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

[sfcityduck]

 

Quote

 

   23 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.

 

But it is still personal commentary.  Have you ever heard Michelle Obama's quote:  "When they go low, we go high"?  That quote embodies the truth that if others engage in bad behavior, responding in kind is equally bad.  It is the same sin.  Far better to adopt the Golden Rule, not an "eye for an eye."

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by sfcityduck

[FineCollector]

I agree that economics does not come into play when deciding if someone is a collector.  We used to have a kid come into the shop to buy baseball card singles.  He'd spend about an hour flipping through the singles boxes looking for his favorite players, and probably spent less than $1.50 most weeks.  He got older, and started spending more money.  He was no more or less a collector than he was before, he just had more disposable income to spend on premium products.

I think we often make the mistake of dismissing people with small budgets who enjoy collecting inexpensive comics.  They have the same passion, just not the means.  The resale market needs people with modest goals just as much or more than it needs the high rollers.

18 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

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

Stop saying he's derogatory, he's not.  He's condescending.  You have to be precise in a thread like this.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, FineCollector said:

Stop saying he's derogatory, he's not.  He's condescending.  You have to be precise in a thread like this.

Yay, more comments from the peanut gallery!

 

[FineCollector]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yay, more comments from the peanut gallery!

 

That's the thanks I get for trying to help you out...

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, GrumpyGus said:

This is the biggest lie you perpetuate, because your entire argument against me rests on it.

Boy, are you misguided.

My entire argument against you is that you are a sociopath who has not even the slightest concern for social boundaries, who cannot tolerate people disagreeing with him to such an incredible degree, he has to come back to a board which banned him in the early 00s, over and over and over again, to tell everyone how wrong he thinks they are, suggesting the most disgusting acts are perpetrated by them, and constantly violating their right to privacy. You whine about people "not letting things go", but here you are, posting on a message board which has clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, that you are UNWELCOME, because....well...you just HAVE to make sure people know just how wrong you think they are, John.

THAT is my entire argument against you, not any opinion you may have about slabbing.

Soon enough, this latest incarnation will be banned, and we'll have peace...until you manage to get through with your 7,458th new "board id."

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

But it is still personal commentary.  Have you ever heard Michelle Obama's quote:  "When they go low, we go high"?  That quote embodies the truth that if others engage in bad behavior, responding in kind is equally bad.  It is the same sin.  Far better to adopt the Golden Rule, not an "eye for an eye."

Erroneous opinion. You cannot point out that someone is engaging in personal commentary without, by definition, engaging personal commentary.

"You are engaging in personal commentary" is personal commentary. Therefore, to point it out and ask that someone stop doing it is not the same thing as initiating it.

Your bait is exceptionally tasty. (That is personal commentary)

Oh, and your continued violation of the "no politics" rule won't go unnoticed forever, I imagine.

I would REALLY prefer not to continue this line of discussion, if you don't mind.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, GrumpyGus said:

I do enjoy trolling the trolls, that's true. Elitist narcissists make the list too.

"The list"...?

Where have I heard that before...?

Well, if anyone would know about being a troll, it's hard to imagine anyone more qualified than you, Sensei. And I've yet to meet a more elitist narcissist. You're the elitiest.

So. Yay, I guess...?

I guess you figured out how to beat the moderation system for a couple of days. Congrats!

Edited August 25, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, GrumpyGus said:

Awesome. I'll be back in time for your next Gish Gallop.

Kudos to you for figuring out how to beat the moderation system for a couple of days, after your 7,184th banning. I hope they figure out a way to avoid a repeat of you.

[musicmeta]

On 8/24/2018 at 11:47 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Indeed, so convoluted as to be meaningless. The very premise isn't accurate, so everything built on that foundation is, necessarily, inaccurate. 

The issue isn't "condition"...it's preservation. 

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."

To me if you buy comics and keep them regardless of what of condition you're trying to preserve and you continue to buy comics, then you're a comic collector.  Seems easy to me to "know" what a comic collector is.  Your comment above seems like "Hair Splitting" to me. 
Oh, and I hope we are just having a discussion with points of disagreement based on what we "think" is a comic collector.  It's all cool RMA.

[Gaard]

When I was a kid (many moons ago), I collected wheat pennies. Believe it or not, they weren't that uncommon to find in circulation. Whenever I found one, I put it in my dresser drawer.

[Tony D]

When I was six and seven years old [1956 and 1957], I read comics my father bought for me. These were Warner Brothers and Disney characters like Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck. I didn't preserve them in any way and read them over and over until they fell apart and were thrown away. By the time I was eight and nine I was buying my own comics and they were DC superhero comics mainly Superman and Batman titles but any comics were read and treasured. By that time I was keeping them in numerical order stacked in my closet. They were reread by me but carefully, so as to not cause them any deterioration. Ten cents an issue was a considerable expense to me and I didn't want to have them thrown away because they were falling apart.

As other kids lost their passion for comics they would sell them for a nickel each and I was one of the kids who bought issues I was missing. I bought the three JLA tryout issues in Brave and Bold that I needed to go with my run of issues from #1 up.

If I wasn't a collector, what was I?

[Logan510]

3 hours ago, GrumpyGus said:

I do enjoy trolling the trolls, that's true. Elitist narcissists make the list too.

He didn’t have a problem with it for years, in fact I was told that you were “misunderstood”. What happened that could’ve ruined this 20 year internet friendship?

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Oh, and your continued violation of the "no politics" rule won't go unnoticed forever, I imagine.

 

Quoting Michelle Obama saying "When they go low, we go high" in the context of discussing decorum violates the "no politics" rule?  

[Lazyboy]

1 hour ago, Tony D said:

When I was six and seven years old [1956 and 1957], I read comics my father bought for me. These were Warner Brothers and Disney characters like Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck. I didn't preserve them in any way and read them over and over until they fell apart and were thrown away. By the time I was eight and nine I was buying my own comics and they were DC superhero comics mainly Superman and Batman titles but any comics were read and treasured. By that time I was keeping them in numerical order stacked in my closet. They were reread by me but carefully, so as to not cause them any deterioration. Ten cents an issue was a considerable expense to me and I didn't want to have them thrown away because they were falling apart.

As other kids lost their passion for comics they would sell them for a nickel each and I was one of the kids who bought issues I was missing. I bought the three JLA tryout issues in Brave and Bold that I needed to go with my run of issues from #1 up.

If I wasn't a collector, what was I?

You certainly weren't a collector when you were throwing away comics that you trashed. You eventually became a collector.

[Tony D]

7 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

You certainly weren't a collector when you were throwing away comics that you trashed. You eventually became a collector.

When those comics were being thrown away, I was not a collector, I agree, but by the time I was carefully saving them, I had become a collector. I had many friends whose road to collecting was similar, if not identical, to mine. You do not have to encapsulate or use boards and bags to be a collector, although I eventually did put my comics in plastic bags to help preserve them.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, Tony D said:

You do not have to encapsulate or use boards and bags to be a collector, although I eventually did put my comics in plastic bags to help preserve them.

No, but that's not the point, which has been quite muddied by various parties. Just because someone thinks of themself as a collector, or calls themself a collector, doesn't mean they are. And as noted, if you're throwing them out because you read them until they fell apart, you weren't a collector. You were a reader. When you started saving them and taking care of them...then you became a collector.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, Logan510 said:

4 hours ago, GrumpyGus said:

I do enjoy trolling the trolls, that's true. Elitist narcissists make the list too.

He didn’t have a problem with it for years, in fact I was told that you were “misunderstood”. What happened that could’ve ruined this 20 year internet friendship?

How come you're not at Wizard World, running away from people you don't like...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, musicmeta said:

To me if you buy comics and keep them regardless of what of condition you're trying to preserve and you continue to buy comics, then you're a comic collector.  Seems easy to me to "know" what a comic collector is.  Your comment above seems like "Hair Splitting" to me. 
Oh, and I hope we are just having a discussion with points of disagreement based on what we "think" is a comic collector.  It's all cool RMA.

A collector is someone who wants to gain more examples, right? I think we can agree on that? One of the hallmarks of a collector is that they want to pursue a set, however they define a set, until it's complete, yes? That's one of the drivers of collectors; the thrill of the search until you find one you're missing, so your collection is one step closer to complete.

If that's the case...it would seem that not making an effort to preserve them, to allow them to deteriorate further, to the point they have to be thrown out, would be the opposite of what a collector does...right? I'm not talking about buying certain conditions, and never have. That's the mud of others. I'm not talking about overly anal collectors, who have to have the best copy possible. That's the mud of others. I'm not talking anything about resale value, or investment of any kind. That's the mud of others.

If you buy a comic that is tattered and torn, in Fair condition, because it fills that hole in your collection...it seems that you would want to keep it from further deterioration, so that that hole doesn't become empty again because the copy you bought has fallen apart through use or neglect.

No...?

[sfcityduck]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

A collector is someone who wants to gain more examples, right? I think we can agree on that? One of the hallmarks of a collector is that they want to pursue a set, however they define a set, until it's complete, yes? That's one of the drivers of collectors; the thrill of the search until you find one you're missing, so your collection is one step closer to complete.

If that's the case...it would seem that not making an effort to preserve them, to allow them to deteriorate further, to the point they have to be thrown out, would be the opposite of what a collector does...right? I'm not talking about buying certain conditions, and never have. That's the mud of others. I'm not talking about overly anal collectors, who have to have the best copy possible. That's the mud of others. I'm not talking anything about resale value, or investment of any kind. That's the mud of others.

If you buy a comic that is tattered and torn, in Fair condition, because it fills that hole in your collection...it seems that you would want to keep it from further deterioration, so that that hole doesn't become empty again because the copy you bought has fallen apart through use or neglect.

No...?

Some folks collect comics so they can read the whole story.  They aren't obsessed with keeping the comics from deteriorating to the point that they are deterred from reading them how and when they want.  I don't think that disqualifies them from being collectors.  Do you really?

I agree if you buy a comic, read it, and toss it, then you aren't collecting.  But, if you buy a comic, read it, and put it on a stack on the floor for future reading, I think you are.  It doesn't matter if your newstand fresh comics are descending into fine reading copies.  You're still a collector.  It's just that your collecting goal is unrelated to condition.

The disconnect here appears to be that you cannot divorce collecting from condition  preservation.

And, yes, mentality is key.  A speculator will make every effort to buy a high grade comic and keep it in exactly the shape it was when purchased.  But they may not have a love of comics, just a love of money.

Again, a collector is someone who seeks out comics, buys them, and holds them, out of love for comics.

[delekkerste]

I think the definition of a collector is as broad as Duck and others say it is, but, the definition of a serious collector is as narrow as RMA says it is.  You can be a serious fan by just reading and accumulating, but, if you are not conscious about grading/preservation and have no methodology to your buying habits, you are not a serious collector IMO.  Over the past twenty years, I've acquired 15 high-end timepieces.  But, I've never considered myself to be a watch collector, because I do not approach it at all in the same way I do with original comic art or, previously, comic books.  At no point did I have any specific goals or strategy or even a burning desire to buy more; I did not follow secondary market prices or buy with any kind of consideration other than my personal taste; it just so happened that I ended up buying enough watches over the span of a long time that I liked that most outsiders would deem to be a collection.  But, I was never a serious collector, just as most people who buy and read comic books are not what I would call serious collectors.  

I have no desire to try and argue what the numbers of serious collectors were back in the day.  That said, the things I associate with the birth of the hobby as a serious pastime I would say mostly took hold starting in the latter half of the 1960s.  These are things like:  comic conventions, mail order back issue services and a thriving back issue market, local comic shops, price guides, grading standards, bagging/boarding/boxing/preservation materials, fanzines and fan clubs, etc.  I'm not saying that none of these existed prior to this time period (I think someone pointed out the first LCS appeared in 1958, whereas the NY show in 1964 is claimed by Ballmann to be the first comic con), but, the mid-1960s and onward is about the time things started to get more serious, with things ramping up in the 1970s with the OSPG and more dealers, conventions, back issue market development, etc.  As such, by modern standards, I don't know that there really were a ton of serious collectors in 1970; there might have been serious collectors by the standards of the day, but, there wasn't really a developed hobby as we know it to be serious about (not to be confused with a developed comic book industry, which, of course, there was).