RockMyAmadeus

Here, let's spoil so people don't feel they have to read it if they don't want to.

Congrats, and thanks for the info! For a dollar, I'd take it! A lot cheaper than the $15 I had to pay for mine. That's a great find...

I take it back...forgot all about Batman #436, which WAS second printed, and can be told by the green, rather than blue, DC bullet. It's not like I don't have 10-15 copies of them. You forget what you once knew. A 9.8 is going to be a tough beast to find. However...I'm pretty sure there's no 2nd print newsstand. I think that started with Spiderman #1 a year later. Man, Batman #436 is a magical issue for me. Year 3, Part 1.

Excellent! Where did you find it? Tracking information like this helps better understand how and to whom these might have been distributed.

Thanks J! Actually, Metarog or Shield-Agent would be the better guys, but both books are still unverified. They might exist...but they haven't been found. They *probably* don't exist.

Since you don't know what the book will grade, you should consider the value of the raw book. CGC will upcharge you if they feel the need, but they NEVER downcharge. So, if you say your book is worth $3,000, but it ends up being much lower grade...say you missed something, like a torn out page....then you won't have paid for a higher tier than the comic is actually worth. ....and there's nothing wrong with that. After all, you DON'T know what the book will grade, even if you have a good guess, so let them upcharge you if they want. And they will, and do.

Spoilered so that those who don't want to read it, don't feel like they have to.

I'm just going to point out again that the performance of an item has no meaning if that item cannot reasonably be obtained. If a Cap #1 could be bought for $16,000 in 2003 in 6.5...how many? Just the one. Right? So, ONE person could buy that copy. Nobody else could after it was sold. Maybe if you started throwing around silly money, but then it stops becoming an investment at some point. The arguments, then, that "this would have been a better investment than that" are moot when you're talking about items that cannot be obtained, that are functionally unobtainable. "Ahh, if only I had bought 10 Tec #27s in 2002!" Sure. But the vast, vast majority of people almost certainly wouldn't have had the opportunity to buy even ONE, even if they had the money. Hulk #181? No problem. You can buy 1,000 copies in the next week, if you have the money. Ten Tec #27s? FIVE Tec #27s? TWO....? Good luck. You could probably manage.

This is not really true. One of the reasons for the general scarcity of Indian Head cents from the 1870s, particularly the legendary 1877, is that the US Mint had an exchange program, mandated by the Coinage Act of 1873, wherein people could exchange cents and other minor coins (3 and 5 cent nickel, 2 cent bronze) for silver coins in equal value. This bloated Treasury stocks of these minor coins, which resulted in very little need for more to be made, which is why 1877 is a "proof only" year for both the 3 cent and 5 cent nickel, and why the cent is the lowest mintage until 1909. As well, many millions of "unsold" coins were melted, time and again, from lack of demand. In 1918, 270 million silver dollars in storage were melted down and most of the bullion sold to the UK, to prevent insolvency in India, via the Pittman act. And, of course, the great destruction of gold coinage, the result of Roosevelt's gold recall of 1934, resulted in a great many prohibitive rarities, including the eagles and double eagles of the 1930s.

Didn't see your edit. Proof?

Wait, somebody is trying to say that by 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions? Unreal.

You are confusing your conventions. What you are referring to is the Golden State Comic-Minicon, held on March 21, 1970. I do not know the number of attendees it had, but it was likely less than the 300 attendees that the Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") had later in August of 1970, which was a 3-day event. And 300 in 1970 is still a far cry from "way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" by 1966, as you claimed earlier. Again, you're not paying attention. The first "SDCC" drew 300 attendees; 500 was a casual estimate, as evidenced by my quote here: "when the first SDCC was attended by, what, about 500 people in 1970...?" in response to your "droves of fans" comment in 1964. As far as rebutting, I will heartily disagree, since 300 attendees to the THREE DAY Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") is about right for a nationwide estimate of about 1,000 collectors. Maybe 2,000, but I think it's pretty safe to say the number was NOT something like 10,000, or 100,000, or anywhere close to those numbers. The issue isn't the apparent incongruity, as you see it, but a mere difference of opinion as to what those numbers mean. Again: this is the result of a nascent (which means "just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential") comic fandom, not a "large and developed" one. Nobody said there were no comic collectors in Oregon, but you're ignoring factors that were important to the establishment of these early stores: 1. Many early stores, as retailers like Chuck Rozanski and the Schanes brothers have attested, were opened by comic book collectors themselves, not necessarily because the local collector base could support these stores financially (and, indeed, many of them went belly up in those early 70s); they were opened because those guys loved comics, and wanted to see if they could parlay that into a business opportunity. 2. These stores started to open up in the 70s...NOT the 60s. MUCH changed between 1965 and 1975, and even more to 1985. 3. Comics specialty stores, then AS now, did not sell only to collectors; they were an alternative to the newsstand, where readers who were NOT collectors could come and buy their comics, too. 4. By 1975 there were only a few dozen such stores around the nation. By 1980, that had ballooned to hundreds, and by 1993, that had grown to thousands. But none of that supports the idea that there was a "large and developed comic fandom", as you claim, by 1964, which you STILL have not defined. Not disputed, as I lengthily laid out in my previous post, except that you confused your one day event in "out of the way San Diego" with the actual 3-day Golden State Comicon, which had 300 attendees, as already mentioned numerous times. Again: NY Comicon had 56 attendees in 1964. I don't doubt that represents a "fraction" of the total collectors, but 9/10s is also a fraction. What became the Detroit Triple Fan Fair had 70-80 attendees in 1964. Obviously, that thoroughly refutes your claim that "(b)y 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions." Based on the actual number of attendees at the actual first "SDCC" (the 3-day event held in August, not the 1-day event held in March you are referring to), of 300, I'd say that the 1,000 number is a decent estimate of nationwide collectors. Maybe 2,000, but certainly not significantly more than that. This statement makes no sense as a reply to what I've said, and is a bit contradictory. It's unusual that a figure can be both "important" AND "forgotten." You're going to have to explain why "focusing on prominent personalities" supports your contentions, because I didn't claim that comic collecting wasn't egalitarian. I mention Bails, the Thompsons, Roy Thomas, and the like, because they were there, they chronicled comics fandom as it began, and were thus in a position to know and understand comics fandom, far more than most. As I mentioned before, you really ought to be putting, if not hard numbers, at least rough estimates, as I have done, to your claims. My estimates might be off...or they might not be...but I'm willing to put something down as to what I mean. "A lot" doesn't mean anything. None of that is disputed, nor has been disputed, EXCEPT what you mean by "a lot." There were certainly all of those types of people in the mid 60s. The contention isn't that they were...it's how MANY were. Yes. And I disagree because it is (mostly) incorrect. The 1965-present hoarding of NEW comics had nothing to do with collectors collecting, and everything to do with speculators hoping to cash in. It did not escape the attention of people that there were others willing to pay 25 cents, 50 cents, $1, even the unheard of $10 in 1965 for comics....like FF #1, and AF #15....that were just a few years old. There's a reason why 1968 Marvel #1s are so common, and that is it. But were those people buying those comics collectors? No, of course not. They were speculators, who had little interest in the artform, and were thus neither collectors, nor part of fandom. There are people TODAY who buy comics by the tens of thousands who aren't collectors, and could not care less about the artform. That was certainly true then, too. But that aside...because, yes, comics fandom...collectors who were interested in the artform, for the sake of the artform....DID GROW during the 60s, without a doubt. But did it "blow up"...? Well, the TINY handful of articles in the non-comics press about comics and comic collecting that appeared in the 60s says otherwise. It remained the niche area that it was...and people were still throwing out comics by the bin...until well into the 70s. After all...Church's children almost certainly threw out a good chunk of Edgar's comics before Chuck showed up...and this was in 1977! This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy. This is a common one on this board. First, let's just go with the assumption that these so-called "significant posters" side with you. Since you are the only one who has posted thus far in this discussion, you can't really make such a claim. Second...what makes someone a "significant poster"? Post count? Age? Time on the boards? Size and/or value of collection? Third...you've made some claims that are erroneous, such as the aforementioned "1-day vs 3-day" and the number of attendees at the 1964 NY Comicon (56, not "about 100.") What matters is what actually happened, the facts as they are. Something doesn't become more true (or less!) depending on the reputation of the person saying it. It's either true or it is not. As stated before, you are confusing your conventions, and misstating my comments. Let's recap: 1. There were 300 attendees, per the SDCC 40th anniversary con souvenir book (2009), at the first ACTUAL Golden State Comicon, which happened in August of 1970...NOT the Golden State Comic Minicon which occurred in March of 1970, to which you refer as "the first local gathering." 2. My quote was "first SDCC was attended by, what, about 500 people in 1970...?"...which, all things considered, was not too far off the mark for a casual question, as the actual number is at or around 300. 3. My second quote was ""If...and this is a gigantic if....there were 1,000 comic book collectors...I'd be very, very surprised." Now...there's one more piece of evidence I'd like to present, and that's this: https://comics.ha.com/itm/memorabilia/overstreet-price-guide-1-second-print-cover-only-overstreet-1970-condition-nm-this-is-an-original-cover-for-the-blue/a/808-4780.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515 That's a Heritage listing for an unused cover to the OPG #1 (2nd print) from 1970. The description contains this gem: ""This is one of the original covers of the run of 1,000 guides printed in 1970." is written by Bob Overstreet on the interior back cover, and it is signed by Mr. Overstreet below the inscription. " Now...granted, there's a bit of confusion. What is Bob referring to? The first print? The second print? Both of them? Nevertheless, Bob states that the original press run was 1,000. That's a pretty compelling number. There are factors involved, sure...but arriving at that specific number says something about the state of comic fandom at the time. I've been pretty gracious to you in this discussion, all things considered. I don't think it's too much to ask that you return the courtesy. I'll consider this last statement as much of a concession as I'm likely to get. I, too, hope that this conversations provides information that is useful to you. Meanwhile, we've hijacked the thread a bit (or, perhaps, the thread finished its natural course, who knows?), so let's get back to the census being high, if still active.

If Church was alive, I would absolutely have him sign his copies for SS. And I'm probably not alone. By JUST Church...and maybe Larson...maybe one or two of the other giants of pedigrees. Gaines and his file copies, for sure.

This really surprises me Rock. Figured you for a blue label on pre 1980 books, not sure why I thought that though. Lol. The first SS books I ever did were at the first signing by Frazetta in May of '08, done by chainnball...and that was an original Vampi #1 (1969) and the Harris reprint (2001), which was still technically of the book published in 1969. Quite the intro, eh? I was hooked. I love SS of all generations. Sadly, with Robinson gone, everyone asks ten trillion dollars for any of his SS GA Batmans. Sigh.

I completely do not disagree with this in any way.

Which is your opinion. I think the same of yours, so I guess that evens it out? My previous post was not meant to be an exhaustive dissertation on the history of comics fandom, but since you threw down the gauntlet, I'll take it up and reply with the following. Not disputed. I never said there weren't collectors of comics, even from the very beginning. Obviously, the famous pedigrees...Larson, Crippen, Wright, even Church, and many others...testify to that. I would refer you to the pedigree book, but my understanding is that that still hasn't been published. But your claim was a "large and developed comic fandom" by 1964...which, conveniently, you've chosen to keep undefined. Again, never disputed. Why do you think I referred to Jerry Bails in my previous post? You didn't say there were comic collectors...you said a "large and developed comic fandom" (emphasis added.) Those are two different, if related, things, Again, not disputed. I would refer you to Pop Hollinger, who had a great write up about him in OPG #12, who is considered by many to be the first comic book dealer. And Buddy Saunders sold a copy of FF #1 for 25 cents in 1961, mere months after it came out, 2.5 times cover price...quite a hefty premium for a nearly new book. You didn't say there were comic retailers...you said a "large and developed comic fandom." Funny, I was going to refer you to "All In Color For A Dime" myself in my last post, but it had gotten a bit long. SF conventions actually started in the mid to late 30s; 1936 or 1937, depending on who you believe. The "Second Eastern", a convention held in NY in Feb, 1937, was one of the first. Julie Schwartz, interestingly, was an attendee at that gathering. By the 40s, unlike your contention, SF cons had been held for a few years already. Lupoff's seminal "Xero"...along with "The Rocket's Blast", "Alter Ego", "ComicArt"...joined earlier fanzines, like Ted White's "The Facts Behind Superman", Bhob Stewart's "The EC Fan Bulletin", and were important in the establishment of comics fandom, but they were, by no means, part of a "large and developed comics fandom" by 1964. I would refer you to Bill Schelly's excellent work on the subject, "The Golden Age of Comic Fandom", for an in-depth study of the origins of comic fandom. You did see my mention of Bails and Don & Maggie in my last post, did you not....? I don't think you carefully read my previous post. How many people attended the first San Diego Comicon in 1970...? I was close in my estimate about the first SDCC: in fact, the Golden State Comic-Con had 300 attendees, in August of 1970. The first "New York Comicon" had 56...yes, that's FIFTY SIX...attendees, including George R. R. Martin. Again, I recommend Ballmann's "The 1964 New York Comicon: The True Story Behind the World's First Comic Book Convention" for more info on that. Do you have any proof of this "by 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" claim...? The Detroit Triple Fan Fair, one of the first regularly held conventions, had about 80 people at its first "appearance" (it wasn't called DTFF until the next year, when Bails and SDCC co-founder Shel Dorf, took over), on May 24, 1964. In fact, in 1966, the DTFF wasn't even held. Now...it bears pointing out that attendees of comicons...then as now...weren't necessarily collectors...though, of course, the majority probably were. But, how did these cons go...in two years, as you claim...from 56 or 80 people in 1964, to "way more than 1,000" by 1966...? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm willing to leave it up to the readers to decide which of us is showing what. But, do you have any proof there were "many more than 1,000 comic collectors" by 1964? Especially since A. my number was an estimate, "if there were more than 1,000 collectors....I'd be very, very surprised"...and B. I was referring to 1970, not 1964. No doubt, there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of comic book readers in the 60s...they were obviously being sold to people...but collectors? Those who purposely and carefully set aside back issues to save...? Not so sure. Again: first SDCC, the Golden State Comic-Con, had 300 attendees in 1970. Does that mean every comic collector showed up? Of course not. Does that mean that every attendee was a comic collector? Also no. They certainly did. And this demonstrates there were "many more than 1,000 collectors"...how? Bangzoom's thread is outstanding...but I would also recommend the publications I mentioned above, for some "frigging perspective" about the matter. Those, and others like it, are outstanding resources on understanding the niche history of comics fandom. I'm actually hoping to interview some early members of that community in a couple of months. A potential opportunity has come up. We shall see what comes of it. I'm excited! It really comes down to what you meant by "large and developed comic fandom." If that means, as you stated, there were "way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" by 1966, I think that is easily shown to be quite incorrect. If that means there were "many more than 1,000 comic collectors" in 1964....again, I'd have to ask where you come up with that number. My number is derived from comicon attendance, the actual number of comics specialty stores (as opposed to simply "used book" stores that happened to carry comics) in the 60s, and anecdotal evidence by members of that community who have written about it....and those numbers suggest a nascent and developing comic fandom in the 60s, which would not become "large and developed" as *I* (and, I think others) would call it until the 70s and into the 80s.

I broke that one off from overuse. No doubt. The real question, though, is why you're up at 2 AM on a Saturday posting on the CGC board... ...and why I'm up at 3 AM responding.

Are you an authority on losing...? How do you know? Did you survey everyone? You posted it on the CGC board, so it must be true.

Who said I was joking? You're not an authority on mom jokes, are you...?

Nobody's trolling you. And that statement makes no sense. You made a claim, here: No worries. Plenty of time to pump and dump I saw though. I asked you who you thought was "pumping and dumping", and what you thought they were "pumping and dumping." The answer to the second was "Robin." You have, heretofore, refused to answer the first. It's fairly straightforward. If you're going to make an accusation, you ought to be prepared to back it up. Otherwise, you should keep it to yourself. Pointing that out isn't "trolling." It's calling out a false accusation for what it is.

Me too! My mom laid out a whole case of pump and dump the other day. It was backed up with fact, too! Everyone's laying out pump and dump cases, backed up with facts. It's the latest rage!

I am not the reason for bringing anything up, no. However, you still haven't answered the question: who do you think is "pumping and dumping" Robin, as you claimed....?

I read it all, hot stuff. Say...is there any pumping and dumping going on here....? You never responded to my query about that in another thread...

Your point was that Hulk #181 didn't belong in the group with the other four books, since it was "not like the others." AF #15 and Hulk #1 "aren't like the others", and, in fact, are much, much CLOSER to Hulk #181 than they are Action #1 and Tec #27. You're going to have to define what you mean by "droves", when the first SDCC was attended by, what, about 500 people in 1970...? If we're talking "absurd", I think it's the idea that an undefined assertion of what constituted a "large and developed fandom" in 1964 would fit the bill. If...and this is a gigantic if....there were 1,000 comic book collectors (that is, people who didn't just buy new comics, read them, and toss them. I mean people who actively saved and preserved them, and/or sought out back issues) in the entire country of 205 million in 1970, I'd be very, very surprised. In reality, there were TWO starts to comics fandom...the first with EC in the early 50s, which essentially died with EC, and the second, which started in the early 60s, with folks like Don & Maggie Thompson, Jerry Bails, and Roy Thomas, among others. We're talking about people who number in the dozens. Not something I would call "large and developed." It took the Direct market and the rapid growth of what was called "the comics specialty store"...numbering a couple dozen in 1975 around the nation, to several hundred by 1980....to make that "large and developed comics fandom"...depending, again, entirely on what the words "large" and "developed" mean.

"RMA won't stop disagreeing with me and shut up like I want him to."