GRAIL Substitutes

[Bronty]

For the record, I'm not just making this up. The term came about a long time ago in this hobby and that was the accepted definition among all the collectors I know.

 

Yeah, I think that definition of a grail is overly strict, like something out of a radical fundamentalist sect of the OA hobby. Like you said, most won't agree with you or want to hear it, so if it used to be the accepted definition, it certainly isn't any longer. Not that I subscribe to the overly watered-down view that a grail is your favorite piece that you could realistically ever hope to attain (I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that, say, a Mark Bagley panel page from New Warriors #10 meets anybody's definition of a grail). But, I also don't believe you need some kind of unhealthy fixation on a piece, bordering on mystical, and that it has to be on one and only one piece to the exclusion of all others (and presumably all other objects, including your life savings, and human relationships) for it to be a grail.

 

I think of it in terms of trophies. It used to mean the ultimate personal trophy. If you were an athlete, say the Vince Lombardi or World Cup or Stanley Cup. Now it's come to mean an 8 year old's soccer participation ribbon (In some cases anyway)

[Bronty]

For the record, I'm not just making this up. The term came about a long time ago in this hobby and that was the accepted definition among all the collectors I know.

 

Yeah, I think that definition of a grail is overly strict, like something out of a radical fundamentalist sect of the OA hobby. Like you said, most won't agree with you or want to hear it, so if it used to be the accepted definition, it certainly isn't any longer. Not that I subscribe to the overly watered-down view that a grail is your favorite piece that you could realistically ever hope to attain (I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that, say, a Mark Bagley panel page from New Warriors #10 meets anybody's definition of a grail). But, I also don't believe you need some kind of unhealthy fixation on a piece, bordering on mystical, and that it has to be on one and only one piece to the exclusion of all others (and presumably all other objects, including your life savings, and human relationships) for it to be a grail.

 

I've also seen the word used to just denote nice examples. Like a "grail" bagley new warriors 10 panel page that is the best bagley new warriors 10 panel page.

[Bronty]

For the record, I'm not just making this up. The term came about a long time ago in this hobby and that was the accepted definition among all the collectors I know.

 

Yeah, I think that definition of a grail is overly strict, like something out of a radical fundamentalist sect of the OA hobby. Like you said, most won't agree with you or want to hear it, so if it used to be the accepted definition, it certainly isn't any longer. Not that I subscribe to the overly watered-down view that a grail is your favorite piece that you could realistically ever hope to attain (I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that, say, a Mark Bagley panel page from New Warriors #10 meets anybody's definition of a grail). But, I also don't believe you need some kind of unhealthy fixation on a piece, bordering on mystical, and that it has to be on one and only one piece to the exclusion of all others (and presumably all other objects, including your life savings, and human relationships) for it to be a grail.

 

Others please correct me if I am wrong but I think part of the reason for the "older" definition is that pre Internet it was harder to find pieces. If you had a special piece that meant a lot to you, you might be watching for it for years and years.... similar to a quest for a grail. I know I have searched for years for the piece that I consider my grail and that emotional investment of having spent the time and energy searching is what fuels the desire to "irrational" levels. You just don't get that today to the same extent because its much easier to find where pieces are. Not that everything can be found today, but still. It's easier and if the piece is MIA well you find that out with more certainty sooner and at least get some closure.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

For the record, I'm not just making this up. The term came about a long time ago in this hobby and that was the accepted definition among all the collectors I know.

 

Yeah, I think that definition of a grail is overly strict, like something out of a radical fundamentalist sect of the OA hobby. Like you said, most won't agree with you or want to hear it, so if it used to be the accepted definition, it certainly isn't any longer. Not that I subscribe to the overly watered-down view that a grail is your favorite piece that you could realistically ever hope to attain (I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that, say, a Mark Bagley panel page from New Warriors #10 meets anybody's definition of a grail). But, I also don't believe you need some kind of unhealthy fixation on a piece, bordering on mystical, and that it has to be on one and only one piece to the exclusion of all others (and presumably all other objects, including your life savings, and human relationships) for it to be a grail.

 

Others please correct me if I am wrong but I think part of the reason for the "older" definition is that pre Internet it was harder to find pieces. If you had a special piece that meant a lot to you, you might be watching for it for years and years.... similar to a quest for a grail. I know I have searched for years for the piece that I consider my grail and that emotional investment of having spent the time and energy searching is what fuels the desire to "irrational" levels. You just don't get that today to the same extent because its much easier to find where pieces are. Not that everything can be found today, but still. It's easier and if the piece is MIA well you find that out with more certainty sooner and at least get some closure.

 

The term "grail" refers to the single most ultimate collectible.

It is a reference to the Holy Grail and the Last Supper. It is the desire to drink from the literal cup cup of Jesus, not a figurative one. It would be so important to your collection that it defines the life and death of it.

 

DG

[Bronty]

For the record, I'm not just making this up. The term came about a long time ago in this hobby and that was the accepted definition among all the collectors I know.

 

Yeah, I think that definition of a grail is overly strict, like something out of a radical fundamentalist sect of the OA hobby. Like you said, most won't agree with you or want to hear it, so if it used to be the accepted definition, it certainly isn't any longer. Not that I subscribe to the overly watered-down view that a grail is your favorite piece that you could realistically ever hope to attain (I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that, say, a Mark Bagley panel page from New Warriors #10 meets anybody's definition of a grail). But, I also don't believe you need some kind of unhealthy fixation on a piece, bordering on mystical, and that it has to be on one and only one piece to the exclusion of all others (and presumably all other objects, including your life savings, and human relationships) for it to be a grail.

 

Others please correct me if I am wrong but I think part of the reason for the "older" definition is that pre Internet it was harder to find pieces. If you had a special piece that meant a lot to you, you might be watching for it for years and years.... similar to a quest for a grail. I know I have searched for years for the piece that I consider my grail and that emotional investment of having spent the time and energy searching is what fuels the desire to "irrational" levels. You just don't get that today to the same extent because its much easier to find where pieces are. Not that everything can be found today, but still. It's easier and if the piece is MIA well you find that out with more certainty sooner and at least get some closure.

 

The term "grail" refers to the single most ultimate collectible.

It is a reference to the Holy Grail and the Last Supper. It is the desire to drink from the literal cup cup of Jesus, not a figurative one. It would be so important to your collection that it defines the life and death of it.

 

DG

 

You seem to have missed my point? What I'm saying was part of the reason for seeing a piece in those kind of terms was because you used to have to hunt much harder for to find that piece that meant so much to you. You were emotionally invested not just in the artwork but in the search for the artwork.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm in the "there can be only one" camp myself. But the point is that as Gene has stated, the generally accepted definition (if there still is one) has morphed and there are reasons.

 

Previously you had to work harder but it was easier to afford if you found it. Now there is less searching but the piece may be unaffordable.

 

In an environment where the hunt is a focus, the older definition makes sense. In an environment where money is a severely limiting factor, if people want to "join the conversation" as Ruben said (ie feel included) they set their sights lower because pining over a piece well beyond their financial means is pointless.

 

And so you have soccer trophies as grails.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

To define something as a grail has nothing to do with how hard it is to get. It has to do with what it means to you. If Action #1 was your grail and you found one in your grandfather's basement, it is still a grail.

 

I will concede that people use the term more loosely now and things are more obtainable, but that is not the true meaning of the word. It is being used improperly.

 

DG

[jjonahjameson1]

For the record, I'm not just making this up. The term came about a long time ago in this hobby and that was the accepted definition among all the collectors I know.

 

Yeah, I think that definition of a grail is overly strict, like something out of a radical fundamentalist sect of the OA hobby. Like you said, most won't agree with you or want to hear it, so if it used to be the accepted definition, it certainly isn't any longer. Not that I subscribe to the overly watered-down view that a grail is your favorite piece that you could realistically ever hope to attain (I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that, say, a Mark Bagley panel page from New Warriors #10 meets anybody's definition of a grail). But, I also don't believe you need some kind of unhealthy fixation on a piece, bordering on mystical, and that it has to be on one and only one piece to the exclusion of all others (and presumably all other objects, including your life savings, and human relationships) for it to be a grail.

 

Others please correct me if I am wrong but I think part of the reason for the "older" definition is that pre Internet it was harder to find pieces. If you had a special piece that meant a lot to you, you might be watching for it for years and years.... similar to a quest for a grail. I know I have searched for years for the piece that I consider my grail and that emotional investment of having spent the time and energy searching is what fuels the desire to "irrational" levels. You just don't get that today to the same extent because its much easier to find where pieces are. Not that everything can be found today, but still. It's easier and if the piece is MIA well you find that out with more certainty sooner and at least get some closure.

 

The term "grail" refers to the single most ultimate collectible.

It is a reference to the Holy Grail and the Last Supper. It is the desire to drink from the literal cup cup of Jesus, not a figurative one. It would be so important to your collection that it defines the life and death of it.

 

DG

 

You seem to have missed my point? What I'm saying was part of the reason for seeing a piece in those kind of terms was because you used to have to hunt much harder for to find that piece that meant so much to you. You were emotionally invested not just in the artwork but in the search for the artwork.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm in the "there can be only one" camp myself. But the point is that as Gene has stated, the generally accepted definition (if there still is one) has morphed and there are reasons.

 

Previously you had to work harder but it was easier to afford if you found it. Now there is less searching but the piece may be unaffordable.

 

In an environment where the hunt is a focus, the older definition makes sense. In an environment where money is a severely limiting factor, if people want to "join the conversation" as Ruben said (ie feel included) they set their sights lower because pining over a piece well beyond their financial means is pointless.

 

And so you have soccer trophies as grails.

 

I've said it before, but in many instances, its the thrill of the hunt---the heightened flow of adreneline when you have a lead on a piece of art you've been seeking for a year or two or five. Of making contact with the current owne and striking a deal. Then, when its in yours sweaty palms, you stare at it, absorbing every line and nuance of the figure, and you harken back to the days of yore, when first sight of this page burned a hole in your nostaligic funny bone and you think to yourself "You've come home and you'll never leave my sight".

 

During the first week, you still can't believe its yours, and you're soooo excited to own it and proudly show it to your wife/parter/kids/relatives/dog/cat/fish...whomever is within earshot and can't outrun you.

 

The following week you're still excited, but to a lesser extent. Perhaps the art is safe in your portfolio now, to be viewed a few times a week. A few months go by or perhaps a year or two and you realize you've become indifferent to the piece, and in your mind you have difficulty distinguishing it from your other 'acquisitions'.

 

So you're bored and you're surfing Heritage or Clink or CAF and then you spot it! The next piece of art you absolutely *MUST* own. Your adreneline begins to heighten, your eyes locked. You don't even know it yet, but you're on your next grail quest. Then the next...and the next...

[thethedew]

I've also seen the word used to just denote nice examples. Like a "grail" bagley new warriors 10 panel page that is the best bagley new warriors 10 panel page.

 

...just think how great it must be to be the D's, where everything you have to offer is a Grail!

or, at least priced that way!

[Catwoman_Fan]

 

 

I know there's a lot of talk about grails but I think that's mostly people that want to join the conversation and feel like part of the club. Don't feel you need to have a grail on your list of wants. If you really have one, you'd know it and thoughts of substituting or replacing it wouldn't even cross your mind.

 

 

Good point

(thumbs u

 

I thought I had some grails (what! Plural?) till they became available, and I realized I don't really have any (yet).

 

And I'm fine with it.

 

[Catwoman_Fan]

 

I've said it before, but in many instances, its the thrill of the hunt---the heightened flow of adreneline when you have a lead on a piece of art you've been seeking for a year or two or five. Of making contact with the current owne and striking a deal. Then, when its in yours sweaty palms, you stare at it, absorbing every line and nuance of the figure, and you harken back to the days of yore, when first sight of this page burned a hole in your nostaligic funny bone and you think to yourself "You've come home and you'll never leave my sight".

 

During the first week, you still can't believe its yours, and you're soooo excited to own it and proudly show it to your wife/parter/kids/relatives/dog/cat/fish...whomever is within earshot and can't outrun you.

 

The following week you're still excited, but to a lesser extent. Perhaps the art is safe in your portfolio now, to be viewed a few times a week. A few months go by or perhaps a year or two and you realize you've become indifferent to the piece, and in your mind you have difficulty distinguishing it from your other 'acquisitions'.

 

So you're bored and you're surfing Heritage or Clink or CAF and then you spot it! The next piece of art you absolutely *MUST* own. Your adreneline begins to heighten, your eyes locked. You don't even know it yet, but you're on your next grail quest. Then the next...and the next...

 

 

 

I need to bookmark this!

[bocaratondefense]

 

The term "grail" refers to the single most ultimate collectible.

It is a reference to the Holy Grail and the Last Supper. It is the desire to drink from the literal cup cup of Jesus, not a figurative one. It would be so important to your collection that it defines the life and death of it.

 

DG

 

 

If that is the case, there would be only one grail in the entire hobby. Not one grail for each collector. This would make the use of the term "grail' even more narrow that the way Ruben defined it.

 

I do like this better than the current watered down use of the term, but would it even be possible to find a single ultimate piece for the entire hobby? There could never be a concensus. Action 1? AF 15? GSXM 1?

 

 

[ImageFan-migration]

When I first joined the original art collecting hobby at the turn of the century, the word "grail" was presented as the single piece you would dedicate your search towards, that would define the hobby for you, and one you would give up all other pieces to attain. This is mostly similar to CollectingFool's statement.

 

However, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. As the hobby progressed, the word started to lose its original meaning. The more pieces accumulated, the less important any one of them seemed in the long run. The volume of the portfolio trumped the desire for any one individual piece to rule them all. And then my original "grail" appeared in a Signature Event auction.

 

This was a page that captured my attention as a prepubescent teen. I cut it out of the book and pasted it on the wall, traced and duplicated it. I followed the creative team and the characters, and my love for comics grew out of this piece. This page would be my grail upon entering the hobby, and despite being in someone else's collection I would always think about it. It was the art piece I would give up all other hobbies to attain. More than a dozen years later when it popped onto the auction block, my nostalgic feelings had waned. It was still a memorable piece, still beautiful and desired by collectors, fully worth the high four figures it fetched. But it was no longer that piece I obsessed about as a child, and certainly not something that I rated at its current market.

 

The word "grail" now seemed to me as authentic as "soulmate," a quixotic representation of your immediate desires. As one experiences life, and changes, words and beliefs no longer hold their absolute meaning. Your "grail" for the last 30 years can become meaningless in the face of children, faith, or other epiphanies. So buy what you see now and enjoy it while you can. You never know how long this grail will really remain meaningful in life's mercurial journey.

[Bronty]

 

The term "grail" refers to the single most ultimate collectible.

It is a reference to the Holy Grail and the Last Supper. It is the desire to drink from the literal cup cup of Jesus, not a figurative one. It would be so important to your collection that it defines the life and death of it.

 

DG

 

 

If that is the case, there would be only one grail in the entire hobby. Not one grail for each collector. This would make the use of the term "grail' even more narrow that the way Ruben defined it.

 

I do like this better than the current watered down use of the term, but would it even be possible to find a single ultimate piece for the entire hobby? There could never be a concensus. Action 1? AF 15? GSXM 1?

 

 

I would say AF15.

 

I don't think GSX1 would be in the conversation, realistically.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

 

The term "grail" refers to the single most ultimate collectible.

It is a reference to the Holy Grail and the Last Supper. It is the desire to drink from the literal cup cup of Jesus, not a figurative one. It would be so important to your collection that it defines the life and death of it.

 

DG

 

 

If that is the case, there would be only one grail in the entire hobby. Not one grail for each collector. This would make the use of the term "grail' even more narrow that the way Ruben defined it.

 

I do like this better than the current watered down use of the term, but would it even be possible to find a single ultimate piece for the entire hobby? There could never be a concensus. Action 1? AF 15? GSXM 1?

 

 

The single item that people identify with will be different. If an item has no meaning to an individual, it would not be their grail. For many it would be Action #1 if you are talking about comics. I have no interest in DC, and I'm a bigger Hulk fan than Spider-Man fan, so Hulk #1 was it for me. I'd written if off as too expensive, but ironically acquired one anyway in low grade. I'm notoriously cheap, so having any copy was good enough for me. I own quite a few comics that I never thought I'd own.

 

If we're talking artwork, don't put much hope in acquiring covers to the three comics you mention. The covers to AF#15 & Action #1 have never surfaced. I'm pretty sure the cover to GSXM #1 was burnt up in Len Wein's house fire.

 

DG

[dgarthwaite-migration]

When I first joined the original art collecting hobby at the turn of the century, the word "grail" was presented as the single piece you would dedicate your search towards, that would define the hobby for you, and one you would give up all other pieces to attain. This is mostly similar to CollectingFool's statement.

 

However, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. As the hobby progressed, the word started to lose its original meaning. The more pieces accumulated, the less important any one of them seemed in the long run. The volume of the portfolio trumped the desire for any one individual piece to rule them all. And then my original "grail" appeared in a Signature Event auction.

 

This was a page that captured my attention as a prepubescent teen. I cut it out of the book and pasted it on the wall, traced and duplicated it. I followed the creative team and the characters, and my love for comics grew out of this piece. This page would be my grail upon entering the hobby, and despite being in someone else's collection I would always think about it. It was the art piece I would give up all other hobbies to attain. More than a dozen years later when it popped onto the auction block, my nostalgic feelings had waned. It was still a memorable piece, still beautiful and desired by collectors, fully worth the high four figures it fetched. But it was no longer that piece I obsessed about as a child, and certainly not something that I rated at its current market.

 

The word "grail" now seemed to me as authentic as "soulmate," a quixotic representation of your immediate desires. As one experiences life, and changes, words and beliefs no longer hold their absolute meaning. Your "grail" for the last 30 years can become meaningless in the face of children, faith, or other epiphanies. So buy what you see now and enjoy it while you can. You never know how long this grail will really remain meaningful in life's mercurial journey.

 

Acquiring your grail can have a detrimental effect to your desire to collect anything else. At one point I wanted a complete set of Marvel's silver age comics. As I acquired the bigger keys, many of those comics seemed like an anti-climactic waste of money. Why would I get excited about an Amazing Spider-Man #38 when I have AF #15? Unfortunately, I don't. I find myself more interested in rarities of all ages and original artwork. Even then I can take it or leave it. I buy them more on a whim when the price is acceptable to me.

 

DG

[Bronty]

No GSX1 is on CAF. You're thinking of the hulk 181 interiors. Can't remember if the cover was in the fire or not.

[comiconxion]

DG - Check out David Mandel's gallery - you'll see the that GS X-Men #1 cover does exist. It was not involved in the Len Wein house fire.

 

What is the true "grail"? If so, it gets complicated by what exists vs. what doesn't. A lot of Silver Age and Golden Age covers don't exist as they were destroyed. Also, some stories haven't yet surfaced. There are some "grail contenders" that are known to exist such as the following. I'm interested in this group's opinion on which of these deserves the title as the "ultimate grail?"

 

- Weird Science Fantasy #29 Cover

- Giant Size X-Men #1 Cover

- Amazing Fantasy #15 Splash (although now out of collectors' reach)

- ASM #11 Cover

- Batman: the Dark Knight #1 Cover

- Killing Joke #1 Cover

- X-Men #1 Splash

- Superman #14 Cover

- Detective Comics #72 Cover

- Silver Surfer #4 Cover

 

I'm not sure we'll ever get to agreement.

 

Or if we use common sense, we should just allow the highest public sale to determine the winner. So, I guess it's the ASM #328 cover! Easy enough. What, there's someone out there that wouldn't agree with that?

[jbud73]

I've always defined "Grail" in collectibles in personal terms. I really believe that everyone has a Grail and it is probably just one piece, or comic but they also may not be able to realize it at one point in time. There is also something to be said for the term "Grail" as an example IN your collection, verses a piece you want to obtain and these two ideas are mutually exclusive.

 

First the "Grail" in your collection - I've always attributed this to the "There can be only One" phenomenon. This is your last piece standing, the one you would hang on to if all of them were gone. I happen to own my grail so this decision is easy for me. Someone with a collection like Gene's however may take some prodding .... Your abode is burning down and you can only safely take one piece with you, get out and stay in the realm of the living, what piece do you grab? (And no, perishing with all your OA is not an option )

 

The OP was dealing in the realm of seeking to obtain. I'm going to assume that you are an OA collector, meaning that you are not in it for one piece. I will also assume that you have no way of know when or if your Grail will ever become available, but that you will be able to obtain it if/when it does. Another example I use is what piece would you sell all your pieces to obtain if it came on the market? That is your Grail. If there is nothing that would entice you in this regard then you already own your Grail.

 

I'd echo some of the previous sentiments for the OP, since you can't control the emergence of the grail piece, do not let its existence and lack of ownership have too much emphasis on your collecting. Buy/Bid or don't based on the appeal of the piece in question and your available resources. For example you may not bid because you want purchase a larger piece, even if that piece is still NOT your Grail.

 

In other words, I'm not sure I view things in terms of Grail substitutes even if they are by the same artist, or close representations UNLESS they have the ability to actually sub for your Grail - you buy the Sub and the Grail comes on the market and you would not sell all your pieces to acquire it, one of those pieces may then represent a substitute.

 

[Danimal]

Very interesting stuff here. I meant to be a part of this conversation earlier, but I was away from home because my father had a bad fall (he is ok now, 10 stitches later).

 

Back to the OP, I don't think you would have to spend as much for the second-best substitute as you would for the first choice grail, but to let something almost as good/meaningful go without a fight, or to wait, probably in vain, for the grail itself to ever become available just seems like a recipe for regret later on.

 

This is still what I am thinking. It's a nostalgia piece, and I know that I am going to be completely satisfied with it (and would regret the hell out of it if I didn't at least try to get it). The problem is that it is up for auction, so it may go for a LOT of money. More money than I'd want to pay for it. If it was the "grail" piece, then I'd sell my lot for it, though.

 

I do use the term "grail" lightly. I use it to mean, "the piece of original art that means the most to me". I only have two of them. But I like what a few have said on here about new items that are in my collection which have now become my grails. I do have one that I would be hard-pressed to let go of. I think that my problem is that I am not saving my money, which maybe I should. Instead, I "collect" the pages I love. It really is a hobby for me. Would owning JUST my grail(s) be enough to make me stop? I don't think so, but at the same time if I was offered my grail today I'd be pissed because I don't have enough money for it. Even with selling my collection (I'd assume).

 

I think I am just going to bid on it. The other "substitute" that I was referring to is no real substitute and would be a waste. So I'll let that one go. But I had planned on saving up my money and selling off OA to acquire a specific BIG piece next year or so. This bid/win may set me back a lot. This new "substitute" that appeared was a curveball, as I had almost written off the grail as being buried in somebody's collection (since it's not on CAF but does have a winning bid on HA from many many years ago). So owning this other piece would be amazing.

 

I don't know why, anguish and all, this is so much fun! I must be crazy...

[delekkerste]

Another example I use is what piece would you sell all your pieces to obtain if it came on the market? That is your Grail. If there is nothing that would entice you in this regard then you already own your Grail.

 

I definitely don't like this definition of a Grail! I think if a piece is your #1 most desired/coveted above all others, with reasonable attainability not even entering into the equation, that is sufficient criteria to be a true Grail. Let's say, hypothetically, that you own 99 out of your top 100 favorite pieces - is the #1 only your Grail if you are willing to sacrifice #2 through 100 in order to get #1? That makes no sense to me - the fact that #1 would trump any of #2 through 99 individually makes it your Grail in my book.

 

There is no piece of comic book art that I would trade the rest of my collection to obtain. As much as DD #181, Conan #24 and X-Men #94 mean to me, there is no way that any of these covers, or even all three of them together, could match the nostalgia and warm feelings I get from owning all of the hundreds of other pieces in my collection. Ruben would probably argue that means I have no true Grail. Again, I think that's way too strict a definition, and the idea that there can only be one true Grail for the entire hobby is an even worse idea - plenty of people don't really identify with or care for Superman/Action #1 or Spider-Man/AF #15. I can easily see how McSpidey #1 might resonate more to a lot of people than AF #15, while many of my generation would probably prefer something from the Bronze or Copper Ages (most of my all-time favorite comics and covers are from this era, not from the more historic Silver Age).

 

Taking it a step further, I can say with complete candidness that, as much as I admire the collections of some of the other top collectors out there, the collection that I have assembled through my own efforts and curated to my own exacting memories and nostalgic specifications I'm sure gives me much more pleasure than I would get owning anyone else's collection (putting monetary value aside). It's not that I own all my grails - a case can be made that I don't own any of them - it's that sometimes the whole is greater than both any individual part (even a "Grail") or even the sum of the parts.