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

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

13 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Some folks collect comics so they can read the whole story. 

Then they're readers, not collectors.

13 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

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. 

Where do you get "obsessed with keeping the comics from deteriorating" from "making a reasonable effort to preserve them"...? No one said a collector can't read them...he just doesn't fold the cover over, roll the book up, and stick it in his back pocket. He takes care not to further damage the book in the process.

16 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

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.

Then you're an accumulator, not a collector. One of the distinctions that makes a person a collector is that, no matter what condition they obtained the item in, they want to keep it from getting worse. If you don't care about the condition of your purchases getting worse...you're not a collector. As difficult as this may be for some people to accept, if preserving your collection so that you don't lose items to attrition is not one of your "collecting goals", you're not a collector. Not caring about preservation is the antithesis of being a collector. Again: please don't muddy the issue with "super anal retentive 9.8 immaculate" arguments, because that's not the issue. 

It's why people graduate to becoming collectors: initially, they read their books until they fall apart, and they get thrown away. They don't want to have to throw away their books, so they start to maintain them, rather than letting them deteriorate. That step is the transition from becoming a reader to becoming a collector.

24 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

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

The disconnect actually appears to be that you don't understand the essence of what it means to be a collector, vs. a reader, a hoarder, an accumulator, etc. There is no "divorcing" preservation from collecting, because that's fundamentally what being a collector means. If you're constantly losing pieces of your collection to attrition, because you don't take care of them, how can you possibly call yourself a collector? 

29 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

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.

This discussion is about what defines a collector, not a speculator, so this is not relevant.

30 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

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

And how does this collector "hold them" if they fall apart due to use or neglect...? 

A comic book collector is someone who seeks out comics, buys them, organizes them in some meaningful way, and preserves them so they don't have to keep buying more examples because they ones they had got trashed due to neglect.

Your bait is exceptionally tasty. Kudos to you!

[RockMyAmadeus]

14 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

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).  

So, you agree that there was not a large and developed comics fandom by 1964, which is what sfcityduck contended...the start of this entire discussion....?

[delekkerste]

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.  There are under 20,000 copies of Amazing Spider-man #300 on the CGC census, after almost 20 years.  On one hand, it's everywhere... it's easy to find.  On the other hand, only 20,000 people can own one.  Are there more than 20,000 people who want one?  Then there aren't enough.  Are there more than 10,000 people who want to own a Hulk #181 slab?  There aren't enough.  More will be graded for sure, but what if there are 20,000 people who want a copy?  That could take another 20 years of slabbing.

Meanwhile, Gemstone sells about 30,000 to 50,000 copies of the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide each year.  We don't know how many collectors there are, but people who are willing to pay $20+ for a price guide are likely to be interested in owning key issues eventually... since they obviously own or collect something.  A million people go to comic conventions.  Tens of millions go to comic movies.  400,000+ copies of the latest issue of Batman sold last month.  Fewer than 20,000 can own a CGC slab for ANY comic book because there isn't a book with 20,000 on the CGC Census.  Recent price increases almost across the board for key issues are a reflection of something that is more than a handful of new collectors buying. 

Hi Greg,

So, we had a PM discussion on a similar topic last year.  I think where your above argument goes wrong is that the way you are using the terms "supply" and "demand" is practically meaningless out of the context of price. "I think we can all agree that the demand exceeds supply for books like Action Comics #1 or Detective Comics #27" - actually, no, I do not agree with this statement, because the prices of both are at levels which ration the available supply.  I mean, sure, if Action #1 and Tec #27 were $1500 books instead of $1.5 million books (obviously more/less for the relevant grades), then demand would exceed supply for those books and not everybody who wanted one could get one at that price.  But, at current price levels, demand does not exceed supply (at least not meaningfully).    

As such, what you perceive to be a paradox - ASM #300 is ubiquitous, but, on the other hand, there are only about 20K slabbed copies to go around which surely isn't enough - is not a paradox at all.  At current prices, the available supply has been rationed.  Demand is not exceeding supply at current prices (and, with that book, it is conceivable that higher prices can and will induce a supply response given that it is basically common as dirt).

I think the very concept of "running out of slabs" doesn't make any sense.  What you're really saying is that prices will rise so much that people who want a copy at current price levels will be priced out (though, that begs the question - if they want a copy at current price levels, why aren't they buying them now?)  Though, by definition, other collectors will end up owning those slabs, so, net-net, it's a zero-sum game, so what are we really talking about here?  Anyway, that is a very different argument with very different dynamics to the points you are making.  It doesn't matter one bit if the faux wedding issue of Batman sold 400K copies or if tens of millions of people went to see a particular super-hero movie - all that matters is what happens at the margin to move price.  Will there be more or less buyers and sellers in the future relative to the current price level?  That is how price will move and will determine if people are indeed priced out or not. 

This is very different from demand exceeding supply of a fixed price consumer good, by way of comparison.  There, you really can run out of a product.  In our hobby/market, prices adjust to ration the available supply, and so "demand" must always be in the context of "at what price".  

- Gene

Edited August 26, 2018 by delekkerste

[delekkerste]

22 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

So, you agree that there was not a large and developed comics fandom by 1964, which is what sfcityduck contended...the start of this entire discussion....?

I would agree with you that there was not, certainly not by the standards that came later.  That said, I think a lot of the differences of opinion are really about how people are defining things.  I don't want to get sucked into this too deeply, but, it's like I said before - there's a difference between a collector and a (serious) collector.  And there's organized comic book fandom as it existed in the Sixties, versus a more organized and developed comic book hobby/market as it existed in the Seventies and later decades.  If we acknowledge these distinctions, I actually think there are valid points being made all around (and that's all I really care to say about the thread hijack portion of this thread).      

Edited August 26, 2018 by delekkerste

[valiantman]

Gene,

 

Thanks for the note. I see your point on the Action #1 comment, and the relative application down through the decades (or up through the supplies of more recent books). I still think that there are comics which are becoming so key (even more key than before) that even the most populous of those books like ASM #300 and Hulk #181 are not only less likely to lose their current values... they are more likely to find their supply/demand equilibrium at higher prices than today. Furthermore, I don't believe increases in the CGC census will drop prices back to the current levels.  The big 2 or 3 books across the hobby will be a Big 10 or 20... and they'll be significantly higher than current prices.

[Gaard]

10 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I would agree with you that there was not, certainly not by the standards that came later.  That said, I think a lot of the differences of opinion are really about how people are defining things.  I don't want to get sucked into this too deeply, but, it's like I said before - there's a difference between a collector and a (serious) collector.  And there's organized comic book fandom as it existed in the Sixties, versus a more organized and developed comic book hobby/market as it existed in the Seventies and later decades.  If we acknowledge these distinctions, I actually think there are valid points being made all around (and that's all I really care to say about the thread hijack portion of this thread).      

Agreed. It appears this whole thread is about opinions and people trying to pass off their opinion as fact.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Gaard

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, Gaard said:

Agreed. It appears this whole thread is about opinions and people trying to pass off their opinion as fact.

Nope. No one has tried to "pass off" their "opinion as fact."

[NoMan]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

.  Over the past twenty years, I've acquired 15 high-end timepieces.  But, I've never considered myself to be a watch collector

Any Grand Seikos? If not than yeah I’d say you’re not serious. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

21 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

That said, I think a lot of the differences of opinion are really about how people are defining things.

Absolutely, and why it is imperative that people at least attempt to define where they're coming from, and what they mean. Absent that, there is no discussion of any kind, because an undefined statement can mean anything the writer wishes it to mean, at any time, to suit whatever position he/she takes.

[FineCollector]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nope. No one has tried to "pass off" their "opinion as fact."

You're presenting your opinion of what a collector is, there is no right or wrong in this.  Everyone in the thread seems to understand your position, but disagree that your opinion is the only valid one.  You just have to respect that, and not continue to hammer home your point in an effort to be "right".

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

21 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

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).  

I agree with the broad definition.  I'm not sure anyone can qualify what a 'serious collector' is - the definition of which is not only nebulous, but also seems elitist and exclusionary to me.

One thing to consider is that attitudes have changed, and what constituted what some would call a 'serious collector' in the past may not bear much resemblance to today.  The hobby has not always been as hyper-focused on condition and preservation as it is now.

Some examples to show you what I mean:

1)  This is from 1965.  You'll notice the way the books are being handled, the way they are stacked, and there's not a backing board in sight.

 

2)  I don't know the exact date, but it's early 70s.  This kid is clearly a collector and an avid fan.  Notice how he's holding the comics, and how the books are stacked and thrown about in his room in the first photo.  In the second, notice how he is holding the Action Comics #1 and Superman #1 which he just purchased at a convention (they're not even in bags).

 

I don't think you can put people into buckets and label them.

A comic book collector is simply "one who collects comic books."  How they do it, is up to them.

I don't know what a 'serious collector' is...the kid above looks pretty serious about his collection to me.

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, FineCollector said:

You're presenting your opinion of what a collector is, there is no right or wrong in this.  Everyone in the thread seems to understand your position, but disagree that your opinion is the only valid one.  You just have to respect that, and not continue to hammer home your point in an effort to be "right".

Thank you for presenting your opinion. I, and others, disagree. It's not my definition...it's a definition that has existed since before any of us were born.

Your personal animus, like that of others, drives you to criticize me, while ignoring others doing the exact same thing, for the exact same reason.

That is dishonest. It is bad faith. 

[FineCollector]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Thank you for presenting your opinion. I, and others, disagree. It's not my definition...it's a definition that has existed since before any of us were born.

Your personal animus, like that of others, drives you to criticize me, while ignoring others doing the exact same thing, for the exact same reason.

That is dishonest. It is bad faith. 

You keep saying that when I call you out  and it's a cop out.  Where is your definition documented, if it's such a universally understood truth, and not just another opinion?

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, Ditch Fahrenheit said:

I agree with the broad definition

What is the difference between the "broad" definition, and the so-called "narrow" definition...?

A desire to preserve the items, which is what, far from "putting people into buckets" is what separates a collector from every type of accumulator.

The kid in your 70s pictures demonstrates very little desire to preserve his comics...he's got his foot on some of them. (Interesting early example of the 5 toed shoe, though.)

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

14 minutes ago, Ditch Fahrenheit said:

I agree with the broad definition

What is the difference between the "broad" definition, and the so-called "narrow" definition...?

A desire to preserve the items, which is what, far from "putting people into buckets" is what separates a collector from every type of accumulator.

The kid in your 70s pictures demonstrates very little desire to preserve his comics...he's got his foot on some of them. (Interesting early example of the 5 toed shoe, though.)

You are quoting me out of context with the post I was replying.

And I believe I explained all this PAL.  

Those five-toed shoes and socks are really weird.  Reminds me of the split-toed boots some of the Japanese construction workers use to this day (Jika-tabi).

[RockMyAmadeus]

25 minutes ago, FineCollector said:

You keep saying that when I call you out  and it's a cop out. Where is your definition documented, if it's such a universally understood truth, and not just another opinion?

You've proven yourself to have especial animus towards me, so your "call outs" aren't intellectually honest examples of critique, but opportunities to degrade. 

If you were interested in genuine dialogue, you would not have engaged in the defamatory comments you have. With you, it's very personal. I understand that...but you can't really expect your critiques to carry any weight when you fire all cannons at me, while habitually ignoring those with whom you agree doing the exact same thing you complain of me.

As such, any explanation by me is rejected by you, and indeed, has already been rejected, because you aren't interested in arriving at understanding, but in "proving" me "wrong."

I've already given you the explanations you seek. If you reject them, you reject them. By logic and reason, if one does not seek to preserve the items they are accumulating, and those items are damaged beyond repair or destroyed, they are doing the opposite of collecting, which is gathering items to study, appreciate, organize, maintain, and enjoy.

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, Ditch Fahrenheit said:

You are quoting me out of context with the post I was replying.

And I believe I explained all this PAL.  

Boooooo! 

2 minutes ago, Ditch Fahrenheit said:

Those five-toed shoes and socks are really weird.  Reminds me of the split-toed boots some of the Japanese construction workers use to this day (Jika-tabi).

Aren't they, though? I don't think I've ever seen a picture of those that old. I thought for sure they were a hipster invention.

[RockMyAmadeus]

PS. The picture of the Cherokee book store is a picture of dealers, rather than collectors. And even the dealers show a measure of an attempt to preserve. Notice the bags? That was a rather novel idea in 1965.

[Junkdrawer]

I admire everyone’s pluck

[FineCollector]

24 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As such, any explanation by me is rejected by you, and indeed, has already been rejected, because you aren't interested in arriving at understanding, but in "proving" me "wrong."

Your view of collecting is an aspect of it, but doesn't fully grasp the whole idea.  I'm sorry you feel victimized when people disagree with you, but that's entirely my right.

That's my contribution to this discussion, do with it as you will.