RockMyAmadeus

It seems to me that Robin #1, for whatever reason, is the most common of the three being discussed at the moment (Bats #457, Supes #50.) I do not know why this is...these are flukes that shouldn't exist. There simply was no mechanism in place for newsstands to order second printings, and the Spiderman #1 Gold was, from all accounts, a special request from Wal-Mart. I think I mentioned this before, but perhaps these were made the same way, for the same reason. To date, the other implied possibilities....Superman #53, Action #662, and a couple of others....haven't been made public if they exist. As far as speculating...as I mentioned earlier, these are so niche as items, it's doubtful more than 20-30 people in the hobby would ever want one badly enough to pay any real kind of money for them. But...they are the most interesting because, not only shouldn't they exist, but as a result of a confluence of factors (the sum of which was unique to these books, and that has guaranteed that they had very high attrition rates completely naturally, as opposed to the "manufactured rarity" of so many books right from the start) they occupy a very strange place in comics history up to that point. Those factors are as follows: 1. Despite initial demand, which is what prompted the newsstands reprints in the first place, all three of these books quickly fell in popularity. 2. In 1990, "reprints" such as these were considered the worst of the worst, with absolutely zero collectability. Nobody wanted them, and as a result, any people who bought them would have bought them to read, and likely thrown them out...if they were purchased at all. They were certainly not purchased knowingly by collectors, and the majority of copies obtained would have been treated well only by accident. 3. They are newsstand copies. That means they were fully returnable if they didn't sell, and they almost certainly were returned in large numbers. By the time whoever had them had to claim credit for them, the original books would have been 3-4 months old...long enough for all of them to have cooled substantially. 4. The last time any demand-based reprints had been issued was for Star Wars in 1977, and the Direct market was in its infancy. In the intervening 13 years, immediate demand for further copies would have been satisfied by reprinting the Direct market version, which, in fact, happened on several occasions (Dark Knight, Transformers, Ghost Rider #1, Ghost Rider #5, etc.) 5. If people really needed a copy, there were plenty of Direct market second printings of all three books available at local comic stores...which were ubiquitous in 1990...to find one. They didn't need to haunt a newsstand to hope more would show up, and, in fact, conventional practice guaranteed that once the initial copies sold out, there weren't going to be any more to be had. If you wanted one, the only shot you had was the comic store. 6. And, finally, nobody knows how many they printed in the first place, and, unlike Spiderman #1, which was followed by thousands and thousands of people, and as a result, became known very shortly after they made their appearance, these books quietly slipped under the radar, and vanished into the pages of history, unknown and unappreciated for at least a couple of decades, by which time it was far too late to launch any sort of mass acquisition campaign. I suspect not even DC still has records of these books being produced. It's been nearly 30 years, after all. Any one of these factors is enough to make the books hard to find, but all of them combined, and you have the scenario in which we find ourselves today: mainstream DC comics that have distinct versions that are prohibitively rare, and, despite a concerted effort to locate at least Batman #457 going back several years, has only succeeded in finding a mere handful...15-25 copies known, despite literally hundreds of thousands of still extant copies of the "regular version." That's pretty amazing, all things considered. We'll see how many more copies surface, but at these price points, if they're out there, they will be found.

Perhaps if you took a nicer approach, people wouldn't react to you the way they do. Perhaps, instead of accusing people of dishonest motives who 1. have no history of "pumping and dumping", and 2. have a long, well established history of scholarly interest in these areas, you might consider a more measured approach. It's certainly not an issue of form, as you imply here. Substance is miles more important than form. After all...the current discussion was initiated by you, and was accusatory from the start. What was preventing you from taking a nice approach to start with?

Hidden in an eBay listing.

That would be me.

Pump and dump, baby, pump and dump.

The blob is just a printer plate issue. Something broke, and allowed ink to pool. It's common. There are copies with it, and copies without it.

Good for you, Mr. D. You never compromised your principles. See you on the other side...

That is the correct definition, which makes your usage of it incorrect. I have no personal stake in the listing mentioned, nor do I have any expectation of financial gain in the matter. I do not care if you believe me or not; I merely wish you'd stop making hay of it.

You expect people to swallow this bullcarp? Worst backpedal ever. Look, "Stu Cathell", who has been banned from this board since, what, 2004?...making up his, what, 733rd? 734th?...new "user id" to take a shot at people and things he doesn't like. And he expects people to swallow his "bullcarp"...? No, he's a liar, and his motive is simple spite. He doesn't believe what he's saying...he's just taking advantage of what he considers an opening.

You really need to ask yourself at what point does something become so niche that you don't need to suspect the motives of people interested in it. I would imagine your answer is "never", but some of you have a hypercynical view of things. Sometimes, a spade really is just a spade. If there was an attempt to "pump and dump", as it has been accused...why was the first sale...the $117 sale...not highlighted here...? Shouldn't that have been...ya know...MENTIONED if there was a "pump and dump" effort going on...? Especially after the bidding on the book far exceeded the value of a regular copy? Some elaborate coverup, I imagine...or, it could just be that not everyone is secretly out to get everyone else. It could simply be that people who are 1. interested in the book, and 2. in a better position than most to know about the relative scarcity of such a book, are interested in the number of extant copies for scholarly reasons, rather than hidden financial motives. Nah, couldn't be that. You can't "pump" if there isn't anything to "dump." "Ygogolak" makes a big effort to claim that going from "7 known copies" to "double that" is some big pump and dump conspiracy...for a book that, in the regular edition, was printed to the tune of 200k-300k copies, and has over 100 different examples for sale right now on e bay...think about that: the "7 known" manages to double in a few YEARS, and that is somehow a "pump and dump" conspiracy...? They are freaks of nature. They shouldn't exist AT ALL. That we are discussing books that would be Gerber 9s and 10s should be your clue that there are easier targets to "pump and dump." Time to take off the tinfoil. Not everyone is out to get you.

Remember when this was a "thing"...? Man, the old days...

It does. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened.

That's where the whole context of the pump and dump originated and the whole discussion. You didn't answer his question. Like, at all. It's pretty simple: if you're going to accuse people of dishonest motives....that is, "pumping and dumping"...you'd better have evidence to do so.

The survey was taken among people who would be in the best position to know. Myself, Kirk, etc. Or do you not know that I'm the one who discovered and documented the existence of the book in the first place....? Your comments continue to demonstrate that you don't understand what this book, and books like it, are. Nothing has been taken out of context, and you are inaccurately using the phrase "vested interest." Again, just because YOU have dishonest motives, doesn't mean everyone else does, too.

As per the usual, you're inventing straw men, knocking them down, and claiming victory. Nobody said anything to the contrary. Follow along, now. Do you actually know what statement I made...? Because heretofore, you keep repeating something I never said, and pretending it means the same thing as what I actually said.

Wrong.

I already explained it, in great detail, above. I'm not going to explain it again. That you have the chutzpah to ask what you have done that is dishonest and then, in the very next breath, repeat something that nobody said, demonstrates the point. Nobody said there are four copies of a book. Ever. At any time.

Inability to recognize distinctions that completely change the meaning of a concept. It's unfortunate that so many people, when they have no rational argument, fall back to the "semantics defense." 99% of the time, that defense is used because the person using it doesn't have a valid counterargument, and lacks the ability to explain their own position, so when they misrepresent what you say, on a material point, and you correct them, they accuse you of "semantics." Let me explain it again: "There are only 4 copies" "There are 4 known copies" ...are two completely different, separate statements, expressing two completely different ideas.

Just because YOU have dishonest motives, doesn't mean everyone else does, too.

Oh, I see. You're accusing ME of "creating false hype" and "pumping and dumping". You're making things up for your own motives, and the posts are still right there for all to read. This quote of yours is false: "stating that there are only 4 copies of a comic book." Nobody said that. Nobody said anything like that. That is a dishonest misrepresentation. As far as "creating false hype" and "pumping and dumping", do you have any evidence...at all...of me doing that, here or anywhere? Just because YOU have dishonest motives doesn't therefore mean everyone else does. This is called "false-consensus bias." Look at the post that contains that quote. Then look at the QUOTE from Cpt. Kirk IN that post. You will find a LINK there to the auction which contains the statement. It's all right there. Right in front of you. But you can't be bothered to do even basic research before accusing people of "creating false hype" and "pumping and dumping." It is dishonest and completely irresponsible. You are remarkably dishonest. No one said that. Let me say that again: no one said that. No one said "I think there are four copies." Do you know what the word "known" means? It carries an implication, which is that there are copies which exist, but that are currently UNknown. See how that works? Again: just because you have dishonest motives does not therefore mean that everyone else does, too. It would be nice if you kept such inflammatory opinions to yourself, unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary. The live auction going on is Cpt. Kirk's. Not that it is any of your business, but I own a single copy. I have zero intention of selling it, and, in fact, would like to obtain more copies. If you think this is some sort of "long con", that I'm secretly creating "false" hype (you don't explain the difference between "false" and "true"; you never explain such things) for the future...well, I guess you can watch and see, huh? Maybe if you spent more time having honest, good faith conversations, clearly explaining what you mean, instead of making oblique Twitter quips, you'd have more to contribute here.

Creating false hype on a live auction by stating that there are only 4 copies of a comic book. Just like when this thread was started there were "7 known". Now there are twice that and that's the ones that we know have come to market to be sold. Pretty much the exact scenario of a pump and dump. 1. Pay attention. That's not what Kirk said. 2. You're accusing Kirk of "creating false hype"? SUPER Classy. 3. You do not understand what "pump and dump" means. Since you have a long-standing habit of dismissing good faith efforts to reason with you, I'll leave it to someone else to educate you.

Just like the 7 copies of Batman #457. Puuuummmpppp and duuuummmmmppppp. This comment makes no sense.

Maybe a little perspective is needed? if the book linked is the book in this thread, nobody made any money on this transaction. In fact, when all costs are considered, it's almost certainly a loss. That's not the buyer's fault or responsibility...but obviously no one is switching books or tampering with cases at this price point. Interestingly enough, the UPC suggests this is a variant, but the label does not mention it.

For a book bought from a dealer in 1981, to then grade 9.2 decades later...that's pretty amazing. Most such "mint" books grade in the 6.0-7.5 range.