JC25427N

On 1/24/2023 at 2:42 PM, trademarkcomics said:

That's just simply not true.

It goes like this:

Hulk #180: Wendigo story

Hulk #181: Wolverine story

Hulk #182: Hammer and Anvil story

Giant-Size X-Men #1: New X-Men story with Wolverine as a main member of the team

Wolverine's impact on the stories is so minor in 180 and 182 that he's barely worth mentioning. However, that does not change the fact that 180 is his first appearance anywhere, no matter how minor it is. 

On 1/24/2023 at 2:34 PM, trademarkcomics said:

There's no argument though..... No valid argument anyway.

On 1/24/2023 at 1:28 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I know this has been litigated ad nauseum, but you're not wrong.

The entire plot of Hulk 180 revolves around Weapon X, Wolverine appears (in full, not shadow) and talks (to the Hulk).

 

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

On 1/24/2023 at 2:27 PM, trademarkcomics said:

How could they do that? A reference to activate Weapon X and a cameo on the last page does not a story make. 

And thats how the argument would begin

On 1/24/2023 at 2:08 PM, trademarkcomics said:

That doesn't take into account multiple cameos before the first "Full Appearance". Right now this is how the first appearances of Darkseid are described by CGC:

Jimmy Olsen #134: 1st Appearance of Darkseid in Cameo on Last Page

Jimmy Olsen #135: Darkseid Cameo

Forever People #1: 1st Full Appearance of Darkseid

 

And with your interpretation of my idea it would go like this:

Jimmy Olsen #134: 1st Appearance of Darkseid

Jimmy Olsen #135: 2nd Appearance of Darkseid

Forever People #1: Darkseid Introduction Story

 

Which of the two seems more clear and concise and which makes all of the first three appearances seem more appealing?

 

Isn't that the main thing that makes the value of comics go up...appeal? Let's take this a step further with Hulk 180, 181, 182 and GSX #1:

Current CGC descriptions of these issues:

Hulk #180: 1st Appearance of Wolverine in Cameo on Last Page

Hulk #181:1st Full Appearance of Wolverine

Hulk #182: Wolverine Cameo on 1st Page

Giant-Size X-Men #1: 2nd Full Appearance of Wolverine

My idea:

Hulk #180: 1st Appearance of Wolverine

Hulk #181: Wolverine Introduction Story and 1st Cover

Hulk #182: Cameo Appearance of Wolverine

Giant-Size X-Men #1: 2nd Wolverine Story

 

Clear, concise and appealing. But it would give fanboys a lot less to debate so what's the fun in that? 

 

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

On 1/24/2023 at 12:12 PM, trademarkcomics said:

Once again, I'm back to my reclassification of appearance vs introduction story. It would solve SO many problems. The first "cameo"/first "full" appearance thing leaves way too much open and makes it hard when the character has many first cameos, like Damien Wayne, Killer Croc, James Rhodes, Darkseid, etc. But to say Darkseid's first appearance is in Jimmy Olsen #134, however his introduction story is in Forever People #1, makes both books seem more important to me and eliminates a lot of doubt and confusion. Nothing is perfect, but the first cameo/first full thing is too flawed to be the standard of the industry in my opinion. 

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.

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. 

On 1/22/2023 at 11:38 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Unpacked this gem last night. I was super excited to finally add a vintage JSC published piece from 1994. It's a little over 10" square - so smaller than a full page, but the scan doesn't do JSC's precision inks justice - especially at a slightly smaller scale. It is really something to see up close.

 

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?

On 1/20/2023 at 4:14 PM, KirbyCollector said:

Crazy, but I see no pencils inside the panels.. I think Catan did this directly in ink... really cool

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

On 1/20/2023 at 4:29 PM, J.Sid said:

It's not about the price. It's not necessarily about the lettering. It's about the drastic difference in eras.

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?

On 1/20/2023 at 11:45 AM, Twanj said:

So much art, and so many different tastes and eras.

I saw some things I'd missed during the year and left comments.

The only thing I can think to do would be to segment by decades.

It might help if artist and title were listed in each. Since some pages, mostly panels, are hard to gauge by the small preview. If I could see the artist, I'd know to deep dive. Or maybe something like Heritage, where when you hover over an image it gives you a larger preview?

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

On 1/18/2023 at 8:38 PM, GotSuperPowers? said:

What thread?  Link please.

On 1/17/2023 at 1:29 PM, Phill the Governor said:

Would it be fair to assume that this was signed near the end of Stan's life? If so he was being pushed to sign so much stuff (so frequently) at his age he was on auto pilot and probably couldn't even clearly see the surface of everything he was signing. We see another signature under his, but he probably just saw some grass in the image (if even spending the time to assess it). It was probably put in front of him, rushed, and 10 minutes later he had already signed 30 more things and this was just one in a huge pile he had to get to. The signature itself looks like a struggle.

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

On 1/17/2023 at 12:24 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Very true. A little white out fixes that up. 

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  

On 1/16/2023 at 10:47 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Final hammer on this piece was $6218. Take that for what you will - new JSC variant covers with two characters from his website (which are drawn in a similar vein: i.e. no backgrounds) are $10k, so  the defacement didn't seem to hurt the value? 

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. 

On 1/16/2023 at 7:29 PM, Buzzetta said:

Is there a way to screen the searches and purposely omit certain dealers?  There are a certain pair of brothers that I prefer not to deal with as making offers is basically a waste of time.   

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

On 1/15/2023 at 12:15 PM, Dr. Balls said:

 

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. 

On 1/14/2023 at 9:51 AM, G.A.tor said:

What if I wasnt on this board but just a caf user. How would I even know the best of was going on? It’s not obvious from the caf main page?

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

On 1/12/2023 at 9:23 AM, kanti said:

Your comment indicated the missing color was on all copies.  So, the book would not be downgraded (manufacturing defect).  My thought is, in this case it seems the color fill really did not restore as the ink was not previously there; nor did the color fill attempt to improve the overall grade since the book was not downgraded in the first place.  

On 1/12/2023 at 10:27 AM, Sauce Dog said:

Just to clarify as well; this isn't even close to being a manufacturing defect, the color was never in the actual production art (as I cannot think of any situation that would result in print separations, or a digital rip, failing to print such a specific localized failure of color). 

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.

On 1/12/2023 at 11:24 AM, Msgarmar said:

Anyone who thinks this isn’t restoration/color touch care to try the same thing Todd did on the same book and send for CGC grading? I’m not a betting man, but here I’d bet $$ you get a PLOD. 

Well no because I'm not a CGC recognized creator. Anyone who thinks this is restoration/color touch should care to go to any convention and have any creator try the same thing Todd did on the same book in front of a CGC witness and send for CGC grading. I am a betting man and I'd bet $$ you get the same yellow label that this book got. But even not witnessed, it'd be green label

Looking forward to the Great Softening of 2023

...well that just sounds dirty 

Not sure what issue the Stegman page is from, sorry

The artist for the Venom and Carnage sketch is Mandy War https://www.instagram.com/mandywarart/?hl=en 

On 1/5/2023 at 5:37 PM, Ducky13 said:

I like to post all of my art on CAF, but I have a relative small collection which includes published pages and convention sketches. I have recieved both positive comments and low ball offers. But I like that while my art is not for sale it is available to both see and know that it is out there.

I wish the site was better able to search descriptions and what is and isn't for sale, and be able to search for published pieces or convention sketches 

If you click "expand search options" you get additional filters which include published/unpublished and art type (which includes convention sketches).

As for sale/not for sale, you can click the Classifieds Tab in the search results which will let you know what premium members have for sale, but for regular members you just have to hover over the piece and see if the For Sale Status says NFS or something else, no way to filter specifically for pieces that non-premium members have for sale.