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

[jimjum12]

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

There were EASILY more than 1000 comic book collectors in 1970. I think there were 1000's and possibly 10,000's.

This was the main point that started this entire tangent in the thread.

Everything else is just noise, conflict of personality, needing to win an argument or people talking past each other.

And head shaking.

 

 

Stan was lecturing at Campus in the late 60's ….. GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

6 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

There were EASILY more than 1000 comic book collectors in 1970. I think there were 1000's and possibly 10,000's.

This was the main point that started this entire tangent in the thread.

Everything else is just noise, conflict of personality, needing to win an argument or people talking past each other.

And head shaking.

 

 

Sheesh.......

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

3 minutes ago, jimjum12 said:

Stan was lecturing at Campus in the late 60's ….. GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

As was Mad Magazine, Mechanics Illustrated, Representatives of the U.S. Mint, Dept. of Treasury, The Govt. Printing Office.....even Littleton Stamp Company and ANA Representatives.

[VintageComics]

1 minute ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Now you are just being a bit silly. Pretty much anything you can think of was being "collected" worldwide, by kids. The number of kids that became "focused" and pursued their interests into adulthood were (and are) a minority. Comics focusing is not the limit of the discussion and is not needed to 'stay on course", IMHO

I'm not being silly.

My understanding of the entire discussion was about how many collectors there were in the early days. That is where the thread went off on a tangent.

Now we are discussing irrelevant things like whether the Catholic church was a good reference for my little joke (and it was not personally aimed at the Catholic Church, but the age of confirmation is a well known thing so I used it to make a point) or whether my parents throwing out my comics allowed me to qualify as a collector or not.

I think the discussion has now become silly.

I've always believed it to be a given that there were 1000's of collectors even in the earliest days of the Silver Age and nothing I've read here has changed my mind. But the discussion has grown in breadth wider and weildier than I want to be involved so I'm just going to drop out (again).

If RMA just admitted that he was wrong when he stated that there weren't 1000 collectors in 1970 it would be a different thread.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

On 8/17/2018 at 1:53 PM, comicwiz said:

I say it's funny because in other hobbies, I sometimes wonder how they are able to sustain so much interest without having even a handful of full-time dealers or dedicated auction houses to allow collectors to be able to grow and build their collections.

Mr. Vintage, relevance of expanding subject to other collecting venues. The discussion remains on course.

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

There were EASILY more than 1000 comic book collectors in 1970. I think there were 1000's and possibly 10,000's.

This was the main point that started this entire tangent in the thread.

This is inaccurate (sentence above preserved for context.)

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

6 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

That is where the thread went off on a tangent.

?

 

7 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

If RMA just admitted that he was wrong

So this is the crux of your position? That is it? I will try to remove this thorn. He was wrong. He was wrong because his position in the discussion was assuming it was not to win and to be mathematically precise, and was a failure to remain on course to satisfy the wants of other opinions that he is wrong.

I am sure he would concur with this. Now, lets continue what was a pretty good discussion.

[Lazyboy]

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

A collector would convince his parents that he took his hobby seriously, like that kid in that 1940s picture, cataloging, storing, and preserving them. 

Are they in heaps all over the floor? Then they're trash, and you're not a collector.

Are they in a box that never got thrown out, but which you never looked at again after their initial purchase? Then you're not a collector.

Are they neatly stacked in their own place, with some type of cataloging system, and systematic effort made to storing and preserving them? Then you're a collector.

Very few are the parents who would throw something away that a kid takes an obvious responsibility for. Does that mean some mothers won't toss them out anyway? No, but it greatly reduces the risk of it. 

It isn't any one factor that determines who was, and who was not, a collector...it's all the factors listed above.

While I generally agree with this, not every collector has an identical personality or equal resources.

[RockMyAmadeus]

40 minutes ago, jimjum12 said:

….this discussion needs a consensus definition of the term "collector". GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

I've given, at several points, how I define what a collector is. Understanding my definition...whether or not one agrees with it...is critical to understanding my ESTIMATION (not contention, as has been inaccurately repeated multiple times at this point.) 

If one refuses to acknowledge...again, whether they agree or not....the foundation of my argument, anything based on that foundation won't be understood, and will be dismissed.

While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that can happen with the current discussees.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

On 8/17/2018 at 12:47 PM, valiantman said:

I think we can all agree that the demand exceeds supply for books like Action Comics #1 or Detective Comics #27, and we can see that the CGC Census is hundreds of times higher for books like Hulk #181 and Amazing Spider-man #300... so we say those books are plentiful.

The subject......

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

A collector would convince his parents that he took his hobby seriously, like that kid in that 1940s picture, cataloging, storing, and preserving them. 

Are they in heaps all over the floor? Then they're trash, and you're not a collector.

Are they in a box that never got thrown out, but which you never looked at again after their initial purchase? Then you're not a collector.

Are they neatly stacked in their own place, with some type of cataloging system, and systematic effort made to storing and preserving them? Then you're a collector.

Very few are the parents who would throw something away that a kid takes an obvious responsibility for. Does that mean some mothers won't toss them out anyway? No, but it greatly reduces the risk of it. 

It isn't any one factor that determines who was, and who was not, a collector...it's all the factors listed above.

While I generally agree with this, not every collector has an identical personality or equal resources.

No, I understand, and that's absolutely true. I'll take "general agreement", because there are always exceptions.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

While I generally agree with this, not every collector has an identical personality or equal resources.

The point of which has been acknowledged., and I certainly concur.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

.the foundation of my argument,

It is not an argument, it is a discussion and (was) a very interesting one...until some point.

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

So this is the crux of your position? That is it? I will try to remove this thorn. He was wrong. He was wrong because his position in the discussion was assuming it was not to win and to be mathematically precise, and was a failure to remain on course to satisfy the wants of other opinions that he is wrong.

I am sure he would concur with this. Now, lets continue what was a pretty good discussion.

Indeed.

As I noted above, it's not a matter of truth or correctness with a certain segment...it's about proving to everyone (and especially to self) that someone else is **wrong**...about an ESTIMATION, no less...so they can feel "right." "If so and so would just admit that they're WRONG"...when they don't even know or understand what the other party has said. If you don't grasp the basic principle of someone's position, how can you possibly know that they are wrong...?

That's not good faith. And discussion with those types of personalities is fruitless.

 

[sfcityduck]

42 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you don't seek to preserve your "collection" in a meaningful way...then you're not a collector. You're a hoarder. 

It has nothing to do with being "fixated on condition." It is a fundamental acknowledgement that if you don't PRESERVE your collection, then you are doing the OPPOSITE of collecting...and the items you purport to be "collecting" will be lost to attrition. 

It's foolishness to classify someone as a "collector" who makes no effort to preserve the things they claim to be collecting...it negates the very definition of the word "collector."

"What are all these comic books strewn all over the floor?"

"Oh, that's my collection."

"Collection....?? I don't think that word means what you think it means."

And this is where you try to import your very narrow definition of the proper collecting goal to the vast universe of comic collectors.

One of the most beat up comic I have in my collection is a copy of an early Byrne X-Men I bought off the stands.  Why is it so beat up?  I loved that comic book.  I re-read it numerous times.  It was a magical comic that inspired me to collect a full run of X-Men.  It's cover is now creased and rumpled and the staples are probably loose.  I've never felt the desire to upgrade it.  I never felt the desire to preserve it in an unchanged state.  And, yes, I probably left it on my floor.  Why?  Because my collecting goal was not buy to "mint" comics and keep them in that state.  My goal was to buy every X-Men appearance and read them all, multiple times.  The point was to read them because I loved the story.  Condition didn't matter because I had no intent to re-sell them. That's a legitimate collecting goal which does not require an OCD attitude towards the preservation of the condition of the comics.  

Your definition excludes a lot of comic collectors that buy comics out of a love of the stories, the interiors.

More than that, I am now collecting some comics for the goal of displaying them on the wall.  I know that will degrade the condition of the comics I buy.  If I want to keep them entirely preserved, they'd be stored in a cool dark place, not a light filled heated room.  But, my collecting goal for those comics is to display them. 

My definition recognises we are both comic collectors.  

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

.the foundation of my argument,

It is not an argument, it is a discussion and (was) a very interesting one...until some point.

I'm using the word "argument" in its meaning of "a series of statements employed to determine the degree of truth of a conclusion."

...not in its meaning of "a heated exchange."

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

And this is where you try to import your very narrow definition of the proper collecting goal to the vast universe of comic collectors.

This is inaccurate.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

And this is where you try to import your very narrow definition of the proper collecting goal to the vast universe of comic collectors.

I don't think it is narrow, nor an indication of a "proper" collecting goal, and certainly is not a condemnation or haughty superior position. There are a lot of adjectives, pronouns, verbs and predicates being ignored if the finite interpretation is as you state.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm using the word "argument" in its meaning of "a series of statements employed to determine the degree of truth of a conclusion."

...not in its meaning of "a heated exchange."

That is better.

[Knightsofold]

On 8/17/2018 at 11:07 AM, valiantman said:

I don't think the supply is high enough to keep Hulk #181 from being $2,500 for ANY complete copy.  It will be $10,000 for a mid-grade.

I agree with you, but also feel that many MANY things are getting more and more expensive every 10 years.  Like college tuition, houses, etc.   I don't think the prices are that alarming until low grade entry level Amazing Fantasy 15 reach 1/2 median USA house prices.  Do you think that will happen? 

It's not too hard to imagine an entry level Amazing Fantasy #15 reaching the price of an average new car ($30k)

But I can't imagine an entry level Hulk 181 or yikes.. a low grade New Mutants #98 ever being worth a new car.

Some #s below

2017 median USA home price = $200,000. 

2017 median USA new car/truck is $25,000 - $35,000

2018 entry level Amazing Fantasy #15 =  $10,000?

2018 entry level Incredible hulk #181 =  $1,000?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1993 median USA home price = $126,000.

1993 median USA new car/truck is $17,000+

1993 entry level Amazing Fantasy #15 =  $500?

1993 entry level Incredible hulk #181 =  $100?