everything built on that foundation is, necessarily, inaccurate. The issue isn't "condition"...it's preservation. If you don't seek to preserve your "collection" in a meaningful way...then you're not a collector. You're a hoarder. It has nothing to do with being "fixated on condition." It is a fundamental acknowledgement that if you don't PRESERVE your collection, then you are doing the OPPOSITE of collecting...and the items you purport to be "collecting" will be lost to attrition. It's foolishness to classify someone as a "collector" who makes no effort to preserve the things they claim to be collecting...it negates the very definition of the word "collector." "What are all these comic books strewn all over the floor?" "Oh, that's my collection." "Collection....?? I don't think that word means what you think it means."

What is that...is that...lutefisk....?

Irresponsible to a fault, and selfish. If it was really a mistake, there was nothing stopping him/her from contacting you immediately. I'd block, but eBay says that user name is invalid.

Maybe. Maybe not.

A collector would convince his parents that he took his hobby seriously, like that kid in that 1940s picture, cataloging, storing, and preserving them. Are they in heaps all over the floor? Then they're trash, and you're not a collector. Are they in a box that never got thrown out, but which you never looked at again after their initial purchase? Then you're not a collector. Are they neatly stacked in their own place, with some type of cataloging system, and systematic effort made to storing and preserving them? Then you're a collector. Very few are the parents who would throw something away that a kid takes an obvious responsibility for. Does that mean some mothers won't toss them out anyway? No, but it greatly reduces the risk of it. It isn't any one factor that determines who was, and who was not, a collector...it's all the factors listed above.

And having seen all the trailers thus far, I am not hopeful about this movie. It looks really silly, and the whole "talking to Eddie" that the symbiote does really ratchets up the silliness. It would have had much, much more impact if that voice were saved ONLY for when Eddie is Venom, talking to others. Having the symbiote talk to Eddie loses a ton if impact.

There is nothing "classic" about the cover to ASM #300. It's a good cover...but it's hardly classic, and it's hardly unique. THIS is a classic cover: Here's how you determine if something is a "classic cover" or not: 1. If it is impactful. If it made most people say "holy shnit. Wow." when it came out. 2. If it is well designed (this is the layout and use of space.) 3. If it is well executed (this is the quality of the linework itself.) 4. It's original - it's not an idea that's been done and/or seen before. 5. If it is easily understood by all who see it. 6. If multiple generations, upon first encountering it, have the same reaction. And it has to have ALL those qualities, not just some of them. Here is another classic cover: THIS is a classic cover: THIS is a classic cover: That doesn't mean it's not a historic cover...it is. But it's not a classic cover, and there's a difference. When it came out, the reaction to the cover wasn't especially strong. It was good, it was well done...but people's reaction was to the interior art...that's what made buyers say "whoa...what on earth is THIS now??" Here's the most important thing to avoid: do not mistake your personal nostalgic feelings for a cover for an objective analysis of what makes a "classic" cover. It's easy to do that...but it would be a mistake. Yes, I know people will disagree. Those who disagree, I would invite you to come up with your own definitions for what makes a "classic" cover and/or why ASM #300 would fit the bill.

It's too bad Spidey didn't make guest appearances in other mags very often in the 60s. Those crossovers would be epic. I suspect it was because other artists just couldn't/didn't want to draw him. Useless trivia challenge: Name the first time Spidey appears in the following titles (any appearance, no matter how trivial....but it has to be SPIDEY himself, not just his face on a balloon, picture, or t-shirt)...be careful...some of these are trickier than others..........mwah ha ha haaaa! Avengers - Captain America - Daredevil - Doctor Strange - Fantastic Four - Incredible Hulk - Iron Man - Journey Into Mystery - Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. - Silver Surfer - Strange Tales - Sub-Mariner - Tales to Astonish - Tales of Suspense - X-Men -

I hope you didn't catch anything when you bagged that one.....

Oh God...oh God, that's so sexy. Drool. (Yes, there's something wrong with me.)

Well. Ok then.