RockMyAmadeus

"Subsequent followup" may be a tad redundant.

Hell will freeze over first.* *Just a statement of fact. Nothing personal RMA That's a load of horse manure. I misread something earlier in this very thread. I was corrected by Bronty, and I acknowledged it. It is crass and illegitimate to make this claim. ...and how does anyone "admit they're wrong" about a subject concerning opinion...? Some of the stuff that gets tossed around here is just amazing. Just absolutely mind-boggling how partisan some of you are. I'm not going to argue with you. I retract my statement. I was wrong. Why not delete it, then, and the subsequent followup?

Agree to disagree. Not going to have this discussion anymore, because you and others can't do it without making it personal. Nothing I say will mean anything, because you are only interested in confirming your opinion, not searching for the truth. And you can say the same about me, so why waste our time?

Hell will freeze over first.* *Just a statement of fact. Nothing personal RMA That's a load of horse manure. I misread something earlier in this very thread. I was corrected by Bronty, and I acknowledged it. It is crass and illegitimate to make this claim. ...and how does anyone "admit they're wrong" about a subject concerning opinion...? Some of the stuff that gets tossed around here is just amazing. Just absolutely mind-boggling how partisan some of you are.

I don't (necessarily) agree that #5 was reprinted at the same time as #3 and #4, because of the 75 cent cover price (which both would have been odd to reprint the 3, leave the price the same on 2, and change the one, and because only mini-series books at this time carried a 75 cent cover price.) My #5 second print is in a box and God only knows where, so I can't compare ads (though that's not necessarily a tell, it's better than cover price much of the time.) Here's info that I posted elsewhere: The Star Wars are all designated "reprint", whether on the cover or in the indicia. GI Joe #2 second printing didn't come out until 1985-86 (hence the 75 cent cover price) and was bagged with #26 and #27 second prints. The earliest second prints chronologically are probably #3 and #4, but they are not marked as second printings (the #3 is easy to tell: it has the Marvel "M", rather than the price diamond.) #4 is told by the ads: this book originally came out in 1982. Second printings have an ultra-slightly different font in the price box, and Return of the Jedi game ad on the back (making them 1983 reprints.) But again, they aren't marked as second printings. The chronology of the printings is tough. We have to consider the clues: First: cover price. Is it 60 cents, 65 cents, or 75 cents? This is not conclusive. Later printings could easily have just used the earlier cover price. Assuming they didn't, the earliest book that is actually marked second printing would be #7, which has a 60 cent cover price. But a wrench in this theory is #5: #5 second print has a 75 cent cover price, but was apparently included in #3-5 3-packs, which doesn't square with either the ads or the then-current cover price. What is reasonable to conclude is this: while it's possible that later printings simply used the expired cover prices instead of updating them to then-current prices, it's not likely that a standard book reprinted in 1984 would have a 65 or 75 cent cover price or a standard book reprinted in 1985 would have a 75 cent cover price, especially given the evidence of 60 and 65 cent reprints (which shows an effort to maintain whatever the pricing was for standard books at the time of the printing.) Second: Spidey head in the UPC box. We know that no reprint could have a black Spidey head in the UPC box before June, 1984 cover date, as it didn't exist. So, for #3 and #4 (but NOT #5!), we can safely conclude they were reprinted Third: Cover price for new issues of GI Joe. With issue #34, the April, 1985 issue, the cover price for the regular line went to 75 cents, when the rest of the standard Marvel line went to 65 cents. This is unique to GI Joe. There are NO 65 cent regular issues of GI Joe! Since the 65 cent cover price only lasted for 10 months, it is likely (but not guaranteed!) that the handful of 65 cent later printings (#14, #23, #29) were reprinted in this 10 month time span (4/85 to 2/86.) So, what's the first issue that's called "second printing"? I'm going with #7. By the way...the first no-contest "second printing" based on sellout demand that Marvel ever did? Ghost Rider #1, 1990.

They're both second prints, CGC didn't mark the first one correctly, they missed that it was a second print. The seller probably didn't put on the invoice form that it was a second print, and CGC also missed it. not so fast. You can't just go by "Black Spidey" = 2nd print. It depends on the issue. For example Joe #26 1st prints are the Black Spidey; however, the price changes from .60 to .75 on the 2nd printing. Issues 18, 25, 29 and 30 you can't tell by the cover. Both the 1st prints and 2nd prints have the Black Spidey AND the same price. Those books are probably graded correctly. Not so fast yourself. You can tell 1st from 2nd prints on 18 and 30 by the cover. It's the price box that is the key here. All the direct first prints will have the price in the Marvel "M" box, the second prints look like the photo in the auction. The black Spidey started part way through issue #22. Some copies of 22 are white spidey, some are black, they are both first prints. picture of white spidey #22 1st print picture of black spidey #22 first print. Not so fast, part the third. Joe #22, since it came out the month BEFORE Spidey #252, has a regular Spidey head. If it has a black Spidey head, it is a second printing, NOT a first printing.

They're both second prints, CGC didn't mark the first one correctly, they missed that it was a second print. The seller probably didn't put on the invoice form that it was a second print, and CGC also missed it. not so fast. You can't just go by "Black Spidey" = 2nd print. It depends on the issue. For example Joe #26 1st prints are the Black Spidey; however, the price changes from .60 to .75 on the 2nd printing. Issues 18, 25, 29 and 30 you can't tell by the cover. Both the 1st prints and 2nd prints have the Black Spidey AND the same price. Those books are probably graded correctly. Point of clarification: the black spidey head commenced on the May/June, 1984 cover dated Marvels. Any issue with the black Spidey head would have to have been printed AFTER Spidey #252. Issue #18, which has a Dec 1983 cover date, would have a regular Spidey head for the first printing, which it does.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. They say "all second printings say second printing", which we know isn't true.

Of course, the Joe thread has more info: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7532428&fpart=56

The Star Wars are all designated "reprint", whether on the cover or in the indicia. GI Joe #2 second printing didn't come out until 1985-86 (hence the 75 cent cover price) and was bagged with #26 and #27 second prints. The earliest second prints chronologically are probably #3 and #4, but they are not marked as second printings (the #3 is easy to tell: it has the Marvel "M", rather than the price diamond.) #4 is told by the ads: this book originally came out in 1982. Second printings have an ultra-slightly different font in the price box, and Return of the Jedi game ad on the back (making them 1983 reprints.) But again, they aren't marked as second printings. The chronology of the printings is tough. We have to consider the clues: First: cover price. Is it 60 cents, 65 cents, or 75 cents? This is not conclusive. Later printings could easily have just used the earlier cover price. Assuming they didn't, the earliest book that is actually marked second printing would be #7, which has a 60 cent cover price. But a wrench in this theory is #5: #5 second print has a 75 cent cover price, but was apparently included in #3-5 3-packs, which doesn't square with either the ads or the then-current cover price. What is reasonable to conclude is this: while it's possible that later printings simply used the expired cover prices instead of updating them to then-current prices, it's not likely that a standard book reprinted in 1984 would have a 65 or 75 cent cover price or a standard book reprinted in 1985 would have a 75 cent cover price, especially given the evidence of 60 and 65 cent reprints (which shows an effort to maintain whatever the pricing was for standard books at the time of the printing.) Second: Spidey head in the UPC box. We know that no reprint could have a black Spidey head in the UPC box before June, 1984 cover date, as it didn't exist. So, for #3 and #4 (but NOT #5!), we can safely conclude they were reprinted Third: Cover price for new issues of GI Joe. With issue #34, the April, 1985 issue, the cover price for the regular line went to 75 cents, when the rest of the standard Marvel line went to 65 cents. This is unique to GI Joe. There are NO 65 cent regular issues of GI Joe! Since the 65 cent cover price only lasted for 10 months, it is likely (but not guaranteed!) that the handful of 65 cent later printings (#14, #23, #29) were reprinted in this 10 month time span (4/85 to 2/86.) So, what's the first issue that's called "second printing"? I'm going with #7. By the way...the first no-contest "second printing" based on sellout demand that Marvel ever did? Ghost Rider #1, 1990.

That was CALLED a second printing, or just reprint?

Do you have any newsies? I DO! I have a beautiful #497 newsstand that is a solid 9.75 (if you get my meaning), and whenever I get a pre-screen together, it will be going in.

Indubitably! You know, it's actually a good thing they waited so long Anderson the character develop because that series and the whole 'Patch' thing was just dreadful. The character was definitely hot in spite of and not because of that series because that was some stinky fromage ...are you drunk? Autocorrect Autocorrect drank your milkshake.

I may be done arguing about Wolverine, but that doesn't give you free license to spread libelous accusations about me and misrepresent the character of the entire debate. I misstated exactly one fact, about when you were born, that was based on your comment that you hadn't even read Uncanny X-Men until much later than the people who actually were readers during the early and mid-'80s - an honest mistake and hardly consequential to proceedings. I didn't misrepresent what you said, as numerous people have agreed and at your pedantic parsing of the English language. And I certainly never changed the parameters, while you and your sole ally in the debate attempted to do over and over and over again rather than simply admit that you made a mistake and that you were wrong. Next time, just mannup and admit when you're wrong. I've done it countless times on the Boards; it's not going to kill you. You can't let it go, can you? You just cannot. It's absolutely Bizarro, your posts. Everything you keep accusing me of is precisely what you are doing and have done. If I believed it would accomplish anything, I'd go over where you were wrong in great detail, but it won't, and I'll just look like I'm bullying you. You'll just continue to deny it all. You may even be completely oblivious to it until it's spelled out for you. Take the advice of your friends: drop it.

Indubitably! You know, it's actually a good thing they waited so long Anderson the character develop because that series and the whole 'Patch' thing was just dreadful. The character was definitely hot in spite of and not because of that series because that was some stinky fromage ...are you drunk?

I don't have 221 pages in this thread.

I wish it were possible for people to have a disagreement without making it personal.

I am glad I brought up the subject of Fine Art into this discussion. You schlubs seem to have gotten more out of that than anything else.

Indubitably!

I have a Superman #74 third print 9.8.... Don't have the others right now, but I do have quite a few raws, including the ultra-ridiculously rare MOS #20 2nd that I hope will get a 9.8. I have everything except the Adventures #499 third and MOS #17 2nd.

Sex-ay... I want to get a 9.8 signed by all four. Eventually, I will track them all down.

Not everything about this situation is 100% knowable, but there is the far-fetched interpretation you are proposing, and what logic and common sense would suggest is far more plausible/probable. It is no different than a jury making up its mind based on the preponderance of the evidence. At this point, it just seems as though you're trying to create some kind of reasonable doubt or find some kind of face-saving technicality, because your position is otherwise totally untenable. I feel that your points above have already been thoroughly debunked in previous posts by myself and others. Regarding anything further you may say on this topic, I simply refer interested parties back to previous posts in this thread and the two other threads which are linked in one of my earlier posts. Excellent. I accept that you believe this. And I disagree thoroughly with you, and think that not only did I make good, factual points, but that your points have been completely debunked by myself and others as well. Not only that, but I maintained my integrity by not misstating facts, changing parameters, misrepresenting what others said, and generally getting many details wrong, whether through negligence or outright falsehood (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), as you did not. All done now?

RMA You forgot delekkerste and Rip. I know that's not your thing, though.

Hey now, that's just your opinion that One-D isn't the greatest musical act in history; it cannot be proven as fact. Or, at least that's what someone here might have you believe! Anyway, point taken - I really shouldn't have gotten caught up in this back-and-forth, as numerous people have PM'ed to tell me. And, normally, I wouldn't have. Usually, when I read a bunch of hot air and puffery in Comics General, I just let it slide and don't get involved. But, when someone tried to authoritatively expound on two ludicrous positions concerning subjects that I am intimately familiar with in short succession, I'm afraid I couldn't help myself this time. This individual proceeded to employ the , the Chewbacca Defense, and all sorts of outlandish puffery, obfuscation and misrepresentation to try and defend these positions despite the crushing weight of evidence and informed opinion against him and I just could not stop myself from calling him out on it. Feel better now...?

Why do you assign so much importance to the opinions of the peanut gallery? If you hadn`t made such a big deal and focused 2/3 of this thread on those opinions, they would`ve been buried in this thread and no one would have given them any further thought. It`s not like the final price of this piece will be impacted one iota by the opinions of the peanut gallery anyways. Or did you think the real players, after reading some of the posts in this thread, suddenly started thinking "Hmm, I was only going to bid up to $X00,000, but now I better be ready to bid over $1M"? Oh god. This is like the scientific community's rationale for not debating creationists; that the opposing side is too irrational and uninformed for their opinions to be dignified by a response. Except that a thread in comics general discussing comic art may not be important enough to take this kind of attitude. The fact that, as you say, the price of this piece won't be impacted by the uninformed or less informed opinions around here, makes Gene acknowledging them and engaging them a harmless exercise. I've enjoyed reading Gene's posts in this thread, as he rarely makes an appearance in the comic section these days, and I'm sure plenty of us in the "peanut gallery" appreciate the discussion, undignified and offensive to your sensibilities as it may be. Did you just call me irrational and uninformed? Jerk. The only reason anyone spends time on the arguments of anyone else is because they aren't *quite* certain about their own position. I freely admit that's the case, which is why I love the discussion. I'm happy to consider things that I hadn't considered before. If the opposing side in a debate is clearly wrong, the "informed side" merely states the correct information, and then doesn't waste any more time arguing about it, because that's what it is: a waste of time debating facts. If delekkerste really thought I was an effing maroon, with absolutely no merit to any of my positions, he wouldn't waste his time. No one but effing maroons wastes their time trying to convince people *they* think are effing maroons of anything. But if it's really opinion.....now we're on to something. What tth said is completely correct: if you don't make a big deal about what you think are uninformed opinions, they get buried, and no one wastes anything. That's why tth rarely discusses things with many; he literally believes they have nothing to offer him, and aren't worth his time. And Chrisco...I'll have to respectfully disagree with you: they are two different concepts, and dissimilar enough to make the distinction.