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

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

3 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

If your point is that "I think that may be the overall position of RMA..... some action that externally reflects an attempt to protect (preserve if you will) is probably the separation point for a definition of a collector. That is just me, though," then it sounds like you're uncertain of it as well. The uncertainty in your language--"I think that may be"--either points to your own confusion over what he's saying, or his poor communication about a point.

Now your just being slightly obtuse. You are interpreting a very minor part of a very expanded statement that imparts not speaking for all as being uncertainty of position and confusion. You have chosen to ignore...and I suspect intentionally.....my positions and statements. I can only assume you do so for some "us against them" reason. I should be a bit more disclosing: I do not know RMA. I have never met RMA. I do not and did not know RMA collected coins. I do collect coins. I collect stamps. I collect First Edition Books. I collect Asian Art and Pottery. I collect Comics. I collect U.S. and World Currency. I collect automobiles. I collect Mechanics Illustrated. I collect mechanics tools.  I have various and ever-changing knowledge of the various subjects I collect. I do not do so for investing. I consider myself a collector. 

You do not address any position in my post that would offer a plainer explanation of your position, and doing so without continuously using a single incorrect example that you have misinterpreted and ascribed incorrectly to RMA and his position, that is purposefully designed to support your yet to be plainer explanation  position.

You are not unable to do so, you just are choosing to do so. No problem, but maybe set animosity aside and not sacrifice what has been an interesting discussion, overall.

[Skeptic_Kepp]

1 hour ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

 the RMA position

Correction: the RMA position™

[sfcityduck]

8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

This is inaccurate, for multiple reasons.

Do you fear adoptive admissions?  The notion that if you don't respond to a post, you've agreed with it is false.  Similarly, simply disagreeing, without offering any explanation, is a failure to advance the conversation.

[sfcityduck]

2 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

 

A person buys comics, reads them (certainly this exhibits some level of interest), puts the comics on a shelf to either read again later, or to keep (save), or to keep for trading, etc., in lieu of throwing the comics in the trash, is taking minimum steps to preserve for the future. The simple act of putting the comics on a shelf, as opposed to randomly throwing the comics on the closet floor, with no intent to do anything but throw them on the floor, denotes at the very least a budding collecting interest. I think that may be the overall position of RMA..... some action that externally reflects an attempt to protect (preserve if you will) is probably the separation point for a definition of a collector. That is just me, though.

 

The act of seeking out, acquiring, and holding comics, for the love of comics, is what makes a collector. 

How you store your comics, or whether your comics degrade in your possession, is irrelevant.  Those just go to what kind of collector you are.  There is no doubt that collecting comics to read, over and over, causing finger bends, creases, and overal degradation, is a legitimate collecting goal.  The term "reading copies" is a term dreamed up and used by "collectors" in recognition of a prominent collecting goal.

Similarly, buying comics to store away without reading, in an attempt to perfectly preserve their condition, or to submit to a presser to attempt to enhance the condition, for entombment in plastic, is also a legitimate collecting goal.

The term "collector" embodies a large number of different collecting goals.  That RMA does not recognize this diversity in collecting goals evidence nothing other than that his own view is myopic.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

13 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

The act of seeking out, acquiring, and holding comics, for the love of comics, is what makes a collector. 

How you store your comics, or whether your comics degrade in your possession, is irrelevant.  Those just go to what kind of collector you are.  There is no doubt that collecting comics to read, over and over, causing finger bends, creases, and overal degradation, is a legitimate collecting goal.  The term "reading copies" is a term dreamed up and used by "collectors" in recognition of a prominent collecting goal.

Similarly, buying comics to store away without reading, in an attempt to perfectly preserve their condition, or to submit to a presser to attempt to enhance the condition, for entombment in plastic, is also a legitimate collecting goal.

The term "collector" embodies a large number of different collecting goals.  That RMA does not recognize this diversity in collecting goals evidence nothing other than that his own view is myopic.

 

Leaving out of your position post, for the moment, the RMAcomments (and certain terms that tend to be targeted to disagree specifically with misunderstood RMA positions) it would seem we have the same opinion (using my entire post and statement of position and not selective gotcha quoting)), albeit your choice of words may not be the same as mine.

Exactly what is the difference between your position and mine that you find a wide canyon between? 

I would also expect that instead of using a part of my post to imply the overall commentary I posted, as a method to counter and "defend" your position, is the very definition of myopic, and leads to most disagreements. I assume you did read my entire post and understood. If not, and you prefer gotchas, that is OK also....it just limits seeking common ground.

[thunsicker]

There is no question that there are many ways to enjoy comics, from readers to collectors to investors.  If we bring this back to the OP statement how many of those are people would be willing to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for first appearances though the numbers would drop drastically.  A reader would be just as happy to read one of the countless reprints of the origin story, a collector would only be willing to spend this kind of money if it was a very minor part of their income (e.g. an investment banker or ceo type).  So if the question is how many investors and truly rich collectors are there I would guess the number is smaller than many here are allowing for.  If the question is how many people have enjoyed comics in some form I’d guess the number is much much larger.  I should say I am probably mischaracterizing what the whole conversation is about.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

39 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Similarly, simply disagreeing, without offering any explanation, is a failure to advance the conversation.

In fairness, you have done exactly that in this thread. It may be implied what you meant, but you do not want to acknowledge that a person did offer an explanation in a previous post. You may not have read it or may have misinterpreted it, or maybe read it and considered it lacking in explanation, to you, and I understand. That is not failure to advance. The very fact of your multiple posts referencing RMA multiple posts is proof of advancement of the conversation.

As an example, your post I am referencing is not advancement of the conversation, to me, because it seems personalized and slightly condescending.

45 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Do you fear adoptive admissions?  The notion that if you don't respond to a post, you've agreed with it is false

In fairness again, you have leaped to a conclusion and interpretation of a non-stated position. The term adoptive admissions and equating same as possibly implying fear, is certainly not advancement of a conversation. I is a bit snarky, don't you think? You might not have meant it that way, but it does convey as same, when coup0led with the rest of the post. Considering all the posts on any subject I have read that RMA has been involved in, I have never read...... even by the most generous understanding and interpretation.....any fear of position or readily admitting to another position when his original position is clearly understood and the positions of others reaches to the level of logic that causes him to change his position. He does not dig in just to dig in. he is a very literal person, most certainly. If that is a fault, so be it.

[namisgr]

How many members did the Merry Marvel Marching Society have between 1965 and 1968?  While they weren't the only comic fans by any stretch, all of them were fans.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

13 minutes ago, thunsicker said:

There is no question that there are many ways to enjoy comics, from readers to collectors to investors.  If we bring this back to the OP statement how many of those are people would be willing to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for first appearances though the numbers would drop drastically.  A reader would be just as happy to read one of the countless reprints of the origin story, a collector would only be willing to spend this kind of money if it was a very minor part of their income (e.g. an investment banker or ceo type).  So if the question is how many investors and truly rich collectors are there I would guess the number is smaller than many here are allowing for.  If the question is how many people have enjoyed comics in some form I’d guess the number is much much larger.  I should say I am probably mischaracterizing what the whole conversation is about.

I think that is a fairly accurate analysis of the original subject.

There have been side steps, the main one being the definition of collector, and using the various opinions of what a collector is, in order to support a position one way or another that would lead to a synopsis similar to your post. That is still being worked out, though.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, GrumpyGus said:

The problem we have here is that a Coinee is trying to define comic collecting. RMA's first love is coins, and IIRC he didn't read a comic until he was almost 20 years old.

You recall incorrectly.

4 hours ago, GrumpyGus said:

So his views are rooted in the ridiculously  obsessive nature of coin collectors while lacking the perspective of a life-long comic collector.

There's so much wrong with that sentence, it's probably not worth detailing. Suffice it to say, that is inaccurate, and relies on multiple incredibly far-fetched presumptions.

4 hours ago, GrumpyGus said:

And $$$. He runs a pressing service, after all.

That is also inaccurate. I have not "run a pressing service" since around the end of 2016.

Why are you still here..? The mods must be asleep.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, NoMan said:

When I was a kid I used to have those blue books that you put pennies in, like each year had a slot for a penny.

I guess that's run collecting in the coin world. 

What was up with those ads in comics that said, "If you have this penny it's worth $100,000." ?  And they had catalouges you write for. I know it's off topic but I just got up and I've only had two cups of coffee and the dog mess the floor. 

EDIT: just looked it up. they were called "Whitman Albums." Did they make the Whitman variant comics, too? 

Yes, the very same. Interesting, huh? Whitman was involved in coin collecting AND comic book publishing, both from their very beginnings. (Coin collecting became a national pastime in the 30s during the depression. The first "penny boards" were made then, which brought coin collecting to the masses.)

Western Publishing, under its Whitman imprint, printed and sold the first penny boards in 1934. Dell, which partnered with Western in 1938, published its first comic book for sale in 1934, as well.

Through Western, the coin and comic hobbies have been linked for over 80 years.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[NoMan]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes, the very same. Interesting, huh? Whitman was involved in coin collecting AND comic book publishing, both from their very beginnings. (Coin collecting became a national pastime in the 30s during the depression. The first "penny boards" were made then, which brought coin collecting to the masses.)

Western Publishing, under its Whitman imprint, printed and sold the first penny boards in 1934. Dell, which partnered with Western in 1938, published its first comic book for sale in 1934, as well.

Through Western, the coin and comic hobbies have been linked for over 80 years.

 

cool to know. thanks!

[VintageComics]

1 hour ago, namisgr said:

How many members did the Merry Marvel Marching Society have between 1965 and 1968?  While they weren't the only comic fans by any stretch, all of them were fans.

There would have to have been 1000's, if not 10,000's.

There's just no way there were simply a few hundred Merry Marvel Marching Society members with tens of millions of books being sold every year.

Like I stated earlier, fandom was already communicating through comics as early as 1940 where some publishers had trading posts in their comics encouraging readers to meet via snail mail.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by VintageComics

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

In short, I agree with sfcityduck that a broad definition is needed to qualify what makes one a collector. I provided two examples of collectors, including myself. sfcityduck provided others. RMA is taking my example of myself, one of many types, as the only type, and then comically trying to claim, “See! You agree with me!” But he tends to misread statements that don’t comport with his own thinking, something anyone can see should they take a moment to scan the pablum he produces. But now I’m sliding into his habit of arguing about an argument instead of arguing about a topic, so I’ll return to Roy’s interesting point.

What slice of comic fandom is being discussed here? Just collectors? Also readers? It’s an important distinction that would swing numbers quite a bit.

As a note, it’d be interesting to see the accounting books of some meticulous mail order dealer from this early period. That would give one lens on the number of unique buyers

McKnowitall is, of course, completely correct in his analysis of your post here.

I will simply add the following:

1. If you want to be taken seriously, then you really ought to shelve the personal commentary about others. Your opinion about what I "tend to misread" is merely an opinion, not at all supported by the facts, and made out of spite to discredit me, not as a good faith representation of what really is. In fact, if I did as you suggest here, "misreading statements", I'd face a lot more resistance and friction from a lot more people, since I hold people to a high standard of communication, and am, therefore, held to that same high standard (and rightly so.) I make a concerted effort to understand exactly where everyone is coming from. Always have, and always will.

If you kept above board, and didn't characterize other people's comments as "pablum", you would be more effective at persuading others to your view.

2. You can't complain about "arguing about an argument", when you, far from "sliding into my habit", routinely do the same thing yourself....including here.

3. If you set aside your personal animus, you might find it easier to read and understand what I say. I didn't say "See! You agree with me!" I pointed out the cognitive dissonance between you calling my definition "strict", and then, in the very same post, identifying yourself as a collector when you started to attempt to preserve them by bagging and boarding them. 

Barring all of that, it would be nice if you could simply not interact with me at all, if you find yourself unable to do so without being derogatory. I don't see the need to be derogatory to you, though certainly not for a lack of material. It serves no good purpose.

[RockMyAmadeus]

20 minutes ago, GrumpyGus said:

41 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

5 hours ago, GrumpyGus said:

The problem we have here is that a Coinee is trying to define comic collecting. RMA's first love is coins, and IIRC he didn't read a comic until he was almost 20 years old.

You recall incorrectly.

Yeah, now that I think about it I think you said 1990, so you would've been 18..

Remember folks, this is the guy that wants the 9.7, 9.5, etc grades implemented... because why? Because that's how the Coinees do it.

John...may I call you John? That is your first name, after all, is it not? I'm Joe. Nice to meet you.

Now, John, while you're still here under this current guise, I'll point out that your animus towards coin collecting doesn't really make your point very well. My point isn't "because that's how the Coinees (a term of derision to you) do it"...my point is because it is necessary, in light of the massive price differences between the grades as they exist now.

"Coinees" adopted their scale because they recognized that it was necessary in the market that had developed. The same holds true, here. When a book sells for $2,500 in 9.8, but only $1,000 in 9.6...there's clearly a "middle" value for it that could be easily handled by a 9.7.

But, perhaps the more compelling question is, why do you try to make such distinctions, when you hate slabbing ENTIRELY...?

You don't care about 9.8 and 9.6, and think those are ridiculous distinctions in the first place. Have I correctly identified your position, John...?

If so, then obviously further distinction is going to be just as meaningless, so why make a fuss over it, and point to me as some sort of outlier in that regard? Your beef is with the entire CGC Slabbing Industrial Complex, not just me.

[sfcityduck]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

McKnowitall is, of course, completely correct in his analysis of your post here.

I will simply add the following:

1. If you want to be taken seriously, then you really ought to shelve the personal commentary about others. Your opinion about what I "tend to misread" is merely an opinion, not at all supported by the facts, and made out of spite to discredit me, not as a good faith representation of what really is. In fact, if I did as you suggest here, "misreading statements", I'd face a lot more resistance and friction from a lot more people, since I hold people to a high standard of communication, and am, therefore, held to that same high standard (and rightly so.) I make a concerted effort to understand exactly where everyone is coming from. Always have, and always will.

If you kept above board, and didn't characterize other people's comments as "pablum", you would be more effective at persuading others to your view.

2. You can't complain about "arguing about an argument", when you, far from "sliding into my habit", routinely do the same thing yourself....including here.

3. If you set aside your personal animus, you might find it easier to read and understand what I say. I didn't say "See! You agree with me!" I pointed out the cognitive dissonance between you calling my definition "strict", and then, in the very same post, identifying yourself as a collector when you started to attempt to preserve them by bagging and boarding them. 

Barring all of that, it would be nice if you could simply not interact with me at all, if you find yourself unable to do so without being derogatory. I don't see the need to be derogatory to you, though certainly not for a lack of material. It serves no good purpose.

You might want to give some thought to these statements::

* "I don't see the need to be derogatory to you, though certainly not for a lack of material"  (you manage to refute your first clause in your second);

* "you really ought to shelve the personal commentary about others. Your opinion about what I "tend to misread" is merely an opinion, not at all supported by the facts, and made out of spite to discredit me, not as a good faith representation of what really is" (you contradict your first sentence condemning personal commentary about others, and then make the personal comment that the opposing poster is acting out of "spite");

* "If you kept above board" (another derogatory comment);

* "If you set aside your personal animus" (another personal commentary and derogatory comment).

[sfcityduck]

 

Quote

 

   2 hours ago, thunsicker said:

There is no question that there are many ways to enjoy comics, from readers to collectors to investors.  If we bring this back to the OP statement how many of those are people would be willing to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for first appearances though the numbers would drop drastically.  A reader would be just as happy to read one of the countless reprints of the origin story, a collector would only be willing to spend this kind of money if it was a very minor part of their income (e.g. an investment banker or ceo type).  So if the question is how many investors and truly rich collectors are there I would guess the number is smaller than many here are allowing for.  If the question is how many people have enjoyed comics in some form I’d guess the number is much much larger.  I should say I am probably mischaracterizing what the whole conversation is about.

I think that is a fairly accurate analysis of the original subject.

 

I don't. Whether you are a "collector" or not does not depend on the state of your economic resources.  That may well impact what you collect, but it does not determine whether you are a collector.  It is perfectly fine, for example, to collect reprints.

The original point of the thread had nothing to do with the definition of "collector."  That discussion is a thread derailing digression.  I agree with Thunsicker's insight that demand will diminish as prices increase.  And I agree that there the number of "truly rich collectors" is a small subset of all collectors.  But, that gives us no real insight into what a "collector" is.  "Collector" is not an economically determined status.

[RockMyAmadeus]

19 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

* "I don't see the need to be derogatory to you, though certainly not for a lack of material"  (you manage to refute your first clause in your second);

Erroneous opinion. Stating that there is ample opportunity and cause to be derogatory is not the same thing as actually being derogatory.

19 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

* "you really ought to shelve the personal commentary about others. Your opinion about what I "tend to misread" is merely an opinion, not at all supported by the facts, and made out of spite to discredit me, not as a good faith representation of what really is" (you contradict your first sentence condemning personal commentary about others, and then make the personal comment that the opposing poster is acting out of "spite");

Erroneous opinion. Responding to personal commentary with personal commentary is not the same thing as initiating personal commentary. The poster is, in fact, posting out of spite, or he self-evidently wouldn't refer to my comments as "pablum." 

Pablum - bland or insipid intellectual fare, entertainment, etc.; pap.

19 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

* "If you kept above board" (another derogatory comment);

Erroneous opinion. There's nothing derogatory about that comment. The implication that he's not "keeping above board" is self-evident in referring to my statements as "pablum."

19 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

* "If you set aside your personal animus" (another personal commentary and derogatory comment).

Erroneous opinion. Responding to personal commentary with personal commentary is not the same thing as initiating personal commentary. There's nothing derogatory about noting when someone is acting with personal animus. DavidtheDavid has made no bones about having personal animus towards me, which I don't think even he would deny. Have you not acted with personal animus at several points in the last week?

There. I've broken my rule to respond to you. Your bait is exceptionally tasty.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[sfcityduck]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

"Coinees" adopted their scale because they recognized that it was necessary in the market that had developed. The same holds true, here. When a book sells for $2,500 in 9.8, but only $1,000 in 9.6...there's clearly a "middle" value for it that could be easily handled by a 9.7.

 

Didn't know that adding gradations was under discussion.  But isn't the real issue not adding grades because of price differences, but adding grades because they would say something meaningful about the comics?  

Let me put it this way:  I recently sold a Four Color 456 (Uncle Scrooge No. 2) for a decent five figure amount in a private transaction.  The most recent sale was of a 9.2 for a little shy of $6K.  The census lists only two 9.4s (one a file copy, the other the one I sold - both with white pages) and three 9.2s.  The other 9.4 had sold to a collector in Europe over a decade ago.  So it's not surprising that I was able to get a very strong price for a top of census white paged book when no other equivalent copies were presently, and maybe not ever, going to be available.  The price gape between 9.2 and 9.4 is large.  But, that does not necessarily mean the grade difference was.  So do we really need a 9.3 grade because of price gaps?  I think not.  

I could be convinced we need a 9.3 grade if it made a meaningful and consistently ascertainable distinction between 9.2 and 9.4.  But, I think grading is more an art form than a science, so I'm a bit skpetical.  But, could be convinced if it worked in practice before CGC adopted it.  I don't see anyone using it in practice now.

[sfcityduck]

 

Quote

 

 

   19 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

* "I don't see the need to be derogatory to you, though certainly not for a lack of material"  (you manage to refute your first clause in your second);

Erroneous opinion. Stating that there is ample opportunity and cause to be derogatory is not the same thing as actually being derogatory.

 

 

There are a lot of ways to be derogatory.  Ever hear of a "back-handed compliment"?  Here, you are being derogatory by telling someone that there are many reasons you could be derogatory to them, thereby asserting their flaws without specifying them.  If you don't think that's derogatory, then you might want to read up on emotional intelligence.