RockMyAmadeus

Agreed! What a beauty!

Giffen!

Me, too. I loved Boring Supes!

I dunno...the late 90s crash was pretty hardcore....

Good gravy.

No. Not the "same thing." Right...exactly!...which says..........? Comics fandom was NOT "large and developed by 1964"! 'nuff said. Right...comics fandom was growing and developing. No mystery here. Well, sure, if we use your definition of what a "collector" is....anyone who piled them up in the closet...then sure, there were a lot more than that. But if we go by the definition of an actual collector, rather than, say, an acquirer...someone who organizes them, seeks out what they're missing, cares for their condition, maintains them...then yes, perhaps that number is a tad bit smaller. 1,000? Ok, too small. Let's go with 2000, then. Still too small? Then let's go with 3000. I'm talking about collectors...not kids who rolled them up in their back pockets and then stuffed them under their beds so their moms wouldn't throw them out. If your "collection" is at risk of being thrown out by your mother....you're probably not a collector, and you certainly haven't convinced her that you're serious about your hobby....

First, the list dates to 1964 according to Schelly. Second, what I actually asserted is this, which went to the actual topic of this thread by discussing the relevant issue of the comparative scarcity of pre-1964 comics versus IH 181 (your desire to argue is what derailed the thread): Thank you for the correction. 1964, not 1965. And you are deluding yourself in your assertion that "my desire to argue is what derailed this thread." It was OUR...mine AND yours...desire to argue. You share as much of the "blame." And, yes, I think Jerry Bails' list of 1,600+ comic fans in 1964 is an indicia of a large and developed comic fandom. Another indicia is that fandom had grown to a point that publications like the NYT were running articles about comics and their value in 1964. Which had a profound impact on comic collecting, which is why Bob Overstreet said: And I respond the same way: what you see as indicating "large and developed", I think is pretty clear was "nascent and developing." You going to budge on that? No? Not give an inch? No? Then here we are. How many articles did the NYT publish about comics and their value in 1964? How about the entire 60s? All you've done is say "some collectors agree with me" and "other people who were there have said what I'm saying" and "so and so who collected then says the same thing"...that's not "oral testimony." It's hearsay. And if it's hearsay, then it's not "testimonial evidence." And if those people can't be impeached, that hearsay has little to no value. 'nuff said. "Turning point" means a change of direction, something different from what had gone before, something NEW. If it was NEW...it could hardly be called "large and developed", now could it...? 'nuff said.

As anyone can obviously see from the context of this entire discussion, that is obviously a rhetorical question, meant to address the EQUALLY absurd contention that those people only represented "the tip of the ice berg (sic)."

Yes, we never point out the fact that other people argue just as "incessantly", or discuss the actual merits of their positions...or even whether they're conducting themselves in an honorable fashion in the first place. No, none of that matters. If you can't post without attacking someone personally...regardless of how right you think you are...then you are the problem, not the person you're attacking. There is an ignore function for a reason. I HIGHLY suggest you use it. Pathetic. When you argue the person, you have lost...and so has everybody else.

And here's what's wrong with your response. The issue, as you claim it to be, isn't that there were NO people who weren't in "Who's Who", and thus your point is proven. That is your misdirection, your lawyerly "sleight of hand", your attempt to deflect from the actual point, which is this: your claim was that it was "the tip of the ice berg (sic)" Nobody disputes that the list is not exhaustive...but that's not the point. If the people in "Who's Who" were just "the tip of the ice berg (sic)" as you claim, then the mere existence of people not included in the "Who's Who" does nothing to illustrate the scope and breadth of how many of those other people there actually were...the "rest" of the iceberg. If the 1600+ people in Bails' address list were just a tiny fraction, a mere "tip of the ice berg"...then there ought to be mounds of documentary evidence that demonstrate that vast swaths of people who represent the rest of this so-called ice berg. And yet...there isn't. Which "contrary assertion"? You don't say. But to answer your question directly, which you have been unwilling to do for most of this conversation yourself, no, I don't think that, and no, I never suggested that. I DO, however, think a good deal of them were. How many? No idea. Were all the people on Jerry's address list collectors? Almost certainly not. But does 1600+ names on his address list in 1965 indicate a "large and developed comics fandom" as you actually asserted...? Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "large and developed." You are absolutely hellbent on making this personal, aren't you...? That is the universal signal for "I can't argue the facts, can't admit I'm wrong, and therefore I'll just argue the person." If you keep doing that, you are going to get this thread locked...no question. I am not "rejecting the experiences of others" in the slightest. I have quoted from the experiences of people like Bails, the Thompsons, Schelly, etc, the people who were actually there, and actually wrote about their experiences. You can't even provide quotes that do anything but vaguely support your notions in some ill-defined manner. I am rejecting your assertions. Nothing more, and nothing less. That you have consistently and persistently made subtly aggressive and provocative comments throughout this entire discussion, from start to now, has been mostly ignored by me. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. One of us has made a more compelling argument than the other. Which of us is that? I'm fine with you believing you have. Others can decide for themselves. But I can guarantee you one thing: I don't care if you disagree with me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't think the same can be said for you. I say the exact same thing to you. Word for word. And I won't do you the disrespect of saying things to you like "your ignorance is showing" or "your knowledge of comics history is appalling", among others. Do you think those statements make your argument stronger? They don't. Who, then, is trying to convince and impress whom...?

You have gotten multiple details wrong, even after being corrected on them more than once. I would ask you what mistakes you have "admitted", but that would be quite into the weeds, and ultimately pointless. You do not have a fidelity to the details. This is not a "conversation." This is a written format. Therefore, it's not difficult to edit your posts before you post them....unless, of course, your aim is to deliberately misrepresent what others have said. Just because it is a "message board" doesn't mean everyone here doesn't deserve your diligent effort, especially in a discussion where the details are critical.

I am free to judge you based on your words and conduct on the internet. Which is what I am doing. On the internet, you are what you type. Likewise. Glad we could find agreement somewhere.

Absolutely! I love a good debate. I never said otherwise. Where your error was was in claiming I liked to argue MORE THAN I liked to get to the truth. And that is 1. not true, and 2. something you have no business claiming about people over the internet whom you have never met, do not know, and likely never will. I'm guessing the answer to that is "because it's not true." Just a hunch. If you were interested in "the accurate history", you wouldn't have made the plethora of simple errors that you have...like "Golden Gate Comic Con"...along with the (deliberate?) misrepresentation of things I've said. After all...you did say "Because I'm largely doing this from memory. A message board is not a legal brief or a scholarly article. It is a conversation." If you're interested in accurate history, I'd suggest a much stricter fidelity to the details. That is your opinion, your spin, and I obviously not only entirely disagree...but I don't think, in this particular conversation, that you've added much for anyone to learn from. Like I said...if you don't own Bill Schelly's works on the beginnings of comics fandom, I HIGHLY recommend procuring yourself a copy of them. They are: "The Golden Age of Comic Fandom" (revised edition published in 1998.) "Fandom’s Finest Comics' Vol. 1 & 2 "Alter Ego: The Best of the Legendary Comics Fanzine" (with Roy Thomas) "Giant Labors of Love" "Comic Fandom Reader" "The Best of Star-Studded Comics" And "Founders of Comic Fandom " ...among others.

So, a total guess based on what some unspecified people said to you over the years...? Seems legit!

For a fanzine, staying in publication from 1961-1969 is a major indicia of success, In other words, "it was successful because it was successful." "Staying in publication" is an indication that it stayed in publication...nothing more. There are lots of things that stay in publication that aren't even remotely successful, merely because those that publish them want to publish them. Many comic books from the past and currently fit that bill. THAT is an actual indication of success. So, how specifically did RBCC's growth in size and sophistication indicate a "large and developed comics fandom" by 1964...? This is a cheap shot, not true, and indicative of the tenor in which you've conducted yourself this entire conversation. It's unnecessary, and adds nothing but rancor to the discussion. You'll find that, when I cited sources, I cited the WORKS and their AUTHORS...like Paul Lopes and Bill Schelly...from which the wikipedia articles got their sources. Tell me...do you own "All In Color For A Dime"? I do. Do you own any other references to the early days of comics fandom? I do. You'll also find...if you're honest...that you published a quote directly from Wikipedia, the quote regarding Shel Dorf and his 1-day (NOT 3-day) Golden State Comic Minicon: "as a kind of 'dry run' for the larger convention he hoped to stage." Absolutely...indicative of a young and growing comics fandom, rather than a "large and developed one by 1964", as you contended. Again with the deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. Why does no one else call you out on this...? Dunno. Here, again, is my EXACT QUOTE: That's not an assertion. So why do you keep claiming it is? Notice my qualifier? Comic COLLECTORS...not merely "fans", as you attempt to change it. If you cannot maintain the integrity of the discussion, there's no point in having it. They also probably weren't all collectors. But I digress.

You disputed my comment, the import of which was the same as the Overstreet quote. And, yes, Bob's quote says quite a lot about the scope and breadth of comic collecting pre and post 1964. I think that what Bob said, and what you said, are two entirely and completely different ideas. Again: "turning point" signals a new BEGINNING....not "large and developed." You're free to believe otherwise.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it's "obvious" that that was just the "tip of the ice berg (sic)"...? How do you know that didn't represent the entirety of comics fandom at the time? As I noted before, the Academy of Comic Book Fans and Collectors (ACBFC) had a roster of 90 members in 1963, but 2,000 members in 1965. However...just 56 people attended the first NY Comicon, 70-80 the first Detroit comicon....and 300 people at the Golden State Comicon in August, 1970 (aka "SDCC #1.") And...as asked before...we are talking about COLLECTORS...not just "fans." People who maintained a collection of comics, not just readers who then tossed them. We know there were hundreds of thousands of readers in the mid 60s...but how many of them were collectors? So, likewise...how many of those fans in Jerry's address book...1683, which sounds like the REAL number, as opposed to the "2,000" rounded off number...how many of those fans were collectors? Fans? Oh yes, lots. Readers? Lots and lots. COLLECTORS....? People who maintained their comics, sought out the ones they missed, and connected with others who did the same? Probably not so much.

That's the quote that derailed this otherwise fine thread. Perhaps the below quote from a AP article issued on or about September 30, 1980 (appearing in some papers under the headline "Prices Of Old Comics Prove To Be No Laughing Matter") might bring some sanity back to the thread: This is the conventional wisdom that caused me to state what I did in the first quote about the difference between pre and post 1964 comics. I've been hearing this conventional wisdom since I started collecting in the later part of the 70s. I don't think what Overstreet says here has ever been disputed in this thread, by anyone. But it also doesn't say anything about the scope and breadth of comic fandom. In fact, that quote says the opposite of what you are contending: a "turning point" would mean something new, something different, something not yet developed. It would be interesting to ask Bob what he thought of "comic fandom" in 1964, and what comic books he was referring to. He probably would have been referring to Golden Age material, not material that was a couple of years old by 1964. By the way...both myself and Lazyboy asked you a question, which I assume you've seen, but haven't yet had a chance to answer, about what "success" meant to you with regard to the Rocket's Blast/Comic Collector...? If you could respond when you have a moment, it would be appreciated. Thanks!

That's a valuable insight. I agree completely.

It's important not to forget that the Turtles...no matter how unique and ground-breaking they were...were neither the first "funny animal B&W", nor are they entirely original. They are a parody, specifically of Miller, more specifically of Ronin, The cover to TMNT #1 is a direct swipe of Ronin #1. While the Turtles became something far greater than Eastman and Laird could have ever dreamed, they weren't necessarily original....which is a hallmark of the Copper Age. "What...? There was all SORTS of original stuff in the Copper Age! RMA, you cray cray!" No doubt, but..the greatness of the Copper Age was built on taking what previous ages had done and developing them to their fullest potential. Don't believe me...? Who is heralded as the greatest writer of the Copper Age? If you say anyone other than Alan Moore, you're wrong. And Alan Moore's greatest work in the era....Swamp Thing, Miracleman, Killing Joke, Watchmen...all built on characters and concepts that had been created by others. New Teen Titans? Sure, half the team was new, but the other half was from the Silver Age. Did Frank Miller create something new, or did he create masterpieces built on what others had created? DD and Dark Knight, both old characters. His original stuff? Ronin was a flop. Sin City is great, admittedly, but Miller will be remembered for the work he did on other people's creations...and rightfully so. Both Secret Wars, and Crisis that followed it, while being innovative for being the first "company-wide crossovers", thematically dealt with old characters and concepts, particularly Crisis, which sought to bring together and streamline the cumbersome DCU. Animal Man, Sandman, Shadow, Fury vs. Shield, Wolvie, Punisher, many of the books and series that connected with readers and collectors were new twists on old characters...or, rather, old characters whose dormant potential was finally realized. It's like Haydn, and more specifically, Mozart. Mozart and Haydn didn't innovate anything particularly new...that fell to Beethoven 10-20 years later...but they took what had been developed by Bach, Handel, and Scarlatti, among others, and perfected it. So, while the 80s and 90s produced some great innovations in the artform, the stuff that is remembered, the stuff that made an impact, that defined the age, is the perfection of characters and concepts that were built by others. So, if you take that, and apply that principle to whatever work is being discussed, what is "Copper" and what is not becomes, I think, quite a bit clearer.

Okey dokey.

Someone didn't read the OP.

"Buy ONE, get the SECOND of equal or lesser value for 50% off!!!"

Tastes great!