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

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

But, I'm not arguing that you can collect "reading."  I'm arguing that you can collect comic books for the collecting goal of reading them.  Hence, your argument is a strawman.  It is an argument you are falsely claiming that I am making, when I am not.

You can collect comics for the collecting goal of admiring their cover art.  That also is not collecting "admiring".  Sheesh.  For a guy who likes to talk about intellectual integrity, you sure are struggling with it here.

No, I'm fairly certain that's your issue, here.

"Admiring their cover art" is not a "collecting goal." You can admire cover art without having to own a copy. And if you don't own a copy...what is it you're collecting?

"That's not what I'm saying!! I'm saying you BUY and KEEP it because you like the cover art!! RAAARRGHHHH!!"

Of course. But your motives for buying and keeping them DO NOT MAKE YOU A COLLECTOR. KEEPING and PRESERVING them is what does that. So you collect them to read. So you collect them because you like the cover art. So you collect them because you like the writer. So you collect them because you like the paper. WHY you do it is irrelevant to WHAT you are doing and HOW you are doing it. 

Doing any of the above does not make you a collector. It is the act of seeking, buying, preserving your items that does that. 

"I collect Frazetta Famous Funnies covers." Ok. Great. But your motive for wanting them doesn't make you a collector. It is the ACT of seeking, obtaining, preserving, organizing, displaying...THOSE are what make you a collector. WHY you are a collector is as varied as the stars. But HOW is what is the determining factor of whether or not you are a collector, a reader, an accumulator, a hoarder, a fan, or whatever.

And you need not own a single comic to read them, or admire cover art, or whatever other motive you might want to throw up for WHY someone might want to collect them. It is the seeking, obtaining, organizing, preserving, displaying that makes you a collector. 

You with me now? I'm guessing "no."

 

[sfcityduck]

 

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Again..."reading" is not a collecting goal. You don't collect "reading." Yes, you can buy books TO read, but you're not collecting reading experiences...you're buying books to read.

If your goal is to read, you neither need to be, or necessarily are, a collector. 

"I'm buying an X-Men #1 because I want to read the story!"

X-Men #1 has been reprinted many, many, many times, in many, many different formats, starting with Marvel Tales #2 in 1964, a year or so after X-Men #1 came out.

So, why would someone who merely wanted to READ spend the money on a copy of X-Men #1, when they could buy a reprint for a lot less...?

"Being able to read the entire X-Men story" is not a "collecting goal." It is a READING goal, and it has already been long established in this thread that there were far more READERS of comics, then as now, than there are COLLECTORS of comics, and being a READER does not mean one was or is a COLLECTOR. 

And you STILL don't need to "possess the comic book to read it" as you irrationally claimed earlier. There are many ways to read a story without having to own a copy of it, then as now...and if you don't own a copy...what are you collecting?

 

 

You have now proven, in black and white for all to see, that your arguments lack all common sense and intellectual honesty.

First, a "collecting goal" is the aim of your collecting.  It can be as simple as "I want to own every X-Men comic book so I can read them" or "I want to own every Matt Baker cover so I can admire them."  To claim otherwise is irrational.  The objects you collect are different than the goal you are seeking to acheive by collecting those objects.  Everyone has a reason for collecting comics, but those reasons vary.

Second, in 1970, the time period we are talking about, there were no, for example, comprehensive X-Men reprints.  To read the entire X-Men story, you needed to seek out and obtain the back issues or, at the very least, the prior published reprints containing those stories (yes, buttercup, you can collect reprints like Marvel Tales 2).  The same was true for New X-Men in 1978.  If you wanted to read the full story, you had to get the back issues.  These were times before digital comics, before Masterworks, etc.  That you fail to understand that many collectors were motivated to seek out comics because they wanted to read the story is astoundingly unbelievable to me.

You ask: "why would someone who merely wanted to READ spend the money on a copy of X-Men #1, when they could buy a reprint for a lot less...?"  If the collecting goal is reading all the stories, you may well be happy reading reprints, second prints, etc. instead of owning all of the first prints.  Again, that's a perfectly fine collecting strategy.

You ask again "what are you collecting?"  Comic books.  But the issue of "collecting goal" goes to the question you do not ask: "Why are you collecting?"  For many, it is and was to read the comics.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

"Admiring their cover art" is not a "collecting goal."

 

RFLMAO!  

I can't believe you just posted this on a CGC board.  Luckily for you, few people will read this deep into the thread and join my laughter.

[porcupine48]

 

[sfcityduck]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Doing any of the above does not make you a collector. It is the act of seeking, buying, preserving your items that does that. 

 

No, it is the act of seeking out, buying and holding comics, for the love of the comics, that makes you a collector. 

The difference between us comes down to this:  You can collect comics, even if you read them and thereby decrease their grades.  You have been desperately trying to whittle down the number of collectors in 1970 to a figure below 1,000 by the artifice of trying to exclude folks who seek out, buy and hold comics for the purpose of reading them, not preserving them untouched.

The narrow defintion you are proposing just doesn't work.  It's perfectly ok to collect comics to read them, knowing full well that reading them will cause a decrease in grade.  

You diagree.  What else is there to say at this point?  I think your argument is absurd, and the lengths you have gone to try not to lose this point is foolish.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, porcupine48 said:

 

This thread:

 

[sfcityduck]

17 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Of course. But your motives for buying and keeping them DO NOT MAKE YOU A COLLECTOR. KEEPING and PRESERVING them is what does that.

 

One last point: If buying motivations are irrelevant, how do you distinguish between comic collectors and comic speculators, a distinction you made up thread?

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

No, it is the act of seeking out, buying and holding comics, for the love of the comics, that makes you a collector. 

No. "...for the love of the comics" is incorrect.

One need not "love comics" to be a collector. One need only seek out, obtain, preserve, organize them to be a collector. The WHY is irrelevant to the classification of "collector" (there's the diversity you were complaining about being "missing" earlier.) Only the WHAT and HOW is important in determining if someone is a collector.

I asked you before, and you ignored it, so I'll ask you again: if you allow your books to be destroyed because you don't make an effort to preserve them, how are you "holding" them...? That's part of your definition, after all.

How can you be a "collector" if all or part of your collection is subject to destruction because you don't make an effort to preserve them in any way? 

[sfcityduck]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

I asked you before, and you ignored it, so I'll ask you again: if you allow your books to be destroyed because you don't make an effort to preserve them, how are you "holding" them...? That's part of your definition, after all.

How can you be a "collector" if all or part of your collection is subject to destruction because you don't make an effort to preserve them in any way? 

 

I did not ignore it.  I pointed out you are making a strawman argument.

People who read comics, thereby decreasing their grade from NM/M to F, are not "allow[ing] your books to be destroyed."  Nor does reading mean they "don't make an effort to preserve them."  It just means that they are perfectly happy to collect their comics for a purpose, reading, which will result in a decrease in grade.  And there's nothing wrong with that, especially when we are talking about collecting comics bought new.  Those people are collectors, despite the fact that their collecting goal results in some damage to the comic.

[sfcityduck]

I answered your question.  You want to answer mine:

Quote

One last point: If buying motivations are irrelevant, how do you distinguish between comic collectors and comic speculators, a distinction you made up thread?

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

One last point: If buying motivations are irrelevant, how do you distinguish between comic collectors and comic speculators, a distinction you made up thread?

Easy. Does a buyer seek to obtain, purchase, preserve, organize, and perhaps display what he/she owns? Then he/she is a collector, even if he/she is a speculator, as well. A collector who is not a speculator usually completes sets, as they define them, irrespective of value. A speculator who is not a collector usually has no interest in sets, but specific issues that they think will go up in value. A person who is both will collect sets, as they define them, AND buy copies for speculation. They're not mutually exclusive ideas, and one person can be one, the other, or both. 

WHY they obtain them is irrelevant to determining who is, and who is not, a collector. HOW and WHAT they do is what determines what they are.

You're trying to draw hard lines where there are none. There is overlap....as I have said throughout...for most, if not all, of these classifications.

[Get Marwood & I]

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

I did not ignore it.  I pointed out you are making a strawman argument.

Sure you did. You never answered the question, but you responded in the thread.

6 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

People who read comics, thereby decreasing their grade from NM/M to F, are not "allow[ing] your books to be destroyed."  Nor does reading mean they "don't make an effort to preserve them."  It just means that they are perfectly happy to collect their comics for a purpose, reading, which will result in a decrease in grade.  And there's nothing wrong with that, especially when we are talking about collecting comics bought new.  Those people are collectors, despite the fact that their collecting goal results in some damage to the comic.

Nonsense. One need not "decrease their grade" to read them. I can read a comic in "NM/M" and have it stay "NM/M." It's not difficult. It only requires a modicum of care.

If one is "decreasing their grade from NM/M to F", then EVENTUALLY, in due time, they will CONTINUE to decrease their grade from "F" to "Good, Fair, Poor, to trash."

Clearly, that person is not exercising reasonable care to preserve their books. Those people aren't collectors, because eventually, in due time, the objects they purport to be collecting will be no more, and then they will no longer have a representative of that issue in their "collection." If their purpose is to READ, rather than COLLECT then...watch me now...they are READERS...and NOT COLLECTORS. 

And if they trash their books over time, that, I don't think it needs to be explained, is the OPPOSITE of collecting.

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I answered your question.  You want to answer mine:

Quote

One last point: If buying motivations are irrelevant, how do you distinguish between comic collectors and comic speculators, a distinction you made up thread?

 

You've done this before. It's rather rude. Why don't you exercise some patience, and allow someone to respond before you make pushy posts like this.

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

You have been desperately trying to whittle down the number of collectors in 1970 to a figure below 1,000 by the artifice of trying to exclude folks who seek out, buy and hold comics for the purpose of reading them, not preserving them untouched.

No I haven't. Have you even read this thread? This is patently untrue. 

This is just repetition, using different words, of the same fiction you invented earlier: that I "asserted" that there were less than 1,000 collectors in 1970. Not only that, your thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said has inspired other people to repeat that fiction elsewhere on the board, specifically in Redbeard's thread...and his answer wasn't nearly as conclusive as was hoped, I imagine. 

My number was an estimate. A guess. Again, here's the quote: "If.....and this is a gigantic if....the number of collectors was more than 1,000 in 1970, I'd be very, very surprised."

Further in the thread, I said "ok, fine. Make it 2,000. Not enough? Make it 3,000." It's still an ESTIMATE. A GUESS. A CASUAL COMMENT that was NEVER meant to be a definitive assertion, and yet...over and over and over again, it's been repeated as such. This entire argument has been about a casual comment that you seized upon....a total "GOTCHA!"...and then you have the chutzpah to accuse me of playing "gotcha."

Dishonest to the CORE, and which none of the detractors have said a peep about. 

And...far more importantly....a guess that you cannot prove wrong. I cannot prove RIGHT...because, after all, it's still a GUESS...but you cannot demonstrate is wrong.

You nitpick the details and then complain about me nitpicking the details.

And there's nothing "desperate" about it. After all...you're the one who claimed you had to own a comic book to be able to read it.

9 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

The narrow defintion you are proposing just doesn't work.  It's perfectly ok to collect comics to read them, knowing full well that reading them will cause a decrease in grade.  

In your opinion. One need not "decrease" the "grade" by reading them. If your goal is to read them, without regard for what format they're in, or which issues you're buying, or whether you even NEED to buy them, you're not a collector...you're a reader.

 

9 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

You diagree.  What else is there to say at this point?  I think your argument is absurd, and the lengths you have gone to try not to lose this point is foolish.

Again...says the guy who claimed that there was, in 1964, a "large and developed fandom", who claimed that there were "many more than 1,000 collectors attending conventions by 1966" (despite having no proof at all for this claim), and that you had to own a comic to be able to read it, among many other absurdities.

I agree. What else IS there to say at this point?

Edited August 26, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[marmat]

The Cambridge Dictionary :

someone who collects objectsbecause they are beautiful, valuable, orinteresting

The Merriam Webster:

A person who makes a collection 

The Dictionary. Com:

person who collects books, paintings,stamps, shells, etc., especially as a hobby

Collins dictionary:

A collector is a person who collects things of a particular type as a hobby.

Oxford dictionary :

A person who collects things of a specified type, professionally or as a hobby

There are just a few examples of what a collector is. BY DEFINITION. 

I can post many more examples, and NONE OF THEM includes the requirement of the condition of the collected item in the definition. 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, marmat said:

The Cambridge Dictionary :

someone who collects objectsbecause they are beautiful, valuable, orinteresting

The Merriam Webster:

A person who makes a collection 

The Dictionary. Com:

person who collects books, paintings,stamps, shells, etc., especially as a hobby

Collins dictionary:

A collector is a person who collects things of a particular type as a hobby.

Oxford dictionary :

A person who collects things of a specified type, professionally or as a hobby

There are just a few examples of what a collector is. BY DEFINITION. 

I can post many more examples, and NONE OF THEM includes the requirement of the condition of the collected item in the definition. 

 

Let's clarify a few things about that, shall we..? Let's set aside that all your definitions use the word "collect" in them, which is a form of the word whose definition needs to be established...

Dictionary definitions don't get into great detail. They are, by nature, pithy, because they have to be. So just because NONE OF THEM includes the "requirement of condition" in the definition, doesn't mean it doesn't exist in an expanded understanding of the concept.

Let's look at your first definition: "...objects because they are beautiful, valuable, or interesting." 

So, tell me...if one doesn't devote SOME effort to preserving and maintaining those objects...how are they going to REMAIN "beautiful, valuable, or interesting"...? Hmmm....?

From Wikipedia:

"The hobby of collecting includes seeking, locating, acquiring, organizing, cataloging, displaying, storing, and maintaining items that are of interest to an individual collector. "

Maintaining, in the case, having to do with preserving them in some respect. Yes, it's Wikipedia...but someone out there, in an EXPANDED explanation of the concept, agrees with me.

Also from Wikipedia:

"Some collectors maintain objects in pristine condition, while others use the items they collect."

"A ha!" some might argue..."their definition means that the item need not be preserved!"

Not so fast. Using an item doesn't mean they use it UP, or, again, it would have to be replaced.

Didn't quite get the answer you wanted from Redbeard, eh...?

I find it endlessly fascinating that people are arguing for a definition of "collecting" which allows for the items being "collected" to have the potential to be destroyed via neglect.

It's quite astonishing the pretzel twists folks will go to because they don't like the person on the other side of the argument.

[marmat]

 It's eye opening that you quote Wikipedia over Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries.

About Redbeard, he didn't take a position on this matter, but I appreciate his answer.

Maybe I am wrong, but I dont remember you posting any evidence to support your guess that there were only 1000 collectors in 1970.

What I do remember is a few posts from people who were collecting in the 60's saying that based in their own experience, the number of collector should be over 1000. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, marmat said:

It's eye opening that you quote Wikipedia over Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries.

I didn't quote Wikipedia over Oxford of Cambridge. I quote Wikipedia alongside Oxford or Cambridge, because the Wikipedia entry has the room to expand on the idea contained in Oxford or Cambridge.

Do you really believe...honest question, now, no silliness here...that preserving items you collect is not an element of collecting...?

[NoMan]

I’m not sure where to post this thought so I’ll just do it here: I believe the photo of the kid on the sofa with the comics all around his feet (with the funny socks) and piled up to his elbows is staged. As in the the photographer thought how best to show as a visual the size of his collection was spreading them around the floor. 

I, of course, was not there but use my 3 decades in photography and show biz to arrive at this conclusion. I think it would be foolish to conclude the guy didn’t care about his comics from looking at that photo.