JTLarsen

Yeah, that sig line's super obnoxious. At least it's not the soft-core porn montages that keep who-knows-how-many people away... Just turn sigs off in your preferences. Then I miss out on worthwhile sigs. And other posters miss out on the chance to have their sigs seen. I'm just saying it's too bad everyone can't tailor their sigs to be considerate, tech-friendly and family friendly. who's sig line are we talking about here? I had an AAdams Longshot tribute gif (celebrating 30 yr anniversary in April) Well Is May already and it got a little played so I graciously accommodated their request Not too sure about the soft porn stuff, who was that? Thank you! Love Art Adams--bought Longshot off the stands...but I think I was getting epilepsy!

I've seen signatures that feature attractive women and some of those have crossed the line (and been removed) but I can't think of any users currently who have anything in their sig that I would consider soft-core porn. Fair enough. I'm using that as short-hand for images that clearly objectify (usually) scantily clad women that would likely make some kids and/or women feel like this was not their space.

Yeah, that sig line's super obnoxious. At least it's not the soft-core porn montages that keep who-knows-how-many people away... Just turn sigs off in your preferences. Then I miss out on worthwhile sigs. And other posters miss out on the chance to have their sigs seen. I'm just saying it's too bad everyone can't tailor their sigs to be considerate, tech-friendly and family friendly. Download Adblock. Then you have bliss. I've blocked more individual obnoxiously large sig pics than I can remember Ah, thanks for that--I may give that a try. My bigger concern, honestly, though, is having a forum that's open and welcoming for everyone. I'd happily put up with the sig lines if they didn't also cost us participation by readers who won't be put off by the soft-core ones...

Yeah, that sig line's super obnoxious. At least it's not the soft-core porn montages that keep who-knows-how-many people away... Just turn sigs off in your preferences. Then I miss out on worthwhile sigs. And other posters miss out on the chance to have their sigs seen. I'm just saying it's too bad everyone can't tailor their sigs to be considerate, tech-friendly and family friendly.

Yeah, that sig line's super obnoxious. At least it's not the soft-core porn montages that keep who-knows-how-many people away...

What's your pay rate for editors? Ha!

(thumbs u I'll take the middle ground. I don't think Mr Hoknes is doing Pulitzer worthy investigative work, but, conveinience wise, I certainly don't mind reading an aggregate of the information out there. I find it useful and check it out, too. The danger is lots of it goes un-updated for months--and newcomers might think that info is still up to date...and some of it is very not.

The talking point is the fact this character has been well established for 50+ years. As vaillant said, it's poor storytelling. Develop a new character. No, the character's been revised a million ways over 50 years. And every few years the writers re-examine these characters for the times in which they're NOW being written. Do you really want Bobby written as if this were still the early '60s? No. Except when it comes to his sexuality. Wonder why that is. Cheap shot. Give it a rest. Moot point, with Revat's clarification. But, there are certain things about people that don't change. I believe sexual orientation to be one of them. I believe gay people are aware of their orientation from the get go (can any of the gay board members chime in). Not a cheap shot. Genuine curiosity. If your explanation is that "certain things" don't change (which, btw, no basis in reality) then tell us all the other things you've objected to equally when they changed over the past decades. And if it's just homosexuality you have a problem with a writer changing, maybe you should wonder why, too.

The talking point is the fact this character has been well established for 50+ years. As vaillant said, it's poor storytelling. Develop a new character. No, the character's been revised a million ways over 50 years. And every few years the writers re-examine these characters for the times in which they're NOW being written. Do you really want Bobby written as if this were still the early '60s? No. Except when it comes to his sexuality. Wonder why that is.

This is why I get less Marvel books and soon will not be picking up any new issues. Diversity for the sake of diversity for the sake of saying hey look we are all championing diversity is incredibly fake. WTG Marvel. So the lack of diversity for forty-plus years was what, real? I think he's saying they're forcing it, rather than doing what Archie Comics did, which was to introduce a gay character. That’s what natevegas meant – and aside from this this is offensive regardless. Also, if you introduce a character supporting a highly controversial topic, an ideologic stance, you have to be a really good writer to do so – political correctness is not just offensive, it also brings an element of unlikeliness to the narration. Really poor writing. Political correctness literally means not giving offense. And Bobby isn't "supporting a...topic" whatever that means. His EXISTENCE as a gay person is reflecting the REALITY (not "unlikeliness") that, um, some people are gay. If you can accept the unlikeliness of a dude turning to ice, with a little work you can probably accept the unlikeliness of a dude turning to other dudes.

This is why I get less Marvel books and soon will not be picking up any new issues. Diversity for the sake of diversity for the sake of saying hey look we are all championing diversity is incredibly fake. WTG Marvel. So the lack of diversity for forty-plus years was what, real?

Because of eBay's Global Shipping program? No, I am not enrolled in eBay's Global Shipping program.The buyer paid $14.90 ( total) for shipping b/c the box was shipped to Switzerland. .....if I were enrolled into the feeBay global selling(swiping) program, the shipping billed to the buyer by feeBay would have been around $30.With around 50% of that $30 going directly into eBay's coffers. $14.90 was the total cost that the buyer paid for shipping....just mentioned that to illustrate that the total paid for the book (shipping included) was $80.91 $14.90 sent via usps 1st class international air mail, in a well packaged BOX, from the USA to Switzerland is what the USPS charged me. How do you know it went to Switzerland? I thought winners were supposed to be anonymous. Yes, all bidders are anonymous on eBay. I know it went to Switzerland because it was my auction listing, I shipped it to the winning bidder myself. That would explain it! Thanks!

Because of eBay's Global Shipping program? No, I am not enrolled in eBay's Global Shipping program.The buyer paid $14.90 ( total) for shipping b/c the box was shipped to Switzerland. .....if I were enrolled into the feeBay global selling(swiping) program, the shipping billed to the buyer by feeBay would have been around $30.With around 50% of that $30 going directly into eBay's coffers. $14.90 was the total cost that the buyer paid for shipping....just mentioned that to illustrate that the total paid for the book (shipping included) was $80.91 $14.90 sent via usps 1st class international air mail, in a well packaged BOX, from the USA to Switzerland is what the USPS charged me. How do you know it went to Switzerland? I thought winners were supposed to be anonymous.

D'oh! Technically not '80s... Christmas 1979... so still on the stands the first days of 1980! The last time I took advice on buying "British" magazines, it was Warrior #1 about 10 years ago. That went pretty well. So, I just got the Frantic with a Best Offer at 30% off. (thumbs u Jealous! PS: There are LOTS of insanely tough-to-fond UK comics and magazines from the '70s, '80s and '90s with VERY strong connections to US properties and big-name creators. That can still be had pretty cheaply if you know what you're looking for and actually commit to the hunt. I just picked up a $3 UK fanzine from the early '70s. Back cover by Dave Gibbons. There's early Bolland, Moore, Morrison and others to be had out there, too. And some with very mainstream-comic connections...such as Mad Dog #10 by Alan Moore. VERY VERY tough to find...and directly linked to Marvel's Captain Britain multiverse mess...

D'oh! Technically not '80s... Christmas 1979... so still on the stands the first days of 1980! The last time I took advice on buying "British" magazines, it was Warrior #1 about 10 years ago. That went pretty well. So, I just got the Frantic with a Best Offer at 30% off. (thumbs u Jealous!

D'oh! Technically not '80s... Christmas 1979... so still on the stands the first days of 1980!

This one took me YEARS to find: http://www.ebay.com/itm/FRANTIC-Winter-Special-1979-Alan-Moore-Cartoons-Curt-Vile-VERY-RARE-UK-Marvel-/191556239059?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2c99a43ed3 If I didn't already have one from years ago, I'd be snatching this one up at that price without question. Surprised no one has yet...

No other series is as underrated compared to how hugely seminal it was. Less highbrow than Watchmen, like Watchmen it both changed comics but was never equaled in what it did. I re-read it regularly.

This. So this.

I'm interested why you would want to shut JDR up? He presents his arguments cogently, if somewhat aggressively. And everyone is free to evaluate the logic and worth of each post. I think the main thing with JDR is that he always uses the terminology of "crashing" I don't see it as crashing at all. It is a period of irrational exuberance that leads to artificially propped up highs. Whether these are fomented by shilling or not is typically a case by case analysis. But those artificial highs, when they correct, can correct precipitously. And for those who are heavily invested, or who have bought in at the top of the market, it certainly looks like a crash. Never said i wanted to "shut him up" but realistically and im not the only one that notices it, he is constantly bashing on modern titles, especially ones that start to climb up in some decent value. everyone is entitled to comment on anything on this forum, but it tends to get old and quite annoying real quick when you always see the same person bashing titles that this one person doesn't own or like.... People have to face it that BA#12 in any decent shape or grade is going to fetch good money. Harley Quinn is for some reason a hot character and apparently with the way her current modern series is selling and how Margot robbie has been signed to play her in more then one film is that Harley is here to stay.... I agree with the fetch good money thing. But if it settles back down in the $800-$1200 range for a 9.8, what does that mean for the people that may buy in at irrationally (My terminology) high levels like $2000-2500 or even higher. That is still real good money, but to the top end purchasers, it doesn't feel good. For the record, I infinitely prefer having naysayers around to make the contrary argument. Right or wrong, I want to hear the argument against. For every book. Every time.

I collected the Alan Moore and Grant Morrison issues of Star Wars Weekly. I agree American collectors don't care much about UK books. Which is why I can afford them now, before they--and the global market--stop caring about the distinction between US and UK!

Wolverine's first (full) appearance, first story appearance, first cover appearance > cameofirst ever appearance in one panel on last page. -J. I have never said differently. -slym This is my point, Slym. You discredit the importance of what the collector base has already decided about 180/181. Wolverine appeared in the last page of 180, it's a big time cameo, and then he subsequently appears in 181. That's collecting 101. The term cameo carries massive weight. To do away with it is an unnecessary and extreme oversimplification. There's no rules or logic behind determining what constitutes a cameo. It's a cameo when the collector base decides it is. If you want an even more illogical use of the term cameo go look at UXM Annual 14 and UXM 266. It makes no sense but it doesn't have to because the collector base has already decided that UXM Annual 14 is the first (cameo) appearance and UXM 266 is the first (full) appearance. The same thing was decided about 180/181 decades ago. And these things stay decided. Until they get un-decided. These things can and do get changed. Witness the evolution (for different reasons) of the first appearance of Sgt. Rock. Or the coming realization about the first appearance of the Teen Titans (B&B 60). And you think that will happen with Incredible Hulk 180/181? Good point btw. No, I don't. The information about those two books seems to be pretty clear and accurate. 180 = a first (cameo) appearance. 181 = first full appearance. I'm just saying the notion that the market "decides" -- and then the decision magically, always, sticks forever -- ain't so. The market can change its mind.

Wolverine's first (full) appearance, first story appearance, first cover appearance > cameofirst ever appearance in one panel on last page. -J. I have never said differently. -slym This is my point, Slym. You discredit the importance of what the collector base has already decided about 180/181. Wolverine appeared in the last page of 180, it's a big time cameo, and then he subsequently appears in 181. That's collecting 101. The term cameo carries massive weight. To do away with it is an unnecessary and extreme oversimplification. There's no rules or logic behind determining what constitutes a cameo. It's a cameo when the collector base decides it is. If you want an even more illogical use of the term cameo go look at UXM Annual 14 and UXM 266. It makes no sense but it doesn't have to because the collector base has already decided that UXM Annual 14 is the first (cameo) appearance and UXM 266 is the first (full) appearance. The same thing was decided about 180/181 decades ago. And these things stay decided. Until they get un-decided. These things can and do get changed. Witness the evolution (for different reasons) of the first appearance of Sgt. Rock. Or the coming realization about the first appearance of the Teen Titans (B&B 60).

It was thought of as his first appearance way before CGC ever came into existence. Not so. Would love to see any kind of guide listing that put 181 as his first with no mention of his actual first (cameo, whatever) in 180. Link? Scan? Absolutely yes so. #181 is broken out in the Overstreet for the first time in issue #8 (1978) and remained that way for the next three years, until Overstreet #11 hit the stands and for the first time listed #180 as a cameo. Jim My apologies. But, c'mon, I think the bigger point here is that it wasn't a big deal--look how it's priced compared to the Doc Samson and Warlock appearances. I think once people actually started caring about it, people realized quickly that he made his big, splashy panel debut in 180. That's just not true. Once the character began picking up steam, 181 commanded a premium over 180. I can remember as early as 1982 181 being a $20 wall book at a few stores around Chicago with 180, 182 still being in the back issue bins. Yes, of course. But I didn't say anything that contradicts this. My point is that, almost as soon as people actually cared about 181, the distinction with 180 was made. For the vast majority of Wolvie's history as a coveted character, the industry has made clear that 181 was first full appearance and 180 was first appearance (cameo).

It was thought of as his first appearance way before CGC ever came into existence. Not so. Would love to see any kind of guide listing that put 181 as his first with no mention of his actual first (cameo, whatever) in 180. Link? Scan? Absolutely yes so. #181 is broken out in the Overstreet for the first time in issue #8 (1978) and remained that way for the next three years, until Overstreet #11 hit the stands and for the first time listed #180 as a cameo. Jim My apologies. But, c'mon, I think the bigger point here is that it wasn't a big deal--look how it's priced compared to the Doc Samson and Warlock appearances. I think once people actually started caring about it, people realized quickly that he made his big, splashy panel debut in 180.