Amazing Spider-Man 667 1:100 Dell'Otto Variant

[Gatsby77]

I think many of these discussions would be shorter if you actually read what others wrote (advice you seem to dole out but seem to not use at times.)

 

I read every word that every person in a discussion says. I have a basic level of respect and courtesy for others by doing just that.

 

To me the key words in Gatsby77's statement are "experience" and "testimony". I never once read into his statement "this is fact".

 

I think you didn't read what I wrote. You don't need to SAY "this is fact" for it to be clear in the consistent manner in which you apply those statements.

 

Once again: "never once did Gatsby say "yes, you're right, this IS anecdotal, and not real proof of what I'm saying."

 

He clearly wrote "my experience" and "testimony of others" and you read into it something else entirely. You read "this is fact." He was responding to your anecdote with another anecdote.

 

I've asked you before...are you ever going to answer, or continue to dodge the question...? What, specifically, was my anecdote?

 

He made it very clear he thought what you wrote was conjecture (again, the key word he used was "conjecture") and followed up with anecdotal evidence of his own. And honestly, in any discussion there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Of course there isn't. However...bringing it up over and over and over and over again, as IF it was proof (that is, FACT), means you're using it as FACT.

 

You go around making it seem like anecdotal evidence is somehow wrong. You yourself use it all the time and confuse it for fact.

 

Example? Any at all? Just one?

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wow. Seriously, RMA?

 

So now you're using partial quotes of mine out of context? And in another era's thread?

 

It's all good, I just have come to expect more intellectual honesty from you than that.

 

For the peanut gallery, here's the full quote:

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who immediately noted the obvious leap from factual statements:

 

One more time (and I'll say this as many times as it needs to be said): ASM #361 was underordered. When it came out, it created intense demand. It sold out very quickly, prompting a second printing. Within a month or two, because the demand was so intense, and the supply was not enough to meet the demand, the value of the book had risen to $20-$25 retail, which was very rare for a brand new book, happening only a handful of times in the history of comics.

 

These are facts. And they are mad accurate.

 

To this:

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

This is pure conjecture, falsely attributing actions, motives, and theories that were contrary to my experience, and the experience and testimony of (now at least 10) other folks in this thread.

 

It's right there, but worth repeating for the blind, every word of your second quote is indeed your opinion, otherwise known as speculation, or conjecture on your part.

 

But let's back it up a bit. I stated in the other thread that I still respect your opinion re. such things as market dynamics surrounding Superman 75, for instance, despite your one-time insistence that it was released two days later than it was.

 

From the ASM 361 thread:

 

I already said this: when "memories" conflict with the DATA, the MEMORIES must be suspect, if not discarded altogether.

 

 

 

...If you have actual evidence...and not anecdotes, remembrances, stories, or other non-confirmable information...please, by all means, share it.

 

vs. an old Superman 75 thread:

 

This book was released on Nov 20, 1992. Comics were released on FRIDAY, not WEDNESDAY, until the distributor wars of the mid 90's.

 

 

It is interesting even Roger Stern feels November 18th, 1992 is the date to remember.

 

This book was released on Nov 20, 1992. Comics were released on FRIDAY, not WEDNESDAY, until the distributor wars of the mid 90's.

 

 

You know, we've already had this discussion, and I put images up from newspapers dated November 18 that talk about the book being released that day. I love you man, but you're wrong here.

 

 

More

 

Don't care what the paper says. Papers.....ESPECIALLY concerning comics events...are notoriously fact-deficient.

 

I was there. I remember the day. I worked for a distributor. I had to haul my butt around to all the stores he serviced. You don't forget chaos like that.

 

New comics were placed on sale on FRIDAY in those days, NOT Wednesday.

 

Let's aim for a tad more...let's say "consistency," and a tad less, let's say "hypocrisy," shall we?

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think many of these discussions would be shorter if you actually read what others wrote (advice you seem to dole out but seem to not use at times.)

 

I read every word that every person in a discussion says. I have a basic level of respect and courtesy for others by doing just that.

 

To me the key words in Gatsby77's statement are "experience" and "testimony". I never once read into his statement "this is fact".

 

I think you didn't read what I wrote. You don't need to SAY "this is fact" for it to be clear in the consistent manner in which you apply those statements.

 

Once again: "never once did Gatsby say "yes, you're right, this IS anecdotal, and not real proof of what I'm saying."

 

He clearly wrote "my experience" and "testimony of others" and you read into it something else entirely. You read "this is fact." He was responding to your anecdote with another anecdote.

 

I've asked you before...are you ever going to answer, or continue to dodge the question...? What, specifically, was my anecdote?

 

He made it very clear he thought what you wrote was conjecture (again, the key word he used was "conjecture") and followed up with anecdotal evidence of his own. And honestly, in any discussion there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Of course there isn't. However...bringing it up over and over and over and over again, as IF it was proof (that is, FACT), means you're using it as FACT.

 

You go around making it seem like anecdotal evidence is somehow wrong. You yourself use it all the time and confuse it for fact.

 

Example? Any at all? Just one?

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wow. Seriously, RMA?

 

So now you're using partial quotes of mine out of context? And in another era's thread?

 

It's all good, I just have come to expect more intellectual honesty from you than that.

 

For the peanut gallery, here's the full quote:

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who immediately noted the obvious leap from factual statements:

 

One more time (and I'll say this as many times as it needs to be said): ASM #361 was underordered. When it came out, it created intense demand. It sold out very quickly, prompting a second printing. Within a month or two, because the demand was so intense, and the supply was not enough to meet the demand, the value of the book had risen to $20-$25 retail, which was very rare for a brand new book, happening only a handful of times in the history of comics.

 

These are facts. And they are mad accurate.

 

To this:

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

This is pure conjecture, falsely attributing actions, motives, and theories that were contrary to my experience, and the experience and testimony of (now at least 10) other folks in this thread.

 

It's right there, but worth repeating for the blind, every word of your second quote is indeed your opinion, otherwise known as speculation, or conjecture on your part.

 

But let's back it up a bit. I stated in the other thread that I still respect your opinion re. such things as market dynamics surrounding Superman 75, for instance, despite your one-time insistence that it was released two days later than it was.

 

From the ASM 361 thread:

 

I already said this: when "memories" conflict with the DATA, the MEMORIES must be suspect, if not discarded altogether.

 

 

 

...If you have actual evidence...and not anecdotes, remembrances, stories, or other non-confirmable information...please, by all means, share it.

 

vs. an old Superman 75 thread:

 

This book was released on Nov 20, 1992. Comics were released on FRIDAY, not WEDNESDAY, until the distributor wars of the mid 90's.

 

 

It is interesting even Roger Stern feels November 18th, 1992 is the date to remember.

 

This book was released on Nov 20, 1992. Comics were released on FRIDAY, not WEDNESDAY, until the distributor wars of the mid 90's.

 

 

You know, we've already had this discussion, and I put images up from newspapers dated November 18 that talk about the book being released that day. I love you man, but you're wrong here.

 

 

More

 

Don't care what the paper says. Papers.....ESPECIALLY concerning comics events...are notoriously fact-deficient.

 

I was there. I remember the day. I worked for a distributor. I had to haul my butt around to all the stores he serviced. You don't forget chaos like that.

 

New comics were placed on sale on FRIDAY in those days, NOT Wednesday.

 

Let's aim for a tad more...let's say "consistency," and a tad less, let's say "hypocrisy," shall we?

 

 

I'll answer you tomorrow night, Gats. Much error to address, not least of which your last comment, but not tonight.

 

My comment to you is let's aim for a tad more....let's say mutual respect, courtesy, and civility, and less, let's say, snarky, chip-on-my-shoulder comments, shall we? That certainly applies to me, as well.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

RMA, honestly, I don't have an issue with you.

 

Yet, you "dread" my input....

 

Something seems contradictory, there...

 

 

What started much of the discussion in the ASM 361 thread was this statement you made:

 

And no, this book wasn't hoarded from day one. Books that sell out quickly enough to have a second printing aren't hoarded....they are distributed far and wide.

 

Several people said they did hoard the book (myself included although I understand you don't think my meager number of copies counts as a hoard.) Then you went on to frame your statement that you meant "generally, this book wasn't hoarded from day one" at some point in the discussion and you wrote this was implied in your original statement. Except, nobody but you understood it was implied, otherwise there wouldn't have been the discussion. So, rather than leave it at that or acknowledge that there was some level of hoarding that occurred (it doesn't matter if it was 1 collector or 100 collectors) and your initial statement wasn't true, you continued to double down and frame the original statement so that it would be true. The hoarders were the "exception, not the rule" is what I believe was discussed for a few pages which to me is you tacitly agreeing you do not think you original statement, as written, was true.

 

Here's the problem you're having....

 

There is casual commentary...and there is precise debate. There is figurative speech...and there is literal speech.

 

That comment was CASUAL. It was not meant to be a precise, accurate, down-to-the-last-jot-and-tittle accounting of the precise, exact situation, or I would have given you that, because it's obviously what I like to DO.

 

Surely, you can understand that, can't you?

 

"Except, nobody but you understood it was implied, otherwise there wouldn't have been the discussion." - That statement is demonstrably untrue. What IS true is that the people who challenged the statement didn't understand that it was implied. You have absolutely no way of knowing that NOBODY (hey, look, we're being precise!) but me understood that it was implied. No way at all. Those who took my casual comment literally didn't know. Those who did NOT take my casual comment literally DID.

 

Then, when I explain that it's FIGURATIVE, and not LITERAL, you come back with "well, now you're just trying to cover yourself."

 

 

Surely you know what when someone says "EVERYONE knows that!", they don't literally mean every single person on the planet, right? Surely, you know that when someone says "EVERYONE loves ice cream", they don't literally mean every single person on the planet, right?

 

When I said "this book wasn't hoarded from day one", I did not mean that literally not one single person who bought multiple copies of this book on day one didn't keep them throughout the book's initial rise and fall in value.

 

Why?

 

Because there are ALWAYS, ALWAYS exceptions that prove (test) the rule. That should be a granted, a given, in any discussion. I don't literally take what people say casually, and if I do, I ask them first if they mean that literally, or they are only speaking FIGURATIVELY.

 

The book wasn't hoarded. SOME people hoarded it. Those two statements, unless you insist on being 100% literal, aren't contradictions. By acknowledging the exception, I WAS acknowledging that some people hoarded this book.

 

One is figurative. The other is precise. FIGURATIVELY, the book wasn't hoarded. OVERARCHINGLY, the book wasn't hoarded. LITERALLY, some people DID hoard the book. There will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule, and those exceptions don't change the rule.

 

No "waffling", or "back pedaling", or "tacitly admitting" or anything of the sort. My position has never changed, from the very beginning of the conversation. This entire discussion, you have sought to find fault in what I've said, and when I clarified upon being challenged, you call that back pedaling! That's a NO WIN situation. You have damned me if I don't, and you have damned me if I do. That's not very fair of you.

 

And if you want to think THIS explanation is "doubling down" and being "unwilling to admit I was wrong", when I was using FIGURATIVE, CASUAL language, rather than PRECISE, then knock yourself out (I mean that FIGURATIVELY, I don't literally want you to knock yourself out.)

 

 

I also believe the discussion morphed into talking about speculation and probably other things, but it was this original statement that kicked it off.

 

How about we make this simple. We have 10 collectors, 9 of the collectors say they hated comic X and 1 said he loved it. So, in your words, would you say:

 

A) "Everyone hated comic X."

 

Or

 

B) "Generally everyone hated comic X."

 

And since you love parsing other peoples words, can you see that if you went with answer A, there is at least one person who would see this differently, because he/she in fact loved comic X. And since you love being precise, answer A is not true.

 

Option A is a CASUAL COMMENT. In a CASUAL DISCUSSION, you don't HAVE to take every single word literally...at...face...value...all...the...time.

 

When we get down to a serious DEBATE...then YES, I can and WILL parse every word, because that sort of fine detail is important.

 

But in a CASUAL CONTEXT? Please. That's beyond silly.

 

And, if you have a question about it, you can say "well, I certainly enjoyed it. Am I part of everyone?" And then the person can respond by saying "I didn't mean literally everyone, no."

 

Without the ability to be CASUAL and FIGURATIVE, things can get really old around here, REALLY fast.

 

Honestly, I think we are just talking over each other at this point or maybe we are discussing 2 different things. So, I will let you have the last word. Unless this gets brought up in another thread, in which case I reserve the right to jump in again.

 

Whatever floats your boat.

 

(That's a FIGURATIVE comment. I don't mean your literal boat; I don't even know if you HAVE a boat.)

 

 

tl:dr version:

 

"There is casual, figurative speech, and there is literal, precise speech, and it's important to know the difference."

[Jaydogrules]

I think many of these discussions would be shorter if you actually read what others wrote (advice you seem to dole out but seem to not use at times.)

 

I read every word that every person in a discussion says. I have a basic level of respect and courtesy for others by doing just that.

 

To me the key words in Gatsby77's statement are "experience" and "testimony". I never once read into his statement "this is fact".

 

I think you didn't read what I wrote. You don't need to SAY "this is fact" for it to be clear in the consistent manner in which you apply those statements.

 

Once again: "never once did Gatsby say "yes, you're right, this IS anecdotal, and not real proof of what I'm saying."

 

He clearly wrote "my experience" and "testimony of others" and you read into it something else entirely. You read "this is fact." He was responding to your anecdote with another anecdote.

 

I've asked you before...are you ever going to answer, or continue to dodge the question...? What, specifically, was my anecdote?

 

He made it very clear he thought what you wrote was conjecture (again, the key word he used was "conjecture") and followed up with anecdotal evidence of his own. And honestly, in any discussion there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Of course there isn't. However...bringing it up over and over and over and over again, as IF it was proof (that is, FACT), means you're using it as FACT.

 

You go around making it seem like anecdotal evidence is somehow wrong. You yourself use it all the time and confuse it for fact.

 

Example? Any at all? Just one?

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wow. Seriously, RMA?

 

So now you're using partial quotes of mine out of context? And in another era's thread?

 

It's all good, I just have come to expect more intellectual honesty from you than that.

 

For the peanut gallery, here's the full quote:

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who immediately noted the obvious leap from factual statements:

 

One more time (and I'll say this as many times as it needs to be said): ASM #361 was underordered. When it came out, it created intense demand. It sold out very quickly, prompting a second printing. Within a month or two, because the demand was so intense, and the supply was not enough to meet the demand, the value of the book had risen to $20-$25 retail, which was very rare for a brand new book, happening only a handful of times in the history of comics.

 

These are facts. And they are mad accurate.

 

To this:

 

As a result of its rapid and high price rise, those who bought multiple copies when the book came out, in hopes that the book would rise in value, generally ended up trading/selling (keeping in mind that there weren't enough copies to satisfy demand in the first place) those copies, which resulted in those copies ending up in many hands.

 

This is pure conjecture, falsely attributing actions, motives, and theories that were contrary to my experience, and the experience and testimony of (now at least 10) other folks in this thread.

 

It's right there, but worth repeating for the blind, every word of your second quote is indeed your opinion, otherwise known as speculation, or conjecture on your part.

 

But let's back it up a bit. I stated in the other thread that I still respect your opinion re. such things as market dynamics surrounding Superman 75, for instance, despite your one-time insistence that it was released two days later than it was.

 

From the ASM 361 thread:

 

I already said this: when "memories" conflict with the DATA, the MEMORIES must be suspect, if not discarded altogether.

 

 

 

...If you have actual evidence...and not anecdotes, remembrances, stories, or other non-confirmable information...please, by all means, share it.

 

vs. an old Superman 75 thread:

 

This book was released on Nov 20, 1992. Comics were released on FRIDAY, not WEDNESDAY, until the distributor wars of the mid 90's.

 

 

It is interesting even Roger Stern feels November 18th, 1992 is the date to remember.

 

This book was released on Nov 20, 1992. Comics were released on FRIDAY, not WEDNESDAY, until the distributor wars of the mid 90's.

 

 

You know, we've already had this discussion, and I put images up from newspapers dated November 18 that talk about the book being released that day. I love you man, but you're wrong here.

 

 

More

 

Don't care what the paper says. Papers.....ESPECIALLY concerning comics events...are notoriously fact-deficient.

 

I was there. I remember the day. I worked for a distributor. I had to haul my butt around to all the stores he serviced. You don't forget chaos like that.

 

New comics were placed on sale on FRIDAY in those days, NOT Wednesday.

 

Let's aim for a tad more...let's say "consistency," and a tad less, let's say "hypocrisy," shall we?

 

 

I'll answer you tomorrow night, Gats. Much error to address, not least of which your last comment, but not tonight.

 

My comment to you is let's aim for a tad more....let's say mutual respect, courtesy, and civility, and less, let's say, snarky, chip-on-my-shoulder comments, shall we? That certainly applies to me, as well.

 

Do us a favor gents and keep this in that nightmarish thread over there in the copper section.

 

-J.

[Prince Namor]

Another Jay error: that Marvel has only had a sale on leftover RI variants once or twice in the last 15 years - hilarious and inaccurate. They've had 2 in the last year and a half.

[Jaydogrules]

Another Jay error: that Marvel has only had a sale on leftover RI variants once or twice in the last 15 years - hilarious and inaccurate. They've had 2 in the last year and a half.

 

Another meaningless, inconsequential comment from the Gower Peanut Gallery:

 

A) That's not what I said;

 

B) Who cares?

 

C) Proof?

 

and

 

D) What variants ?

 

-J.

[jsilverjanet]

Another Jay error: that Marvel has only had a sale on leftover RI variants once or twice in the last 15 years - hilarious and inaccurate. They've had 2 in the last year and a half.

 

Another meaningless, inconsequential comment from the Gower Peanut Gallery:

 

A) That's not what I said;

 

B) Who cares?

 

C) Proof?

 

and

 

D) What variants ?

 

-J.

 

What does this mean?

[Prince Namor]

Another Jay error: that Marvel has only had a sale on leftover RI variants once or twice in the last 15 years - hilarious and inaccurate. They've had 2 in the last year and a half.

 

Another meaningless, inconsequential comment from the Gower Peanut Gallery:

 

A) That's not what I said;

 

B) Who cares?

 

C) Proof?

 

and

 

D) What variants ?

 

-J.

 

"Your statement that Marvel sells off RI variants "all the time" is also stupid. Another boardie dug up exactly "two" times this has happened with utterly worthless variants in the last fifteen years."

 

This is your exact quote.

 

Any retailer with a Diamond account can tell you you're wrong.

 

Facts, Jay.

 

 

[krighton]

Until about page 5 this thread was about spider-man 667.......'when' the thread derailed is always the most interesting part.

[mysterio]

Another Jay error: that Marvel has only had a sale on leftover RI variants once or twice in the last 15 years - hilarious and inaccurate. They've had 2 in the last year and a half.

 

Another meaningless, inconsequential comment from the Gower Peanut Gallery:

 

A) That's not what I said;

 

B) Who cares?

 

C) Proof?

 

and

 

D) What variants ?

 

-J.

 

A) It's exactly what you said, unless you want to dodge it by saying that another (unnamed, unquoted) boardie said it. Either way you're presenting the information as support for your argument in the red section below, and I quoted the post in its entirety so it couldn't be taken out of context. Chuck is a dealer, with a Diamond account, who would be informed of such sales. How does any of that disqualify him as someone who might know when such sales happen and what they contain?

 

B) You must care, otherwise why raise the point in the first place?

 

C) As for proof, where is your proof that only "utterly worthless variants" were sold?

 

D) Don't you already know? See point C above.

 

Here goes RMA derailing yet another thread (and this one for a third time). Are you going for a record or something ? I hear they miss you back in the ASM 361 print run thread . 95% of your post is complete and utterly unsupported nonsense, displays a galling amount of arrogance, and is dripping with hypocritical posturing that others have already called you out on, so no need to rehash that here.

 

Sufficeth to say, the link I provided directly from diamond (one of many links i have cited in this thread supporting my statements about the 667) contradicts most if not all of your misguided notions about RI variants (mainly being that Marvel arbitrarily prints comics that they have no intention or need to distribute). Why have an FOC, final order cut-off", if Marvel already knows they are going to print "at least 1000 copies" of a book, no matter what, or how many actual orders they receive, for the sole purpose of storing them in that mythical warehouse ?

 

That is just a stupid suggestion my man.

 

What a fabulous way to waste money that would be.

 

Your statement that Marvel sells off RI variants "all the time" is also stupid. Another boardie dug up exactly "two" times this has happened with utterly worthless variants in the last fifteen years. In fact, I'd like to see just one occasion- just one- were this happened with a famously rare and exceptionally valuable variant. That happen all the time too and I (and everyone else in the world) just missed it ?

 

You should really try practicing what you preach and stop over selling your opinions and beliefs as authority, because they are not. Because guess what....there are still only 20 copies of this 4 year old+ book on the census, it has still only come up for sale once raw all year, and it is still one of (if not the) toughest spidey books of all time with probably only 200 copies in existence, if not less. I said a few pages back that the reasons "why" can only be speculated on, that hasn't changed. Not a one of those potential reasons does anything to alter what has been the reality of this book since literally a week after it was first released. Whether you like or not.

 

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

Until about page 5 this thread was about spider-man 667.......'when' the thread derailed is always the most interesting part.

 

Ain't it the truth.

 

And I don't think even the threadkrapping offenders know what their point is anymore.

 

Guys, seriously. Get a life.

 

Marvel "sells off RI variants 'all the time'"?

 

No, they don't. That is a moronic exaggeration. What boardie dug up only two examples of that being done with worthless variants twice in 15 years, give or take? Mschmidt. What was his quoted source ? The unflappable website, bleedingcoolnews.

 

Just because Chuck is a retailer doesn't make his broad, unsupported statements gospel, nor were they relevant to this thread.

 

But feel free to link us to these two sales, Chuck. Perhaps one of them is the same bleedingcool article Mshcmidt mentioned?

 

And what exactly does this have to do with the 667 variant anyway? Oh right, nothing. But feel free to let us know when you pick one up at one of these Marvel variant blow-up fests. Now that would be bloody cool. See you in another 2-7 years or so? Maybe ? But most likely not. Right ? Because at the end of the day we are still talking about a variant that has come up for sale publicly only one time in a year in this thread. Right?

 

So actually in the meantime, feel free to start your own thread about all the "other" ultra rare and expensive Marvel variant fire sale announcements that you see "all the time". I'm sure that would make you quite popular around these parts.

 

-J.

[N/A]

Weird.

[Peter G]

This thread exhibits the clusterf@ck that emerges when multiple already over-sized egos collide and form a black hole sized GARGANTUAM mega-ego

[mysterio]

Until about page 5 this thread was about spider-man 667.......'when' the thread derailed is always the most interesting part.

 

Ain't it the truth.

 

And I don't think even the threadkrapping offenders know what their point is anymore.

 

Guys, seriously. Get a life.

 

Marvel "sells off RI variants 'all the time'"?

 

No, they don't. That is a moronic exaggeration. What boardie dug up only two examples of that being done with worthless variants twice in 15 years, give or take? Mschmidt. What was his quoted source ? The unflappable website, bleedingcoolnews.

 

Just because Chuck is a retailer doesn't make his broad, unsupported statements gospel, nor were they relevant to this thread.

 

But feel free to link us to these two sales, Chuck. Perhaps one of them is the same bleedingcool article Mshcmidt mentioned?

 

And what exactly does this have to do with the 667 variant anyway? Oh right, nothing. But feel free to let us know when you pick one up at one of these Marvel variant blow-up fests. Now that would be bloody cool. See you in another 2-7 years or so? Maybe ? But most likely not. Right ? Because at the end of the day we are still talking about a variant that has come up for sale publicly only one time in a year in this thread. Right?

 

So actually in the meantime, feel free to start your own thread about all the "other" ultra rare and expensive Marvel variant fire sale announcements that you see "all the time". I'm sure that would make you quite popular around these parts.

 

-J.

 

It has nothing to do with the #667 variant other than the fact that its main cheerleader has pretty consistently shown to be posting out of his @ss with uninformed and unsupported statements. Some may see that as bearing on the true rarity and significance of the variant, since the numbers quoted come from the same place all his other information seems to come from. Those readers should get the complete picture so they can decide who they believe.

 

But I'll go look for a copy to buy, and if I can't find one everything I post must be incorrect.

[Jaydogrules]

Until about page 5 this thread was about spider-man 667.......'when' the thread derailed is always the most interesting part.

 

Ain't it the truth.

 

And I don't think even the threadkrapping offenders know what their point is anymore.

 

Guys, seriously. Get a life.

 

Marvel "sells off RI variants 'all the time'"?

 

No, they don't. That is a moronic exaggeration. What boardie dug up only two examples of that being done with worthless variants twice in 15 years, give or take? Mschmidt. What was his quoted source ? The unflappable website, bleedingcoolnews.

 

Just because Chuck is a retailer doesn't make his broad, unsupported statements gospel, nor were they relevant to this thread.

 

But feel free to link us to these two sales, Chuck. Perhaps one of them is the same bleedingcool article Mshcmidt mentioned?

 

And what exactly does this have to do with the 667 variant anyway? Oh right, nothing. But feel free to let us know when you pick one up at one of these Marvel variant blow-up fests. Now that would be bloody cool. See you in another 2-7 years or so? Maybe ? But most likely not. Right ? Because at the end of the day we are still talking about a variant that has come up for sale publicly only one time in a year in this thread. Right?

 

So actually in the meantime, feel free to start your own thread about all the "other" ultra rare and expensive Marvel variant fire sale announcements that you see "all the time". I'm sure that would make you quite popular around these parts.

 

-J.

 

It has nothing to do with the #667 variant other than the fact that its main cheerleader has pretty consistently shown to be posting out of his @ss with uninformed and unsupported statements. Some may see that as bearing on the true rarity and significance of the variant, since the numbers quoted come from the same place all his other information seems to come from. Those readers should get the complete picture so they can decide who they believe.

 

But I'll go look for a copy to buy, and if I can't find one everything I post must be incorrect.

 

Actually I have been the only one who has cited any facts and figures as pertains to this book. Not that there's that much to report since there's so few copies of the book out there resulting in only about one sale a year on average. They call that "prima facie evidence" of something in the law. All that info is way back there in my first post.

 

I'm a "cheerleader" for the book ? Well no duh, genius, this is an "appreciation thread" after all. Also mentioned, way back there in the first post.

 

And once again the market has already made its "decision" about the book (and a few choice select of other mega rare, uber varaints)-like, three and a half years ago. Don't like that decision ?

 

Go ahead and write your congressman.

 

-J.

 

 

 

[Archaeon90]

This thread exhibits the clusterf@ck that emerges when multiple already over-sized egos collide and form a black hole sized GARGANTUAM mega-ego

 

+1

[Jaydogrules]

This thread exhibits the clusterf@ck that emerges when multiple already over-sized egos collide and form a black hole sized GARGANTUAM mega-ego

 

+1

 

There's some truth to that.

 

But I think you also have a certain contingent of "old school" collectors who hate and resent the modern (variant) market for whatever reason, and who knew very little (or more likely, nothing) about the 667 until I started this thread. So you're getting a few know-it-all boardies who are trying (poorly in most cases) to explain the inexplicable- ie, why is it so rare? And that's where the speculation begins. Surely there must be copies in a warehouse somewhere? Or hoarded in collections ? Or hidden in 5 packs? Or in an old barn ? Or on the moon? Surely, right ?

 

Right??

 

I personally happen to believe the most obvious (and likely) explanation.... there just weren't that many printed.

 

-J.

 

 

[N/A]

Weird.

[Prince Namor]

This thread exhibits the clusterf@ck that emerges when multiple already over-sized egos collide and form a black hole sized GARGANTUAM mega-ego

 

You're so toxic, boorish and just simply unpalatable.

[Peter G]

This thread exhibits the clusterf@ck that emerges when multiple already over-sized egos collide and form a black hole sized GARGANTUAM mega-ego

 

You're so toxic, boorish and just simply unpalatable.

 

Lolasaurusrex