RockMyAmadeus

You will not find the "pictures" regulation in the DMM. That form pictured above is a personal interpretation of the regulation. You'll find no such language in the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) and the DMM is the only document which carries any regulatory weight with the United States Postal Service. Until and if the DMM addresses the issue, all such "bulletins", even if from the Postmaster him or herself, carry absolutely no regulatory weight. Notice the contradiction and interpretation: "books consisting wholly of reading matter." Whoever made that interpreted "reading matter" as written matter, text...like what you're reading right now...but the regulation itself doesn't define what "reading matter" is, and you can "read" comic books, can you not? And....notice what it says for comics: "predominantly pictures." So? What are movies...? Do you read much watching a movie...? Not unless it's in a foreign language and subtitled. But DVDs containing movies are perfectly allowed. And, while this is certainly out on a limb, written language is nothing more than pictorial symbols that represent sounds and concepts... Oops. I inserted a picture. Guess this post wouldn't qualify... Again, it's just more bureaucratic interference and interpretation, meant to control and restrict. It's nonsense.

You've not seen me "lose" the argument. You don't "lose" an argument just because others state their disagreements. That's not how argumentation works. You've seen people merely express their opinions. The only way to "lose" such an argument would be a court ruling. The argument I have presented, and continue to present, is a solid legal argument. If you disagree, you disagree...but you are merely stating your opinion, as I am mine. That doesn't make your argument "more valid", nor is it "misinformation" when the regulation concerning the matter is....quite obviously...open to interpretation. I do not "encourage" people to ship via this method. However, I also am not in favor of bureaucrats imposing their own personal interpretation of regulations that are not clear. This has all been gone over, in great and lengthy detail, before. It's all about choice. What is your reasoning for DIScouraging people to ship via this method? "It's in the rules" is obviously not a valid argument, for the reasons I have laid out.

This thread delivers! If I read it in 30 minutes or less, is it free...?

Despite what others have said here, if it's not in the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), it has no meaning to the USPS officially. That includes the "guidelines" printed above. These are mere differences of interpretation, and always have been. Until and unless it is specifically addressed in the DMM...and there's no reason it can't be; e-commerce has been going on for 25 years or so....then it is still a matter of interpretation, not "following or breaking the rules." Since the pages in comics that originally contained advertising no longer do, they are valid to ship via Media Mail per the DMM. And the solution, for those who disagree, is simple: don't use that service. Problem solved.

That's because it, and others like it (JLA #69 4th, MOS #20 2nd, MOS #18 4th & 5th, Superman #77 3rd, AOS #499 "3rd", etc.) weren't ever solicited or sold to comic shops. The only place they were available were in collectors packs; most usually the carded 2 or 3 packs that DC made during the mid 90s. You could also find them, perhaps, in the 20 pack bricks, or the boxed sets, but usually (exclusively?) they were only found in collectors packs.

I wish I was collecting in 1986. It would have been such a thrill to see an entire display with nothing but 25th anniversary covers.

Someone is putting together a 9.8 SS set...

Stormwatch Vol 1 #37-50, vol 2 #1-11, Wildcats vs. Aliens, and the Authority #1-12 is one of the best runs in comics history, and that's saying a lot. I'll definitely have to look for these. Warren Ellis has always been a fantastic writer, and I'm sad he doesn't get the due of a Millar or a Morrison, and he is their equal.

That is correct. All the signed copies of Spiderman #1 came with that store stamp, which CGC recognizes. Todd won't sign in that spot anymore. Just the original copies were signed there.

No, eBay is not "the wild." HOWEVER...if something is easily found on eBay, it tends to negate the point of the thread. "I can't find a single issue of Spectacular Spiderman #1 "in the wild", but there's 50 copies for sale on eBay." The reason there's not a lot of discussion is simple: too many people, too invested in their own realities, are too easily offended by anyone and anything that challenges them in any way, and they subsequently react negatively, making it unpleasant for all but the troublemakers who get off on conflict. Combine that with a generally declining willingness to read anything much longer than a tweet, and you have the result we have here: people both utterly unwilling to have discussions themselves, and also utterly unwilling to allow anyone else to have them, either. The answer is to not take things personally. So someone thinks your books aren't hard to find. So? Does that hurt you in any way? Is that a character attack or personal smear on you? No and no. Criticism is the way to life. Those who surround themselves with people who always tell them what they want to hear eventually die inside. Being challenged on what you believe, and why you believe it, gives you the opportunity to examine yourself, strengthen that which stands up to scrutiny, and discard that which doesn't pass muster. It's why I appreciate people who will challenge me. I may not always LIKE it (who does?), but I appreciate it nonetheless. They'll tell me when they think I'm full of horse droppings. They may not be right....and some of them are right far oftener than others...but the challenge forces me to make sure I'M right, and not just lazily passing along the same misinformation that people pass on because no one challenges them. In our way too easily offended society, we've lost the ability...if we ever had it...to deal with criticism properly, instead running to authorities to make the bad people be quiet. I would love to live in a world where everyone fawns upon my every word, and no one ever challenges me on anything. Wouldn't we all? But that's not reality, nor would I want it to be, because that way lies tyranny and despotism.

I don't speak for him, but that's not what he said. You're making an argument from emotion, rather than reason. This thread has morphed from a "books you can't find" to "look what I found!"...there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the point of the thread, ultimately. Very few of the books you posted are that hard to find in the wild. They're pretty common on eBay, too. But what it really comes down to is this: if you think they're hard to find, instead of getting mad at criticism, why not make your case for why you think these books ARE that hard to find? People can agree or disagree, but getting annoyed at people doesn't produce anything of value.

I am absolutely in sync with your last paragraph...those are my positions throughout the discussion. I think we're talking about it, not because it isn't straightforward, but for the very simple reason that some segment of the comic collecting world is trying...for reasons of their own...to reclassify "first appearances" as the first time any character appeared in print, in any format, regardless of the source and regardless of the intentions of the publishers, redefining previews and ads as "actual appearances", despite the lack of sequential art that is the foundation of the artform. That is the fundamental problem. An ad in Previews magazine, for example, showing Rick Grimes on the cover of Walking Dead #1...several months before it was published...and the logotype for the title hadn't even settled at that point...that is now being pointed to as "the real" first appearance of Rick Grimes. Such way lies madness.

Understood. As someone who is fully aware of the ongoing harassment, and the things said to and about members here, I know you can appreciate my concern about any appearance of official sanction of such activity, which I agree is ridiculous. Thank you for clarifying.

The OPG imposes all sorts of rules, front cover to back. Just sayin'.... Even a "glossary" is an imposition of rules, after all. Can you name any exceptions...any at all...to the originality concept...? You know, where a story has appeared that was entirely original in comic book format (ie, not a magazine that was later reprinted into comic book form), that is NOT considered a "first appearance" if the story contained appearances by characters that had never appeared before...? It's fairly straightforward. Original story and art that contains an appearance by characters not seen before - first appearance. Not original, destined to be printed somewhere else - not first appearance. All the "muddling" doesn't change any of that. You put the books in question in publication order, and find the original work. DONE. That's the first appearance.

What about it? You quoted the post which has the explanation. The pages are from Preacher #1, and aren't original to the Preacher Preview. Therefore...not a first appearance. Just another exception to what? Value doesn't determine anything but demand against supply. The first appearance of Jesse Custer, Tulip, and Cassidy is Preacher #1. "The Market" has spoken...? Yeah, it's said "Preacher Preview is a hell of a lot scarcer than Preacher #1, so if I want it, I'll have to pony up the cash." That's all it says, all it ever will say, and all it ever CAN say. "More valuable" doesn't mean anything other than that.

Mountains out of molehills is an especialité of the CGC boards. Just for the record, FSF, my comment wasn't directed at you, but rather the reaction to you and your thread, in case that wasn't clear. I think your position is perfectly legitimate, even if not all that high in the grand scheme of things.

Custom titles, to a degree, are manifestations of administrator sentiment about a particular poster. While they're great if they're the result of someone seeing a clever quip or funny statement, occasionally they've been used to subtly editorialize about specific posters. That's not good, whether the recipient likes it in spite of the sentiment or not. Custom titles "send a message", positive, negative, or somewhere in between. Usually, overwhelmingly, that message has been positive...but not always. I think your suggestion here...which removes the element of control from administration to other members...with ultimate veto ability by the recipient...is as good as any, if administration is willing. Frankly, custom titles smell a bit too much like high school popularity contests, and shouldn't have a place in a professional environment at all. Yeah, I know...I'm lotsa fun at parties. But, since we're having the discussion already....

I would recommend not making light of what Mr. Cathell does, which clearly crossed the line from simple tweeking to criminal stalking and harassment, with deliberate and persistent invasion of privacy, quite some time ago.

Sure, whatever you say. Great, glad we can agree...

There is no inconsistency here. If the story is original...if it's not merely pages taken from an upcoming publication...then it's legitimate to call such a first appearance an actual first appearance. It does not matter IN THAT VERY SPECIFIC CASE if it is a comic meant to "drum-up interest" for these ongoing stories. The Spiderman story in Amazing Fantasy #15...? Preview of a concept, rather than actual material from ASM. 8 pages long. Meant to "drum-up interest" in an ongoing series. Totally original story & art. First actual appearance of Spider-man. The 5 pages of Walking Dead in Capes #1 and Agents #6? Pages taken directly from the forthcoming first issue of Walking Dead #1. Not original in any way. Not first actual appearance of Walking Dead. Again...didn't make up these rules, just report them.

Is the story in it original, not printed anywhere else?

No, it doesn't bother me that much but I'd clearly rather it not be there. But let's be fair. I'm not the one drawing it out and I never expected that it would garner more that a few replies. Apart from my OP, I only responded to a question by the administrator, and my last post, while the thread was atop the first page. Mountains out of molehills is an especialité of the CGC boards.

You and I totally share a brain. Only one brain between the two of you...? Yeah, that explains a lot.

That said, there has certainly been a softening of prices in the highest echelons for coins....the Mickley 1804 $1 just sold for a substantial loss to the previous owner. $3.877M to $2.640M in five years is a bath. There was a time when you wouldn't see specific 1804s on the market for decades...this one has been "flipped" 3 times in the last 10 years. Idiots buying for "investment" instead of buying because of the mystique of owning the most famous coin in the world. I have little sympathy.