RockMyAmadeus

Nobody has done that. The real problem is that you look for opportunities to score points, to get digs in, as you believe you've done here with my "changing position" as to when New Mutants #87 was what, why, and how, which has never changed. That's disingenuous, and just Bosco being Bosco.

This is being personal? This is the general result when not being open to other opinions and experiences. No, Bosco, you're being disingenuous. You don't belong trying to engage me in a conversation. I don't talk to or about you publicly, and I don't post responses to your comments. You are supposed to behave the same way. It has nothing to do with "not being open to other opinions and experiences", which Chuck, Jeffro, Park, comix4fun, and countless others can tell you isn't true, all of whom have disagreed with me at one time or another. This has to do with you. Why you trying to make it as if someone noticing you have changed your views is all of a sudden being confrontational? It shows this exactness you expect of others doesn't always apply as over time you change your views through experience or learning. Now the price thing is something you always differ over. That's just a stance based on if it wasn't noted in the guide as the price of the time or mentioned in passing as a result at a reported show, then it didn't happen. That doesn't mean you have to tell people they are wrong. It just means you didn't experience it at the time. And that is okay. Are you aware that you've just responded to your own words? Both the two above quotes are yours. Are you aware of that?

The new people may not be aware of this, but you have gone overboard to prove yourself right. To include a few moderation actions for going to the extreme when people differ with your opinion. Meanwhile, stop acting like an innocent. Like I said...whatever has happened in your life to cause you to attempt to pick old fights, you need to look elsewhere. Reasonable people will read the exchange, and make their own determinations as to who, what, where, when, and how. You had no reason to enter the debate by responding directly to me, and you've been told not to do that before by moderation. If you're going to say things that aren't true, you need to be prepared to be corrected, regardless of the source. If you're going to make things personal, you have been warned about that, on multiple occasions, and you need to look elsewhere. If you wish to discuss the facts, by all means, feel free. If, however, you are going to continue to make this personal, the moderators will be involved, and this thread will be locked down. Go elsewhere to get whatever out of your system that needs to be gotten out.

Statistically impossible? - Region 1 sells a NM 87 for $5 - Region 2 sells a NM 87 for $7 - Region 3 sells a NM 87 for $6 - Region 4 sells a NM 87 for $9 - Region 5 sells a NM 87 for $25 Average price = $10.40 Just with those five tiny samples, a $25 sale gets hidden in the average sale price rather easily. So if a price guide is sampling across many regions, those $25 sales happening in a region seem to hide themselves in the average. See how that works statically with a small sample? Not the point, as usual. The "statistically impossible" isn't about IF someone sold a copy for $25...the statistically impossible is THAT someone sold a copy for $25. Pretty basic.

Yes, as I've said elsewhere, it was Liefeld...not Cable...that started the fire. That changed, but it took a while to change. ASM #298 was the "money book", and #300, because it was an anniversary issue and bigger, was about the same for a while...but it wasn't about Venom for quite some time. It did become about Venom sooner than later though. What does "sooner" mean, and what does "later" mean? I said this to Bosco, and I'll say it to you: these things aren't scientific, and you will not find precision about who became hot, when, and where. If you could post pictures of these ads, that would be tremendously helpful to everyone. ASM #347 was "way before" #361? There were 11 months in between those two issues. And there was another 5 months in between ASM #347 and the ad you're referring to. And how do you know what "goes against my line of thinking"? Where did I say that Venom was completely ignored until ASM #361, and nobody ever cared about the character until then? I didn't, and wouldn't, say that. But Venom, like Deadpool, took a considerable amount of time to catch people's attention. Yes, there was a shift, starting around 1991, between viewing #300 as a "McFarlane book" to being "1st Venom"...but it was gradual, and didn't happen overnight. And, like New Mutants #100, the catalyst for the madness was ASM #361, which found full expression with Lethal Protector. No need to put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

It's jagged, and little...

Sure it was. No. Did you read what I posted? Even if your "region" was selling them for $25 in April-May of 1990...which I find so unlikely as to be statistically impossible...these things didn't operate in a vacuum, and, as I already pointed out, by November...fully half a year later....NM #87 was still only a $5 book in the Overstreet Update. The OPG is, ostensibly, an average. If New Mutants #87 was selling for $25 in April-May of 1990 anywhere in the US...how could it only be $4 in September in the Update, and $5 in November in the Update? Does that sound reasonable to you? You're projecting, Bosco. I don't need to "feel justified" about anything, and that you use the word "feel" reveals who is the one doing the feeling. I want you, and me, and everyone, to have accurate, truthful information, with a good faith effort at reaching a reasonable conclusion, where absolute fact can't be known. That's my goal, and always has been. There is no need to make it personal, none whatsoever.

A comic book warrior, with a web belt fully loaded with textnades, with pins always half-pulled. The newer people aren't going to be aware of this, but you have been warned by moderation not to pick fights with various people on the boards over the years. You really ought to cut it out. Don't know if you're angry at something today, and need to vent, but you're not going to find what you're looking for here.

Yes, as I've said elsewhere, it was Liefeld...not Cable...that started the fire. That changed, but it took a while to change. ASM #298 was the "money book", and #300, because it was an anniversary issue and bigger, was about the same for a while...but it wasn't about Venom for quite some time.

Being silly? Because someone pointed out your view on Cable taking off in the hobby changed three times. Seems like you went excessive to over-emphasize how nobody better question your changing view on things. No, Bosco. As usual, as you have done countless times in the past, you're trying to incite a fight. Not going to happen. My "view" on "Cable taking off" did not change, it did not evolve. They are estimates, and estimates, by their very nature, are not precise. You're trying to play "gotcha!", and it's disingenuous. Now, are we done being silly? Is this a topic that truly fires you up or do you just like to argue in general? It's odd There is history of which you are likely unaware.

Being silly? Because someone pointed out your view on Cable taking off in the hobby changed three times. Seems like you went excessive to over-emphasize how nobody better question your changing view on things. No, Bosco. As usual, as you have done countless times in the past, you're trying to incite a fight. Not going to happen. My "view" on "Cable taking off" did not change, it did not evolve. They are estimates, and estimates, by their very nature, are not precise. You're trying to play "gotcha!", and it's disingenuous. Now, are we done being silly?

You mean the East Coast Comics ad that was placed at around the same time that New Mutants #96 was on the stands? You do realize there's a significant lag time in between when an ad is placed with Marvel advertising, and when it actually shows up in the printed comic, right? It seems absurd to you because you do not think these things through. Had you tried to order a New Mutants #87 for that $7 price, how many did you think you were going to get? Note: East Coast Comics was a LIMIT ONE PER CUSTOMER mail-order merchandiser. If East Coast Comics shipped out ONE copy of NM #87 at $7 by the time that ad saw print, I'd be very, very surprised. Who knows, maybe they did. I know that, around the same time, I tried to order X-Men #266 from American Comics, for $3 each, and I received none. But your point is a fair one, so I'll revise my statement from this: "By the time New Mutants #100 came out, #87 was a $65 book" ...to this: "By the time X-Force #1 came out, New Mutants #87 was a $65 book" No, I mean the ECC ad that was placed in New Mutants 99. Thus having issue 96 and 97 available for sale as back issues. The ad in New Mutants 96 wouldn't have those issues available. Thus a different ad. Read what I wrote again. You're response indicates you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it. Somewhere, that ad is discussed at length, and posted. Maybe in this very thread. Your response indicates... fixed that for you. Yes, thank you, my mistake. Now, how about the issue?

There is what guide reflects. Really? Which one? Four-five months after New Mutants #87 would be New Mutants #90-91. Right? Or is my math incorrect? New Mutants #90 has a cover date of June of 1990, and was published on April 10, 1990. #91 has a July cover date, and published May 8, 1990. So, you're saying that "in the guide", it was $25 4-5 months after it came out? The answer to that, of course, is "no." The Update #14, which was compiled in September of 1990....well after "4-5 months"....has New Mutants #87 at $4, and #86 listed as a "McFarlane cover" (which, since he inked it, isn't totally inaccurate.) Update #15, compiled in November, has New Mutants #87 at $5. I can do a more thorough read, but doing a quick perusal, there's not a single mention of NM #87 in the market reports. Liefeld, yes. New Mutants, yes. Cable...one mention. Otherwise, zilch. Lots and lots about Spiderman. Of course not, and no one suggested otherwise. I'm sure crazy boutique stores in San Fran, LA, and NY would be asking $25 for this book at this point...Comix and Comics in Berkeley did that all the time...but the book wasn't around, for the most part, to BE bought. I hunted for these books like crazy, and only found those five copies at the time that #93-#94 came out...and that was it. Again, as pointed out above, that's not true. Again, not true. The November market report was written when #97 was on the stands. YES. By THAT time, it WAS madness. If we want to nail down anything, the real gas on the fire was New Mutants #100. That book changed it all, and sent everyone into a frenzy BECAUSE of the revelation at the end, and the promise of X-Force. That, more than any other event, turned the dial on Cable from, say, 4-6, to 11. That was the moment, right there, and the wait for X-Force #1 just sent the market into a tizzy. But New Mutants #100 came out a full 13 months after #87, and X-force #1 was a year and a half. It took time.

You mean the East Coast Comics ad that was placed at around the same time that New Mutants #96 was on the stands? You do realize there's a significant lag time in between when an ad is placed with Marvel advertising, and when it actually shows up in the printed comic, right? It seems absurd to you because you do not think these things through. Had you tried to order a New Mutants #87 for that $7 price, how many did you think you were going to get? Note: East Coast Comics was a LIMIT ONE PER CUSTOMER mail-order merchandiser. If East Coast Comics shipped out ONE copy of NM #87 at $7 by the time that ad saw print, I'd be very, very surprised. Who knows, maybe they did. I know that, around the same time, I tried to order X-Men #266 from American Comics, for $3 each, and I received none. But your point is a fair one, so I'll revise my statement from this: "By the time New Mutants #100 came out, #87 was a $65 book" ...to this: "By the time X-Force #1 came out, New Mutants #87 was a $65 book" No, I mean the ECC ad that was placed in New Mutants 99. Thus having issue 96 and 97 available for sale as back issues. The ad in New Mutants 96 wouldn't have those issues available. Thus a different ad. Read what I wrote again. You're response indicates you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it. Somewhere, that ad is discussed at length, and posted. Maybe in this very thread.

Oh for Pete's sake, Bosco. You tell me what "really light on fire" means. What does that mean? Does it mean "enough to inspire Marvel to second print the book"? Does it mean "it was the hottest back issue on the market"? Does it mean "everybody and their mother wanted it"? No...it means what it means: a vague estimate, because precision about matters of "when did such and such a book/character get hot" is not, and never has been, possible. It does NOT mean, as you are trying to make it mean, that there was absolutely zero interest in the book, that nobody cared about it, or, in your words "As previously you noted nobody took notice of Cable's 1st appearance for at least a year or so." Let me say that again, so the point is not lost: "It wasn't a sellout, and it took a while (about a year) for Cable to really light on fire." Does NOT mean the same thing as "nobody took notice of Cable's 1st appearance for at least a year or so" Those are two completely different statements. One more time, because you're trying yet again to create controversy where there is none: Cable was NOT an INSTANT hit. Let me very clearly define for you what that means: it means New Mutants #87 was NOT a sellout, like Batman #428, or Amazing Spiderman #252, or Thor #337, or Superman #75. It means that IT TOOK TIME. How MUCH time, down to the last day, hour, minute, second? I...DON'T...KNOW. And neither do you, and neither does anyone else. Why? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to chart these things with perfect precision, ESPECIALLY in the pre-internet era. 8 months...a year...what is the difference, when talking about how something "got hot"? The answer is NOT MUCH. As I said, and have been COMPLETELY CONSISTENT ON, New Mutants #87 was NOT an instant hit. It TOOK TIME for the book and Cable to become what it eventually became. Pay very close attention to the words I am about to type: 1. Within 6 months of New Mutants #87, Cable was the hottest NEW...that is NEW....that is, NOT OLD...character on the market. There was BUZZ. But that doesn't mean that Cable and NM #87 was the hottest thing on the market overall. In fact, in that time period, the hottest thing was McFarlane's Spiderman #1, which was the talk of the entire industry. 2. It took about a year for New Mutants #87 (that is, around the time of the publication of #100) to really LIGHT ON FIRE. What does THAT mean? It means, over the course of 1990, Cable and NM #87 heated up. More and more people became interested, and by the time New Mutants #100 came out, it started getting more and more mention in INDUSTRY PUBLICATIONS (that is, the Overstreet Update, etc.) and people began to search it out in earnest. 3. Cable was IMMENSELY popular from ESSENTIALLY the beginning of his career. That doesn't mean that he was IMMENSELY popular from Day 1. He was not. But, you MUST consider the context of the comment: Cable vs. Deadpool. And when considering that context, yes, Cable was, from the beginning (but not Day1) immensely popular, whereas Deadpool was met with a big yawn for almost two decades. These statements ARE NOT contradictory. But they ARE ESTIMATES, because it simply isn't possible to say, with certainty, how "hot" any particular character/book is at any given time. It is ridiculous to try and say "well, on June 23rd, 1990, nobody cared about Cable, but on June 24th, 1990, the book was the hottest thing since sliced bread!" And yet, that is what you're trying to do. You're trying to NAIL DOWN JELLO. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE. I have told you this for years, and I will tell you this AGAIN. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE. All of these things, OF NECESSITY, are ESTIMATES. One more time: All of these things, OF NECESSITY, are ESTIMATES. Therefore, to say "well, one time, you said this, and then another time, you TOTALLY changed your mind, and said THAT" is intellectually dishonest. There IS NO CONCRETE ANSWER. There are only ESTIMATES, but those ESTIMATES are GOOD ones, and have been consistent. Now. Are we done with being silly?

Your reasoning is flawed. DC, Marvel, and the rest kept meticulous records because they HAD to: both for postal service regulations AND because they had contracts in place with various distributors, who you bet kept close track of what they sold and what they returned. Your contention doesn't make any sense. The printer knew exactly how many copies they printed; they had to. Marvel knew how many copies they ordered. DC knew how many copies were claimed for credit. They all, if they were sent out via subscription, had to keep these numbers for filing every year. When you have competing interests making sure everything was accounted for, of course they would keep meticulous records. Does that mean there wasn't human error and fraud? Of course not. But that doesn't therefore mean Marvel just told the printer to print whatever they felt like printing, and vendors to claim whatever they felt like claiming on returns, and no one kept accounts. What printing company are you referring to? UNLESS you have competing interests keeping everybody honest. No one said it was absolutely NASA precise down to the very last copy, but it's beyond silly to think that Marvel, DC, and the rest kept loose books. Not the point. The point was, and is, that record keeping was precise 230+ years ago, so to say "well, technology wasn't that advanced in 1970" doesn't fly. Wait...are you envious of Chuck? And what do you mean, "comic publishers weren't good businessmen prior to Disney buying Marvel"? Warners has owned DC since the 60's. Martin Goodman, owner and publisher of Marvel comics from 1939 to 1972, was a very capable businessman.

You mean the East Coast Comics ad that was placed at around the same time that New Mutants #96 was on the stands? You do realize there's a significant lag time in between when an ad is placed with Marvel advertising, and when it actually shows up in the printed comic, right? It seems absurd to you because you do not think these things through. Had you tried to order a New Mutants #87 for that $7 price, how many did you think you were going to get? Note: East Coast Comics was a LIMIT ONE PER CUSTOMER mail-order merchandiser. If East Coast Comics shipped out ONE copy of NM #87 at $7 by the time that ad saw print, I'd be very, very surprised. Who knows, maybe they did. I know that, around the same time, I tried to order X-Men #266 from American Comics, for $3 each, and I received none. But your point is a fair one, so I'll revise my statement from this: "By the time New Mutants #100 came out, #87 was a $65 book" ...to this: "By the time X-Force #1 came out, New Mutants #87 was a $65 book"

You make the claim, you provide the proof. That's how it works. Here... http://comicbookinvest.com/2015/12/29/logans-print-runs/ i didn't see a part where they cited where they got their print run info from. +1

Alright...let's examine the facts: At the time of your post (2/24/16, 3:35 PM PST), how many copies were actually available? Here: http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBidsLogin&item=182015240051&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2564 That one had TWO copies available, not one, one of which sold after your post. Here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wolverine-Vol-3-66-2nd-VF-NM-save-on-shipping-details-inside-/311551947175?hash=item4889f171a7:g:0ccAAOSwe7BWyVK2 That was an active listing when you said there were only "two international vendors out of Europe." That's a listing from NY. And here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Wolverine-66-1st-First-Old-Man-Logan-Rare-2nd-Print-Marvel-/172087694274?hash=item281139d3c2:g:0p8AAOSwzhVWsnzH So, yes, at the time of your post, there were, in fact, four copies available, as I said. If we're going to nitpick, let's be absolutely precise, eh? Speaking of precision, my last post on the matter said you claimed there were only "two available at all." I misspoke. You actually said "two VENDORS" (one of which had two copies), so my apologies for the incorrect statement, though I doubt you noticed the difference. It doesn't materially change the issue, however. As I said, there were four, not two, copies available, at the time of your post. Neat! Because I challenge your statements? You're not the first, you won't be the last. By the way, you're still wrong. With the new listing as of yesterday, there are still four copies available on eBay. Not relevant. Whether one is included "in a lot only" doesn't mean it's not available. And, as you note, that copy wasn't listed when you made your post. No, but you were wrong at the time of your statement. Does being corrected bother you? "You're." Much ado about nothing? Probably. But, if you're going to make a mountain out of a molehill, and call someone a "fool" in the process, when you, in fact, were the one who was wrong, then you should expect such a response.

You make the claim, you provide the proof. That's how it works.

I do have to agree with you that Cable was THE dominant X-figure at the time. Though I am also glad to see you finally came around and pointed out Cable and Liefeld's popularity happened rather quickly. As previously you noted nobody took notice of Cable's 1st appearance for at least a year or so. No, Bosco. That is completely inaccurate, and you have misrepresented what I have said. I have never said anything along the lines that "nobody took notice of Cable's 1st appearance for at least a year or so." That's totally, completely, absolutely inaccurate. I would recommend finding my actual statements, and not paraphrasing what you think I said, before continuing this discussion. I do not say that with rancor; I mean that sincerely. Here's the pertinent statement: "Within literally 6 months of his first appearance...and granted, New Mutants #87 didn't take the world by storm...he was the single hottest new character in comics." There are important words and phrases there. To wit: "New Mutants #87 didn't take the world by storm." And: "he was the single hottest NEW character in comics." (emphasis added.) I use these words purposely, not loosely, and I mean what I say. I understand why you would think people would change or modify their stances without acknowledging that change. However, I'm not one of those people. There is no inconsistency in my stance. Same as it's always been, where Liefeld/Cable is concerned. You are incorrect. New Mutants #87 was NOT "$25...after four-five months from (sic) its publication." If you're going to nitpick, you must be absolutely precise.

Publishers were only required to give averages per USPS regulations, and specifics only for the issue "nearest to filing date." So yes, it stands to reason that the only one who has actual figures for each particular issue would be the publisher. The real answer is that no one knows, not even the publishers, whether it was 1970 or 2002 or today, the precise number of copies destroyed or still extant, and never will, because that information isn't possible to obtain except on a theoretical level. Because of the filing requirements, the records for comics from 1970 would not have been much different from the records from 2000. After all, we have accurate records of US Mint activity going back to its founding in 1792. They're not perfectly complete, of course, but we have excellent records going back 230+ years. Again: because of the filing requirements, the record keeping at publishers who distributed comics via the USPS (that is, most of them) wouldn't have been radically different in 1970 than they were in 2000. Advancements in technology didn't change the way people counted things; only the speed in which it was done. We know precisely how many 1885-CC Morgan dollars were minted, because the Mint in Carson City kept meticulous, daily records of those facts....and that was when there was no computer technology of any kind. You would be incorrect. They kept meticulous records, because that was how people were paid and companies stayed in business. Marvel, DC, and the others weren't fly-by-night companies with sloppy accounting (at least internally.) They may not have preserved those records...but they certainly kept them.

Yes. I am a "self-proclaimed" historian, as are all historians in fields such as this. Plus, I have a relatively firmer grasp on basic English grammar than you, for whatever that's worth. And yes, Moon Knight was, at one point in the mid to late 70's, the hottest character in comics. You really ought to tone down the rancor. You have no respect for actual research, and, as I said, it was a mistake to reply to you. Why are you so angry that you need to make things personal? Do you just not like people challenging what you think and believe? You can't even be bothered to say what facts you imagine I ought to be admitting are "just as subjective as any one (sic) else." Is that reasonable? Have you ever contributed actual research to this board, as I and others have done on many occasions, or have you only denigrated people for disagreeing with whatever you happen to believe, and correcting your (easily confirmed) errors? Actually there are real comic book historians out there. You are not one of them. Unless you can provide me to a book that you have published on the subject, you are nothing but a message board spinster. Mark Evanier is an actual comic book historian, and has been for decades, and anyone who knows much about him would not dispute that at all. His first published "history" book, Kirby: King of Comics, didn't come out until 2008. Was he, then, not a "real comic book historian" before then? Nonsense. The criteria for being a historian isn't "have you published a book." The criteria for being a historian is "have you studied history, and can you make intelligent, informed, rational, reasoned arguments and presentations about that history." The definition for being a historian is "A writer or author of a history; esp. one who produces a work of history in the higher sense, as distinguished from the simple annalist or chronicler of events, or from the mere compiler of a historical narrative." Note the word "esp." It means, in Layman's terms "not required, but it helps." I have written more than just about anyone else on this board about comics history and the industry, and certainly more than anyone else about the comic book industry from 1980-2005. And not just in quantity, but in quality. That, in itself, should be more than enough evidence to "take me seriously" as a comic book historian. I am not an Egyptologist, nor do I claim to be. I am, however, an ephemerist, that is, one who studies ephemera, particularly of the comic book kind. Your words say one thing; your actions another. Which should people believe...? Such as....? See, there's the heart of your problem right there: you can't be bothered, as here, to offer any actual evidence to support your claims. Why is that, do you think....? When you're asked to get specific, you cannot, or will not. You won't give specific examples that demonstrate how what I "throw out there as facts" is inaccurate, but you have no problem making that claim nonetheless. What value is your claim, if you cannot, or will not, make even the attempt to support it? That's incredibly selfish of you, to withhold information that would improve everyone's knowledge base, just because you have a problem with me. I wish you would live by that. You, and a small handful of others, have gotten it into your heads this image, this persona, that doesn't exist. If you have something that proves something I say to be inaccurate, why on earth would you withhold it? Do you think that helps anyone, least of all me? Do you think I can't, or won't, be corrected? Yes, you and a few others think that. It is, to you, the epitome of "getting personal": "that RMA, he always thinks he's sooooo right all the time. Who does he think he is?" And you claim there's "no need to get personal"...? Right. I see....so, now, since Jimjum came and confirmed what I said, and no one has refuted it, you now modify...ever so subtly...your statement from "you, RMA, are clueless about everything, or at least most things, because you said Moon Knight was the hottest character in comics" (which you said in spirit, if not in actual words) to "well, that's really just a subjective statement." I appreciate the toning down of your claim that I'm a clueless buffoon who has no idea what he's talking about. Do you know what else is subjective? Grading. But do you know what we can do now? We can make a reasonable estimation of a book's grade, based on known factors, to arrive at a fair consensus, most of the time. That is, reasonable people who are reasonably educated can say "this book is a 9.2", and other reasonable, reasonably educated people won't come along and say "no, no! That book is no better than a 3.5!" Same with "who is THE hottest character in comics." Is that subjective? Obviously. But can we arrive at a fair estimation of who is at any given moment in time, based on certain factors? Of course. Who is the hottest character in comics right now? Deadpool. Is that subjective? Can a claim be made for other characters? Yes. But is it reasonable to make the claim, based on the evidence that exists? Obviously. So, why would it not be reasonable to make that claim in other eras? Who do you think was the hottest character in comics in 1991? Do you think it's possible to make that claim? You say it's not, because it's all just "subjective." I can tell you who was NOT the hottest character in comics in 1991: Batman. Spiderman. Fantastic Four. Superman. Inhumans. Captain Carrot. Omega Men. Etc etc etc. So, if one can say, fairly definitively, who was NOT "the hottest" at a given moment in time...why do you think it's not possible to say who WAS? If you stopped being offended by the way you think I come across and instead considered the substance of what I post, and understand that I'm not here to be "right", but to get to the truth, I suspect you'd have a lot better time dealing with me. All of us are enriched by a vibrant, spirited intellectual engagement. None of us is enriched when people get huffy and make things personal that need not be.

Your last post said there were only two available at all. Glad to see you acknowledge the correction. Not sure why where they come from is relevant? I wanted you to have the opportunity to buy them. I've already got one or two. I don't need any more. Well....that may be true, but I'm not so sure. $20 is more than all but a couple of these copies have sold for on eBay recently. It seems that those "losing money" are the ones buying, not selling, this book. Who said I didn't care for the book? It's a variant, and I love variants. I wonder what this obsession with accusing people of "not liking something" because they challenge some other aspect of the discussion is all about. It's very odd, and immensely juvenile. It's how children think and reason. I love Detective Comics #613. It's one of my favorite Bat books of all time. It's a bit hokey, but I love it. It's also worthless. It has no value as a back issue. By your reasoning, if I acknowledge that it has no value, and doesn't have much potential, I must not "care for the book." It's poor reasoning. I'll ask you again to provide actual proof for this claim. I don't expect you'll be providing that any time soon. Or, down. What is "selling well"? It looks like this book sells for about $15 or so. That's pretty well, I guess. Old Man Logan is currently enjoying a second life, so it's not surprising that there's interest in the original story.

I passed on a couple of copies at Phx comicon for around $20 each. If you want, I can put you in touch with the dealer selling them. There are four copies currently on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p4840.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xwolverine+66+2nd.TRS0&_nkw=wolverine+66+2nd&_sacat=0 What is a "Cgc consensus"? Based on the writing style, I think it's a fair bet that Rick moma is jaydam45, who, based on the volume of posts and threads created talking up the Old Man Logan reprints, is probably sitting on a stack to sell, rather than accumulate more. You don't say.