RockMyAmadeus

when was the last time a movie from an Indy title affected the comics price. Very true. Unless it's a big two adaptation, there are small spikes that don't last very long. Does D/H's Hellboy count? I would say no because he was a cult favorite before any movie. I also don't think the movie(s) did well commercially. Not to say they weren't good, but again, not near a X-Men or Batman. Hellboy was a fairly average character in terms of popularity, until the first movie. Prior to that, there was no activity with the books. SDCCC #2 and Next Men #21 were essentially valueless, and nobody had ever heard of Dime Press #4 (I don't mean literally nobody, and I wish I didn't have to type this caveat, but here we are.) That is demonstrated by the fact that there were only 3 copies of Next Men #21 on the census prior to 2003, while in the year and a half from July, 2003 to Dec 2004, the census exploded, going from 19 copies to 230. We don't know how many copies were submitted and when between Jan of 2002 (3 copies) and July of 2003 (19 copies), but it's quite clear that the movie announcement had a tremendous impact on the interest in and value of the character. Likewise, there no copies of SDCCC #2 on the census until the July, 2003 update, and no substantial amount of copies until a year later. SDCCC #2 remains the much more difficult book, with only 377 total copies on the census, compared to 1220 total copies of Next Men #21. Hellboy didn't make back its money, but Hellboy II did fairly well, $160M worldwide against a reported budget of $85M (that's about "break even" money.)

That's not X-Files #1. And still not X-Files #1.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it...? I wish that wasn't the case, for your sake AND mine. I appreciate your concern. Someday, you'll give up your snark and derisiveness. That will be a good day.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it...? I wish that wasn't the case, for your sake AND mine. I do it twice a week. My Postmaster even talks to me about comics and her kids. She knows what's in the box. She is very nice. Pretty sure she is aware it could be an issue cause sometimes she says, "These are graphic novels, right". Small town Post Office. Gotta love it. There you go. And, on the very rare occasions when I have shipped Media Mail, my local PO has no problem with it, either, and I've never had a problem. And my PO is suburban Los Angeles. There isn't any "you will not be shipping that box media mail" that is system-wide. That's not an endorsement...just anecdotal observations that there isn't consistency, and there's a legitimate argument to be made to be able to do it.

Like I said...the discussion isn't about trying to convince anyone of anything. You will do what you will do, your local PO will do what it does, and there will remain inconsistency until the issue is resolved in the DMM. But if you think there is no value in discussing these things, then you miss out on the chance for things to change and, perhaps, improve. And nothing is really "moot", if enough customers rise up and demand a change, or, at the very least, a judgment about the issue. Not that the USPS is a small business, but do you know what one of the biggest problems small businesspeople consistently claim? Very few people are willing to say anything about an issue they have because they don't want to "rock the boat." They just suck it up and deal with it, or quietly move on, when the business would happily, gladly address it if they only knew. But very few say anything, because of fear, to whatever degree. Fear of confrontation, fear of rejection, fear of conflict, fear of offending someone. "Go along to get along" has been a pretty damaging attitude throughout history. There is value in the discussion, if for no other reason than to work out all the angles and understand the issue for those who happen to read this, so they can make a more informed decision for themselves.

I agree with you that this "after the fact" approach won't work. What we have to do is be proactive. Type out the argument for why "you" believe that comics qualify for media mail shipping into a Word document, lead off with "Dear Postal Inspector,...". Print this, and place that sheet of text addressed to the inspector right inside the package on top of the comics. Then, when he/she opens the package, hope that he/she rationally considers the argument. This is what I do when I use Media Mail to ship Mad Magazines (which don't contain ANY ads from any era, by design)...I'm not kidding. Some of you who have bought Mad Magazines from me know I'm not kidding. Wombat's woeful lack of understanding of just how bureaucracies operate aside, I'm not making the case that anyone would be able to ship comics with expired ads via Media Mail without consequence. Obviously, it's not really a fight worth having if someone at the USPS challenges it, and there's clearly a measure of risk involved because of the lack of clarity in the DMM. It's simply the reason why it could be done, legitimately, if anyone was worried about the regulatory validity of doing so. If it did I'm sure a new one would be supplied in short order. Snide commentary makes this a worse place, for everyone.

Yep. We might as well go on and air out the whole trifecta.... #2: Is pressing restoration? Yes, but it is what is called "market acceptable" restoration. No. There shouldn't even be an argument about that. Is it ok to take comics from your house because you left the front door open?

Yes, but it depends on how the CRA defines it. If they specifically state that, there's no getting around it. But the USPS' DMM does NOT specifically state it. If they did, conversation over. But they don't. And until they do, the argument is a good one.

It's more interesting than the usual banter. I am on team Jaybuck. That's because you're slower than a river of molasses in the dead of a Kentucky winter.

RMA you are adding to the definition of an advertisement. That is OUTSIDE the DMM, which you said is unacceptable. The DMM definition for advertisement is 1) material in a publication that is 2) published in exchange for valuable consideration having been paid, accepted, or promised that 3) calls attention to something 4) for the purpose of getting people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it. Within that definition the key question is 3 and 4. Why? Because we know number 1 to be true (it's in the publication so duh) and we can assume that valuable consideration was paid back in time. So now look at 3 and 4. Does the material call attention to something? Yup, whatever the concept was (be it a store, a food, an article of closing etc.) and is the purpose of the material to get an individual to buy it, sell it, seek it or support it? Well yea that is why they paid valuable consideration, they wanted people to do one of those things. There is no mention of whether or not something is in effect. You've added that concept. And by your own admission, nothing added to the DMM is acceptable. Thus your concept is inconsistent. You're stuck on the concept of "calling attention to something" and "for the purpose of getting people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it," which is where your argument fails. Again...ads are not intended to be in force in perpetuity. We know that, because, by standard practice, when contracts for advertising are negotiated, there have been very few, if any, "in perpetuity" clauses. Specifically in print media, a merchant contracts with an advertiser for a specific amount of 1. space and 2. "time" or "appearances" (such as "this ad will run in X amount of publications for X amount of weeks/months.") The advertiser (in this case, the publisher) runs a certain ad in a certain amount of periodicials for a certain period of time, and the merchant pays to run that ad in a certain amount of periodicals for a certain period of time. Once that period is over, the ad is no longer in force. Neither the merchant nor the advertiser thinks the ad is in force for perpetuity, so why should the USPS do so? They don't. They simply define what an ad is. And ads that are no longer in force are NOT "calling attention to something" to "get people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it" as intended by either the advertiser OR the merchant. That time has passed. Done, finito, over. That the ad still "calls attention" to something on a passive basis for as long as the print material still exists does NOT, repeat NOT mean that it is "calling attention to something" to "get people to buy it, sell it, seek it, or support it" forever. If an ad was an ad forever, that makes all sorts of problems...for example, I should be able to buy 144 toy soldiers for $1.09, even if that company no longer exists. In fact, it can't go out of business, because its ads are still in force. You can see why that doesn't work. Therefore, no, there is no "adding" to the DMM. That's taking the DMM on its face. There doesn't need to BE any mention of "in effect" or not, because it is already understood by all parties that ads, by design, aren't in effect in perpetuity. They aren't in force, which means they aren't ads, which means they can be shipped Media Mail.

too late, I just bought a new one after seeing the old ad You can't. That version no longer exists.

That's not X-Files #1.

To simplify: You, Jaybuck, are saying that it is up to interpretation about what is, and what is not, an ad. I, RMA, am saying that's not true. If the ad is in force, it's an ad. If it is not in force, it's no longer an ad, and thus doesn't fall under the definition of an ad in the DMM. No interpretation necessary.

And here's what I wrote above, in answer to that very point: It doesn't matter that no time limit is given. It doesn't need to, because it's not up to the DMM to determine a time limit for ads. The ads themselves do that. No, not every comic book ad is "expired"...only the ones that have expired, which includes all of them older than, say, 6 months or so. It does not matter if the product being advertised is still available. Mars, Inc., does NOT use that ad to advertise its products anymore, and thus, that ad is expired and no longer an ad. It's purpose WAS at ONE POINT in time to get people to buy the product being announced, but that is no longer the case for that particular former ad. And that gets you out of the morass of trying to figure out which ad is "still an ad", and which is not, in determining which product is "still on the market." It doesn't matter. If the ad itself is no longer in current use, then it's no longer an ad. But even if it DID matter, it still wouldn't hold up, because you cannot buy the 68 year old version of a Milky Way bar, which has undergone significant packaging changes since then, and, no doubt, compositional (read: recipe) changes, as well. I mean, if you want to parse, let's parse all the way down to the bottom. RMA according to your reasoning from earlier, unless it is written in the dmm it has no force. You said any interpretation even on the USPS website is meaningless. That is correct (except that there isn't any "interpretation" involved here. It is a straightforward misunderstanding of what an ad is, and what it is not. No interpretation necessary, even on the USPS website.) That is incorrect. "Time limit" is a concept you brought up, not me, and such a concept is not relevant to this discussion. The only "limit" that is of concern here is this: "is the ad in force, or not?" Let me say it again: the DMM does not need to address a "time limit", because the ads themselves do that. An ad expires when it is no longer in force, either through an internal expiration date, or replacement by another ad. And if it is an expired ad, it is an expired ad, and does not fall under the DMM definition of an ad. That doesn't require any interpretation of the DMM. Ads do not exist, nor were they intended to exist, in perpetuity.

Not assuming that every auction ends with a winning bidder...and yes, when consigners win their own items, that's a problem...BUT, that is mitigated by two factors: 1. it doesn't happen very often, and 2. there was still someone willing to pay *almost* what the item ended for. It's just not as big a deal as it may seem, and there's quite a bit of sour grapes and "it's not fair!" involved for winners hoping to get a "substantially less than they were willing to pay" kind of deal. I realize here that there will always be competing perspectives of buyer v seller, and I am presenting the buyer's perspective. If the auction were to be openly redefined as "here's your chance to own this wonderful piece for the consignor's asking price or more" it would be a bit more transparent, but perhaps not as exciting a marketing vehicle in the hobby. What I don't get from a seller's standpoint is the charade of going to auction, if you are not going to "let it ride" or post openly a reserve, why not just list the big pieces on your website with a "best offer over x gets it" and let the junkies compete via email for the piece- no consigning, no fees, no hassle. Because auctions at major auction houses are different beasts, that attract different types of buyers, and different types of behavior from those buyers. There are dynamics within dynamics involved, factors that go far beyond an individual item, or an individual seller. If you understand going in that a consigner can bid on his/her own item..."shill bid", that is...and everyone using Heritage had to acknowledge that they did before they could use Heritage's system...then there's no harm, no foul. You bid what you're willing to pay, and you will never walk away from an auction disappointed with the results. But, of course, people won't do that, and that results in butt hurt. You say this as if the world is awash with "unreal" public auction results. It's not.

In other words...that valuable consideration was paid to be in effect for a certain period of time: that is, until the next ad comes out. They were neither designed, nor intended, to be ads in perpetuity, and you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that that Milky Way ad from 1948 is intended to get people to go out and buy Milky Way bars in 2016.

And here's what I wrote above, in answer to that very point: It doesn't matter that no time limit is given. It doesn't need to, because it's not up to the DMM to determine a time limit for ads. The ads themselves do that. No, not every comic book ad is "expired"...only the ones that have expired, which includes all of them older than, say, 6 months or so. It does not matter if the product being advertised is still available. Mars, Inc., does NOT use that ad to advertise its products anymore, and thus, that ad is expired and no longer an ad. It's purpose WAS at ONE POINT in time to get people to buy the product being announced, but that is no longer the case for that particular former ad. And that gets you out of the morass of trying to figure out which ad is "still an ad", and which is not, in determining which product is "still on the market." It doesn't matter. If the ad itself is no longer in current use, then it's no longer an ad. But even if it DID matter, it still wouldn't hold up, because you cannot buy the 68 year old version of a Milky Way bar, which has undergone significant packaging changes since then, and, no doubt, compositional (read: recipe) changes, as well. I mean, if you want to parse, let's parse all the way down to the bottom.

Hey, look....guess I had a "rant" in me after all.

Regional Rate is available through ebay Media Mail is still not approved for any literature with advertisements That's correct. Which is why it's ok to use Media Mail for most comics. "Ads" that are no longer in effect aren't ads. They are reference material. Try as you might, no one is buying a set of 143 toy soldiers for $1.09 from the company that sold them. that's how I always looked at it. Frankly, I don't understand all the pushback about it. Bureaucratic semantics are constantly used to hurt people...why can't it be used to help them? It's a solid argument, and precisely the kind that bureaucrats use all the time to deny people benefit. An ad is an advertisement...that is, it is announcing something, either an event, or something for sale, or what have you. If that something is past, and no longer in effect, the ad is no longer an ad. At that point, it becomes reference material, even if it's advertising a product that can still be purchased. After all...why doesn't Coke just recycle the same ads from years past? It would save them a ton of money. And, some companies do that...the M&Ms "bell ringers" holiday TV ad, for example, which they've used for 20+ years. But for an ad that is no longer used AS an ad by the company announcing the product, it's no longer an ad, and thus, not bound by the restrictions of Media Mail. And that's true, no matter what some clerk at the window, or Postmaster, or even a USPS website "notice" says. If it's not in the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), it carries zero regulatory weight. The spirit of the Media Mail restriction was 1. to ensure a cheap method of shipping educational materials (and comics are educational materials, are they not..?), while at the same time 2. keeping publishers from sending out their new, advertisement paid-for periodicals using this cheaper service. Since USED comics fulfill both of those, they satisfy the requirements and restrictions and can be shipped Media Mail. Granted, new-ish comics with still valid ads create a bit of a grey zone, but we're only talking about comics published in the last 6 months or so. The vast majority of comics, of course, were published more than 6 months or so ago. If the USPS wants to change the DMM, they're certainly free to do so...but until such time, there's a perfectly legitimate loophole that is available to shippers of collectible, used (not NEW) comic books.

Regional Rate is available through ebay Media Mail is still not approved for any literature with advertisements That's correct. Which is why it's ok to use Media Mail for most comics. "Ads" that are no longer in effect aren't ads. They are reference material. Try as you might, no one is buying a set of 143 toy soldiers for $1.09 from the company that sold them.

Media mail still not ok per USPS for comics. (I hope this doesnt cause an RMA rant). It looks like they are trying to get regional back as an option online. Not correct. If it's not in the DMM, it's not regulatory. Ranty enough for you?

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem. . "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front. No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple. No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much. If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes. If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation. Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...? Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...? I am addressing the bold above. Part of the problem is that "the most I'm willing to pay" is not shaped in a vacuum but in the norms and trends apparent in the marketplace. If someone wants a SA Kirby FF they are not going to say "well, I'm willing to pay at most $200 and so that is that". They are more likely to say "well, given the market, how much should I expect to have to pay for this to have a chance". If the market is in part a fabrication or an exaggeration as a result of manipulation of the prices than "what I'm willing to pay" is not rooted in any informed reality. I'm guessing that the reason consignors and auction houses don't like declared reserves is because it shows weakness to the market. A declared reserve says "I'm not confident that this piece can sell for what I think its worth or what I want to get out of it". That is the message it sends to me. So what better to have than an undeclared reserve, a secret safety fuse to ensure the appearance of a sale while eliminating the risk of a loss. And hey, while your "agents" are at it, why not give the market a little push. Here's where the argument fails: it's not secret. You know, going in, that you might be bidding against the house. Therefore, to say "well, it manipulates the market!" isn't accurate, any more than someone establishing a BIN that someone else pays is "manipulating the market." If it is UNKNOWN that you might be bidding against the house, that might be one thing....but, in the case of Heritage, it is not. Because, your claim that "the market is based on perception" is accurate...but it works ALL ways, not just in favor of the potential buyer. After all...what does it mean that the market is "based on an exaggeration as a result of manipulation" really mean? After all....if the price is "manipulated", but someone was actually willing to pay that price, even if it was "pushed up"....then that is just as legitimate a "market indicator" as an outright sale....because that price is a real price that someone was really willing to pay...albeit, more than they might have HAD to pay otherwise. I'm certainly not justifying SECRET (that is, ACTUAL) shill bidding. But, where Heritage is concerned, it's not a secret[/i[ therefore, no one has the right to cry "foul!" after the fact. That's the key, and deciding, difference. You are assuming a case where the shill bidding still results in a winner other than the consignor or his agents, and then you can say, rightly as a matter of fact, that someone other than the owner was truly willing to pay that price. However, if the auction ends with the consignor himself or his agent winning the item and the auction is recorded as a sale based on that winning bid, whatever the public declaration of policy permitting it in the abstract, the deception is real, because that specific shilled result will not be recorded as a shilled result. Its fine to say that in the case of HA it is not a secret that shilling is permitted, but the problem is that all auction results are recorded the same, and therefore as market data there is no basis to distinguish. So the influence of shilling, if not its existence, is kept secret. Not assuming that every auction ends with a winning bidder...and yes, when consigners win their own items, that's a problem...BUT, that is mitigated by two factors: 1. it doesn't happen very often, and 2. there was still someone willing to pay *almost* what the item ended for. It's just not as big a deal as it may seem, and there's quite a bit of sour grapes and "it's not fair!" involved for winners hoping to get a "substantially less than they were willing to pay" kind of deal.

Here's a GREAT example. I recently sold a "one of one 9.8 SS" book on eBay. Tough book in 9.8, the only SS 9.8, only 3-4 copies total in 9.8. I auctioned it off, starting at 99 cents. It sold for $79...to a buyer who had already made a $200 offer on it several months earlier, that I had rejected. What was the "real" value of that book? Apparently, "the market" thought it was worth $79. But is that true? No, of course not! The high bidder was willing to pay more for the item, and he and I both knew it. So, in that case, because I misjudged the market at the time, I lost out on a guaranteed $121 additional for the item Not a theoretical $121...an actual offer of someone who was willing to pay that price, which was the market. If I could have, I would have absolutely put in a "reserve bid", so that at least the item would have sold for what the buyer was already willing to pay. But, I didn't, I lost $121 in real money, and that's that. Now, if more get made and come to market, the market will reflect an artificially LOW price for the item, compared to what someone was really WILLING to pay.

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem. . "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front. No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple. No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much. If it's allowed, then you understand that you may be bidding "against the house." That's the way it goes. If you bid the most you're willing to pay, you won't have a problem. If you have to bid against the owner, then the owner is setting a price they want to sell the item for. So long as you know about it upfront, that's nothing different from a reserve or a simple negotiation. Are you aware that, in the earliest days of eBay, until about 2000, the seller was allowed to place a single bid on their own items...? Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's always wrong...? I am addressing the bold above. Part of the problem is that "the most I'm willing to pay" is not shaped in a vacuum but in the norms and trends apparent in the marketplace. If someone wants a SA Kirby FF they are not going to say "well, I'm willing to pay at most $200 and so that is that". They are more likely to say "well, given the market, how much should I expect to have to pay for this to have a chance". If the market is in part a fabrication or an exaggeration as a result of manipulation of the prices than "what I'm willing to pay" is not rooted in any informed reality. I'm guessing that the reason consignors and auction houses don't like declared reserves is because it shows weakness to the market. A declared reserve says "I'm not confident that this piece can sell for what I think its worth or what I want to get out of it". That is the message it sends to me. So what better to have than an undeclared reserve, a secret safety fuse to ensure the appearance of a sale while eliminating the risk of a loss. And hey, while your "agents" are at it, why not give the market a little push. Here's where the argument fails: it's not secret. You know, going in, that you might be bidding against the house. Therefore, to say "well, it manipulates the market!" isn't accurate, any more than someone establishing a BIN that someone else pays is "manipulating the market." If it is UNKNOWN that you might be bidding against the house, that might be one thing....but, in the case of Heritage, it is not. Because, your claim that "the market is based on perception" is accurate...but it works ALL ways, not just in favor of the potential buyer. After all...what does it mean that the market is "based on an exaggeration as a result of manipulation" really mean? After all....if the price is "manipulated", but someone was actually willing to pay that price, even if it was "pushed up"....then that is just as legitimate a "market indicator" as an outright sale....because that price is a real price that someone was really willing to pay...albeit, more than they might have HAD to pay otherwise. I'm certainly not justifying SECRET (that is, ACTUAL) shill bidding. But, where Heritage is concerned, it's not a secret[/i[ therefore, no one has the right to cry "foul!" after the fact. That's the key, and deciding, difference.

Your "facts" change nothing. Let me say it nice and slow, so you can get it: What Mike did is immoral. It is wrong. That HA will allow it, doesn't mean it isn't. It just means Mike will face no repercussions from HA for having done it. But it is still Immoral. Shilling is still wrong. And no site's "rule" that lets you get away with it changes that. And it doesn't change that Mike can no longer claim to be one of the "most honest and trusted sellers." He's lost that title, by his own hand. Shilling is wrong and it's always wrong, no matter who would allow you to get away with it on their site. And if you think that suddenly makes shilling "okay and moral," then you are just another part of the problem. . "Shilling is wrong" isn't always accurate, if bidders know it up front. No, it is accurate. Again, it is immoral and unethical. That's an absolute. And just as HA allowing it in their rules doesn't change that, people knowing about it upfront doesn't change that, either. It's wrong and it's always wrong. You either do business by ethical standards, or you don't. It's really just that simple. No, not really. Stealing is wrong, and that is an absolute. Shill bidding? Not so much. Both are forms of theft. Theft is wrong. Thus, shilling is wrong. Yes, if you choose to engage with them. Then when you are shilled it is on you. But that still does not mean the act of shilling isn't still unethical and immoral. Except it is different, because you know that a shill is not the same thing as a reserve or negotiation. And again, it doesn't detract from the immoral and unethical nature of what shilling is. Regardless of what the buyer might know. Yes, I did. It's why I didn't buy on eBay in those days, before that was changed. Let's see... Because it manipulates a market and artificially inflates prices, making things more expensive than they should (or need to) be. Because if one has no faith in the market to bring them a fair price, one shouldn't sell in the market. Because things like this are often hidden, just as in this case, and can cause harm to people financially. Because an honest businessperson is supposed to work above-board at all times and this is diametrically opposed to that standard. Because honesty and transparency in business matters. Are those reasons enough, or do you need more? No, I wanted your reasons. If those are your reasons, that's all that was asked for. And...again...if you know beforehand that you might be bidding against the house, then NO, it is not theft. You understand that going in, and it's nothing more than a form of negotiation. Comparing it to actual theft is, in that case, beyond reason.