RockMyAmadeus

That's WONDERFUL! Thanks for posting that! The uninterrupted continuation of Western's 3-pack Whitman program with Marvel comics, well into the Direct market era, is pretty sound circumstantial evidence that, while DC's Whitmans were, in fact, specifically produced for distribution by Western, the Marvel program was not. And we know that's absolutely true after early 1979, because Direct distribution at Marvel went line-wide, for all titles...and those books were not distributed solely through Western. Thus, calling the Direct market books from Marvel from 1977 to 1979 "Whitmans" is, and always has been, a misnomer. It's very fascinating to me how DC and Marvel handled the Direct market. DC was the first to have UPC box art in 1978 (Marvel didn't have UPC box art until Jan, 1980 cover date), but Marvel was the first to make a distinct Direct market product with feb, 1977 cover dates. Man, I wish I'd been older and could have recorded all of this as it came out. Thank you!

And, since we're quoting Chuck: http://www.milehighcomics.com/tales/cbg41.html I happen to agree with Chuck, from a merely economic standpoint. Perelman's plan was to flood the shelves with product...product buyers felt very compelled to buy...to crowd out any and all other competition, while aggressively raising prices without any of the economic factors present in the 70s that forced those price increases. Yes, the page count from the 30s to the 60s gradually decreased....but there was an entire decade (1952 to 1961) where the price of standard comics did not increase and the standard page count (32) did not decrease, and that was nearly as true from 1962 to 1969. In Jan 1969, the price of a standard comic was 15 cents; by Dec 1975, it was 25 cents. That's a 66% increase in price in those 6 years, at a time when the rate of inflation (just ONE factor) was 56% In Jan 1975, the price was 25 cents; by Dec 1981 it was 60 cents (real time, not cover dates.) That's a 140% increase, with a corresponding 80% increase in the rate of inflation. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm In Jan 1991, the price of a standard comic was $1.00; by Dec 1997, it was $2.25. That's a 125% increase, with only a corresponding 20% increase in the rate of inflation. In fact, the numbers look even more bleak, since the cover price for standard books remained $1.00 until the very end of 1991, and were $2.25 by early summer of 1997. If there's any corresponding time period in history where the price of a standard comic book rose so rapidly as 1991 to 1997, without most of the factors that drove previous price increases, I've yet to discover it. Maybe....MAYBE....1971 (15 cents) to 1977 (35 cents)...but, then, inflation was going bonkers. And we're not talking "oh, well, they went to slick, high quality gloss paper, so, yeah..." That ruse was over by mid-1996, and we were back to the cheap stuff again, albeit, all printed via offset printing now.

What I said is absolutely correct. Valiant's demise had nothing to do with Shooter's ouster...and ouster it was...but the insistence on Massarsky to print millions of copies of books that were being sold to "speculators" by the caseload. I discussed it at length with Layton over dinner very recently. There was no need to print 1.75 million copies of Turok #1....and it was only the 6TH highest selling book of 1993! Have you ever seen the pallet of Rai and the Future Force #9 picture that is floating around the internet? I didn't say Marvel's problems had to do with variants. Obviously, that's not even remotely true, since by 1997, there were still only a handful of variants that Marvel had ever done (less than 50 total at that point.) The problem was the same as it is now: shoving product that no one really wants, but feels they MUST BUY, onto a shrinking pool of buyers. What do you think funded Perelman's shopping spree...? He AGGRESSIVELY pushed both a flood of titles and a persistent cover price increase onto the market. That's why the price of standard comic books more than doubled from 1991 to 1997, WITHOUT the same inflationary economy that spurred the 70s price increases. In fact...throughout the 90s, technology made comics CHEAPER to produce than they ever had been, in an adjusted-for-inflation model. It doesn't matter if it's 50 different versions of ASM #800, or 50 different titles featuring Punisher: the net result is the same.

Sure you can....it's choosing to go for the quick, short-sighted buck, while destroying yourself long term. It's why Valiant Comics went under. It's why Marvel came within a single judgment of ceasing publication in late 1997. It's why Acclaim failed. The only answer to long term solvency is to put out a quality product, month in and month out, that relies on reaching a broad based audience that appreciates the work on its own merits...not selling the exact same product, with just a small difference, 50 times to the same person. We may very well be watching the death throes of the print comics industry.

You better be careful. Comments like this, and you're likely to win FOTY.

Right. Good luck on getting it resolved. Don't let this scumbag get away with it. Hopefully, it's some colossal mistake. Saw your feedback. Have they replied? Check the weight on the box, too, and see if you can get the initial scan weight at the PO.

Yup, that's the correct number. Hope that helps a little. Certification #: 0118798001 Title: Amazing Spider-Man Issue: 14 Issue Date: 7/64 Issue Year: 1964 Publisher: Marvel Comics Grade: 8.5 Total Graded At: 150 Page Quality: CREAM TO OFF-WHITE Grade Date: 06/11/2003 Category: Universal Art Comments: Stan Lee story Steve Ditko cover & art Key Comments: 1st appearance of the Green Goblin (Norman Osborn). Enforcers appearance. 1st meeting of the Hulk & Spider-Man.

These are bold scams in this day. I got hit with an empty envelope, and I filed a police report against the perps. They were so offended that they couldn't scam me for $1500, they called ME to harass me about it, and then sent cute little cards in the mail filled with expletives. Really wish I had the PO Box back then. It was quite amazing. And yet, people defend this. AND YET, people defend this. "Well, you deserve to be defrauded, because you're such a jerk to sellers." That's the most amazing part of all. There is none so blind... For your situation, file a police report at your local station. That way, it's on record. The serial is in the picture, but it's the small type. It might be 0118798001. Checking now...

Agreed.

Thanks for sharing this page, It's one of the best of the run, on so many levels.

Anybody know who "canada-rob" and "tchoske" (I've butchered that) on eBay are?

Whaaaa....? Proof? Nobody cares about proof these days, man... It's all about the form, man. Substance shmubstance, you gotta say it in the right way, man...it's not about right and wrong, good and bad...it's about style, man, how you come across to the masses, that's important. You should never treat people like this, man, no matter how they behave, man....

Maybe I can trade 25 9.8 X-Force #1s for a McFarlane page.

It's probably gotten to the point where a lot of people have been priced out of the McSpidey stuff, so they're taking more of a look at his Hulk work. Mike His Hulk work is magnificent, even the early stuff inked by Sanders III. The layouts are there, the form is there...it just needed the refinement. Aside from Detective #578, Hulk #340 was really the first time you saw "full pencils and inks" by McFarlane. #341, 342, 343...every page, a feast for the eyes. He put all his effort into ASM #300 and Hulk #340-343 in those months. Spidey #301-305 isn't anywhere near as polished, as, of course, neither is #344-346.

I wish I'd been buying pages in the very early 90s, instead of multiple copies of X-Force #1. Sigh.

And, if that were offered to me, I would say "wow, excellent trim job. I'll pay you $200."

There are trim jobs that are lovely, and there are trim jobs that look like a child took safety scissors to the book. This trim job is laser precise, creating perfect edges. I recognize the craftsmanship to do something like that. It looks like you could cut your fingers on those edges. It's simply too bad it's on an item that destroys its value as a collectible. The value of it is in its originality, not its precision edges. Don't misunderstand...I am in no way endorsing trimming. I'm merely reflecting on the precision of this particular job.

It's a lovely trim job. Too bad it functionally destroys the book. Such a shame...so many otherwise very nice, high grade 8.0-9.2 books completely ruined because someone wants to steal money from others.

The brand new ASM #800 being an excellent case in point.

That's how my X-Men #100 went....from 6.5 to 8.5. Then, from 8.5 to 9.2. How much was due to grade range, and how much was due to actual improvement? Well, I thought after the second sub (an SS sub) that it would be a 9.0, but it got 9.2, so it's probably a 9.1, which doesn't exist. It was a great book to work on. Not a lot of value, but still...nice to see such potential.\ Wait, this is a Cal thread!

Generally speaking, using qualified terms is no good, since they mean different things to different people, and can only be defined relative to other things. What does "moderate" mean? What does "long" or "short" or "many" or "few" or "slight" or "large" mean? Quantified terms, like "1/8"" and "1/16" are preferable, because those are defined measurements.

The number 4.5 sticks in my mind, but someone who remembers might be along. Did a quick Google search, and couldn't find it. Someone in Golden would definitely know.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a 4.0, but full length bends get hammered, too.

Bend...bend! Not a crease. Not something that altered the physical structure of the paper fiber, or, of course, it couldn't have been pressed out.