CGC census is high, but there aren't enough keys 5 5

[NoMan]

9 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Because it's likely there were more...?

I find it interesting, and worth noting, that even though Ballman's book goes into some depth about the planning of the con, even going so far as to reprinting the entire con program, there's still some question about exactly how many people attended. That tells me that 1. it wasn't really that important at the time, and 2. what constituted an "attendee" may not have been exactly precise.

i'd think it would be important to them how many people showed up. it was the first one and I'd be very specific in my curiosity if I was one of the ones that went to the trouble of putting it together.  Anyways. I like the book and find in interesting Ditko's interaction at the Con (seeing as how he never went to another based on what he "saw" there) and the interviews with those who claim Ditko misunderstood/misrepresented the attendees care of OA. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, Broke as a Joke said:

To try to eliminate the 12 year old kid who buys comics every week from being a collector relevant to this discussion is ridiculous. 

To try and include the 12 year old kid whose comics were not organized, not cared for, and which were under constant threat of being tossed out by mom as a "collector" is ridiculous.

But at least you understand the broader point I'm making, whether you agree or not.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, NoMan said:

i'd think it would be important to them how many people showed up.

Sure. But not important enough to record it precisely, right...?

[NoMan]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sure. But not important enough to record it precisely, right...?

i'd imagine their hands were very full at the time.

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

By any definition of "collector" there were more than 1,000 in 1970 (the statement by you that you are futilely trying to evidence).

And the definition of "collector" I use is simple:  Someone who seeks out, buys, and holds on to comic books because they love comic books.  No need to seek out other collectors, author fanzines, or attend conventions to be a "collector" or comic "fan."  And, yes, there were many many many comic collectors 12 and under - including those who kept collecting and are on this board.  The division between kids and adults like Bails (31 in 1964) and Kaler (29 in 1964) was a point of friction in early fandom.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, NoMan said:

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sure. But not important enough to record it precisely, right...?

i'd imagine their hands were very full at the time.

Come on, now....too full to count the small number of people in the room....?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

4 minutes ago, namisgr said:

That's because you weren't a comic book collector.

A high school friend of mine who was instrumental in getting me back into reading comics in 1971 had in two closets in his house all of the comics he'd bought off the rack beginning in 1964, including complete runs of all the major Marvel superhero books, and was an early MMMS fan club member.  In the early '70s when he and I began frequenting comic conventions and local stores, we met many other long time collectors.

 

I forgot to check in today, sorry. Your opening statement is not correct. It does not really matter. I am constantly surprised in what you believe you know is fact, though.

I am not familiar with what occurred in the comics collecting area in the 70s, or late 60s. I was engaged in other activities, during that period.

 

[NoMan]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Come on, now....too full to count the small number of people in the room....?

Since we're both speculating because neither was there, I'd speculate that yes, that tried to count the best they could, doing a "right" job but just too many plates to spin and too many fires to put out.

But it's just a guess.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, NoMan said:

Since we're both speculating because neither was there, I'd speculate that yes, that tried to count the best they could, doing a "right" job but just too many plates to spin and too many fires to put out.

But it's just a guess.

True, this is speculation (which I've been pointing out this entire conversation.) 

Here's a great review of the book by Greg Turner, which includes (probably) a comment from co-organizer Bernie Bubnis:

http://gobacktothepast.com/fabulous-find-1964-new-york-comicon-book/

If that is really Bernie Bubnis...and I don't have a reason to doubt it....then this line by him is telling:

Quote

We were just kids and we wanted to put on a comic book convention and never thought about preserving anything for history.

So, by that, I'm guessing it wasn't really that important to them, either before or after.

[namisgr]

51 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I forgot to check in today, sorry. Your opening statement is not correct. It does not really matter. I am constantly surprised in what you believe you know is fact, though.

Ah but it does matter to you, since you used it as an opportunity to take a pot shot.

You didn't know other kids who were comic book collectors in the early '60s who remained long time collectors.  I did, and so did anyone else attending comic cons and meeting others at local stores in the '70s, where one could meet many more who'd been collecting since the early '60s.  It's irrelevant that pre-teens in the early sixties began saving their comics without realizing they'd continue to do so for many, many years hence - by the mid '60s, they were still saving books and many had learned to read and store them carefully so as to preserve condition, accounting for the big increase in the availability of high grade Silver Age material from '65 and beyond compared with the early Silver Age, as confirmed by the CGC census.  They were collectors by then by anyone's definition no matter whether they consciously started out to be or not.

It would be interesting to get the perspective of some of the dozens of dealers in comic book back issues that were active by the late '60s.  It wouldn't be surprising if they each had a hundred or more customers for their back issue inventories by then.

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by namisgr

[RockMyAmadeus]

"Started" being the operative word...

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

To try and include the 12 year old kid whose comics were not organized, not cared for, and which were under constant threat of being tossed out by mom as a "collector" is ridiculous.

But at least you understand the broader point I'm making, whether you agree or not.

I will comment that I was under constant pressure to find safe haven (hiding places) for Mad Magazine. I was not under the same pressure with baseball and football cards and coins and stamps. We preserved them pretty well, by hiding the coins and because we had albums for them and the same for coins, and as for cards,  by parking our bikes out of the rain so they wouldn't get wet in the wheel spokes, and by not flipping on wet areas. Nobody wanted to win a wet card on a flip. Some comics subjects were OK, but most were open targets for parents. Most of the kids hid them and a lot of the time met in the HUGE drainage tunnels under the streets, or in the catacombs overseas, or secluded spots in the school to read the comics and trade and pass them around. If it was on the average kids' mind to preserve them for 30/40/50 years, I didn't experience that. The only reason my coin and stamp "collection" was not thrown out, is because A) My parents knew it was money, B) My parents knew how hard I worked for the coin collecting/stamp collecting merit badge C) My brothers did not know where I hid the stamps and coins( in the heating ducts....some of which were in their rooms).

I did think of myself as a "collector", though, but I sure never thought about preservation, pristine or otherwise, for the future. neither did any of the other kids.

We could get some good wampum for Mad and Playboy, though.

[sfcityduck]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

And why does a statement like "there were way more than 1,000 collectors attending conventions by 1966", when there's absolutely ZERO evidence of such a thing, get a complete and total pass...?

 

First, that statement did not get a "complete and total pass."  It has been discussed extensively.  And, in fact, I've admitted that statement may be wrong (which would not, I believe, undermine the point that there were more than 1,000 comic collectors in 1970).

Second, your assertion that there is "ZERO evidence" that by 1966 there were more than 1,000 collectors attending conventions is wrong.  It is not without some supporting evidence.  To wit:

* You and I agree that the New York Comicon (July 23 and 24 at Park Sheraton),  Southwestern Con (July 23 and 24 in Dallas, TX), and Academy Con (August 12 and 13 iat City Squire Inn in NYC) were held in 1966.

* You and I also appear to agree that Jerry Bails' address list topped 1600+ comic fans in 1964. 

* You and I also appear to agree, per Bob Overstreet's statements, that 1964 was the year that comic collecting hit popular awareness (due IMHO to articles in national publications about the fact comics were worth money).

* I recognise that there were other comic conventions and fan gatherings held in 1966 which did not make the wikipedia entries you have been quoting.  An example is Gateway Con I (St. Louis (July 29-31) [I won't count it as its internationa, but also the Salone Internazionale de Comics was held in Lucca, Italy - showing that comic collecting went far past the Jerry Bails group by 1966].

So what was the attendance of conventions in 1966?  Here's where we stand:

* You and I agree that the only figure we've seen for the first Southwestern Con was about 70 people. 

* I have seen no figures for Gateway Con I (St. Louis), but it was a three day con advertised nationally in the RBCC and The Comic Reader, so I'd guess it was much bigger than Soutwestern Con.

* Bill Schelly wrote an article about the comparative attendance of the two New York Cons for Alter Ego 64.  I don't have access to that.  Someone who does could probably get hard figures.  Worth noting in relation to Academy Con, that wikipedia said (for whatever it's worth): 

Quote

By 1968, comics fandom — including annual conventions being held in New York, Detroit, St. Louis, and the Southwest — had become well established, and the Academy's mission had been essentially fulfilled. In early 1968, due to a number of factors, Executive Secretary Kaler left, and Academy member Maggie Thompsondeclared the ACBFC "moribund."

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

To try and include the 12 year old kid whose comics were not organized, not cared for, and which were under constant threat of being tossed out by mom as a "collector" is ridiculous.

 

Apparently, you didn't have the same childhood I did.  Because by age 12 in the later part of the 1970s I had a very decent collection.  It didn't hurt that I also had my father's childhood collection he amassed around that same age from the late 1940s.    

Oh ... and this kid was 14 in 1948 when this picture was taken, and his collection (kept immacuately as you see behind him) was 5,000+ comics.  This kid started collecting when he was 7:

So, yes, kids are collectors.

Edited August 21, 2018 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

48 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Why do you hang on my every post?  Cat got your tongue?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

45 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

and never thought about preserving anything for history.

That is the way I remember the times.

[sfcityduck]

An article in Newsday, reprinted in RBCC 52 (1967), had said about the Academy that "many collectors are men in their 20s and 30s who treasure boyhood memories of the derring-do of the costumed superheros," but that the "majority" of members were "children and teenagers."  On this topic, Kaler was quoted stating:

Quote

"Some children don't like adults in comic fandom," Kaler said.  "They think that comics should be for kids.  But I don't consider comics as childish things.  ... "  The age disparity has occasionally demanded adjustments - fan meetings have to be in the forenoon or adjourned early in the evening - and sometimes it has produced friction.   "I can take some children.  Some I can't," said Kaler, a bachelor.  "Some have haunted me for weeks trying to trade or buy or borrow from my collection.  But less than one out of 100 is noodnik or a noodge."   

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

Apparently, you didn't have the same childhood I did.  Because by age 12 in the later part of the 1970s I had a very decent collection.  It didn't hurt that I also had my father's childhood collection he amassed around that same age from the late 1940s.    

Oh ... and this kid was 14 in 1948 when this picture was taken, and his collection (kept immacuately as you see behind him) was 5,000+ comics.  This kid started collecting when he was 7:

So, yes, kids are collectors.

Nobody said they weren't. 

Here is what I said:

Quote

That doesn't mean a kid couldn't be a collector...but most kids were not.

Keep it up...

[sfcityduck]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nobody said they weren't. 

Here is what I said:

    Quote

       That doesn't mean a kid couldn't be a collector...but most kids were not.

You do realise my posts are up thread, right?  Why would you even try to make such an easily disproven assertion?

My comment was in response to the following statement by you - which I quoted:

Quote

 

To try and include the 12 year old kid whose comics were not organized, not cared for, and which were under constant threat of being tossed out by mom as a "collector" is ridiculous.

But at least you understand the broader point I'm making, whether you agree or not.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

 

And the definition of "collector" I use is simple:  Someone who seeks out, buys, and holds on to comic books because they love comic books.  No need to seek out other collectors, author fanzines, or attend conventions to be a "collector" or comic "fan."  And, yes, there were many many many comic collectors 12 and under - including those who kept collecting and are on this board.  

That's my point.  Agree or disagree?

You seem to disagree when you state:

Quote

I don't define a kid (12 and under) who buys comics and gathers them by virtue of not throwing them out to be a "collector."

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by sfcityduck