JC25427N

Ghastly grim and ancient Bird wandering from the Nightly Grind Quoth the Bird: "Nevermind"

Editor must have been sleeping in that day, last panel should read "First Victim of Carnage in Cameo"

These were my votes: (Hopefully this link works) https://www.comicartfans.com/BestOfMyVote.asp?GCat=174608

Well based on Brian's earlier post that he will speak to Bill about fixing it, I'm guessing they didn't want people to vote for their own submissions but assumed people naturally wouldn't try to anyway and so they didn't implement anything to prevent it. I didn't vote for any of my own art either, just seemed tacky to me.

Aw man, this is one of the categories I rushed through. I missed that Muppets piece, definitely would have gotten my vote too

I don't know what to say anymore beyond what I have. I don't think your system is wrong or flawed in anyway (at least not any more wrong or flawed than what we have now), I just don't think it's the magic cure-all that you're looking at it as. Right now, there are people that obviously believe that 180 revolves around Wolverine/Weapon X (even though you believe that to be invalid), so I think it's reasonable to believe in your system people will say 180 should count as a "Wolverine Story" and "Introduction". People will still argue because what's being argued isn't being changed it's being called something else, and regardless of whether you think these hypothetical arguments in your system are valid or not the arguments will exist because we'll still be in the same situation we are in now: two sides of an argument where each side thinks the other's arguments are not valid

And thats how the argument would begin

I agree that your labeling could appear cleaner in a way to some people (until people begin to argue on the definition of "Introduction", but semantics aside), but my point was that it wouldn't change anything when it comes to the debate on these issues. You said it yourself, all you're doing is "Reclassifying" (Relabeling is the word I use), but people are still gonna argue the core concept itself regardless of what label is used to describe it. In the world that uses your labeling system, people will argue that the "Introduction Story" of Wolverine is 180 and they will argue that 180 should be labelled as "1st Introduction and Appearance of Wolverine" edit: also just a nit-pick, but labelling GSX1 as the 2nd Wolverine Story sounds so confusing when there are three other stories that significantly revolve or include him before that

I don't think your reclassification really solves anything, you're just changing the words around In your system 1st Cameo Appearance -> 1st Appearance 1st Full Appearance -> 1st Introduction The same arguments would be had just with different words. "Me as a reader when these books came out was not INTRODUCED to Wolverine in 181, I was INTRODUCED to Wolverine the first time when I read Hulk 180". and how long until someone starts to argue 1st Cameo Introduction.

This can only go well

I think having the # of votes be dependent on the number of entries would be a good idea. So if a category gets less than X (not sure what a good cutoff would be) number of entries, everyone only gets say 3 votes for that category. If it gets greater than some Y number of entries, then everyone gets 10 votes in that category. Then if its between X and Y then we stick with 5 votes Something like that so it doesn't have to be a flat number for every category.

Congrats! It looks amazing You mentioned JSC's inking though, it seems like Al Vey was the inker based on his signature here. Or was it split like JSC pencilled and inked Angela and Al Vey pencilled and inked Spawn?

Hard to tell from this picture but it looks at least the paneling and maybe some rough layouts were done in blue pencil

I don't necessarily disagree but I think it'd help your point (and maybe help Brian better explain why he disagrees) if you elaborate then on what about the drastic difference in eras other then price and lettering makes the voting or comparisons unfair in your view?

The artist and title are listed in the voting pages though, same as everywhere else. Also if you click the image, it does give you a larger preview

Nice, isn't this essentially what the morlock tunnels thread is for though?

100% I don't think anyone finds any fault in Stan for signing it, I blame whoever put it infront of him.

Yeah, that's one of the more fortunate ones It's something like this where I would wholeheartedly agree with using defacement to describe what was done. Right over Campbell's own signature to boot

To be fair, its not like the sig is actually touching any of the art itself so I think defacement is a pretty strong word to use here. If someone was really adamant about it they could just white out the stan lee signature and none of the art is lost.

Click the gear on the top right, go to sources, and uncheck the sources you don't want to see in your results anymore

They were mostly on ComicLink so you can't see them anymore, but if you search "Campbell cover" on CAF you can see some of the ComicLink CAF listings for those covers, and yeah most of them have Stan. The running theory is that there was 1 big Campbell collector who had Stan sign his entire collection (I have absolutely nothing to base this on other than the absurd amount of Stan Lee signed Campbell covers, just pure conjecture from me and my friends) https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1865258 https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1832049 https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1834155 https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=1832048 Just a few examples, there are tons more https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerydetailsearch.asp?artist=J.Scott+Campbell&GCat=13461

Almost every Campbell cover that's been on auction in the last year has had a Stan Lee signature on it.

For me, the part of the home page I probably interact with the most is the "Your Account & Collection" dropdown, where the "Enter Best of 2022" is clearly highlighted

I don't know how anyone can read these two posts and still think this is restoration. The book wasn't "restored" to any previous condition. Some guy decided he wanted to have Todd color part of a book where there never was color. Some guys like a sketch of Batman's face on their cover, this guy wanted the moon colored in. Breaking it down abstractly, it's the same thing as a witnessed sketch. Adding ink to part of a book to where there was never ink, only this ink didn't make a conventional drawing, but that doesn't matter for this argument. If this guy had Todd ink in color-breaking spine ticks, or color over some part of the cover that had an ink transfer/ink pull, then we're in a whole other ballpark. tldr: It isn't 'not restoration' because the artist did it, it's not restoration because the added ink didn't restore the book to a previous condition. If it wasn't witnessed I'd expect a green label, not purple. But only if CGC was paying attention, which they're not known for always doing.