RockMyAmadeus

I wasn't reaffirming anything, I was making light of his earlier comment on the upward movement of Hellblazer #1. As you can see he just made the same comment again. I wasn't doubting the validity of the sale, I'm glad this book is commanding higher dollar amounts. See that, Dunbar? He didn't say what you thought he said, he was making a sarcastic comment about what Kevin76 said...he was SUPPORTING you and your sale, but you thought he was making a snide comment to you about your sale. Funny how people misinterpret things, isn't it...? The real question is, will you apologize for misinterpreting what he said, and calling his comment "lame" when it was in support of you? Or will you just ignore it, and pretend it didn't happen?

Wait are you saying that the book has detached from both staples? As a result of it's shipping method? The cover isn't entirely detached, but it is significantly torn at both staples, and the interior is now sticking up 1/8" at the top edge. And yes, this happened because of impact during shipping. Slabs need "float room" to prevent them from being harshly jarred in transit. This is usually accomplished through bubble wrap. The Flat Rate boxes have just enough space for the slab and maybe a single layer of bubble wrap. This is not effective at preventing this type of damage. While not foolproof, had the book been surrounded with bubble wrap, the impact to the box may have been absorbed by the bubble wrap, and potentially eliminating the damage shown (which has ruined the book. It is no longer a 9.6.)

:winnah:

Not quite sure how shipping a slab in a medium flat rate box would make Totleben's hand tremble... Maybe from outrage, but you'd need a time machine to make it happen.

One more time....the Medium Flat Rate boxes DO NOT provide enough room for impact damage. Use the 1095s. Can anyone spot what went wrong with this book?

Give it up. You are a consummate blowhard, who believes he is superior to everyone else. JC can be a , but at least he admits it. So, just because someone "admits" they are a "", that gives them the ok to go ahead and be one? Your estimation of me is inaccurate, and based on bias. If you were an honest man, you'd examine all of my posts, and see quite clearly that I do not "believe" I am "superior" to everyone else. I am anything but. I have been as you have charged: a consummate blowhard. A loudmouth. A condescender. A nit-picker. A fault-finder. Guilty on all counts. That does not mean, however, that I remain those things. What you see is only what you wish to see, not what is. I could point out your shortcomings and crimes, and have in the past, and they're pretty bad (like "this board's Hall of Shame" bad), but what would that accomplish? Nothing. And despite that, and your obvious need to "put me in my place", you are still worth far more than even you realize, Dunbar. Strange thing, huh? My suggestion to you, as it was before, is to cut it out. Everyone gets it: you don't like me. I don't think very highly of you as you are, either, but I don't go out of my way to point it out every chance I get. Go your way, and pretend I don't exist, as I do, you. Enough with the harassment.

You total and absolute lack of self-awareness is far more astonishing. You are the very last person on these boards who can make that accusation. No, I know *exactly* who I am, and make no bones about it. I'm a surly SOB with a mean streak a mile wide. How you view yourself and how others do is also a mile apart. That's why you are the very last person on these boards who can make that accusation. You have not even the beginning of a concept of "how I view myself" and you barely know how others do. I'm not so arrogant and selfish that I can't recognize that everyone, even the most obnoxious, has great value and worth...even you. That's not a claim you can make, because you simply don't care, and are proud of that fact, to your great discredit. But, by all means, keep pushing it, and eventually the mods will have had enough of you.

Please, feel free to hit all the BINs on Sword of Azrael #1.

You total and absolute lack of self-awareness is far more astonishing. You are the very last person on these boards who can make that accusation.

If you say stupid mess, you really can't expect people not to call you out on it. It's one thing to disagree with someone. It's quite another to insult and denigrate someone because they disagree with you. There's a valuable difference in between the two. I honestly hope you learn that at some point. Take care!

$239 final bid! Holy . I wonder what my CGC 9.6 could fetch if I sold it. Adjusted for inflation, I'd say that's right about where it was when NTT was on fire in 1981-82.

Who said that? You know know that's essentially what someone is saying when they say he was not a star and had a lot of ground to cover before he became one. Despite repeated requests, you seem completely incapable of not talking about me, so I'll simply reply when you've said things that are not true. This is an example. This brings me back to Jr. High I agree completely. When someone repeatedly asks you to stop making the conversation about them, and they refuse? Classic Jr. high school behavior. How about we all be men, agree to disagree, and call it truths? I "agreed to disagree" with delekkerste several days ago, and have not engaged him on this topic since. You might have missed that. I assume you mean "truce"...?

Who said that? You know know that's essentially what someone is saying when they say he was not a star and had a lot of ground to cover before he became one. Despite repeated requests, you seem completely incapable of not talking about me, so I'll simply reply when you've said things that are not true. This is an example. This brings me back to Jr. High People always talk about me.... Yeah, but you can take it like a champ. You're new here, so you don't really know what's going on. That *should* stop you from commenting on it, but you're not that type of person. So be it. Suffice it to say, I've spent a lot of time on this board getting into pointless arguments with people over trivial nonsense. They're at fault, I'm at fault, who cares? Did it solve anything? No. Did it prove anything? No. Did it do anything but create wedges unnecessarily? No. Hence, my persistent attempts to get the conversation to be about the conversation, rather than taking personal potshots at the people involved. The one thing, though, that no one should tolerate is someone making statements up, and then claiming someone else said them. Everyone reserves the right to correct the record about what they actually say, and can do so without making it personal.

Who said that? You know know that's essentially what someone is saying when they say he was not a star and had a lot of ground to cover before he became one. Despite repeated requests, you seem completely incapable of not talking about me, so I'll simply reply when you've said things that are not true. This is an example. This brings me back to Jr. High I agree completely. When someone repeatedly asks you to stop making the conversation about them, and they refuse? Classic Jr. high school behavior.

I'll say . . . Indeed.

But they don't mean it came out the same day. Since comics have almost universally (there are exceptions, of course) been dated month and year only, in that respect, it *is* a tie: Spidey #252, MTU #141, and Spect #90 all have a May, 1984 cover date. Of course, anyone with sense will realize that #252 came out before the other two, or the surprise would have been spoiled (plus, MTU #141 would have confused the market.)

Who said that? You know know that's essentially what someone is saying when they say he was not a star and had a lot of ground to cover before he became one. Despite repeated requests, you seem completely incapable of not talking about me, so I'll simply reply when you've said things that are not true. This is an example.

It does, but I'm not sure why you need to be confrontational. How many other convention programs, ads, and other ephemera can I come up with in response...? Well...I've got these:

Come on, who would be stupid enough to try and "make that point"? Superman and Batman have been around since 1930's-40's and Spider-man has been in the public eye since 1962, and each have had multiple TV shows/movie serials. That's some serious longevity, and several generations of media exposure for the DC capes. By 1983, Wolverine had only been around 9 short years, with zero TV shows, so obviously the far more established heroes with decades of history and media exposure behind them would be more popular and well-known with the general populace. That's just basic logic, not any "point that needs to be made". Jesus guys. So, since Wolverine had only been around for "9 short years" and had "zero TV shows", you're conceding that other characters were far more popular? After all, a "superstar" doesn't need "several generations of media exposure" to be a superstar...superstars come along with relative frequency. The pop world is littered with them. After all....you just made the point...right up there...that "Spiderman has been in the public eye since 1962." The only books featuring Spiderman that came out in 1962 were Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spiderman #1. I'm perfectly willing to concede that Spidey became a superstar within a very few short years after his first appearance. 5 at most, before Stan Lee was giving lectures on college campuses, and Spidey was appearing on Saturday morning cartoons. If Spidey didn't need "9 short years" to become a household name...why did Wolvie...? Could it be because Spidey, from his very outset, was a better character, who clicked with comic audiences in a way that Wolverine did not...at least for a while? I'll simply ignore the very real fact that "several generations of media exposure" doesn't mean squat in terms of popularity. Popularity is all about NOW, what are you doing NOW, what's happening NOW. Not "what happened in 1943" (mostly because the people who would remember such events are nearly all dead.) Here's the dirty little secret to popularity: exposure must be kept at a consistent level, or interest wanes. It doesn't matter that Superman had several serials in the 40's (which most people have never seen) and it doesn't even matter that he had a hit film in 1978. It matters very much that he had a hit film in 2013. "Decades of history" and "long term exposure" doesn't mean squat if there's not something current. After all....Captain Marvel was arguably the single most popular superhero of the 40's. Where is he now, in terms of popularity....? (PS. But no, that still wasn't the point I was trying to make.) PS. A character doesn't get a TV show to *make* them popular...they get one because they already *are* popular.

Correct! It was the first time I had read the story. I vaguely remember seeing the 1986 reprint at somepoint. But, it didn't really stick out. I was mostly all about Spidey at that point, and not into mutnats at all. I never even bought the Wolverine reg series. Once I had bought the Mini-Series, I was basically done (except buying the reprint-reprint . More out of curiosity than fanfare. And the Weapon X stuff, and the Sam Keith stuff ) I was caught in the reprint trap of Hulk vs Wolvie #1. I didn't know it was a reprint until after I bought it. I thought it was like Spiderman vs. Wolverine. And to add insult to injury, this was in 1990-91 or thereabouts, and I paid $6 or so for it....$6 in 1990 dollars! Argh! For a REPRINT!! Oh well, lesson learned.

Come on, who would be stupid enough to try and "make that point"? Superman and Batman have been around since 1930's-40's and Spider-man has been in the public eye since 1962, and each have had multiple TV shows/movie serials. That's some serious longevity, and several generations of media exposure for the DC capes. By 1983, Wolverine had only been around 9 short years, with zero TV shows, so obviously the far more established heroes with decades of history and media exposure behind them would be more popular and well-known with the general populace. That's just basic logic, not any "point that needs to be made". Jesus guys. So, since Wolverine had only been around for "9 short years" and had "zero TV shows", you're conceding that other characters were far more popular? After all, a "superstar" doesn't need "several generations of media exposure" to be a superstar...superstars come along with relative frequency. The pop world is littered with them. After all....you just made the point...right up there...that "Spiderman has been in the public eye since 1962." The only books featuring Spiderman that came out in 1962 were Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spiderman #1. I'm perfectly willing to concede that Spidey became a superstar within a very few short years after his first appearance. 5 at most, before Stan Lee was giving lectures on college campuses, and Spidey was appearing on Saturday morning cartoons. If Spidey didn't need "9 short years" to become a household name...why did Wolvie...? Could it be because Spidey, from his very outset, was a better character, who clicked with comic audiences in a way that Wolverine did not...at least for a while? I'll simply ignore the very real fact that "several generations of media exposure" doesn't mean squat in terms of popularity. Popularity is all about NOW, what are you doing NOW, what's happening NOW. Not "what happened in 1943" (mostly because the people who would remember such events are nearly all dead.) Here's the dirty little secret to popularity: exposure must be kept at a consistent level, or interest wanes. It doesn't matter that Superman had several serials in the 40's (which most people have never seen) and it doesn't even matter that he had a hit film in 1978. It matters very much that he had a hit film in 2013. "Decades of history" and "long term exposure" doesn't mean squat if there's not something current. After all....Captain Marvel was arguably the single most popular superhero of the 40's. Where is he now, in terms of popularity....? (PS. But no, that still wasn't the point I was trying to make.)

Those who cannot make their arguments without "spiking the ball" (whether earned or not) in their opponent's faces are fascinating. This has been, at its core, an argument of OPINION. Opinion, by its very nature, is nearly impossible to prove...and damn little proof has been offered. And yet, there are people constantly throwing out "that's the fact, JACK!" statements as if they've proven their OPINION beyond any doubt. It's absolutely fascinating.

It actually had an October 1986 cover date. Hmm...that's not the one I had. I searched and found this one....this is one I was talking about: That's essentially a prestige format reprint of...a reprint. First one came out in 1986, this one came out later, as you point out.

Yup, whether intentionally or unintentionally (I think it was just a misunderstanding). Wolverine was definitely a star by the early 1980's and not just an ambiguous relatively new character like Human Fly but he was not a household name until the late 1980's / early 1990's. I don't think anyone was arguing that. Wolverine was neither an ambiguous relatively new character, nor was he a star in the early 80's. He was very popular, no doubt. But he was not a star. He was not *the* X-Man. He still had peers. He had a lot of ground to cover before he became a bonafide star (which happened by about #201-up.) So, my goalposts haven't changed, though I've certainly watched others change them.