Chuck explains his Mile High pricing

[dupont2005]

1) He is an important piece of Comics History He is. Everyone plays a part in history but he was in the right place at the right time in much the same way Keanu Reeves was when he was 'found'. Most people's accomplishments are a combination of right place / right time and while you can maximize your odds most of the time it's just 'luck'.

2) He lives off past accomplishments I don't think so. He still have an active business and must be making money to support it.

3) Parts 1 and 2 make him feel entitled to our help/support He does seem to like the attention. So he's an attention whore - oh well.

I don't think ANYBODY outside of the actual talent are an important part of comics history.

[VintageComics]

Huh, if this isn't condoning ripping people off, and completely admitting it's exactly what Chuck does, then I must have misread it.

 

I thought the entire point of capitalism was that sellers are free to ask what they want for a product and buyers are free to choose to pay it. Or not.

 

 

Now I don't fish with ultra high prices personally, but I'm not going to get sucked into this discussion again (it's a monthly occurrence on here).

 

Anyone making a purchase needs to know why they are parting with their money.

 

 

[COI]

RMA's defense of Chuck was "Sure he rips people off, but they deserved it! I'm smarter than them, so it wouldn't happen to me."

 

I know, I've been a member of this board for a long time, so I shouldn't be shocked at this type of attitude, but I still am every time it's expressed. And then doubly shocked at how many people share that attitude on here. It's disappointing to say the least.

 

But now people can imply I'm a pansy liberal victim because I don't think people should applaud a man for surviving off ripping people off. It's awesome how everyone on the internet is a tough as nails Blackwater mercenary who would never be the victim of anything because of how smart and tough they are.

 

Nope, nobody is condoning ripping people off (especially RMA). You're over simplifying (and reaching a bit) to support your own argument. You obviously have strong feelings about it...no worries. Agree to disagree.

 

I still think people just like to hennycluck about Chuck because he's an easy target.

 

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out how "ripping people off" follows from setting high prices, even if they're ludicrously high. He's not selling baby formula.

[wombat]

So Chuck is the Keanu Reaves of the comic world. I'm not sure which side of the argument this helps.

 

[VintageComics]

1) He is an important piece of Comics History He is. Everyone plays a part in history but he was in the right place at the right time in much the same way Keanu Reeves was when he was 'found'. Most people's accomplishments are a combination of right place / right time and while you can maximize your odds most of the time it's just 'luck'.

2) He lives off past accomplishments I don't think so. He still have an active business and must be making money to support it.

3) Parts 1 and 2 make him feel entitled to our help/support He does seem to like the attention. So he's an attention whore - oh well.

I don't think ANYBODY outside of the actual talent are an important part of comics history.

 

Well, I'll disagree with you on that too.

 

There are plenty of people who are important to the formation of the hobby - Pop Hollinger, Jay Maybruck, Phil Sueling, Chuck Rozanski, Dave Anderson and lots of other people.

 

They were all people that changed the hobby in one way or another and none of them were creators.

 

The hobby is not just a product of artist and writers, it's a product of people who had a love for the art form and shaped it with their actions and businesses.

[Sqeggs]

So Chuck is the Keanu Reaves of the comic world. I'm not sure which side of the argument this helps.

 

 

[ttfitz]

Far different than the notion that some poor, unsuspecting wife paid 4 figures for a book worth only 5 bucks. That's what was ridiculous and completely made up about your earlier statements.

How ridiculous was it, when someone immediately chimed in and said the same exact thing almost happened with his spouse at the same exact retailer? Who do you think is paying four figures for Chuck's comics?

 

Comic collectors?

 

But that's the thing, someone DIDN'T chime in and say that almost happened with him. I'm assuming you are referring to this post:

 

5 years ago, my wife was deciding upon a comic book wedding anniversary present for me. She initially decided against the internet, as she wanted to see the book in person. She got concerned I wouldn't like what she would get, and was afraid to dump 1K plus on a book that wouldn't make me happy. So she told me, and sought my advice. She nearly went to our local Mile High and I'm so damn glad she didn't.

 

As you can see, there isn't anything there about this 1K plus book being a $5 book. Like I said, this was likely a book like the ASM #1 that was pointed out, that was 2-3x Guide. I'm right there with Dano, I'd be damn glad my wife asked me before shopping there, because the prices are way too high. Just not a ridiculous 320x Guide of the stated scenario.

 

And I want to say I'm sorry to you, because I mistakenly attributed the "$1600 for a $5 book" scenario to you, it was 50s war comics. You just agreed with it actually ever happening.

[VintageComics]

So Chuck is the Keanu Reaves of the comic world. I'm not sure which side of the argument this helps.

 

 

Keanue Reeves was 'found' by someone out in the wild the same way Chuck found the Church books.

[Sqeggs]

1) He is an important piece of Comics History He is. Everyone plays a part in history but he was in the right place at the right time in much the same way Keanu Reeves was when he was 'found'. Most people's accomplishments are a combination of right place / right time and while you can maximize your odds most of the time it's just 'luck'.

2) He lives off past accomplishments I don't think so. He still have an active business and must be making money to support it.

3) Parts 1 and 2 make him feel entitled to our help/support He does seem to like the attention. So he's an attention whore - oh well.

I don't think ANYBODY outside of the actual talent are an important part of comics history.

 

Well, I'll disagree with you on that too.

 

There are plenty of people who are important to the formation of the hobby - Pop Hollinger, Jay Maybruck, Phil Sueling, Chuck Rozanski, Dave Anderson and lots of other people.

 

They were all people that changed the hobby in one way or another and none of them were creators.

 

The hobby is not just a product of artist and writers, it's a product of people who had a love for the art form and shaped it with their actions and businesses.

 

I agree. I think you have to give some credit to the early dealers. Hadn't the Church family already thrown away some of the books and weren't they pondering dumping the rest? The hobby would be significantly poorer if those books hadn't survived.

 

Or if Bud Plant, John Barrett, and the sainted Bob Beerbohm hadn't organized Berkeley Con, the Reilly family -- or whoever the hell those people were! -- might have dumped the SF books.

 

There are many similar stories.

 

The dealers of the 1960s and 1970s helped find and preserve tons of great books that might otherwise have been lost. Sure they had a strong financial incentive to do so, but they also loved comics -- at least all the ones I met did.

 

Chuck deserves his place in the history of our hobby, whatever you may think of his business practices.

[Transplant]

Worried the boards will turn on you next?

Hopefully I've garnered enough goodwill to stave off the torch-mobs.

Seriously I've never worried too much about negative press simply because it is so easy as a business to do the right thing in the first place. And even when mistakes occur it is very simple to correct them. And my back issue prices on comics from 1970 to present are incredibly cheap!

 

But I really am curious about who in perceived by the collecting community to be second. Chuck is such a lightning rod for criticism, and much of the criticism is because he is the highest priced. His pricing is such that it serves as a shield for every other back issue dealer. I sometimes wonder what effect it would have on the rest of pricing if Mile High ceased to exist. Would someone else fill the gap, or would prices across the board trend downward because there wasn't someone else providing a ceiling for the rest?

 

My guess is, despite the size of his inventory and his desire to cater to everyone, he very likely caters to different people than you do. I doubt tons of people are buying random SA Spideys from him online at his insane prices, given the alternatives available, but he may be doing well serving those looking for random moderns other people don't bother to stock, or some obscure graphic novel from 1982 that no one else has. Combined with those discount codes he throws out, I'm sure there is a lot of obscure or just random drek he has that people can buy for a somewhat reasonable price. I simply don't buy the narrative that he sustains himself almost entirely from dumb people who apparently can only access his website on the internet, and that he in-turn is a scam artist for serving those people.

 

So my guess would be that him exiting the hobby would have little effect on someone like you.

Appreciate your response but that isn't really the point I was trying to make. I carry a large selection of recent ('80s to present) back issues, random stuff and runs, in each of my stores. I think our depth of recent back issue material, while certainly not as comprehensive as Mile High's, is one of the things that sets our stores apart from our local competition. In general I price these books at a minimum of a quarter over original cover price. These are the same types of books that Chuck will price at a minimum of $5 to $10 and then offer a discount. It isn't unusual to hear someone mention the prices they saw on Mile High's web-site when justifying a purchase from my back issue bins. So I wonder where that justification may come from if Mile High were not around.

I want the whole to know that you are #1 in breathmint prices! High and low!

[dupont2005]

1) He is an important piece of Comics History He is. Everyone plays a part in history but he was in the right place at the right time in much the same way Keanu Reeves was when he was 'found'. Most people's accomplishments are a combination of right place / right time and while you can maximize your odds most of the time it's just 'luck'.

2) He lives off past accomplishments I don't think so. He still have an active business and must be making money to support it.

3) Parts 1 and 2 make him feel entitled to our help/support He does seem to like the attention. So he's an attention whore - oh well.

I don't think ANYBODY outside of the actual talent are an important part of comics history.

 

Well, I'll disagree with you on that too.

 

There are plenty of people who are important to the formation of the hobby - Pop Hollinger, Jay Maybruck, Phil Sueling, Chuck Rozanski, Dave Anderson and lots of other people.

 

They were all people that changed the hobby in one way or another and none of them were creators.

 

The hobby is not just a product of artist and writers, it's a product of people who had a love for the art form and shaped it with their actions and businesses.

 

I agree. I think you have to give some credit to the early dealers. Hadn't the Church family already thrown away some of the books and weren't they pondering dumping the rest? The hobby would be significantly poorer if those books hadn't survived.

 

Or if Bud Plant, John Barrett, and the sainted Bob Beerbohm hadn't organized Berkeley Con, the Reilly family -- or whoever the hell those people were! -- might have dumped the SF books.

 

There are many similar stories.

 

The dealers of the 1960s and 1970s helped find and preserve tons of great books that might otherwise have been lost. Sure they had a strong financial incentive to do so, but they also loved comics -- at least all the ones I met did.

 

Chuck deserves his place in the history of our hobby, whatever you may think of his business practices.

Which used car dealer is important to the hobby of owning classic cars?

 

None of them. They're car dealers. They didn't manufacture the cars, they didn't preserve the cars, they didn't restore the cars. They bought low and sold high. None of it matters.

[dupont2005]

Huh, if this isn't condoning ripping people off, and completely admitting it's exactly what Chuck does, then I must have misread it.

 

I thought the entire point of capitalism was that sellers are free to ask what they want for a product and buyers are free to choose to pay it. Or not.

 

 

Now I don't fish with ultra high prices personally, but I'm not going to get sucked into this discussion again (it's a monthly occurrence on here).

 

Anyone making a purchase needs to know why they are parting with their money.

 

But you can see that RMA is saying Chuck rips people off, and those people deserve to be ripped off, right?

 

I mean, regardless of your thoughts on the matter, those are obviously his, are they not?

[dupont2005]

I think it's funny how nobody is concerned with what Chuck does because they'll never fall victim to it, but if he was selling high grade slabs at GPA but simply forgot to mention he had them pressed, there would be hell to pay, because somewhere down the line one of you may own a book that passed through his hands

[COI]

I think it's funny how nobody is concerned with what Chuck does because they'll never fall victim to it, but if he was selling high grade slabs at GPA but simply forgot to mention he had them pressed, there would be hell to pay, because somewhere down the line one of you may own a book that passed through his hands

 

"Simply forgot to mention he had them pressed"?

 

There is a difference between setting a high price that educated buyers would not consider, and selling something with an undisclosed detail that would affect the buyer's decision had that detail been disclosed. You really don't see the difference? The law does.

[dupont2005]

I think it's funny how nobody is concerned with what Chuck does because they'll never fall victim to it, but if he was selling high grade slabs at GPA but simply forgot to mention he had them pressed, there would be hell to pay, because somewhere down the line one of you may own a book that passed through his hands

 

"Simply forgot to mention he had them pressed"?

 

There is a difference between setting a high price that educated buyers would not consider, and selling something with an undisclosed detail that would affect the buyer's decision had that detail been disclosed. You really don't see the difference? The law does.

Is "This book is available literally every other place comics are sold for a thousand dollars less and in higher grade" an undisclosed detail that would affect a buyers decision? Also, I'm pretty sure pressing is not illegal. I thought this board was all about "If you didn't break a law, and you made a profit, BRAVO!"

 

CPR and fail to disclose, it's not illegal.

[BarryAllen]

I think it's funny how nobody is concerned with what Chuck does because they'll never fall victim to it, but if he was selling high grade slabs at GPA but simply forgot to mention he had them pressed, there would be hell to pay, because somewhere down the line one of you may own a book that passed through his hands

 

"Simply forgot to mention he had them pressed"?

 

There is a difference between setting a high price that educated buyers would not consider, and selling something with an undisclosed detail that would affect the buyer's decision had that detail been disclosed. You really don't see the difference? The law does.

 

Where is the precedent?

 

I am not aware of a law suit where someone won damages because they bought a book that was already pressed and they didn't know it - but the dealer did. They were sold a book that met a grading standard that includes accepting pressing.

 

Not saying it isn't shady, but consistently poor grading to the detriment of buyers and not disclosing pressing are really in the same camp of "shady business practices."

 

I have seen people tend to get more frustrated when they find out a book has already been pressed because they want to press it flip it themselves. Not saying others wouldn't be mad as well, but it is a common flipper's complaint.

[MrBedrock]

 

Where is the precedent?

 

In the White House.

[Chip Cataldo]

 

Where is the precedent?

 

In the White House.

!

 

Finally! A corny post in this thread that was SUPPOSED to be!

[COI]

I think it's funny how nobody is concerned with what Chuck does because they'll never fall victim to it, but if he was selling high grade slabs at GPA but simply forgot to mention he had them pressed, there would be hell to pay, because somewhere down the line one of you may own a book that passed through his hands

 

"Simply forgot to mention he had them pressed"?

 

There is a difference between setting a high price that educated buyers would not consider, and selling something with an undisclosed detail that would affect the buyer's decision had that detail been disclosed. You really don't see the difference? The law does.

Is "This book is available literally every other place comics are sold for a thousand dollars less and in higher grade" an undisclosed detail that would affect a buyers decision? Also, I'm pretty sure pressing is not illegal. I thought this board was all about "If you didn't break a law, and you made a profit, BRAVO!"

 

CPR and fail to disclose, it's not illegal.

 

I didn't say that undisclosed pressing is illegal.

[COI]

I think it's funny how nobody is concerned with what Chuck does because they'll never fall victim to it, but if he was selling high grade slabs at GPA but simply forgot to mention he had them pressed, there would be hell to pay, because somewhere down the line one of you may own a book that passed through his hands

 

"Simply forgot to mention he had them pressed"?

 

There is a difference between setting a high price that educated buyers would not consider, and selling something with an undisclosed detail that would affect the buyer's decision had that detail been disclosed. You really don't see the difference? The law does.

 

Where is the precedent?

 

I am not aware of a law suit where someone won damages because they bought a book that was already pressed and they didn't know it - but the dealer did. They were sold a book that met a grading standard that includes accepting pressing.

 

Not saying it isn't shady, but consistently poor grading to the detriment of buyers and not disclosing pressing are really in the same camp of "shady business practices."

 

I have seen people tend to get more frustrated when they find out a book has already been pressed because they want to press it flip it themselves. Not saying others wouldn't be mad as well, but it is a common flipper's complaint.

 

I didn't say that undisclosed pressing is illegal.