AF 15--1.1 milliion--which would you choose?

[Bronty]

How can I attack people for collecting the same things as I used to?

 

[/b]!

 

That's exactly what I am left wondering Terry.... whether you realize it or not that's exactly how it sounds. And that's coming from someone who collects art and hasn't collected comics in nearly a decade

[Terry Doyle]

How can I attack people for collecting the same things as I used to?

 

[/b]!

 

That's exactly what I am left wondering Terry.... whether you realize it or not that's exactly how it sounds. And that's coming from someone who collects art and hasn't collected comics in nearly a decade

 

My original post, that upset Mr Hong Kong, went as follows:

 

"I think collectors have become obsessed with 'condition'.

 

I can understand the desire for a decent copy of a comic-book ('key' issues especially) . . . but the search for 'perfection' seems to overide most other factors.

 

It's as if the storyline/pictorial content has become incidental.

 

I can remember the days when it was fun to locate the books and enthuse over the contents.

 

Now, folks seem to enthuse about the pedigree

 

I'm glad I'm out of the comic-book collecting market."

The above was my honest reaction to the whole slabbed phenomenon.

 

It's called having an opinion.

 

And you yourself, Mr Bronty, was the first to react to this post by remarking . . .

 

"It's all about the money".

 

So, if you're now saying that my original post sounded as if I was attacking anyone, I'd have to say that you were quick to come back with a viewpoint that went a lot further than any observations of my own.

 

If I don't have a problem with your own perspective - why should you (now) have a problem with mine?

 

Why my thoughts should prove upsetting to some, I really don't know.

 

The forum's supposed to be an exchange of thoughts and opinions.

 

Having a contrary opinion to someone else shouldn't upset or distress.

 

[bluechip]

3) The motivation for many collectors is to reassemble items from their "golden age" (typically when they were 10 - 12 years old) and the comic was the item they held at that age, not the art.

 

Sorry, I've been busy for the past few days and have not been able to respond more fully to some of the posts I've read responding to the comparisons I made.

 

Whilst I'd certainly agree that the motivation for many comic-book OA collectors would tie-in to reasons of nostalgic fondness for books they read as 10 - 12 year olds, I definitely think that this is not true for some of us.

 

Speaking personally (and I hope 'Mr Hong Kong' doesn't object to me having an opinion - made abundantly clear), the reason I got into OA collecting was as a result of the Russ Cochran EC complete library project (and artwork auctions that quickly followed) . . .

 

I never followed EC comics during the 1950s . . . because I wasn't around (or in the same country of publication) to encounter them.

 

EC comics, I discovered, in the late 1970s as a somewhat jaded collector - beginning to get tired of the decade-upon-decade of superhero comics (superhero types in endless confrontation with superbaddie types).

 

Apart from the high standard of storytelling, I was attracted to the (even more) high standards of illustration.

 

When Russ Cochran (publisher of the EC library reprint series) would re-print a component of the EC series, the original artwork (carefully stored by Bill Gaines since the 1950s) would become available for purchase (via auction).

 

From 1982 onwards, I regularly bought EC artwork from Russ - accumulating somewhere in the region of several hundred pages worth of covers and complete stories.

 

I bought this art out of appreciation for the combination of high standards in illustration and story-telling . . . not for reasons of nostalgic fondness (how could I feel nostalgic about something that appeared, 'before my time'?).

 

I don't want to (endlessly) justify my stance.

 

I've been an avid comic-book collector in my time - so I like to think I know where those guys are coming from - and what motivates them.

 

The only reason I used (extreme) examples of comparisons between original art vs. the printed page was to quickly prove a point that (if the right examples where chosen), no-one would have any doubt as to which would be the more desirable item (original artwork over a reproduced printed page).

 

You don't have to be a collector of comic-books to appreciate the aesthetic value of a beautifully-illustrated (or painted) piece of artwork.

 

One of the reasons I highlighted the Frazetta WSF # 29 cover.

 

The original (hypothetical) question . . . which I took as a 'fun' type of question . . . was what we would prefer. A highest grade copy of the comic-book - or the OA cover.

 

My responses were tailored to the original question.

 

At the end of the day, it's all opinion-based.

 

I know what I love . . . and I'm only sorry that a number of fellow OA-collector friends have chosen to remain silent on this subject.

 

My thanks to the likes of Ruben and Felix for being vocal.

 

It is supposed to be an OA forum, after all.

 

And, as an afterthought, WSF # 29 carried stories by Wally Wood, Al Williamson (a frequent Frazetta collaborator), Reed Crandall and Joe Orlando (illustrating the series of famous "I, Robot" stories) . . . so hardly your average line-up of artistic talents.

 

I may be vocal, and not everyone will share my views . . . but at least I'll stand up and be counted (and my profile is informative and not vague)..

 

Bring on the flak . . .

 

You seem to feel you were attacked for preferring original art, but it seemed to me that you essentially attacked people for collecting comics.

 

What part of . . .

 

"I've been an avid comic-book collector in my time - so I like to think I know where those guys are coming from - and what motivates them."

 

. . . is it you don't understand?

 

How can I attack people for collecting the same things as I used to?

 

See my avatar? That's a photo of me as a kid reading (shock! Horror!! Gasp!!!) a comic-book!

 

Again, your tone leaps to the confrontational with the classic "what part of (quote myself" don't you understand" which is insulting because it implies that this statement is what you said and that I, or anyone else, lacks the ability to understand a simple remark.

 

But aside from that, there's the fact that the statement you quote wasn't the statement I was talking about. The fact that you say some insulting isn't mitigated by the fact that it was said along with other remarks that weren't insulting.

 

You equated the collecting of an original AF15 with a peson who would pay collector money for (and possibly even prefer) a photo ot the Mona Lisa to the original painting. You didn't simply say you preferred art to an original comic, you denigrated people for collecting comics. Doens't change it is you say that you used to do the same thing yourself. And when people point that out, it just makes it worse to do the insulting "what part of blank don't you understand?"

 

[Terry Doyle]

3) The motivation for many collectors is to reassemble items from their "golden age" (typically when they were 10 - 12 years old) and the comic was the item they held at that age, not the art.

 

Sorry, I've been busy for the past few days and have not been able to respond more fully to some of the posts I've read responding to the comparisons I made.

 

Whilst I'd certainly agree that the motivation for many comic-book OA collectors would tie-in to reasons of nostalgic fondness for books they read as 10 - 12 year olds, I definitely think that this is not true for some of us.

 

Speaking personally (and I hope 'Mr Hong Kong' doesn't object to me having an opinion - made abundantly clear), the reason I got into OA collecting was as a result of the Russ Cochran EC complete library project (and artwork auctions that quickly followed) . . .

 

I never followed EC comics during the 1950s . . . because I wasn't around (or in the same country of publication) to encounter them.

 

EC comics, I discovered, in the late 1970s as a somewhat jaded collector - beginning to get tired of the decade-upon-decade of superhero comics (superhero types in endless confrontation with superbaddie types).

 

Apart from the high standard of storytelling, I was attracted to the (even more) high standards of illustration.

 

When Russ Cochran (publisher of the EC library reprint series) would re-print a component of the EC series, the original artwork (carefully stored by Bill Gaines since the 1950s) would become available for purchase (via auction).

 

From 1982 onwards, I regularly bought EC artwork from Russ - accumulating somewhere in the region of several hundred pages worth of covers and complete stories.

 

I bought this art out of appreciation for the combination of high standards in illustration and story-telling . . . not for reasons of nostalgic fondness (how could I feel nostalgic about something that appeared, 'before my time'?).

 

I don't want to (endlessly) justify my stance.

 

I've been an avid comic-book collector in my time - so I like to think I know where those guys are coming from - and what motivates them.

 

The only reason I used (extreme) examples of comparisons between original art vs. the printed page was to quickly prove a point that (if the right examples where chosen), no-one would have any doubt as to which would be the more desirable item (original artwork over a reproduced printed page).

 

You don't have to be a collector of comic-books to appreciate the aesthetic value of a beautifully-illustrated (or painted) piece of artwork.

 

One of the reasons I highlighted the Frazetta WSF # 29 cover.

 

The original (hypothetical) question . . . which I took as a 'fun' type of question . . . was what we would prefer. A highest grade copy of the comic-book - or the OA cover.

 

My responses were tailored to the original question.

 

At the end of the day, it's all opinion-based.

 

I know what I love . . . and I'm only sorry that a number of fellow OA-collector friends have chosen to remain silent on this subject.

 

My thanks to the likes of Ruben and Felix for being vocal.

 

It is supposed to be an OA forum, after all.

 

And, as an afterthought, WSF # 29 carried stories by Wally Wood, Al Williamson (a frequent Frazetta collaborator), Reed Crandall and Joe Orlando (illustrating the series of famous "I, Robot" stories) . . . so hardly your average line-up of artistic talents.

 

I may be vocal, and not everyone will share my views . . . but at least I'll stand up and be counted (and my profile is informative and not vague)..

 

Bring on the flak . . .

 

You seem to feel you were attacked for preferring original art, but it seemed to me that you essentially attacked people for collecting comics.

 

What part of . . .

 

"I've been an avid comic-book collector in my time - so I like to think I know where those guys are coming from - and what motivates them."

 

. . . is it you don't understand?

 

How can I attack people for collecting the same things as I used to?

 

See my avatar? That's a photo of me as a kid reading (shock! Horror!! Gasp!!!) a comic-book!

 

Again, your tone leaps to the confrontational with the classic "what part of (quote myself" don't you understand" which is insulting because it implies that this statement is what you said and that I, or anyone else, lacks the ability to understand a simple remark.

 

But aside from that, there's the fact that the statement you quote wasn't the statement I was talking about. The fact that you say some insulting isn't mitigated by the fact that it was said along with other remarks that weren't insulting.

 

You equated the collecting of an original AF15 with a peson who would pay collector money for (and possibly even prefer) a photo ot the Mona Lisa to the original painting. You didn't simply say you preferred art to an original comic, you denigrated people for collecting comics. Doens't change it is you say that you used to do the same thing yourself. And when people point that out, it just makes it worse to do the insulting "what part of blank don't you understand?"

 

You made an accusation that I attacked people for collecting comic-books.

 

Do I (endlessly) need to point out to people like you that I've been an avid collector of comic-books in my time?

 

Still have some comics remaining . . . lots of reprint material . . . I love comic-books.

 

If I didn't love comic-books, why would I collect original comic-book artwork?

 

If I say you don't understand me . . . it's because you don't.

 

 

[Romain]

If I say you don't understand me . . . it's because you don't.

 

 

(thumbs u

[Terry Doyle]

If I say you don't understand me . . . it's because you don't.

 

 

(thumbs u

 

Seriously, Romain, this is getting beyond a joke.

 

Are some comic-book collectors that insecure/paranoid about what they collect, that they feel the need to vigourously defend anything they percieve to be a slight against them?

 

 

[ShaneTurgeon]

 

Are some comic-book collectors that insecure/paranoid about what they collect, that they feel the need to vigourously defend anything they percieve to be a slight against them?

 

 

Unfortunately that's just the internet, Terry. Someone, somewhere, somehow, will find fault in something innocent we post and run with it. My advice, don't play along. Some people just like argue for the sake of arguing.

 

And now i'm going to duck out before people start picking apart my post and try to argue with what i said.

[Terry Doyle]

 

Are some comic-book collectors that insecure/paranoid about what they collect, that they feel the need to vigourously defend anything they percieve to be a slight against them?

 

 

Unfortunately that's just the internet, Terry. Someone, somewhere, somehow, will find fault in something innocent we post and run with it. My advice, don't play along. Some people just like argue for the sake of arguing.

 

And now i'm going to duck out before people start picking apart my post and try to argue with what i said.

 

[Bronty]

How can I attack people for collecting the same things as I used to?

 

[/b]!

 

That's exactly what I am left wondering Terry.... whether you realize it or not that's exactly how it sounds. And that's coming from someone who collects art and hasn't collected comics in nearly a decade

 

My original post, that upset Mr Hong Kong, went as follows:

 

"I think collectors have become obsessed with 'condition'.

 

I can understand the desire for a decent copy of a comic-book ('key' issues especially) . . . but the search for 'perfection' seems to overide most other factors.

 

It's as if the storyline/pictorial content has become incidental.

 

I can remember the days when it was fun to locate the books and enthuse over the contents.

 

Now, folks seem to enthuse about the pedigree

 

I'm glad I'm out of the comic-book collecting market."

The above was my honest reaction to the whole slabbed phenomenon.

 

It's called having an opinion.

 

And you yourself, Mr Bronty, was the first to react to this post by remarking . . .

 

"It's all about the money".

 

So, if you're now saying that my original post sounded as if I was attacking anyone, I'd have to say that you were quick to come back with a viewpoint that went a lot further than any observations of my own.

 

If I don't have a problem with your own perspective - why should you (now) have a problem with mine?

 

Why my thoughts should prove upsetting to some, I really don't know.

 

The forum's supposed to be an exchange of thoughts and opinions.

 

Having a contrary opinion to someone else shouldn't upset or distress.

 

Well you're twisting things around. Its not that difficult:

 

- I more or less agreed with your take on slabbed comics (no problem with your viewpoint)

- I found the comparisons you made utterly ridiculous and expressed my opinion.

 

Feel free to respond with another wall of text but from my POV there's really nothing else to be said.

 

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

How can I attack people for collecting the same things as I used to?

 

[/b]!

 

That's exactly what I am left wondering Terry.... whether you realize it or not that's exactly how it sounds. And that's coming from someone who collects art and hasn't collected comics in nearly a decade

 

My original post, that upset Mr Hong Kong, went as follows:

 

"I think collectors have become obsessed with 'condition'.

 

I can understand the desire for a decent copy of a comic-book ('key' issues especially) . . . but the search for 'perfection' seems to overide most other factors.

 

It's as if the storyline/pictorial content has become incidental.

 

I can remember the days when it was fun to locate the books and enthuse over the contents.

 

Now, folks seem to enthuse about the pedigree

 

I'm glad I'm out of the comic-book collecting market."

The above was my honest reaction to the whole slabbed phenomenon.

 

It's called having an opinion.

 

And you yourself, Mr Bronty, was the first to react to this post by remarking . . .

 

"It's all about the money".

 

So, if you're now saying that my original post sounded as if I was attacking anyone, I'd have to say that you were quick to come back with a viewpoint that went a lot further than any observations of my own.

 

If I don't have a problem with your own perspective - why should you (now) have a problem with mine?

 

Why my thoughts should prove upsetting to some, I really don't know.

 

The forum's supposed to be an exchange of thoughts and opinions.

 

Having a contrary opinion to someone else shouldn't upset or distress.

 

Well you're twisting things around. Its not that difficult:

 

- I more or less agreed with your take on slabbed comics (no problem with your viewpoint)

- I found the comparisons you made utterly ridiculous and expressed my opinion.

 

Feel free to respond with another wall of text but from my POV there's really nothing else to be said.

 

 

 

My comparisons were mostly aimed at the guy who considered comic-books to be the true 'grail' items (and no, I don't think he was specifically talking about 'key' comic-books, such as ACTION # 1).

 

The Mona Lisa business was merely there to highlight the fact that your average man in the street (with no interest in art) would be savvy enough to know that the original painting would be the item to have - and not some rare print of it (in the sense I consider the original artwork, be it a cover or page, to be far more desirable than the highest-graded printing of the book - if that makes sense?).

 

And to help clarify my stance, I asked what people would prefer in another important comic-book (not a superhero) . . . the cover art to WSF # 29 - or the highest graded copy of the corresponding comic book (an example I was using to try to respond to the collector who considered comic-books to be the true 'grail' items).

 

And in your original post that followed on from mine . . .

 

I was saying that the 'search for perfection' had been borne out of the slabbed phenomenon.

 

You said (or implied) that it was all about 'greed'.

 

The artwork comparisons I made were not, admittedly, the best examples to make (maybe they were ridiculous). But what's done is done.

 

Is it such a big deal if those comparisons don't work?

[bluechip]

3) The motivation for many collectors is to reassemble items from their "golden age" (typically when they were 10 - 12 years old) and the comic was the item they held at that age, not the art.

 

Sorry, I've been busy for the past few days and have not been able to respond more fully to some of the posts I've read responding to the comparisons I made.

 

Whilst I'd certainly agree that the motivation for many comic-book OA collectors would tie-in to reasons of nostalgic fondness for books they read as 10 - 12 year olds, I definitely think that this is not true for some of us.

 

Speaking personally (and I hope 'Mr Hong Kong' doesn't object to me having an opinion - made abundantly clear), the reason I got into OA collecting was as a result of the Russ Cochran EC complete library project (and artwork auctions that quickly followed) . . .

 

I never followed EC comics during the 1950s . . . because I wasn't around (or in the same country of publication) to encounter them.

 

EC comics, I discovered, in the late 1970s as a somewhat jaded collector - beginning to get tired of the decade-upon-decade of superhero comics (superhero types in endless confrontation with superbaddie types).

 

Apart from the high standard of storytelling, I was attracted to the (even more) high standards of illustration.

 

When Russ Cochran (publisher of the EC library reprint series) would re-print a component of the EC series, the original artwork (carefully stored by Bill Gaines since the 1950s) would become available for purchase (via auction).

 

From 1982 onwards, I regularly bought EC artwork from Russ - accumulating somewhere in the region of several hundred pages worth of covers and complete stories.

 

I bought this art out of appreciation for the combination of high standards in illustration and story-telling . . . not for reasons of nostalgic fondness (how could I feel nostalgic about something that appeared, 'before my time'?).

 

I don't want to (endlessly) justify my stance.

 

I've been an avid comic-book collector in my time - so I like to think I know where those guys are coming from - and what motivates them.

 

The only reason I used (extreme) examples of comparisons between original art vs. the printed page was to quickly prove a point that (if the right examples where chosen), no-one would have any doubt as to which would be the more desirable item (original artwork over a reproduced printed page).

 

You don't have to be a collector of comic-books to appreciate the aesthetic value of a beautifully-illustrated (or painted) piece of artwork.

 

One of the reasons I highlighted the Frazetta WSF # 29 cover.

 

The original (hypothetical) question . . . which I took as a 'fun' type of question . . . was what we would prefer. A highest grade copy of the comic-book - or the OA cover.

 

My responses were tailored to the original question.

 

At the end of the day, it's all opinion-based.

 

I know what I love . . . and I'm only sorry that a number of fellow OA-collector friends have chosen to remain silent on this subject.

 

My thanks to the likes of Ruben and Felix for being vocal.

 

It is supposed to be an OA forum, after all.

 

And, as an afterthought, WSF # 29 carried stories by Wally Wood, Al Williamson (a frequent Frazetta collaborator), Reed Crandall and Joe Orlando (illustrating the series of famous "I, Robot" stories) . . . so hardly your average line-up of artistic talents.

 

I may be vocal, and not everyone will share my views . . . but at least I'll stand up and be counted (and my profile is informative and not vague)..

 

Bring on the flak . . .

 

You seem to feel you were attacked for preferring original art, but it seemed to me that you essentially attacked people for collecting comics.

 

What part of . . .

 

"I've been an avid comic-book collector in my time - so I like to think I know where those guys are coming from - and what motivates them."

 

. . . is it you don't understand?

 

How can I attack people for collecting the same things as I used to?

 

See my avatar? That's a photo of me as a kid reading (shock! Horror!! Gasp!!!) a comic-book!

 

Again, your tone leaps to the confrontational with the classic "what part of (quote myself" don't you understand" which is insulting because it implies that this statement is what you said and that I, or anyone else, lacks the ability to understand a simple remark.

 

But aside from that, there's the fact that the statement you quote wasn't the statement I was talking about. The fact that you say some insulting isn't mitigated by the fact that it was said along with other remarks that weren't insulting.

 

You equated the collecting of an original AF15 with a peson who would pay collector money for (and possibly even prefer) a photo ot the Mona Lisa to the original painting. You didn't simply say you preferred art to an original comic, you denigrated people for collecting comics. Doens't change it is you say that you used to do the same thing yourself. And when people point that out, it just makes it worse to do the insulting "what part of blank don't you understand?"

 

You made an accusation that I attacked people for collecting comic-books.

 

Do I (endlessly) need to point out to people like you that I've been an avid collector of comic-books in my time?

 

Still have some comics remaining . . . lots of reprint material . . . I love comic-books.

 

If I didn't love comic-books, why would I collect original comic-book artwork?

 

If I say you don't understand me . . . it's because you don't.

 

 

I agee with you on many points.

 

And I understand you completely.

 

I knew that when I suggested you didn't need to take a belitting tone with people, you would say you don't and then take a belitting tone at me for suggesting you belittled people in the first place.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

3) The motivation for many collectors is to reassemble items from their "golden age" (typically when they were 10 - 12 years old) and the comic was the item they held at that age, not the art.

 

Sorry, I've been busy for the past few days and have not been able to respond more fully to some of the posts I've read responding to the comparisons I made.

 

Whilst I'd certainly agree that the motivation for many comic-book OA collectors would tie-in to reasons of nostalgic fondness for books they read as 10 - 12 year olds, I definitely think that this is not true for some of us.

 

Speaking personally (and I hope 'Mr Hong Kong' doesn't object to me having an opinion - made abundantly clear), the reason I got into OA collecting was as a result of the Russ Cochran EC complete library project (and artwork auctions that quickly followed) . . .

 

I never followed EC comics during the 1950s . . . because I wasn't around (or in the same country of publication) to encounter them.

 

EC comics, I discovered, in the late 1970s as a somewhat jaded collector - beginning to get tired of the decade-upon-decade of superhero comics (superhero types in endless confrontation with superbaddie types).

 

Apart from the high standard of storytelling, I was attracted to the (even more) high standards of illustration.

 

When Russ Cochran (publisher of the EC library reprint series) would re-print a component of the EC series, the original artwork (carefully stored by Bill Gaines since the 1950s) would become available for purchase (via auction).

 

From 1982 onwards, I regularly bought EC artwork from Russ - accumulating somewhere in the region of several hundred pages worth of covers and complete stories.

 

I bought this art out of appreciation for the combination of high standards in illustration and story-telling . . . not for reasons of nostalgic fondness (how could I feel nostalgic about something that appeared, 'before my time'?).

 

I don't want to (endlessly) justify my stance.

 

I've been an avid comic-book collector in my time - so I like to think I know where those guys are coming from - and what motivates them.

 

The only reason I used (extreme) examples of comparisons between original art vs. the printed page was to quickly prove a point that (if the right examples where chosen), no-one would have any doubt as to which would be the more desirable item (original artwork over a reproduced printed page).

 

You don't have to be a collector of comic-books to appreciate the aesthetic value of a beautifully-illustrated (or painted) piece of artwork.

 

One of the reasons I highlighted the Frazetta WSF # 29 cover.

 

The original (hypothetical) question . . . which I took as a 'fun' type of question . . . was what we would prefer. A highest grade copy of the comic-book - or the OA cover.

 

My responses were tailored to the original question.

 

At the end of the day, it's all opinion-based.

 

I know what I love . . . and I'm only sorry that a number of fellow OA-collector friends have chosen to remain silent on this subject.

 

My thanks to the likes of Ruben and Felix for being vocal.

 

It is supposed to be an OA forum, after all.

 

And, as an afterthought, WSF # 29 carried stories by Wally Wood, Al Williamson (a frequent Frazetta collaborator), Reed Crandall and Joe Orlando (illustrating the series of famous "I, Robot" stories) . . . so hardly your average line-up of artistic talents.

 

I may be vocal, and not everyone will share my views . . . but at least I'll stand up and be counted (and my profile is informative and not vague)..

 

Bring on the flak . . .

 

You seem to feel you were attacked for preferring original art, but it seemed to me that you essentially attacked people for collecting comics.

 

What part of . . .

 

"I've been an avid comic-book collector in my time - so I like to think I know where those guys are coming from - and what motivates them."

 

. . . is it you don't understand?

 

How can I attack people for collecting the same things as I used to?

 

See my avatar? That's a photo of me as a kid reading (shock! Horror!! Gasp!!!) a comic-book!

 

Again, your tone leaps to the confrontational with the classic "what part of (quote myself" don't you understand" which is insulting because it implies that this statement is what you said and that I, or anyone else, lacks the ability to understand a simple remark.

 

But aside from that, there's the fact that the statement you quote wasn't the statement I was talking about. The fact that you say some insulting isn't mitigated by the fact that it was said along with other remarks that weren't insulting.

 

You equated the collecting of an original AF15 with a peson who would pay collector money for (and possibly even prefer) a photo ot the Mona Lisa to the original painting. You didn't simply say you preferred art to an original comic, you denigrated people for collecting comics. Doens't change it is you say that you used to do the same thing yourself. And when people point that out, it just makes it worse to do the insulting "what part of blank don't you understand?"

 

You made an accusation that I attacked people for collecting comic-books.

 

Do I (endlessly) need to point out to people like you that I've been an avid collector of comic-books in my time?

 

Still have some comics remaining . . . lots of reprint material . . . I love comic-books.

 

If I didn't love comic-books, why would I collect original comic-book artwork?

 

If I say you don't understand me . . . it's because you don't.

 

 

I agee with you on many points.

 

And I understand you completely.

 

I knew that when I suggested you didn't need to take a belitting tone with people, you would say you don't and then take a belitting tone at me for suggesting you belittled people in the first place.

 

 

It was never my intention to belittle anyone. But you when you tell me:

 

" . . . it seemed to me that you essentially attacked people for collecting comics"

 

. . . you're jumping to the wrong conclusions about me (which irritates).

 

This was meant to be a discussion.

 

A discussion in which I chose to make observations on how I perceived the slabbed phenomenon to have affected comic-book collecting.

 

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill . . .

[bluechip]

Let's emtomb the hatchet. I agree with you that slab obsession has led to outsized focus not only on condition but on the label #s, leading some people to pass up a book that clearly looks better and sounds better, based on the grader notes, than a book that's not as appealing, just because the number is higher. And it's led to some people looking at low grade books with scribbles and water damage all over, obsessing over whether a tiny bit of the scribbling might be deemed "restoration" because then it would bad, unlike the deliberate defacing scribbles all over the book. supposedly high grade books are considered ok even with big grease pen marks and dust shadows and foxing, but a sealed tear that's easily removable suddenly renders the book so "bad" that some collectors say it might as well have a xerox'd cover. So, weirdness abounds on all sides and I am sure that people would look at some things that I have like books (low grade) or pieces of art (not brand ecch) and shake their heads. SO, as someone said, to each his own.

[Terry Doyle]

Let's emtomb the hatchet. I agree with you that slab obsession has led to outsized focus not only on condition but on the label #s, leading some people to pass up a book that clearly looks better and sounds better, based on the grader notes, than a book that's not as appealing, just because the number is higher. And it's led to some people looking at low grade books with scribbles and water damage all over, obsessing over whether a tiny bit of the scribbling might be deemed "restoration" because then it would bad, unlike the deliberate defacing scribbles all over the book. supposedly high grade books are considered ok even with big grease pen marks and dust shadows and foxing, but a sealed tear that's easily removable suddenly renders the book so "bad" that some collectors say it might as well have a xerox'd cover. So, weirdness abounds on all sides and I am sure that people would look at some things that I have like books (low grade) or pieces of art (not brand ecch) and shake their heads. SO, as someone said, to each his own.

 

Hatchet entombed.

[Romain]

Let's emtomb the hatchet. I agree with you that slab obsession has led to outsized focus not only on condition but on the label #s, leading some people to pass up a book that clearly looks better and sounds better, based on the grader notes, than a book that's not as appealing, just because the number is higher. And it's led to some people looking at low grade books with scribbles and water damage all over, obsessing over whether a tiny bit of the scribbling might be deemed "restoration" because then it would bad, unlike the deliberate defacing scribbles all over the book. supposedly high grade books are considered ok even with big grease pen marks and dust shadows and foxing, but a sealed tear that's easily removable suddenly renders the book so "bad" that some collectors say it might as well have a xerox'd cover. So, weirdness abounds on all sides and I am sure that people would look at some things that I have like books (low grade) or pieces of art (not brand ecch) and shake their heads. SO, as someone said, to each his own.

 

Hatchet entombed.

 

 

HOURA !!!!! (thumbs u

 

For me as a comic fan and collector CGC was the worst thing ...It wasn't easy to find high grade books but now to find them unslabbed is almost impossible ..!!! I had to buy my AF #15 CGC graded couldn't make it otherwise ??!! Now I know I can't read my book despite the thousands spent ...weird to me actually ...!!! So I'm hoping to get a reader copy one day ... No offense to the CGC collectors out there !!!

 

And yeah I'd take the OA over the books .....any books ...and gosh I still LOVE my comic books !!!!

[tth2]

I had to buy my AF #15 CGC graded couldn't make it otherwise ??!! Now I know I can't read my book despite the thousands spent

You`re allowed to break the book out of the CGC slab.

[Romain]

I had to buy my AF #15 CGC graded couldn't make it otherwise ??!! Now I know I can't read my book despite the thousands spent

You`re allowed to break the book out of the CGC slab.

 

Yeah I know ....Almost did it several times already but wouldn't that be a huge waste since CGC price are up the guide ?? Also I'd be terrified to damage the book and I know cases are hard to break ...

[Bronty]

cases are easy to break. just get a screwdriver and slide it in the opening and run it down the corner post. twist the screwdriver 90 degrees and presto you've popped a corner. repeat four times. get an exacto for the inner well. piece of cake.

[adamstrange]

I had to buy my AF #15 CGC graded couldn't make it otherwise ??!! Now I know I can't read my book despite the thousands spent

You`re allowed to break the book out of the CGC slab.

 

Yeah I know ....Almost did it several times already but wouldn't that be a huge waste since CGC price are up the guide ?? Also I'd be terrified to damage the book and I know cases are hard to break ...

 

I have cracked several dozen books out of slabs. Here's a "How To" video from one of the Board members.

 

[blowout]

I had to buy my AF #15 CGC graded couldn't make it otherwise ??!! Now I know I can't read my book despite the thousands spent

You`re allowed to break the book out of the CGC slab.

 

Yeah I know ....Almost did it several times already but wouldn't that be a huge waste since CGC price are up the guide ?? Also I'd be terrified to damage the book and I know cases are hard to break ...

 

I have cracked several dozen books out of slabs. Here's a "How To" video from one of the Board members.

 

 

I'm not sure you should be posting such blatant anti-CGC propaganda on these boards.