RockMyAmadeus

And I have my very own troll. My own personal clown, with delusions of grandeur, who follows me wherever I go, trying in vain to establish credibility in moot points! Comical. So adorbs.

Awwww....I have my own little stray newb. Super cute. \

Campbell has never, in his entire career, turned in even FOUR monthly, consecutive, fully penciled issues of anything, much less more than four. Were you thinking of Gen 13...? The title that was almost quarterly at one point, and featured about half "fill in" artists during Campbell's tenure...? Hughes managed to last 11 issues, with 2 more partial issues, before giving up. His longest uninterrupted monthly run...? 5 issues. Justice League America #31-35. Popular as these guys are, they are not even remotely journeymen. Without taking away from Middleton, those two hardly have him beat in the endurance portion of the contest. NYX ran 7 issues.

Wait, is "Seafoam" also called "honeycomb"? That chocolate covered stuff that melts when it gets wet? This: ...? Cuz that stuff is pretty nummy too.

I have no idea what "seafoam" is...and I'm too lazy to Google it. Aside to Jimmy: read the first post, carefully.

You have so much to learn about this place, newb. Your attention to detail needs a tremendous amount of work. Tremendous amount.

Crack it out, resub it, see what you get. And post the results. I like Cadbury creme eggs.

Ok, $250 book.

You get a 9.8 mail away, and you're looking at a $400 book.

You TAKE. THAT. BACK.

Pusher.

It's Act 3, scene 2 of the Danish Play, I say!

I already told you that's not true. This discussion isn't about prices, and never was. Read it again. Nope....but it seems rather important to you. Not relevant. Merely a side point, as already explained, at length, above. If you're going to get snarky with people...as you did with Cal....then you have to be above reproach yourself. That means data perfection. My suggestion...? Don't get snarky at all. It's quite obviously very, very important to you, and that's a shame, because pride is an angry mistress. Again, your quote: This is not true, as Cal pointed out.

Nope. Not even close. Read it again. Your quote: That's not true, and, as Cal pointed out, never has been true. None of that is relevant. You're the only one talking about "ratios." When people use the phrase "keeping pace", they use it to mean that the prices for the books are the same, or very close to it. For example: the value for Amazing Spiderman #36 has kept pace with the value of Amazing Spiderman #37. They don't mean their value has proportionately "kept pace", or they'd say that. There is no meaning to the phrase "that ratio is still on par at 6 to 1." That is a confused sentence that contradicts itself. In other words "that ratio is still equal at 6 to 1." Obviously, 6 does not equal 1. "On par," as you're attempting to use it here, does not mean "maintained the same proportions over time." No need for the snark. Again, not relevant, in the slightest. You're getting lost in the weeds. You're attempting to make this discussion about ratios and proportions; it has nothing to do with any of that. Your quote, again: If you meant "proportionately kept pace", you could easily have said that in a followup, and I would probably agree with you, instead of going off in the Sub-Mariner #1 tangent. I suspect what really happened is that Cal caught you in a pretty serious flub, and all of this sturm und drang is cover. Hey, whatever floats...

You are not loathed. You are quite adored.

Lots of reasons, and a big chunk is what sfcityduck said: Michelinie and Layton injected new life into Iron Man in the late 70s and early 80s. Iron Man has always been, since it was published, the most important 1968 Marvel #1, followed closely by Silver Surfer #1. I say followed by SS #1 because, even though SS #1 was at times more valuable, he couldn't carry a series (and still can't, though the 1987 series was a great run.) Sub-Mariner also has never been able to carry a series...it runs for 5 or 6 or 7 years, then putters out for another decade or so. But Iron Man was, despite his lack of a title, one of the original Marvel Silver Age heroes, the first wave, from Nov 1961 to April 1964. He's the foundation of the Avengers, and easily in the top 10 of all time Marvel creations. So even though they printed Iron Man #1 in the gazillions, it has, for 50 years, far surpassed either IMSM #1....the bridge issue...or Subby #1.

So $7.50 to $35 isn't about a 5 to 1 spread? And when Sub 1 was $8, a year before, IM 1 was $45, a very similar spread. Removing quotes from their context makes discussions very difficult, because now it looks like I wrote something that doesn't make any sense...because there's a quote missing in there. And no, my point has nothing to do with the individual "spreads" of these issues; I was talking about accuracy. To address this particular point, I'll have to ask you for clarity: when you say "Sub 1 was $8, a year before", which year are you referring to? In point of fact, Iron Man #1 was one of the VERY few Silver Age Marvels that was fairly immune to the big mid 80s tank that took place. 1983 Sub-Mariner #1 - $10 1987 Sub-Mariner #1 - $8 That's a 20% loss over those four years. 1983 Iron Man #1 - $35 1987 Iron Man #1 - $48 1983 Amazing Fantasy #15 - $1200 1987 Amazing Fantasy #15 - $1200 Yeesh.

Yes, let's do recap. Let's look at what you actually said on 5/24: (Emphasis added) I'm going to assume that "IM" means "Iron Man." And Cal is quite correct on that point: that has never, ever been true. Not even remotely true. Since those books were published, Iron Man #1 has far outpaced IMSM #1. And in this original quote, there's no mention of Sub-Mariner #1. It's still there, on page 3, 5th post down. Cal's response: The first sentence is absolutely correct. Now, this second sentence is, admittedly, a bit unclear. Is Cal talking about Iron Man #1 and Sub-Mariner #1, or did he make a mistake and mistype "Iron Man and Sub-Mariner" when he actually only meant to type Iron Man? Don't know; he hasn't responded since then to clarify. Your response to that, however, shows that confusion about what Cal was actually referring to: But you weren't referring to Sub-Mariner #1. And I suspect that neither was Cal. And, I'll add, were unnecessarily snarky in your reply. And since "on par with" means "equal to", then, without thumbing through all of them, I'm willing to bet that Sub-Mariner #1 has never been "on par" with IMSM #1 since the OPG was first published. If we're being technical, after all. $7 does not equal $8. If we're being technical. All of which has nothing to do with Cal's refutation of your original point, which was not even correct in spirit. Your original point, which Cal refuted, had nothing to do with Sub-Mariner #1, but rather Iron Man #1. Your responses morphed from IMSM #1 and IM #1 to IMSM and SM #1. Quite a difference! Here is your quote that spurred me to get involved: Except that Cal never said anything like that. Cal barely mentions Sub-Mariner, and if I was taking a guess, from the context of both your original quote and his response, he wasn't talking about Sub-Mariner #1 at all. In other words: Cal's correction of you was 100% completely accurate. It is not true that IMSM #1 was "keeping pace" with IM #1. And instead of asking for clarification from Cal, you went in an entirely different direction with SM #1. I would enjoy looking at such data. I have zero interest in "proving you wrong." What I AM interested in is that everyone be correct, since these boards are read by a lot of people who don't know much about comics, and can easily absorb wrong information which can lead them to make decisions that harm them. We all have an obligation to each other to be as accurate as we can be and not get offended if someone corrects us. This is especially true if you state that someone else's "data is faulty", when you, yourself, haven't dotted all your "i"s and crossed all your "t"s, and especially true if you're going to take a stand on "hard data." This is also why preserving quote chains is important: it preserves the context of the conversation. It was one of the major benefits of the original board, and one of the bigger drawbacks of this one.

One more thing...comparing proportions "based on market data" does not determine "the popularity" of anything except in the broadest of terms. Harbinger #1 in CGC 9.8 sells for substantially more than New Mutants #98 CGC 9.8. Is Harbinger #1 in CGC 9.8 more popular than New Mutants #98? Obviously not. Proportions are useful, but they don't tell the whole story. IMSM #1 and Subby #1? There are about 15% more submissions for Subby #1 than IMSM #1, but Subby #1 destroys IMSM in 9.8...there are almost 5 times as many 9.8 Subby #1s as there are IMSM #1 in 9.8. As a result, IMSM #1 in 9.8 sells for quite a bit more than Subby #1. Does that mean IMSM is more popular...? Comparing those proportions....?

I'll repeat what I already said, with emphasis added: ...and that's especially true when the books are essentially in the basement in terms of value, which was true of both Submariner #1 AND IMSM #1 in the mid 80s.

Your data is flawed. You just said this: But 35 years ago, in 1983, IMSM was $7.50, Sub-Mariner #1 was $10, and Iron Man #1 was $35. So the data doesn't fit your assertions. Except that I don't take you literally when you say "35 years ago", because I understood what you were referring to. I understood the spirit of your point, even if you aren't technically correct. Same with Cal. You can't hold Cal to technical perfection if you're going to be loose yourself.

IMSM #1 has always been "third" in a choice between Iron Man #1, Sub-Mariner #1, and IMSM #1. Cal's point is correct: IMSM has never been "as popular" as Iron Man (obviously) OR Sub-Mariner, even if the price guide didn't necessarily reflect that. The "proportions" aren't relevant to that point.