• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

Started by valiantman,

519 posts in this topic

sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted

Simply put, a collector is: "Someone who seeks out, buys, and holds on to comic books because they love comic books."

Why they love comics and why they seek them out, buy them, and hold them can vary.

And it is certainly true that a "collector" can stop being a "collector" by selling off their collection or otherwise disposing of it.  But that does not mean they were never a "collector."  

My broad definition does not exclude from its scope people who have legitimate collecting goals.  RMA's does.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimik

kimik

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2018 at 4:43 PM, sfcityduck said:
Quote

I have a decent copy but would like one comparable to the [references a CGC 9.4].  At the moment, I think the top of the Census is 8.0, but I'm sure there is a great copy out there in some old collector's set.  A lot of my age cohorts are quitting or dying, so I expect to see a lot of nice books appearing for the first time in the years ahead.

He's not alone in thinking that.  There are a lot of collections amassed in the 60s to mid-70s that are "black holes," but which are starting to come to market.  This will inevitably have some type of impact because it will represent an increase in supply.  Will demand stay strong?  Could be.  Or it could be that we'll see the values of some comics which are selling at a premium (especially top of census books or SA "pedigrees") lose some of their luster.

Edited Tuesday at 05:27 PM by sfcityduck

I have been able to land a few OO collections like this in the late 90s through late 00s, and two observations I gleaned from them are: 1) grading was not as big of a deal back then as it is now, so a 1970s NM is more likely to be VF than NM; and 2) color touch and tape did not matter much if the collector bought books second hand. This will make true HG GA/ earlySA collections more difficult to find. I am not saying that high grade collections are not out there (I have had a line on a collection like this for a year and a half now but the owner can't quite let go yet despite his wife's orders :frustrated:. I need to bribe her to turn up the pressure! lol  ), but the actual condition of the books tends to be less than expected more often than not.

Edited by kimik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted
 
Quote

 

   On 8/21/2018 at 3:43 PM, sfcityduck said:
   Quote

I have a decent copy but would like one comparable to the [references a CGC 9.4].  At the moment, I think the top of the Census is 8.0, but I'm sure there is a great copy out there in some old collector's set.  A lot of my age cohorts are quitting or dying, so I expect to see a lot of nice books appearing for the first time in the years ahead.

He's not alone in thinking that.  There are a lot of collections amassed in the 60s to mid-70s that are "black holes," but which are starting to come to market.  This will inevitably have some type of impact because it will represent an increase in supply.  Will demand stay strong?  Could be.  Or it could be that we'll see the values of some comics which are selling at a premium (especially top of census books or SA "pedigrees") lose some of their luster.

Edited Tuesday at 05:27 PM by sfcityduck

I have been able to land a few OO collections like this in the late 90s through late 00s, and two observations I gleaned from them are: 1) grading was not as big of a deal back then as it is now, so a 1970s NM is more likely to be VF than NM; and 2) color touch and tape did not matter much if the collector bought books second hand. This will make true HG GA/ earlySA collections more difficult to find. I am not saying that high grade collections are not out there (I have had a line on a collection like this for a year and a half now but the owner can't quite let go yet despite his wife's orders . I need to bribe her to turn up the pressure!   ), but the actual condition of the books tends to be less than expected more often than not.

Edited 2 minutes ago by kimik

 

The guy I quoted at the beginning of this string is trying to find a comic he bought off the stands in the 1950s.  He was a very active collector throughout the 1960s.  I don't think he's talking about OO collections so much as he is about collections compiled back in the 1960s when supply was so much greater.  As happened with the Don and Maggie Thompson collection, he's betting that the old time collectors who are now retired or retiring (or dying) will be coughing up the good stuff they have which has not seen the light of day in 50 or so years.  I think he's right.  I know a guy who has an Archie 1 bought in the very early 70s which may well top the census.  You see lots of similar stories like that on these boards, and also stories by some of these old time collectors regarding what they still have (or in Bangzoom's case, pictures).  And many of that generation were very very private.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, GrumpyGus said:

This sounds like the anal retentive definition of colllector, which is not realistic.

So I have 3,000 comics from 20 years of going to my LCS. None of them have ever been bagged or boarded, and I treat them like poop. I fold the cover back when reading, I smoke while I read them, and then when I'm done I throw them (sometimes literally) into a box. Their only organization is chronological.

Am I a collector because I put them n a non-long box?

Am I not a collector because I don't try to preserve these books n a meaningful way?

The answer is clear, the above definition is wrong.

That's your opinion. But if you "treat them like poop", let me ask...do you collect poop...?

If the answer is "no", then you don't collect comics, either.

Have you ever thrown out a comic because, during the course of your "collecting", their condition deteriorated...because of your activities...to the point where they were no longer readable, at least without serious effort...?

If so, then you're not a collector. Accumulator? Sure. Collector? Not by anyone's realistic understanding of the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Have you ever thrown out a comic because, during the course of your "collecting", their condition deteriorated...because of your activities...to the point where they were no longer readable, at least without serious effort...?

If so, then you're not a collector. Accumulator? Sure. Collector? Not by anyone's realistic understanding of the term.

Good to know that the time that I spilled coke while reading some 80s comics now disqualifies me from being a collector.

Nope, your definition is not narrow at all.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, GrumpyGus said:
29 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's your opinion. But if you "treat them like poop", let me ask...do you collect  poop...?

If the answer is "no", then you don't collect comics, either.

Classic strawman argument. Irrelevant.

2gfp5z.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Generator

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, GrumpyGus said:

I have driven to my LCS once a week every week for 20 years to pick up my Pull List.. I order comics from Previews every month. I read all my comics before the next batch arrives, and I'm not a collector?

Correct. It makes you a reader. None of the above activities necessarily makes you a collector, even if there's overlap with how a collector would behave.

Are you Stu?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

There continues to be bad faith, dishonest commentary in this discussion, so let me further clarify: accidental damage is not the same as neglect.

Accidental damage can happen to anyone. That's why it's called "accidental."

Damage that happens as the result of negligence, of purposeful neglect, demonstrates that the person doesn't care about the items they purport to be "collecting", and thus means they aren't collectors. Hoarders, accumulators, readers, whatever...but not collectors, and there's nothing "narrow" about that. It's the underpinning of the difference between a "collector" and a "hoarder", for example.

Did the cat pee damage occur because the comic was laying around where the cat could easily get to it...? 

Probably not a collector......

Frankly, that that is even in dispute is very odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted
 
Quote

 

   18 minutes ago, GrumpyGus said:

I have driven to my LCS once a week every week for 20 years to pick up my Pull List.. I order comics from Previews every month. I read all my comics before the next batch arrives, and I'm not a collector?

Correct. It makes you a reader. None of the above activities necessarily makes you a collector, even if there's overlap with how a collector would behave.

 

Nope, your definition is not narrow at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

There continues to be bad faith, dishonest commentary in this discussion, so let me further clarify: accidental damage is not the same as neglect.

 

Thanks for admitting that, although I think you didn't need to as you could have just pled to lack of clarity in your statement that "Have you ever thrown out a comic because, during the course of your "collecting", their condition deteriorated...because of your activities...to the point where they were no longer readable, at least without serious effort...?"

If you had wanted "their condition deteriorated ... because of your activities" to exclude negligence, you could have just said so.  

As I said, I fully expect that by displaying comics in a heated lighted room, I will cause the displayed comics to deteriorate.  This is not inconsistent with "collecting," it is inconsistent with "perfectly preserving."  Your definition mixes those two concepts up and thereby excludes displayers or readers of comics from comic collecting.

Edited by sfcityduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

Thanks for admitting that, although I think you didn't need to as you could have just pled to lack of clarity in your statement that "Have you ever thrown out a comic because, during the course of your "collecting", their condition deteriorated...because of your activities...to the point where they were no longer readable, at least without serious effort...?"

If you had wanted "their condition deteriorated ... because of your activities" to exclude negligence, you could have just said so.  

As I said, I fully expect that by displaying comics in a heated lighted room, I will cause the displayed comics to deteriorate.  This is not inconsistent with "collecting," it is inconsistent with "perfectly preserving."  Your definition mixes those two concepts up and thereby excludes readers of comics from comic collecting.

This is inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

This is inaccurate.

We will assimilate you.  

See?  I can make mindless assertions too.

If I'm reading a comic book while drinking a coke, because I like to read my comics instead of locking them away, and I spill coke on the comic, how does that not "result from my activities" and thereby disqualify me from being a collector under your definition?  You appear to be asserting you are not a collector if you read your comics and leave them unbagged on a floor, why does this coke drinking scenario fall outside your carve-out from "collector"?  Can you consistently define the scope of your definition?

Edited by sfcityduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
5 5
Go to topic listing