RockMyAmadeus

True, this is speculation (which I've been pointing out this entire conversation.) Here's a great review of the book by Greg Turner, which includes (probably) a comment from co-organizer Bernie Bubnis: http://gobacktothepast.com/fabulous-find-1964-new-york-comicon-book/ If that is really Bernie Bubnis...and I don't have a reason to doubt it....then this line by him is telling: So, by that, I'm guessing it wasn't really that important to them, either before or after.

i'd imagine their hands were very full at the time. Come on, now....too full to count the small number of people in the room....?

Sure. But not important enough to record it precisely, right...?

To try and include the 12 year old kid whose comics were not organized, not cared for, and which were under constant threat of being tossed out by mom as a "collector" is ridiculous. But at least you understand the broader point I'm making, whether you agree or not.

I had that one!

Because it's likely there were more...? I find it interesting, and worth noting, that even though Ballman's book goes into some depth about the planning of the con, even going so far as to reprinting the entire con program, there's still some question about exactly how many people attended. That tells me that 1. it wasn't really that important at the time, and 2. what constituted an "attendee" may not have been exactly precise.

I've defined what I mean by "collector", and if other people have different definitions, they have different definitions. I don't define a kid (12 and under) who buys comics and gathers them by virtue of not throwing them out to be a "collector." That doesn't mean a kid couldn't be a collector...but most kids were not. I didn't collect comics as a kid. I collected coins. I started when I was 10. My parents approved of my hobby, and encouraged it. My coins were never in danger of being spent by them because they were "just pocket change, cluttering up the house." I purchased Whitman folders and systematically cataloged and organized my collection, seeking out examples I didn't have, and finding and gathering with other collectors to talk about them. If someone is going to understand the larger point I'm making, they have to understand...they don't have to agree with...but they at least have to understand where I am coming from. Edgar Church was a collector. So was Lamont Larson. Pop Hollinger, on the other hand, was not. Neither was Stan Lee. Bill Gaines might have been a collector, or he might just have had a long view of history, when he set aside his EC file copies. I doubt he looked at them in the interim between filing them in 1950-1955, and showing them to Bob Overstreet and Russ Cochran, 40 years later. I don't classify someone who files something away and never looks at them again to be a "collector." If your definition is different, whoever you are, I have no problem with that. But if you're going to understand where I'm going from, and not call me "insane", or "lunatic", or "crazy", as some have done, then you need to understand my definition...even if you don't agree.

Is that what Bob said..? Or did he say "in 1973 I lived in Yonkers, NY"...? There wasn't any fan literature at the time for him to appear in. "Appearing in fan literature" is a tiny, relatively unimportant part of the argument. Jerry Bails used to write to the pages of JLA under different names, to see how many Julius Schwartz would publish. Is there ANY letter in JLA #4 that is NOT from Bails under a pseudonym...? I know pointing this out might be offensive, but that statement is speculation. As far as there being a thriving "anonymous" community of collectors in the late 50s, I'll post this picture: and this one: and this one: ...and also point out that there was a very real backlash against comics in the mid 50s, reaching all the way to the Congress of the United States, that nearly destroyed the entire industry, and certainly destroyed EC. ...but there were hundreds, maybe thousands, of anonymous collectors out there, just waiting for fandom to organize itself...? I'll take "unchallengable statements for $1,000" Alex. As stated before, "ginormous" print runs doesn't mean "comic collecting was in full force (whatever "full force" means) by the late 60s." 1. Readers formed the vast bulk of the purchases of comics in the 60s. Readers don't today, and didn't then, usually translate into collectors. 2. Speculators...seeing what the really "old" comics of the 30s and 40s were worth, AND that virtually new comics like FF #1 and AF #15 were selling for as much as $10 (!!!) by the mid 60s, wanted to cash in. Speculators don't today, and didn't then, usually translate into collectors. Walt Disney's Comics & Stories had SALES...not print runs, SALES...in the MILLIONS in the 50s, if the reports published in Overstreet and elsewhere are to believed (and there's no reason to doubt them.) Do those "ginormous" print runs mean comic collecting was in full force by the early 50s? Captain Marvel was such a huge seller in the 40s, National (DC) went to great lengths to put Fawcett out of business...which they eventually succeeded in doing. Do those "ginormous" print runs signal comic collecting being in full force during WWII...? And why does a statement like "there were way more than 1,000 collectors attending conventions by 1966", when there's absolutely ZERO evidence of such a thing, get a complete and total pass...? I look forward to continuing a good debate, without the personal commentary.

Horace sounds like Jeff Goldblum...

I remember that episode, too! Scared the bejeezus out of me! Fun fact...apparently, that was Andre the Giant...or, Andra if you prefer... Anybody wanna peanut...?

The "White Shadow"....? Something tells me that would never fly in today's world.

Both Wolfman and Perez have mentioned the fact that the New Teen Titans is the property that still pays them well, to this day. Good negotiation.

That's just bizarre. And they charge you if you don't want it...? Silly eBay. Is there going to come a time when eBay dictates the prices you can ask for your items? Seems to be the next logical step. "Our records show that that X-Men #37 has a market value of $20. Your asking price of $60 is much too high. Here, we'll fix it for you."

I'm not complaining about people arguing. Never have, never will. THAT is the real difference. Your contention is your opinion. This meme, this trope, that I "rarely, if ever, accept I'm wrong" is easily disproven nonsense. First, it's never noticed that the opposing side doesn't, either, or there would self-evidently be no argument, and second, it happens all the time...you just don't pay attention, because there's no drama involved. It happened in this very thread, and I thanked the person for the correction. One more time: if you don't like what someone posts, or how they post, or why they post, that doesn't give you the right to bash them about it. There's an ignore function. You should use it. When there's someone whose "style" I don't like, I don't sit there and bash them over the head publicly about it. I quietly put them on ignore, and move on with my day, never interacting with them again (unless they interact with me.) This isn't difficult. And yet...apparently it is. When the discussion is personal, everyone has lost. Nobody cares about this interpersonal nonsense, except the people who feed on drama.

Really...? Posting and proves that when he sees a superior argument he tends to admit it...? Interesting theory. But continuing to doesn't make anyone's case. Either you accept "arguing", and everything that goes with it...or you don't. You don't get to complain about it, and then continue to engage in it yourself. Pick one or the other. But you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Fun rule...

You win. I surrender. I can't take on multiple people who openly complain about people arguing, can't resist continuing the argument themselves, and fail to see the incredible irony therein.

Oh, man....

"I'm not arguing. You are." If you don't like the way someone posts, you have a few options: 1. ignore them; 2. report them to moderation, then ignore them. What you DON'T have the right to do is play board police and imagine you speak for "the rest of us." How someone else posts, what someone else posts, how often someone else posts is none of your business. There's a report button for a reason. There are people I don't like. I don't sit and complain about them. I ignore them. Problem solved.

Funny how that happens, huh? And no one ever comes back to say "oops."

That would have been a dream come true. What I wouldn't give to be able to talk to Phil about so much.

You hammer people for "arguing", then you argue. Pick one.