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

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, FineCollector said:

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.

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me. I love it, and thrive on it. What you do isn't disagreement; it's degradation. It's always personal. You don't like me, so you engage in the politics of personality, taking shots at me when and where you think you can get away with it, utterly irrespective of whatever topic is at issue.

Look how you invoke "everyone" in your quote above, as though you speak for everyone. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. But you invoke "everyone", in an attempt to segregate and discredit...as McKnowitall said earlier, "us vs. them." And that's just one example.

And again, I understand why: you're offended. Is your offendedness justified? Maybe. But probably not. 

12 minutes ago, FineCollector said:

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

I sure hope that's the end of it.

[alexgross.com]

is every single thread on these boards ruined by the same 3 or 4 people arguing, or is it just the ones i visit? 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, www.alexgross.com said:

is every single thread on these boards ruined by the same 3 or 4 people arguing, or is it just the ones i visit? 

 

Just the ones you visit.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

47 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

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.

Yes.  Exactly.

By the way,  a few months ago I found the newspaper article for which the photo was taken.  It's a wealth of information regarding the explosion of prices and fan interest back in 1965, along with some demographics.  The owner of the book store, Burt Blum talks about how comics really took off for him in 1962 when collectors started asking him to find comic books for them.  The article states that this book store is now the nation's largest comic book center for collectors.  A really interesting read.

Vintage Comic Book & Convention Photos

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, Ditch Fahrenheit said:

Yes.  Exactly.

By the way,  a few months ago I found the newspaper article for which the photo was taken.  It's a wealth of information regarding the explosion of prices and fan interest back in 1965, along with some demographics.  The owner of the book store, Burt Blum talks about how comics really took off for him in 1962 when collectors started asking him to find comic books for them.  The article states that this book store is now the nation's largest comic book center for collectors.  A really interesting read.

Vintage Comic Book & Convention Photos

I think that's been posted before. Thanks for posting it again. What a great glimpse into the past. You see Jerry Bails' fingerprints all over comic fandom.

Gotta have those first editions!

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

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? 

 

In common parlance, the term "collector" is defined to mean "a person who collects things of a specified type, professionally or as a hobby."  And the term "collect" means in common parlance "gather together."  So forgive that I do not see your very narrow definition as self-evident.  It is not.  I have not seen a common parlance definition of "collector" that imposes the requirement of "preservation," let alone "preservation in the condition of acquisition."  

Your whole argument is a strawman.  Their is a vast gulf between reading comics without concern with whether that is causing a descent in grade from "newstand fresh" to "fine reading copy" (as I argued) and "constantly losing pieces of your collection to attrition" (the strawman you posit).  Indeed, the original context of this debate was your foolish assertion that there were only 1,000 "collectors" in 1970.  You don't want to "lose" that argument.  So you have been desperately trying to define "collectors" in the narrowest possible fashion to ensure you don't "lose."   In doing so, you have resorted to the logical fallacies of constructing strawmen and reductio ad absurdem.  

So let me bring some experience to bear. Back in the 1970s there were a lot of kids who bought comics, read comics, and held comics, out of a love of comics.  But many were not concerned with keeping them in the same condition in which they were acquired.  Why?  Because their collecting goal was to read the story.  That does not make them "readers", that makes them people who collect comics for the purpose of reading and enjoying them.  They sought out comics by artists (like Byrne and Miller) because they loved the art and loved to read stories by that artist.  The key being "loved to read."  This should not be a hard concept to grasp.  Reading is a legitimate collecting goal.  

Did these kids bag their comics?  Some did, others didn't. Bags cost additional money.   No one had backing boards (heck Bangzoom keeps his collection in polyprophylene bages without backing boards and I'm sure he's a collector).

Do you need to index your comics to be a collector?  No.  Do you need to put comics in chronological order or alphabetical order or group by publisher or group by artist to be a collector?  No.  Those are just tools that some collectors use to aid certain collecting goals.  Not all collecting goals require that type of organization.  I know plenty of folks whose main organizational scheme is keeping their favorite comics together.  In fact, this seems increasingly common in a world where "run collecting" is no longer as prevalent and you see folks chasing "classic covers" and buying increasingly fewer comics compared to collectors in the past (my LCS owner had more than 15,000 before 1970, when he was still just a teen).

This is where we agree:  I believe that comic collectors should act to preserve comic history.  And, for me, this means that if you are the owner of the best copy of a comic that is rare in condition, you should do your utmost to preserve the object.  Do I feel that way about comics bought off the newstand?  No.  Not at all.  Why?  Because they are not rare items that are key to comic history.  Fortunately, the market does operate to deter people who would likely damage a rare high grade comic from owning one or gives them good cause to either preserve the item or sell it to downgrade to a lesser grade copy.

And this is another difference between us:  I believe that a collector can collect new comics, without feeling a need to chase back issues.  Indeed, I think for most of us back in the day, our collections were primarily comics we bought new.  Why?  Because a fair number of collectors were enamored with the current artists (Adams, Byrne, Perez, Simonson, Miller, etc.) and thought that the old artists (Kirby, Swan, etc.) were crude and unappealing in comparison.  There's no accounting for taste.  But, that's ok, because the comic hobby is a big hobby and if you want to focus on collecting Richie Rich off the stands, that's ok.  Even today, there are guys who are "Marvel completists" (or Zombies) who bought their entire collections off the stands, and never got into buying back issues of Atlas or Timely.

I think almost all of us recognize the diversity that exists in this great hobby.

You don't.  

Which, I think, is ultimately a statement about you, not an insight into what the term "collector" really means.  

In sum, it appears that you believe, with really no support other than bald assertion, that only your collecting goals and style are legitimate.  Which is wrong.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

3 hours 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.

 

Really?  Where is this definition published?  It is not common parlance (e.g. dictionary definitions).

It sure isn't a definition in use by comic collectors when I was collecting in the 70s. 

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, Ditch Fahrenheit said:

 

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).

Pictures like this are not unusual.  RAM was asking up thread if collectors display their collections spread out on the floor with dogs walking on them.  Although I've never seen a picture displaying comics with a dog on the comics, I have seen pictures of comics laid on a bed with a cat sleeping on them.  And I'm talking GA keys here.  I've also seen plenty of pictures like the above.  I just haven't had the time time to pull the picture of RAM to consider. Thanks for providing an example.

[sfcityduck]

 

Quote

 

4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

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

 

On the subject of strawmen arguments, let's quickly discuss the difference between a "collector" and a "hoarder."  "Hoarding" is a mental disorder with a medical definition, which basically is as follows:

Quote

 

The new criteria for hoarding disorder to be included in DSM-5, then, will include:

1. Persistent difficulty discarding or parting with personal possessions, regardless of their actual value.

2. This difficulty is due to strong urges to save items and/or distress associated with discarding them.

3. The symptoms lead to extreme cluttering of the home or workplace that renders them unlivable or unusable. 

4. The individual experiences clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning which may include maintaining a safe home or work environment.

5. The hoarding is not attributable to another medical condition such as dementia.

6. The hoarding is not attributable to another psychological disorder such a major depressive disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

 

This is how the authors of a study published in Pychology Today differentiated between hoarders and collectors:

Quote

Collectors seem more flexible in the way they establish and hold onto their valuables than do hoarders. they may begin collecting one type of book as children, for example, and as they mature, switch to different types of books (e.g. action books as children to mystery books as adults). Collecting seems to go through its own natural life cycle with perhaps as many as 70% of children having some type of collection but only 23% of those in their 20s.  By the age of 60, only 13-15% of the population is estimated to have a collection. The only hitch in this line of thinking is that people may be less likely to collect new items as they get older, but they may find it very difficult to part with their possessions.

Collectors also trade or sell all or parts of their collection without experiencing the mental anguish of a hoarder. It’s not clear how many collectors actually do sell or reduce their collections over time, but the more likely they are to do so, the less likely it is that are true hoarders.  

Regarding the value of their collection, hoarding is defined as difficulty parting with items regardless of their value. Hoarders may collect truly valuable items, but they may also collect – quite literally—garbage. Collectors may also collect items of little intrinsic value such as mass produced toys that only gain worth because they are no longer available (think vintage Barbie dolls or Happy Meals from the 1980s).  Because it’s not possible to define “valuable,” then, the important criterion seems to be that the individual has trouble parting with objects regardless of their actual value.

....

As much as they may prize their collections, people who are more collector than hoarder don’t seem to express worry at the loss of their items or even a strong urge to keep them.

....

Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding.

...

As is true for all conditions evaluated in the DSM, hoarding must fulfill the criterion of causing significant distress in a person’s daily life.  This means that hoarders have difficulty holding onto their jobs, maintaining normal family ties, and residing within the community.  The distress they experience also translates into feelings of shame or regret and they wish they could stop their hoarding (i.e. "ego dystonic").

Unlike hoarders, average collectors have strong family relationships, interact in a social context with other collectors, and don’t experience guilt or regret. They participate in an active community of collectors, developing friendships within the community, and may even share their interests with family members.

 

Several of the points made above cut against the assertions you are making RAM.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

(snip)

1. You don't know what a "strawman" is, because you keep using the term incorrectly.

2. Comparing the disagreement of the definition of the word "collector" to a lack of recognition of "the diversity that exists in this great hobby" is complete and utter nonsense.

3. You don't speak for anyone but you. And certainly not for "almost all of us."

4. You have stubbornly and persistently misrepresented, for 15-20 pages now, what I have said, and then argued against what you imagined I said...not what I actually said...which is what a "strawman" actually is. Example: I never said a collector couldn't be someone who buys only new issues. And yet, there are you saying I did, and then arguing against it. (But do you know what happens when the next issue comes out? The previous issue is no longer new! Imagine that!)

5. "Reading" is not collecting. "Reading" is not a "collecting goal." If their goal was to "read the story", they didn't even need to OWN those books to "achieve" their "collecting goal."

It's like the Vertigo ad from the 90s, which encouraged readers to "speculate on ideas"...a subtle shot at the rampant speculation on actual comic books taking place at the time.

Trying to shoehorn your definition of "collector" to an intangible concept is not a valid argument. You've made several statements in this conversation which you can't prove, won't define, and with which hardly anyone has agreed, like "comics fandom was large and developed by 1964" and "there were way more than 1,000 collectors attending comic conventions by 1966." You should be grateful that people aren't calling  you on those statements like they should.

6. You keep repeating statements I never made, like "Indeed, the original context of this debate was your foolish assertion that there were only 1,000 "collectors" in 1970." Here, again, is my actual quote: "if...and this is a gigantic if...there were 1,000 collectors in the US by 1970, I'd be very surprised." 

That is not an assertion. It is an estimate. A GUESS.

You have been corrected on that multiple times, but you keep repeating it anyways. What conclusion is one supposed to come to about you, when you keep repeating things that were never said, that you have been corrected on multiple times, but which you continue to repeat anyways...? What does that make you...?

7. The quote that started this ENTIRE argument was your nonsensical actual assertion that "comics fandom was large and developed by 1964."

Enough. Is. Enough.

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

36 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Really?  Where is this definition published?  It is not common parlance (e.g. dictionary definitions).

It sure isn't a definition in use by comic collectors when I was collecting in the 70s. 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

35 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Pictures like this are not unusual.  RAM was asking up thread if collectors display their collections spread out on the floor with dogs walking on them.  Although I've never seen a picture displaying comics with a dog on the comics, I have seen pictures of comics laid on a bed with a cat sleeping on them.  And I'm talking GA keys here.  I've also seen plenty of pictures like the above.  I just haven't had the time time to pull the picture of RAM to consider. Thanks for providing an example.

I'm not "RAM." Thanks.

And that picture is of a guy who is most certainly not a collector. He's an avid fan, for sure. Accumulator, you bet. Collector? Yeah, no. 

[sfcityduck]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

1. You don't know what a "strawman" is, because you keep using the term incorrectly.

 

A strawman is when you refute an easily defeated argument that you pretend was made by your opponent, when your opponent asserted no such thing.  An example in this conversation is your statement that "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?"  No one is arguing that people who are "constantly losing pies of their collection to attrition" are collectors.  Instead, we are arguing that you do not need to preserve your collection in the same state in which you acquire it to be a collector.   

[sfcityduck]

55 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm not "RAM." Thanks.

And that picture is of a guy who is most certainly not a collector. He's an avid fan, for sure. Accumulator, you bet. Collector? Yeah, no. 

"Accumulator" and "collector" are synonyms.  What do you think the difference is between those two terms?  

You are making up definition in your head, but not sharing them or substantiating that they are legitimate.

Edited August 26, 2018 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Several of the points made above cut against the assertions you are making RAM.  

Still don't know who "RAM" is, but I think you missed this part:

"Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."

(emphasis mine.)

Given those definitions...would you classify the picture posted above by @Ditch Fahrenheit as more indicative of a COLLECTOR, or a HOARDER....?

I'll hang up and wait for your answer on the air.

[sfcityduck]

8 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

6. You keep repeating statements I never made, like "Indeed, the original context of this debate was your foolish assertion that there were only 1,000 "collectors" in 1970." Here, again, is my actual quote: "if...and this is a gigantic if...there were 1,000 collectors in the US by 1970, I'd be very surprised." 

 

So your contention is actually that there were less than 1,000 collectors in 1970.  I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  How many fewer than 1,000 collectors in 1970 do you think there were?

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

A strawman is when you refute an easily defeated argument that you pretend was made by your opponent, when your opponent asserted no such thing.  An example in this conversation is your statement that "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?"  No one is arguing that people who are "constantly losing pies of their collection to attrition" are collectors.  Instead, we are arguing that you do not need to preserve your collection in the same state in which you acquire it to be a collector.   

You have the definition correct, but lack the understanding of what that definition means. 

Not treating your possessions with reasonable care to prevent further damage will eventually result in their loss by destruction. Your "newsstand fresh" pile that degrades to "fine" will eventually degrade to DESTROYED if you make no effort to preserve them. 

Who is "we"? Do you have more than one person in your head? Why are you attempting to speak for anyone but yourself?

Unrelated aside, I try never to lose pies. They're much too tasty.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

12 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

6. You keep repeating statements I never made, like "Indeed, the original context of this debate was your foolish assertion that there were only 1,000 "collectors" in 1970." Here, again, is my actual quote: "if...and this is a gigantic if...there were 1,000 collectors in the US by 1970, I'd be very surprised." 

 

So your contention is actually that there were less than 1,000 collectors in 1970.  I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  How many fewer than 1,000 collectors in 1970 do you think there were?

 

[sfcityduck]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Still don't know who "RAM" is, but I think you missed this part:

"Despite the invasion of their living space by their collections, non-hoarders show one important difference from their hoarding counterparts. This is that collectors do put their possessions on display rather than letting them accumulate all over homes or apartments. Hoarders may have homes so cluttered with their possessions that they can hardly move. In addition, the hoarded items (which may range from moldy food to ancient newspapers) are strewn around and not put in any sort of displayable order as would a collection. Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."

(emphasis mine.)

Given those definitions...would you classify the picture posted above by @Ditch Fahrenheit as more indicative of a COLLECTOR, or a HOARDER....?

I'll hang up and wait for your answer on the air.

"Not all collectors have nice and tidy arrays of their prized objects, but they are much more likely to do so than are people with the disorder of hoarding."   He's a collector.  Consider these two pictures:

You'd call this kid a "hoarder" or "reader." After all, look at the disarray.

But that kid is this kid:

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

"Accumulator" and "collector" are synonyms.  What do you think the difference is between those two terms.  

Already explained, at great and very exhaustive length. I invite you to read the thread again; the answers you seek are already there.