RockMyAmadeus

The Venom trailer still looks like garbage.

Not intentional. The opportunity to own them when they were relatively cheap never came up.

Depends on what you mean by that. As abundant as the monster print runs of McFarlane's Spiderman, or Jim Lee's X-Men, or Superman #75 or Batman #500? No, not even close. As abundant as New Mutants #97 and #99? Yeah, right about. But New Mutants still didn't come close even to Uncanny X-Men at the same time.

The only way to know for sure would be to have a Diamond retailer account, which will tell you. I don't know how well this information is maintained going back, but I would imagine Lonestar (Mycomicshop), since they had retail shops until 2013, has maintained their Diamond account, and their database, recording each incentive as they go.

Yes, all the gold Spiderman #1s are second printings, UPC or not, and will say that in the indicia, unless someone has messed with it.

I've had plenty of bid retractions as a seller. Doesn't bother me a bit. I would much rather someone retract a bid than win an item and change their mind. FAR rather. I think you got good clean bids last time. But hey, what do I know?

I mentioned that several of his Catwoman covers have a distinctly Audrey vibe to them, and he chuckled and said "yeah...that's no accident."

Prove it.

Does a lion like raw meat...?

They're both first prints. Youngblood #2 and #0 had two different versions, printed at the same time, both first prints. The print run wouldn't have been too big; the run for #1 was estimated to be around 800-900k.

Don't mind me, I'll just pick my jaw up off the ground. First time for everything! Well...sorta. Why, thank you! Do I get a chip, like in AA? Not sure why that means anything, but ok. I'm sure I'll have another one, soon enough. Hey, what's your eBay user name, so we can see how many bid retractions you have....? (pssst...bid retractions aren't that big of a deal....)

Perfectly normal.

At the risk of sending poor "Stu Cathell" into further absolute fits of apoplexy and rage, you are mistaken. That number merely represents the number of bid retractions the bidder has had in the last 30 days. Here, I'll make a handy picture, so all can see: This is the 28 feedback underbidder in the auction currently being discussed. Here is what a bidding history page looks like with a retracted (and cancelled) bid: Notice, the retracted bid contains the scrambled user id, and amount, and the time of both the original bid and its retraction. That listing is for the Spawn #185 9.6 currently being discussed elsewhere, and said bidding history can be found here: https://www.ebay.com/bfl/viewbids/153094753648?item=153094753648&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565 Here, then, is the bidding history for the Robin #1: See anything missing there...? Right. NO retractions or cancellations to be seen. Here's the bidding history page: https://www.ebay.com/bfl/viewbids/163133148040?item=163133148040&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2565&rmvSB=true&rmvSB=true And hey, look what I just noticed: the high bidder, who backed out, was also the FIRST bidder! Whaddya know, plot thickening devices all over the place!

That's a major part of it, too. Diamond's "monopoly-that-they-claim-isn't" has a stranglehood on the flow of print comics. Back in the 80s, when you couldn't wave a stick without hitting a distributor, there was a lot of competition, and it worked well. Since the Distribution Wars of the mid 90s, with the eventual winner Diamond, you can't distribute comics anywhere if you're not Diamond. Foolishly shortsighted. One more brick in the wall.

I dunno. Nobody cared enough even to watch it once.

Being too cheap is what caused everyone to drop them in the first place. If there's no money in them, what distributors or retailers are going to want to deal with them? But they've circled the drain of ever-spiraling prices to an ever smaller customer base. That doesn't work. They're more expensive than the rate of inflation would suggest. Maybe tie it back to that. Actually, just creating quality entertainment for a reasonable price, and printing enough to satisfy normal demand would work wonders, rather than relying on gimmicks. I hope that DC is printing a boatload more to head out to Walmart, to drive the speculators out of business. Think about it...what if Hollywood started making films that had 10 different endings, and you had to see it 10 different times...and pay for it 10 times...to see them all? Actually...scratch that, that might be a billion dollar idea. ™™™!!!

It is the decades-long treatment of comic books as collectibles first, and entertainment second, that the comics shop community created, fostered, and encouraged every step of the way that led to the decline of the Direct market. It's why even mainstream DC and Marvel comics struggle to sell 50,000 copies a month, in a nation of 325,000,000 people. Readers are going to tolerate seeing "sold out" signs before a store even opens on new comics day only so long before they give up in disgust, and that's exactly what has happened. Speculation is fine if people are ordering before FOC. Having speculators comb your store, grabbing up every available copy AFTER that is foolish and shortsighted. That, combined with the Museum attitude that many stores have...that is, they're showcasing what they own, rather than pricing at realistic prices, the unrelenting drive to get the highest price possible for every single item...and being mortally offended when anyone asks for any type of discount, treating people who spend money no better than those who don't...goes a long way towards explaining why stores fail. I spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on comic books. I haven't spent more than $500 in comic book stores since about 2011. And I'm not alone. Comics specialty stores had their chance...perhaps it's time for a new model.

Please don't throw them away. If that was the intent, I'd be happy to take them. THANK YOU for documenting them!

What do you think the word "artificially" means...? Hint: it means they don't intend to purchase the item if they're the winner. If they DO purchase the item, guess what...? A real transaction, for a real price, has occurred. And eBay needs to update their policies. Unless something has changed VERY recently, "search standing" hasn't been affected by number of bids in well over a decade and a half...maybe more. Remember the "hot" listings that would show up at the top of all search pages, with the little flames in the title? Any listing with 30 bids got that. They did away with that easily manipulated practice a long, long time ago.

I think, based on the evidence, that the high bidder isn't being completely honest with you. I can't prove it, but that's what I suspect. But I totally understand your unwillingness to make waves, and I probably would have done the same thing. But I also suspect that the comments by people here influenced that decision, and I don't think that's fair to anyone, and needs to be said. After all...who's to say the high bidder isn't the one who was shill bidding...? Consider this equally plausible scenario: the high bidder has one to sell waiting in the wings, unknown to all but them. They see the listing, notice the pattern that Mr. 28 feedback has of driving up the bid, and they place what they consider a worthwhile value on the book, knowing the 28 guy will probably bid it up. So they bid, Mr 28 comes along, bids it up, they get excited and put in ANOTHER, even higher bid, hoping someone drives it up some more...and when they win, they back out...except now the book has an established "high" price, which they can then use to justify their selling price in a week, or a month, or even two. And because the high bidder backed out, there's MORE evidence for the high bidder being a shill bidder than there is for the underbidder. Is this the case? I doubt it. I suspect both bidders were acting in good faith with their bids. But there's no way to prove it either way, and that's the real issue: making accusations of shilling when there's little evidence of it. Multiple bids is not evidence. Multiple bids up to and just under the high bid is SOME evidence, but not very compelling. The fact that the underbidder didn't return to try and expose the new high bid, with a little less than 2 hours left on the auction, is fairly compelling evidence that they weren't shill bidding, but just driving up the price, which is a perfectly legitimate practice. Without proof, or very compelling evidence, accusations of shill bidding should be made with caution, not tossed around with abandon, as they have been on this board in recent years, driven by, I suspect, the entitled attitudes of some people who think it's not fair that other people legitimately drive up the prices of things they want. They stomp their feet and cry "SHILL BIDDING!!" when it's not. To that, I say: tough noogies.

I would have kept it until such time as their actual scarcity was determined, which could take many years (a la Maxx Ashcans.) I have absolutely no problem with "protecting my investment", either, even though some take issue with that and erroneously refer to it as "pumping and dumping."

Your definition of the word "insult" is overly broad, and includes statements which are not remotely insulting, but, by that "definition", would include your retorts and comments as well, Worse, you've implied suspect motives on my part with your "how convenient" comment, which I have not done to you. But if you mean it, that this conversation is over...a conversation I wish never started...I would be thrilled.

Practice literacy.