Cerebus 1 a more valuable key than Hulk 181? Really Overstreet? Poll on Page 87 3 3

[RockMyAmadeus]

Bravo to the last 9 or so posts guys. Finally an objective, substantive discussion on the actual facts/data points without a bunch of meaningless conclusory statements, condescension, and name calling.

 

-J.

 

Can you please point me to a post where anyone was called a name? Can you please point me to any "meaningless conclusory statements"? Can you please point me to "condescension"?

 

Disagreeing with you, and laying out an argument why, is not "condescension."

 

Jay, the only thing you think is objective is that with which you agree. That isn't objectivity.

 

I need only use your own words: your arguments are made using "publicly available data points"...those who disagree are merely speculating, even though those same data points are used.

 

This is not objectivity. This is the very definition of subjectivity.

 

Look at this very post: "finally, an objective, substantive discussion"...thereby condescendingly dismissing everything else as subjective and insubstantial.

 

You are doing the very thing you're complaining about..

 

 

 

 

 

My friend, either you or your mate chuck have either directly or indirectly called me (and others) all of the following pejoratives:

 

1) Liar

2) Troll

3) Politician

4) Propagandist

5) Conspiracy Theorist

6) Illogical

7) Overly Emotional

8) Intellectually Dishonest

9) Ignorant

10) Incompetent

 

 

This is name calling...?

 

:shrug:

 

"You're such an OVERLY EMOTIONAL!!!" "You're a POLITICIAN!"

 

 

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

 

I can't speak for Chuck, nor do I need to. I have not called you ignorant (though you have been ignorant of several things. "Ignorant" is not a bad word), nor have I said you were incompetent.

 

You kept repeating something that wasn't true, even though you were corrected many, many, many times....is that not what a lie is? When you know something isn't true, but you say it anyways?

 

And those are just the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure I can find plenty more if I read back through some of the posts.

 

The following are examples of meaningless conclusory statements (ie, a flat responses with nothing else stated, or any evidence provided to support the response) that have been bandied about by yourself and a couple others who evidently support your position:

 

1) "You are wrong"

2) "You are incorrect"

3) "You don't know what you are talking about"

4) "You don't understand the market "

5) "You don't know how to read data "

6) "You don't know how to interpret GPA"

 

 

Are all these things true?

 

Is it necessary to repeat the same information in every post?

 

People complain about lengthy posts NOW. Can you imagine, saying everything you've already said, in every post?

 

 

Again, there are plenty more but these are the ones that first come to mind (and also show more of that condescension as well).

 

It's great that you love your cerebus, but there's no need to attempt to belittle other posters (some of whom do not even use English as a first language) or try to prove to everyone how smart and informed you are by telling everyone else how they are not smart or informed.

 

No one has been belittled by me. Telling you that you don't understand something, when you demonstrate that you don't understand it, is not belittling you.

 

"It's great that you love your cerebus" <---- this is a continuing example of you arguing from emotionalism. This entire discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with who loves, or doesn't love, what.

 

This is the problem.

 

And I am not belittling you by saying that. You use the word "belittling" to mean "challenging what I say, and telling me that I don't understand something."

 

That's not what it means.

 

Stick to the facts man, and don't make it personal and if you're right people will see how intelligent and informed you are on their own (which you obviously are).

 

-J.

 

Ok.

 

Now you're just repeating what I already said to you.

 

That's also a common tactic around here.

 

Don't take things personally, jay, and don't argue from emotion.

 

It's pretty basic.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Defending the indefensible.

 

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense.

 

You only discredit yourself.

 

 

 

RMA, I didn't make a big deal out of it, even though you did it not once, but twice, off topic, and in the thread. Truthfully, that was a bit tacky. But I do make it a point to not take anything that is said on these boards personally.

 

-J.

 

Do you know what the term "making hay" means...?

 

That's what you and BJ are doing.

 

You were asked TWICE because I didn't see that you'd answered it (and I take your word that you did, because...again...I didn't see it.)

 

If you made it a point to not take anything that is said on these boards personally, you wouldn't have made this post.

 

N'est-ce pas...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Is that right, or are they transposed? I thought we all accepted that Hulk 181 sells for more than Cerebus 1 in mid to low grade? I'll go ahead and post this and see if you've edited...

 

Transposed. Thanks for the correction.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Defending the indefensible.

 

You are divorced from reason if you believe that questioning someone's sigline is an "indefensible" offense.

 

You only discredit yourself.

 

 

 

The "Guardian of Reason" has spoken thus...

 

Again, defending the indefensible.

 

Are you not posting in irritation, by snarkily referring to me as "the Guardian of Reason"...?

 

Are you not, therefore, speaking from emotion?

 

[AlexanderM]

I noted the little dig at Jay's sig line. RMA has generally tried to not get personal, but that one was out of line imo. Just my opinion.

[Garlanda]

Different interpretations of sig lines may be a little more common than you think.

 

Not long ago I was in a conversation where a boardie mentioned that he only owned about 10 slabs, but he had his registry sig line (like I have) that said he claimed lots more. When asked about it, he responded very flippantly that those books were only slabs he PREVIOUSLY owned and had not removed from his set.

 

So, there are apparently different schools of thought about what books you should have in your sig line. While it may well have been off-topic, I don't see it as any more of an insult or attack than asking for supporting evidence for any other claim anyone makes here.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I didn't bother to discuss Cerebus v Hulk 181 at the Baltimore Con last weekend, because I had high hopes that most people here would realize that virtually no one is debating the same points toward the same goal while considering the actual source of the disagreement. Of course that didn't happen.

 

That's not true at all...I mean, at all...but ok.

 

I think this has been happening, and quite often. People talk about books being "hot," people talk about "recent trends," people even talk about DC 100 Page Super Spectacular 5. People compared 9.4s to 9.9s, people made accusations of OPG oversights and conspiracies, people talked about the relevance of "publicly available sales data" and the reliability of dealers' opinions. People celebrated Hulk 181's liquidity and condemned Cerebus 1's scarcity. People compared Wolverine's popularity to Cerebus's niche market. People talked about the relative value of the two books in 8.0 and 8.5. People talked about the run of early Cerebus that went for 25% of guide. I think almost all of this is irrelevant and distracting from the actual source of the disagreement, which was OPG's list of top Bronze Age books in 9.2 in 2013-14.

 

As an aside, I am willing to discuss any point that anyone else brings up. Conversations have an ebb and flow to them. Are these ancillary to the topic? Perhaps, and to different degrees. Do conversations get off-track? Sure, that's natural.

 

I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I disagree that this is almost all of it irrelevant and distracting. To a degree, yes, but not entirely. It is messy work, debate, and takes a level of focus that, frankly, internet message boards simply do not, and should not, possess.

 

I do try to keep the discussion focused, wherever and whenever I can (there I go, bragging again), but if other people want to discuss other things, who am I to try and force the conversation?

 

I was reluctant to state that OPG's acceptance as the industry standard was a fact, since I have no evidence to support that beyond anecdote. For all we know Bob gets the advisors' reports and disregards them in favor of his own interpretation. Unlikely, but beyond my scope of knowledge.

 

Ah, I see. You were making two different assumptions, one that OPG gets its info from dealers, and another that it is the industry standard.

 

Empirically, rather than anecdotally, you can establish that as a fact. No other price guide is used as widespread as the OPG, and certainly not in print form. One need only do a brief survey of dealers at a show to reasonably conclude that it is the industry standard.

 

I also would not use the document itself to support its own claims,

 

True, which is why I stated that dealers themselves have testified that they do, in fact, report to the OPG. Whether Overstreet uses that information or not is not (entirely) relevant, it's just a fact that he does solicit, and receive, such information. It's not within the realm of reason to go to the effort and expense of such a solicitation, and then completely disregard it wholesale (though...in isolated cases, not without precedent.)

 

and as you pointed out at least one person implied that there was a clandestine reason behind the exclusion of OAAW from the list.

 

I don't agree with that, but it's certainly possible, and would be quite conspiratorial if true, giving the OPG a major black eye, with repercussions far beyond any list.

 

Yeah, that's basically the point I was getting at. The books are only $100 apart on the list, so it's not unreasonable at all to suppose that an individual seller and buyer could agree to a higher price for Cerebus 1 or Hulk 181.

 

I'm with you on that. The list is just a guide. Too much emotion has been invested on "placement."

 

That's a great point about CSS22, and illustrates how complex the market can be. I hope Cerebus doesn't fall completely off the map, but I expect it to decline quite a bit (just my personal opinion of the situation). This month's Back Issue! has a pretty good article on the early days of Cerebus, and any exposure is good exposure.

 

I don't care either way. If it goes down in value, great, I can buy more. If it goes up, great. As a work of art, I hope it's not forgotten, but if it is, that's perfectly ok, too, because my enjoyment of the series is not based on whether or not the character is popular.

 

I don't expect it to decline in the highest grades, at least not for a couple of decades, because there will always be people who find out about it, and will create demand, and it is exceedingly rare in those grades.

 

After all...EC essentially ceased publication 17 years before I was born, and I support that market (in fact, I have been priced OUT of that market.) I was exposed to it, it appealed to me, and I became a buyer.

 

Nothing makes as lasting an impression as Cerebus has, and goes completely away. Dave and Gerhard are both still working (in fact, Gerhard was at Baltimore), so Cerebus will appear in some form in front of the collecting world for some time.

 

Note to BJ and jay: it's entirely possible, and preferable, to have disagreements without becoming emotionally involved. This post is one of those.

 

Try it. You'll like it.

[porcupine48]

[RockMyAmadeus]

I noted the little dig at Jay's sig line. RMA has generally tried to not get personal, but that one was out of line imo. Just my opinion.

 

You, too, are attempting to make hay.

 

Don't you folks have anything better you can use to do so? That's the absolute worst thing you can come up with...?

 

:shrug:

 

"Out of line"...?

 

"Hey, Jay...are those books in your sigline yours?"

 

 

Notify the mods, RMA's on the loose.

 

 

PS: A note to Alexander...a sigline is not "personal", by virtue of its existence. Asking about it, therefore, is not "getting personal."

[RockMyAmadeus]

Different interpretations of sig lines may be a little more common than you think.

 

Not long ago I was in a conversation where a boardie mentioned that he only owned about 10 slabs, but he had his registry sig line (like I have) that said he claimed lots more. When asked about it, he responded very flippantly that those books were only slabs he PREVIOUSLY owned and had not removed from his set.

 

So, there are apparently different schools of thought about what books you should have in your sig line. While it may well have been off-topic, I don't see it as any more of an insult or attack than asking for supporting evidence for any other claim anyone makes here.

 

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post.

 

People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just for the record...the quotes in my sigline are NOT mine.

 

[Jaydogrules]

Different interpretations of sig lines may be a little more common than you think.

 

Not long ago I was in a conversation where a boardie mentioned that he only owned about 10 slabs, but he had his registry sig line (like I have) that said he claimed lots more. When asked about it, he responded very flippantly that those books were only slabs he PREVIOUSLY owned and had not removed from his set.

 

So, there are apparently different schools of thought about what books you should have in your sig line. While it may well have been off-topic, I don't see it as any more of an insult or attack than asking for supporting evidence for any other claim anyone makes here.

 

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post.

 

People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true.

 

There was an obvious and palpable sub-text to both the question itself, and the timing of it (on both occasions). And I said I thought it was a bit tacky, I didn't say I took it personally.

 

FYI, the offer still stands for me to take a camera phone picture with all of the books that have appeared in any of my sig lines together on my carpet if you insist. If nothing else it will give me an excuse to play with them for a few minutes. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Different interpretations of sig lines may be a little more common than you think.

 

Not long ago I was in a conversation where a boardie mentioned that he only owned about 10 slabs, but he had his registry sig line (like I have) that said he claimed lots more. When asked about it, he responded very flippantly that those books were only slabs he PREVIOUSLY owned and had not removed from his set.

 

So, there are apparently different schools of thought about what books you should have in your sig line. While it may well have been off-topic, I don't see it as any more of an insult or attack than asking for supporting evidence for any other claim anyone makes here.

 

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post.

 

People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true.

 

There was an obvious and palpable sub-text to both the question itself, and the timing of it (on both occasions). And I said I thought it was a bit tacky, I didn't say I took it personally.

 

FYI, the offer still stands for me to take a camera phone picture with all of the books that have appeared in any of my sig lines together on my carpet if you insist. If nothing else it will give me an excuse to play with them for a few minutes. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

Oh brother.

 

Do you know that I've been accused of actual, legal fraud and theft on these boards...? And worse, in private, behind my back, where I can't defend myself...?

 

bronzejonny accused me of insulting Chrisco, because he (BJ) misread my post.

 

Where's my apology for that....?

 

(Not holding my breath.)

 

If you're going to try and make hay because someone questioned your sigline, I would suggest finding another board. If you didn't take it personally, you would have told bronzejonny "hey, it wasn't a big deal. I didn't take it personally, so don't make such a big deal about it."

 

Your words betray you.

[Jaydogrules]

Different interpretations of sig lines may be a little more common than you think.

 

Not long ago I was in a conversation where a boardie mentioned that he only owned about 10 slabs, but he had his registry sig line (like I have) that said he claimed lots more. When asked about it, he responded very flippantly that those books were only slabs he PREVIOUSLY owned and had not removed from his set.

 

So, there are apparently different schools of thought about what books you should have in your sig line. While it may well have been off-topic, I don't see it as any more of an insult or attack than asking for supporting evidence for any other claim anyone makes here.

 

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post.

 

People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true.

 

There was an obvious and palpable sub-text to both the question itself, and the timing of it (on both occasions). And I said I thought it was a bit tacky, I didn't say I took it personally.

 

FYI, the offer still stands for me to take a camera phone picture with all of the books that have appeared in any of my sig lines together on my carpet if you insist. If nothing else it will give me an excuse to play with them for a few minutes. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

Oh brother.

 

Do you know that I've been accused of actual, legal fraud and theft on these boards...? And worse, in private, behind my back, where I can't defend myself...?

 

bronzejonny accused me of insulting Chrisco, because he (BJ) misread my post.

 

Where's my apology for that....?

 

(Not holding my breath.)

 

If you're going to try and make hay because someone questioned your sigline, I would suggest finding another board.

 

Except there was no basis or relevance for asking that, and at that time, and in that "forum". You knew what you were trying to do, what implications you were trying to make, and so did any objective person who read it.

 

Anyway, here you go. Black Panther decided to come out and play too just for gits and shiggles:

 

 

Does this make you feel any differently (worse) about asking such a question on the open boards like that? I'm guessing no. Well at least I won't have to worry about you asking about my sig line a THIRD time now.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Different interpretations of sig lines may be a little more common than you think.

 

Not long ago I was in a conversation where a boardie mentioned that he only owned about 10 slabs, but he had his registry sig line (like I have) that said he claimed lots more. When asked about it, he responded very flippantly that those books were only slabs he PREVIOUSLY owned and had not removed from his set.

 

So, there are apparently different schools of thought about what books you should have in your sig line. While it may well have been off-topic, I don't see it as any more of an insult or attack than asking for supporting evidence for any other claim anyone makes here.

 

That we are even discussing it only demonstrates how far down the rabbit hole we've gone...but I do thank you for this post.

 

People see what they wish to see, not what is. That is sad, but true.

 

There was an obvious and palpable sub-text to both the question itself, and the timing of it (on both occasions). And I said I thought it was a bit tacky, I didn't say I took it personally.

 

FYI, the offer still stands for me to take a camera phone picture with all of the books that have appeared in any of my sig lines together on my carpet if you insist. If nothing else it will give me an excuse to play with them for a few minutes. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

Oh brother.

 

Do you know that I've been accused of actual, legal fraud and theft on these boards...? And worse, in private, behind my back, where I can't defend myself...?

 

bronzejonny accused me of insulting Chrisco, because he (BJ) misread my post.

 

Where's my apology for that....?

 

(Not holding my breath.)

 

If you're going to try and make hay because someone questioned your sigline, I would suggest finding another board.

 

Except there was no basis or relevance for asking that, and at that time, and in that "forum". You knew what you were trying to do, what implications you were trying to make, and so did any objective person who read it.

 

I thought you didn't take it personally?

 

What bearing does relevance have about asking a question? People ask irrelevant questions all the time. It's called "conversation."

 

I already said I was trying to find out if you were posting books in your sigline that weren't yours. You're completely right that I was looking to see if you were a phony or not.

 

Why is this so surprising?

 

Does this make you feel any differently (worse) about asking such a question on the open boards like that? I'm guessing no.

 

You said you didn't take it personally, and yet here you are, wanting me to "feel worse" about asking "such a question" ( ) on the "open boards"...and yet, you have a sigline composed of pictures from entirely different sources, a common red flag for phoniness. So, not only do I *not* "feel" (there's that word again) worse, I'd ask it again of anyone else with a questionable sigline.

 

You are only looking to make hay.

 

Like I said: you are an EXPERT politician.

 

Did I just namecall you again...?

 

 

Well at least I won't have to worry about you asking about my sig line a THIRD time now.

 

-J.

 

You didn't have to worry about it after the FIRST time I saw your answer.

 

Is that the best you've got.....?

[jaeldubyoo]

It amazes me that this thread has about 1,200 posts.

[seanfingh]

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

 

CIRCULUS JERKICUS MAXIMUS

Edited September 10, 2014 by seanfingh

[RockMyAmadeus]

[porcupine48]

[RockMyAmadeus]