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

[Jaydogrules]

Jay, it is the use of phrases like "hostile resistance", "exponentially more valuable" and "utterly bogus" that have been used to describe positions that may be causing a lot of the difficulties here. Hyperbolizing the discussion gets people's backs up, and this is where a lot of internet discussions go wrong. It is hard to see both sides of an argument from all the way up on a high horse.

 

This thread raised the question of the print run of this book, and there have been some good data that can help shed light on that question. The CGC census is another data point, though it has more limited value. Sales data may also provide some information, but again, these are of more limited value.

 

The census data is influenced by the following (not an exhaustive list):

Why do people slab books?

Do people like and/or believe in slabbing books?

Do people want to spend the money to slab their books?

Do people want to risk loss or damage in the process of slabbing books?

How many people who do slab would submit a modern that wasn't a slam dunk 9.8?

Does CBCS or PGX have a census to assess other slabbing options?

 

Sales data is influenced by the following (not an exhaustive list):

Do people realize that the variant they have is worth money?

Do people who have a lot of variants recall having this one?

Do people want to break up their runs if they have all the variants?

Do we have data on ALL sales, even the private sales or trades?

 

If we cannot approximate answers to these questions, we are making assumptions about what the data that we do have actually means. The data we do have suggest that this book is indeed difficult to find, and that few copies have changed hands since it was printed. Nobody disputed these facts as we know them today. To go beyond these conclusions is to take leaps that the data do not support. It may be better to be more conservative in our approach, rather than start shouting from the rooftops that this ASM #667 variant is the rarest and greatest variant to hit the hobby in the last 1,000 years.

 

When was this said?

 

And even if it was said, this is an appreciation and fan thread.

 

I stand by my assertion that print runs of variants are estimated around here all the time.

 

Never before have I seen such a nasty backlash by people who quite clearly have no prior interaction with this book, yet speaking so definitively in general terms about a book that obviously cannot be put into any "box" by any standard measure that would typically be used.

 

It's confusing, I get it. Inexplicable. I get it. Unprecedented. Indeed.

 

These things explain its value.

 

But nothing can definitely explain its rarity.

 

-J.

[mysterio]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

-J.

 

You were reasonably good here until the bolded part. This discussion has spun off the rails to the extent that it has because you have felt the need to resort to these sorts of attacks. JD had made a civil post and you could not respond in kind. The bolded part also reflects exactly the same questions that others raise about you here, because your emotions are so getting the best of you it shows your agenda. Agendas do not lead to logical conclusions based on data.

[mysterio]

Jay, it is the use of phrases like "hostile resistance", "exponentially more valuable" and "utterly bogus" that have been used to describe positions that may be causing a lot of the difficulties here. Hyperbolizing the discussion gets people's backs up, and this is where a lot of internet discussions go wrong. It is hard to see both sides of an argument from all the way up on a high horse.

 

This thread raised the question of the print run of this book, and there have been some good data that can help shed light on that question. The CGC census is another data point, though it has more limited value. Sales data may also provide some information, but again, these are of more limited value.

 

The census data is influenced by the following (not an exhaustive list):

Why do people slab books?

Do people like and/or believe in slabbing books?

Do people want to spend the money to slab their books?

Do people want to risk loss or damage in the process of slabbing books?

How many people who do slab would submit a modern that wasn't a slam dunk 9.8?

Does CBCS or PGX have a census to assess other slabbing options?

 

Sales data is influenced by the following (not an exhaustive list):

Do people realize that the variant they have is worth money?

Do people who have a lot of variants recall having this one?

Do people want to break up their runs if they have all the variants?

Do we have data on ALL sales, even the private sales or trades?

 

If we cannot approximate answers to these questions, we are making assumptions about what the data that we do have actually means. The data we do have suggest that this book is indeed difficult to find, and that few copies have changed hands since it was printed. Nobody disputed these facts as we know them today. To go beyond these conclusions is to take leaps that the data do not support. It may be better to be more conservative in our approach, rather than start shouting from the rooftops that this ASM #667 variant is the rarest and greatest variant to hit the hobby in the last 1,000 years.

 

When was this said?

 

And even if it was said, this is an appreciation and fan thread.

 

I stand by my assertion that print runs of variants are estimated around here all the time.

 

Never before have I seen such a nasty backlash by people who quite clearly have no prior interaction with this book, yet speaking so definitively in general terms about a book that obviously cannot be put into any "box" by any standard measure that would typically be used.

 

It's confusing, I get it. Inexplicable. I get it. Unprecedented. Indeed.

 

These things explain its value.

 

But nothing can definitely explain its rarity.

 

-J.

 

If the bolded parts are all you got out of my post then you missed the point.

[Jaydogrules]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

-J.

 

You were reasonably good here until the bolded part. This discussion has spun off the rails to the extent that it has because you have felt the need to resort to these sorts of attacks. JD had made a civil post and you could not respond in kind. The bolded part also reflects exactly the same questions that others raise about you here, because your emotions are so getting the best of you it shows your agenda. Agendas do not lead to logical conclusions based on data.

 

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "civility".

 

In case you missed it, he has been nuisance posting in this thread from nearly the beginning.

 

I find the vast majority of them to be snarky and generally condescending and bereft of any actual desire to conduct a legitimate discussion. Did you not see his multiple one word "weird" posts from just yesterday alone?

 

What is my "agenda"? I own one copy of this book and it's not for sale, so you tell me.

 

Perhaps my "agenda" was to start a fan and appreciation thread for a book that I own-something which is done all the time around here, last I checked, without all of the relentless and blatantly sour grapes and petty nay-saying that frankly looks more than a little tacky at this point.

 

-J.

[vaillant]

Seriously, if this was meant as an appreciation thread like all others, why not let this one die and restart it anew without going into unneeded (and useless) polemics?

 

As much as one might love this cover, this is a modern Spider-Man issue whose rarity is just dictated by a deliberate limited print run (as it is with the other 1:XXX variants). One loves it? OK, but honestly 63 pages of quarrels for such a thing are embarassing… :shrug:

[BarryAllen]

Seriously, if this was meant as an appreciation thread like all others, why not let this one die and restart it anew without going into unneeded (and useless) polemics?

 

+1

 

I was literally just about to post the same suggestion.

[mysterio]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

-J.

 

You were reasonably good here until the bolded part. This discussion has spun off the rails to the extent that it has because you have felt the need to resort to these sorts of attacks. JD had made a civil post and you could not respond in kind. The bolded part also reflects exactly the same questions that others raise about you here, because your emotions are so getting the best of you it shows your agenda. Agendas do not lead to logical conclusions based on data.

 

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "civility".

 

In case you missed it, he has been nuisance posting in this thread from nearly the beginning.

 

I find the vast majority of them to be snarky and generally condescending and bereft of any actual desire to conduct a legitimate discussion. Did you not see his multiple one word "weird" posts from just yesterday alone?

 

What is my "agenda"? I own one copy of this book and it's not for sale, so you tell me.

 

Perhaps my "agenda" was to start a fan and appreciation thread for a book that I own-something which is done all the time around here, last I checked, without all of the relentless and blatantly sour grapes and petty nay-saying that frankly looks more than a little tacky at this point.

 

-J.

 

People are going to have a tendency to tone their posts the way you tone yours. The more you've gotten your back up about their comments and gone on the attack, the more it is going to come back to you that way.

 

The tone has gotten snarky and condescending in response to your agenda. You have had an agenda in this thread pretty much since the first post (I'd have to reread the first post to see if it shows up there).

 

While you may think this thread has been about appreciating this book, it has instead been about proving to everyone how rare it is. Nobody has questioned the fact that this book is difficult to find at present, but you've turned any queries as to HOW we know it is rare into an attack on its rarity. You've turned any analysis of the evidence for this rarity into some apparent hatred for the book itself. You've derided any legitimate questions about the theories seeking to account for the rarity of this book as nonsense, rather than seeing them as an opportunity to learn something about the book you appreciate.

 

By questioning the motives of the people questioning the print run of the variant, which is still quite unknown, you're giving off a distinct "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" vibe. If the only thing to appreciate about this book is its apparent rarity, then it would seem to pay to learn something about that. If this book is more than its print run, then don't sweat it so much.

[Jaydogrules]

Seriously, if this was meant as an appreciation thread like all others, why not let this one die and restart it anew without going into unneeded (and useless) polemics?

 

+1

 

I was literally just about to post the same suggestion.

 

I've thought about it.

 

I just also thought it would be so much nicer (not to mention polite) if the uninitiated simply stated their piece and then bowed out graciously rather than engage in this repetitive and pointless cluster-funk, as no questions have been answered nor can be answered as to what caused the book to be far rarer than what would normally be expected.

 

-J.

[N/A]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

-J.

 

You were reasonably good here until the bolded part. This discussion has spun off the rails to the extent that it has because you have felt the need to resort to these sorts of attacks. JD had made a civil post and you could not respond in kind. The bolded part also reflects exactly the same questions that others raise about you here, because your emotions are so getting the best of you it shows your agenda. Agendas do not lead to logical conclusions based on data.

 

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "civility".

 

In case you missed it, he has been nuisance posting in this thread from nearly the beginning.

 

I find the vast majority of them to be snarky and generally condescending and bereft of any actual desire to conduct a legitimate discussion. Did you not see his multiple one word "weird" posts from just yesterday alone?

 

What is my "agenda"? I own one copy of this book and it's not for sale, so you tell me.

 

Perhaps my "agenda" was to start a fan and appreciation thread for a book that I own-something which is done all the time around here, last I checked, without all of the relentless and blatantly sour grapes and petty nay-saying that frankly looks more than a little tacky at this point.

 

-J.

 

When you continually ignore relevant facts then all I am left with is "weird". You do not seem interested in actually discussing the book which, ironically, is what you accuse me of.

[N/A]

Seriously, if this was meant as an appreciation thread like all others, why not let this one die and restart it anew without going into unneeded (and useless) polemics?

 

+1

 

I was literally just about to post the same suggestion.

 

I've thought about it.

 

I just also thought it would be so much nicer (not to mention polite) if the uninitiated simply stated their piece and then bowed out graciously rather than engage in this repetitive and pointless cluster-funk, as no questions have been answered nor can be answered as to what caused the book to be far rarer than what would normally be expected.

 

-J.

 

And you don't see yourself as part of the problem?

[Jaydogrules]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

-J.

 

You were reasonably good here until the bolded part. This discussion has spun off the rails to the extent that it has because you have felt the need to resort to these sorts of attacks. JD had made a civil post and you could not respond in kind. The bolded part also reflects exactly the same questions that others raise about you here, because your emotions are so getting the best of you it shows your agenda. Agendas do not lead to logical conclusions based on data.

 

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "civility".

 

In case you missed it, he has been nuisance posting in this thread from nearly the beginning.

 

I find the vast majority of them to be snarky and generally condescending and bereft of any actual desire to conduct a legitimate discussion. Did you not see his multiple one word "weird" posts from just yesterday alone?

 

What is my "agenda"? I own one copy of this book and it's not for sale, so you tell me.

 

Perhaps my "agenda" was to start a fan and appreciation thread for a book that I own-something which is done all the time around here, last I checked, without all of the relentless and blatantly sour grapes and petty nay-saying that frankly looks more than a little tacky at this point.

 

-J.

 

When you continually ignore relevant facts then all I am left with is "weird". You do not seem interested in actually discussing the book which, ironically, is what you accuse me of.

 

Still looking for any "relevant facts" that pertain to this book that haven't already been cited by me that can advance the discussion any further, and/or refute the book's absolute rarity.

 

-J.

 

 

[CBT]

Is this threads goal nerd ufc, or asm variant pumping. Struggling to follow.

 

 

Side note, slabbing books is arbitrary, so while people can make interesting observations about said behaviour, it can't ever 'prove' anything about underlying print runs. A derivative can't dictate the underlying value

 

I am not sure I 100% follow. I agree that slabbing data alone is not substantial enough to create a conclusion about the total number of books, but I do believe that in today's comic market (i.e. one that is primarily about resale value) it is pertinent data.

 

So when a modern variant (i.e. a book that over-indexes in resale and therefore should also in slabbing) has so few submissions to the largest and most widely recognized/renowned company (CGC for anyone who is just joining us ), it does create an interesting conundrum.

 

I bolded the relevant part to your comments

 

 

 

 

And I've bolded the relevant part of his post that related back to yours. He never said it proved anything, just raised an interesting question.

 

 

Which I had already said in my bolded part.....

 

So if he was essentially agreeing with you, why make a stink about it?

 

 

I didn't and I bolded what I said cause he appeared to miss it

[N/A]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

-J.

 

You were reasonably good here until the bolded part. This discussion has spun off the rails to the extent that it has because you have felt the need to resort to these sorts of attacks. JD had made a civil post and you could not respond in kind. The bolded part also reflects exactly the same questions that others raise about you here, because your emotions are so getting the best of you it shows your agenda. Agendas do not lead to logical conclusions based on data.

 

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "civility".

 

In case you missed it, he has been nuisance posting in this thread from nearly the beginning.

 

I find the vast majority of them to be snarky and generally condescending and bereft of any actual desire to conduct a legitimate discussion. Did you not see his multiple one word "weird" posts from just yesterday alone?

 

What is my "agenda"? I own one copy of this book and it's not for sale, so you tell me.

 

Perhaps my "agenda" was to start a fan and appreciation thread for a book that I own-something which is done all the time around here, last I checked, without all of the relentless and blatantly sour grapes and petty nay-saying that frankly looks more than a little tacky at this point.

 

-J.

 

Then you need to read the thread you started.

 

When you continually ignore relevant facts then all I am left with is "weird". You do not seem interested in actually discussing the book which, ironically, is what you accuse me of.

 

Still looking for any "relevant facts" that pertain to this book that haven't already been cited by me that can advance the discussion any further, and/or refute the book's absolute rarity.

 

-J.

 

[mysterio]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

-J.

 

You were reasonably good here until the bolded part. This discussion has spun off the rails to the extent that it has because you have felt the need to resort to these sorts of attacks. JD had made a civil post and you could not respond in kind. The bolded part also reflects exactly the same questions that others raise about you here, because your emotions are so getting the best of you it shows your agenda. Agendas do not lead to logical conclusions based on data.

 

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "civility".

 

In case you missed it, he has been nuisance posting in this thread from nearly the beginning.

 

I find the vast majority of them to be snarky and generally condescending and bereft of any actual desire to conduct a legitimate discussion. Did you not see his multiple one word "weird" posts from just yesterday alone?

 

What is my "agenda"? I own one copy of this book and it's not for sale, so you tell me.

 

Perhaps my "agenda" was to start a fan and appreciation thread for a book that I own-something which is done all the time around here, last I checked, without all of the relentless and blatantly sour grapes and petty nay-saying that frankly looks more than a little tacky at this point.

 

-J.

 

When you continually ignore relevant facts then all I am left with is "weird". You do not seem interested in actually discussing the book which, ironically, is what you accuse me of.

 

Still looking for any "relevant facts" that pertain to this book that haven't already been cited by me that can advance the discussion any further, and/or refute the book's absolute rarity.

 

-J.

 

 

Who was trying to refute its rarity? What happened was that you perceived questions about how rare it is, and why it is rare, into "hating" on the book. It is interesting why a book like this would be as seemingly difficult to find as it is, and it is worth exploring that question. It is also interesting that you think the book is apparently only special because it is so rare, and you're obviously quite sensitive to any suggestions to the contrary.

[BarryAllen]

Is this threads goal nerd ufc, or asm variant pumping. Struggling to follow.

 

 

Side note, slabbing books is arbitrary, so while people can make interesting observations about said behaviour, it can't ever 'prove' anything about underlying print runs. A derivative can't dictate the underlying value

 

I am not sure I 100% follow. I agree that slabbing data alone is not substantial enough to create a conclusion about the total number of books, but I do believe that in today's comic market (i.e. one that is primarily about resale value) it is pertinent data.

 

So when a modern variant (i.e. a book that over-indexes in resale and therefore should also in slabbing) has so few submissions to the largest and most widely recognized/renowned company (CGC for anyone who is just joining us ), it does create an interesting conundrum.

 

I bolded the relevant part to your comments

 

 

 

 

And I've bolded the relevant part of his post that related back to yours. He never said it proved anything, just raised an interesting question.

 

 

Which I had already said in my bolded part.....

 

So if he was essentially agreeing with you, why make a stink about it?

 

 

I didn't and I bolded what I said cause he appeared to miss it

 

I didn't miss it, but that isn't a big deal as stated I was agreeing with you for the most part.

 

What I didn't state before because I didn't want to stir the pot was going to be something similar to this:

My is that I don't believe slabbing behavior is as arbitrary as your statement would allude to. Particularly because of the nature of how this specific book doesn't fit the "norm" of all the surrounding issues. From both a sociological and psychological perspective human behavior is sickeningly predictable when you are talking about a group or segment of the population. For group behavior to be consistent, then stop and resume around a single issue would indicate a break in pattern worth noting.

 

To your point, this data alone does not "prove" anything. However, it is enough of a difference to warrant additional scrutiny and potentially search for cause. Maybe it is a fluke, but given the available information so far (both sales data and slabbing data confer a similar story), I would not take it at face value and research the situation more thoroughly. Now after reviewing the numerous posts on the subject from both sides (and ignoring the posturing, soapboxing, and personal attacks) my honest opinion would be that neither side has conclusively proven JayDog to be correct or incorrect. At this point I would call "Schrödinger's Cat" on the whole situation and move on for now.

 

Of course what really needs to happen is more thorough research, but someone would only do this if they had a vested interest in this issue, which I don't.

 

So

[Jaydogrules]

Dude, now you're comparing #1's to some randomn Spidey book. The reason you can't extrapolate the data points you referenced is because they do no relate to PRINT RUN. Taking two data points about PRINT RUN then guesstimating (that's an actual word? ) would make sense. You are taking two data points that relate to distribution and assume they relate to the print run. Hindsight is 20/20. Large companies run on SOP's and not hindsight.

 

Dude, maybe you missed the other two dozen or so other examples of rare variants that I compared the book to earlier in the thread, including six other "random" Spidey book variants released in the same general time frame that were 1:100. These data points DO NOT relate solely to "distribution". And even if they did, the "distribution" is not in its own vacuum that is completely independent from the books' print runs. Why are you insisting on floating this nonsense? What exactly is your agenda here? You are in fact the one who is making a false statement to reach a conclusion that in fact contradicts those very same and real data points.

 

You have no credibility in this discussion, sir.

-J.

 

You were reasonably good here until the bolded part. This discussion has spun off the rails to the extent that it has because you have felt the need to resort to these sorts of attacks. JD had made a civil post and you could not respond in kind. The bolded part also reflects exactly the same questions that others raise about you here, because your emotions are so getting the best of you it shows your agenda. Agendas do not lead to logical conclusions based on data.

 

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "civility".

 

In case you missed it, he has been nuisance posting in this thread from nearly the beginning.

 

I find the vast majority of them to be snarky and generally condescending and bereft of any actual desire to conduct a legitimate discussion. Did you not see his multiple one word "weird" posts from just yesterday alone?

 

What is my "agenda"? I own one copy of this book and it's not for sale, so you tell me.

 

Perhaps my "agenda" was to start a fan and appreciation thread for a book that I own-something which is done all the time around here, last I checked, without all of the relentless and blatantly sour grapes and petty nay-saying that frankly looks more than a little tacky at this point.

 

-J.

 

When you continually ignore relevant facts then all I am left with is "weird". You do not seem interested in actually discussing the book which, ironically, is what you accuse me of.

 

Still looking for any "relevant facts" that pertain to this book that haven't already been cited by me that can advance the discussion any further, and/or refute the book's absolute rarity.

 

-J.

 

 

Who was trying to refute its rarity? What happened was that you perceived questions about how rare it is, and why it is rare, into "hating" on the book. It is interesting why a book like this would be as seemingly difficult to find as it is, and it is worth exploring that question. It is also interesting that you think the book is apparently only special because it is so rare, and you're obviously quite sensitive to any suggestions to the contrary.

 

Exceedingly rare comic books with awesome covers by a hot/talented artist from his day being highly coveted is not an uncommon occurrence in this hobby.

 

That this is also part one of the huge Spider Island cross over story event from that year (and subsequently given its own title this year) is the gravy.

 

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

Is this threads goal nerd ufc, or asm variant pumping. Struggling to follow.

 

 

Side note, slabbing books is arbitrary, so while people can make interesting observations about said behaviour, it can't ever 'prove' anything about underlying print runs. A derivative can't dictate the underlying value

 

I am not sure I 100% follow. I agree that slabbing data alone is not substantial enough to create a conclusion about the total number of books, but I do believe that in today's comic market (i.e. one that is primarily about resale value) it is pertinent data.

 

So when a modern variant (i.e. a book that over-indexes in resale and therefore should also in slabbing) has so few submissions to the largest and most widely recognized/renowned company (CGC for anyone who is just joining us ), it does create an interesting conundrum.

 

I bolded the relevant part to your comments

 

 

 

 

And I've bolded the relevant part of his post that related back to yours. He never said it proved anything, just raised an interesting question.

 

 

Which I had already said in my bolded part.....

 

So if he was essentially agreeing with you, why make a stink about it?

 

 

I didn't and I bolded what I said cause he appeared to miss it

 

I didn't miss it, but that isn't a big deal as stated I was agreeing with you for the most part.

 

What I didn't state before because I didn't want to stir the pot was going to be something similar to this:

My is that I don't believe slabbing behavior is as arbitrary as your statement would allude to. Particularly because of the nature of how this specific book doesn't fit the "norm" of all the surrounding issues. From both a sociological and psychological perspective human behavior is sickeningly predictable when you are talking about a group or segment of the population. For group behavior to be consistent, then stop and resume around a single issue would indicate a break in pattern worth noting.

 

To your point, this data alone does not "prove" anything. However, it is enough of a difference to warrant additional scrutiny and potentially search for cause. Maybe it is a fluke, but given the available information so far (both sales data and slabbing data confer a similar story), I would not take it at face value and research the situation more thoroughly. Now after reviewing the numerous posts on the subject from both sides (and ignoring the posturing, soapboxing, and personal attacks) my honest opinion would be that neither side has conclusively proven JayDog to be correct or incorrect. At this point I would call "Schrödinger's Cat" on the whole situation and move on for now.

 

Of course what really needs to happen is more thorough research, but I would only do this if I had a vested interest in this issue, which I don't.

 

So

 

+1 to the whole danged thing.

 

Touche.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I can't believe Mike was called a bully

 

Not choosing sides - but he did call Jaydog "pathetic" first.

 

You can't be all that awesome and insult people to that degree. I know I am not one to talk, but people seriously can't just deny that he directly insulted another person (and from what I can tell in this thread it was unprovoked - at least to him personally). That certainly doesn't make him evil by any stretch (not sure it makes him a bully either), but ignoring what he said isn't a fair assessment of the situation.

 

Someone was insulted, so they retaliated. Kinda par for the course round here...

 

Gotcha. It just gets fist rating debating something when the other party ignores any facts and acts as if his word is the only word.

 

Totally agree - many times it is happening on both sides of the argument.

 

I only saw it on Jaydog's side but I admit I don't read

RMA's posts.

 

Couple of observations, and a statement.

 

1. It's difficult, if not impossible, to understand any debate if one is consciously "not reading" a central party to that debate.

 

2. "Many times it is happening on both sides of the argument", while true, itsn't always the case, and certainly isn't the case here. Neither Chuck, nor myself, nor many others have been "ignoring the facts and acting as if his word is the only word", so that point isn't relevant in this discussion.

 

Frequently, when people take discussions personally, even if the discussion doesn't directly involve them, they will develop a myopic view of both the discussion and the person(s) whose comments they have taken personally, and will frame the entire debate within that view.

 

Thus, everyone in the debate becomes morally and philosophically equivalent, and "no one's point is more or less valid than any others", and "both sides are doing the same thing", which is objectively untrue.

 

For whatever that's worth.

 

And the statement...

 

I read pretty much everything you post, in discussions in which I'm involved.

 

Huzzah for me.

 

Since you admit you don't read what I post, should I not respond to yours? Serious question. Although, there's a bit of a catch-22, there, admittedly. If you don't read my posts, you won't read this, and I'll never get my answer.

 

[N/A]

I can't believe Mike was called a bully

 

Not choosing sides - but he did call Jaydog "pathetic" first.

 

You can't be all that awesome and insult people to that degree. I know I am not one to talk, but people seriously can't just deny that he directly insulted another person (and from what I can tell in this thread it was unprovoked - at least to him personally). That certainly doesn't make him evil by any stretch (not sure it makes him a bully either), but ignoring what he said isn't a fair assessment of the situation.

 

Someone was insulted, so they retaliated. Kinda par for the course round here...

 

Gotcha. It just gets fist rating debating something when the other party ignores any facts and acts as if his word is the only word.

 

Totally agree - many times it is happening on both sides of the argument.

 

I only saw it on Jaydog's side but I admit I don't read

RMA's posts.

 

Couple of observations, and a statement.

 

1. It's difficult, if not impossible, to understand any debate if one is consciously "not reading" a central party to that debate.

 

2. "Many times it is happening on both sides of the argument", while true, itsn't always the case, and certainly isn't the case here. Neither Chuck, nor myself, nor many others have been "ignoring the facts and acting as if his word is the only word", so that point isn't relevant in this discussion.

 

Frequently, when people take discussions personally, even if the discussion doesn't directly involve them, they will develop a myopic view of both the discussion and the person(s) whose comments they have taken personally, and will frame the entire debate within that view.

 

Thus, everyone in the debate becomes morally and philosophically equivalent, and "no one's point is more or less valid than any others", and "both sides are doing the same thing", which is objectively untrue.

 

For whatever that's worth.

 

And the statement...

 

I read pretty much everything you post, in discussions in which I'm involved.

 

Huzzah for me.

 

Since you admit you don't read what I post, should I not respond to yours? Serious question. Although, there's a bit of a catch-22, there, admittedly. If you don't read my posts, you won't read this, and I'll never get my answer.

 

 

Oh Jesus

 

1) Assuming you are central to the debate, you say so.

 

Yes, I would prefer no response.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Oh Jesus

 

1) Assuming you are central to the debate, you say so.

 

 

There's Branget again, being contrary for contrary's sake.

 

1. There's a difference between being "central to the debate" (which is what you said), and being a "central PARTY to the debate" (which is what I said.)

 

2. Who else would you describe as a central party to this debate? There's Jay, myself, now Chuck, Mysterio...

 

Yes, I would prefer no response.

 

So, you DO read my posts!

 

 

Wonder what I did to in your Wheaties....must have been the whole Paypal debate. You and me, we just burn through people around here, don't we...?