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

[thunsicker]

Two things:

1)  Overstreet gives raw comic grades.  I’m not sure what this has to do with the CGC census.

2)  One thing I’m sure of is if anyone tells me there is no way not to make money investing in something they are wrong.

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Your point was that Hulk #181 didn't belong in the group with the other four books, since it was "not like the others." AF #15 and Hulk #1 "aren't like the others", and, in fact, are much, much CLOSER to Hulk #181 than they are Action #1 and Tec #27.

You're going to have to define what you mean by "droves", when the first SDCC was attended by, what, about 500 people in 1970...? 

If we're talking "absurd", I think it's the idea that an undefined assertion of what constituted a "large and developed fandom" in 1964 would fit the bill. 

If...and this is a gigantic if....there were 1,000 comic book collectors (that is, people who didn't just buy new comics, read them, and toss them. I mean people who actively saved and preserved them, and/or sought out back issues) in the entire country of 205 million in 1970, I'd be very, very surprised.

In reality, there were TWO starts to comics fandom...the first with EC in the early 50s, which essentially died with EC, and the second, which started in the early 60s, with folks like Don & Maggie Thompson, Jerry Bails, and Roy Thomas, among others. We're talking about people who number in the dozens.

Not something I would call "large and developed."

It took the Direct market and the rapid growth of what was called "the comics specialty store"...numbering a couple dozen in 1975 around the nation, to several hundred by 1980....to make that "large and developed comics fandom"...depending, again, entirely on what the words "large" and "developed" mean.

Your ignorance of the history of comic fandom is pretty appalling.  

First, comic fandom started almost as soon as comic books came out.  In the 1940s, before there was an EC Comics, there were national media reports about a kid with 5,000+ comics that he had collected! 

Second, a lot of the first generation comic fans never stopped collecting.  Biljo White bought Batman 1 off the stands as a kid and had a complete run in the early 1960s.  Jerry Bails didn't start quite that early, but he is another example of a guy who got started and never stopped.  He started corresponding with Gardner Fox in the early 1950s and was successfully negotiating to buy Fox's file copies of All-Star Comics in 1959.   Comic collecting was a thing in the 1950s.  

Third, so was comic dealing.  There is, in fact, a GA collector on this board who was doing mail order comic dealing with Leonard Brown in 1959!  Leonard Brown, of course, went on to open the Collector's Book Store in 1964 with Malcolm Willits. Of course, there were also books stores and hobby shops like Cherokee, etc., selling comics early on.  Comic book dealers were also selling comics at what were then considered high prices in the early 1960s in fanzine ads.  

Fourth comics fandom was always on the fringes of and in part grew out of SF fandom, which had conventions starting in the 40s.   Lupoff was publishing Xero with its All in Color for a Dime Series in 1960 and first distributed it at the PittCon SF convention.  Lupoff was doing cosplay of Capt. Marvel before FF 1 was ever on the stands.  

Fifth, after Gardner Fox sent Jerry Bails Xero 1-3, Bails and Roy Thomas launched Alter-Ego  in 1961.  Don and Maggie Thompson launched ComicArt also in 1961.  Many fanzines followed in the first half of the 1960s.

Sixth, the first comic conventions were in 1964, including the first New York Comic Convention which featured Steve Ditko as a guest.  It drew only 100 people, but the concept of comic conventions rapidly spread to other cities.  By 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions.

In fact, there's little doubt that there were many more than 1,000 comic collectors by 1964. All you are showing here is your ignorance. 

Heck, the AP was reporting in 1965 than an Action Comics 1 had sold for the unheard of price of $250!

I could go on and on.  There are guys on this Board who were collecting in the 1960s who could tell it better than me.  

Go read the Bangzoom thread and get some frigging perspective on collecting in the 1960s!  

Edited August 18, 2018 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Your ignorance of the history of comic fandom is pretty appalling.  

Which is your opinion. I think the same of yours, so I guess that evens it out? My previous post was not meant to be an exhaustive dissertation on the history of comics fandom, but since you threw down the gauntlet, I'll take it up and reply with the following.

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

First, comic fandom started almost as soon as comic books came out.  In the 1940s, before there was an EC Comics, there were national media reports about a kid with 5,000+ comics that he had collected! 

Not disputed. I never said there weren't collectors of comics, even from the very beginning. Obviously, the famous pedigrees...Larson, Crippen, Wright, even Church, and many others...testify to that. I would refer you to the pedigree book, but my understanding is that that still hasn't been published.

But your claim was a "large and developed comic fandom" by 1964...which, conveniently, you've chosen to keep undefined. 

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Second, a lot of the first generation comic fans never stopped collecting.  Biljo White bought Batman 1 off the stands as a kid and had a complete run in the early 1960s.  Jerry Bails didn't start quite that early, but he is another example of a guy who got started and never stopped.  He started corresponding with Gardner Fox in the early 1950s and was successfully negotiating to buy Fox's file copies of All-Star Comics in 1959.   Comic collecting was a thing in the 1950s.  

Again, never disputed. Why do you think I referred to Jerry Bails in my previous post?

You didn't say there were comic collectors...you said a "large and developed comic fandom" (emphasis added.) Those are two different, if related, things,

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Third, so was comic dealing.  There is, in fact, a GA collector on this board who was doing mail order comic dealing with Leonard Brown in 1959!  Leonard Brown, of course, went on to open the Collector's Book Store in 1964 with Malcolm Willits. Of course, there were also books stores and hobby shops like Cherokee, etc., selling comics early on.  Comic book dealers were also selling comics at what were then considered high prices in the early 1960s in fanzine ads.  

Again, not disputed. I would refer you to Pop Hollinger, who had a great write up about him in OPG #12, who is considered by many to be the first comic book dealer.

And Buddy Saunders sold a copy of FF #1 for 25 cents in 1961, mere months after it came out, 2.5 times cover price...quite a hefty premium for a nearly new book. 

You didn't say there were comic retailers...you said a "large and developed comic fandom."

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Fourth comics fandom was always on the fringes of and in part grew out of SF fandom, which had conventions starting in the 40s.   Lupoff was publishing Xero with its All in Color for a Dime Series in 1960 and first distributed it at the PittCon SF convention.  Lupoff was doing cosplay of Capt. Marvel before FF 1 was ever on the stands.

Funny, I was going to refer you to "All In Color For A Dime" myself in my last post, but it had gotten a bit long. SF conventions actually started in the mid to late 30s; 1936 or 1937, depending on who you believe. The "Second Eastern", a convention held in NY in Feb, 1937, was one of the first. Julie Schwartz, interestingly, was an attendee at that gathering. By the 40s, unlike your contention, SF cons had been held for a few years already.

Lupoff's seminal "Xero"...along with "The Rocket's Blast", "Alter Ego", "ComicArt"...joined earlier fanzines, like Ted White's "The Facts Behind Superman", Bhob Stewart's "The EC Fan Bulletin", and were important in the establishment of comics fandom, but they were, by no means, part of a "large and developed comics fandom" by 1964. 

I would refer you to Bill Schelly's excellent work on the subject, "The Golden Age of Comic Fandom", for an in-depth study of the origins of comic fandom. 

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Fifth, after Gardner Fox sent Jerry Bails Xero 1-3, Bails and Roy Thomas launched Alter-Ego  in 1961.  Don and Maggie Thompson launched ComicArt also in 1961.  Many fanzines followed in the first half of the 1960s.

You did see my mention of Bails and Don & Maggie in my last post, did you not....?

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Sixth, the first comic conventions were in 1964, including the first New York Comic Convention which featured Steve Ditko as a guest.  It drew only 100 people, but the concept of comic conventions rapidly spread to other cities.  By 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions.

I don't think you carefully read my previous post. How many people attended the first San Diego Comicon in 1970...? I was close in my estimate about the first SDCC: in fact, the Golden State Comic-Con had 300 attendees, in August of 1970. The first "New York Comicon" had 56...yes, that's FIFTY SIX...attendees, including George R. R. Martin.

Again, I recommend Ballmann's "The 1964 New York Comicon: The True Story Behind the World's First Comic Book Convention" for more info on that.

Do you have any proof of this "by 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" claim...?

The Detroit Triple Fan Fair, one of the first regularly held conventions, had about 80 people at its first "appearance" (it wasn't called DTFF until the next year, when Bails and SDCC co-founder Shel Dorf, took over), on May 24, 1964. In fact, in 1966, the DTFF wasn't even held.

Now...it bears pointing out that attendees of comicons...then as now...weren't necessarily collectors...though, of course, the majority probably were. 

But, how did these cons go...in two years, as you claim...from 56 or 80 people in 1964, to "way more than 1,000" by 1966...?

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

In fact, there's little doubt that there were many more than 1,000 comic collectors by 1964. All you are showing here is your ignorance. 

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm willing to leave it up to the readers to decide which of us is showing what.

But, do you have any proof there were "many more than 1,000 comic collectors" by 1964? Especially since A. my number was an estimate, "if there were more than 1,000 collectors....I'd be very, very surprised"...and B. I was referring to 1970, not 1964.

No doubt, there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of comic book readers in the 60s...they were obviously being sold to people...but collectors? Those who purposely and carefully set aside back issues to save...? Not so sure.

Again: first SDCC, the Golden State Comic-Con, had 300 attendees in 1970. Does that mean every comic collector showed up? Of course not. Does that mean that every attendee was a comic collector? Also no.

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Heck, the AP was reporting in 1965 than an Action Comics 1 had sold for the unheard of price of $250!

They certainly did. And this demonstrates there were "many more than 1,000 collectors"...how?

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

I could go on and on.  There are guys on this Board who were collecting in the 1960s who could tell it better than me.  

Go read the Bangzoom thread and get some frigging perspective on collecting in the 1960s!  

Bangzoom's thread is outstanding...but I would also recommend the publications I mentioned above, for some "frigging perspective" about the matter.

Those, and others like it, are outstanding resources on understanding the niche history of comics fandom.

I'm actually hoping to interview some early members of that community in a couple of months. A potential opportunity has come up. We shall see what comes of it. I'm excited!

It really comes down to what you meant by "large and developed comic fandom." 

If that means, as you stated, there were "way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" by 1966, I think that is easily shown to be quite incorrect. If that means there were "many more than 1,000 comic collectors" in 1964....again, I'd have to ask where you come up with that number. My number is derived from comicon attendance, the actual number of comics specialty stores (as opposed to simply "used book" stores that happened to carry comics) in the 60s, and anecdotal evidence by members of that community who have written about it....and those numbers suggest a nascent and developing comic fandom in the 60s, which would not become "large and developed" as *I* (and, I think others) would call it until the 70s and into the 80s.

Edited August 18, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 hours ago, thunsicker said:

2)  One thing I’m sure of is if anyone tells me there is no way not to make money investing in something they are wrong.

I completely do not disagree with this in any way.

 

[Calamerica]

16 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But coins are an everyday use item, passing through the hands...still...of tens of millions of people in the US, and billions around the world, every day.

Coins is a totally different dynamic, and I feel I am qualified to say this as I sell coins on the 'Bay when enough interests stockpile. Coins are a great hobby like any other hobby of one's personal preferences, but a noticeable difference between a segment of coinees is that SOME coinees collect knowing the MELT value for their prizes; no other hobby has this factor built into it. If there is such a hobby, correct me and teach us all something new.

I must also add here that coins had THEIR "crash" a la 2007 - 2008, and even though there are, in my estimate, 2 million "serious" coin collectors versus 200,000 "serious" comic book collectors. Yes, they minted far more coins than comic books, but a HUGE difference between the two hobbies is that coins were never "returned" to the distributor if they did not "sell", thus creating the crucial ingredient of collecting for VALUE in the first place: SCARCITY. 

Let's put an example here: go to swap meet after swap meet for a year. Which item are you most likely to find: Hulk # 181( any condition) or a 1909-S VDB Lincoln cent( decent VF grade)? Chances are you will find that Lincoln cent first, as they minted 484,000 of them. But as far as Lincoln cents go, that was a LOW mintage. Starting in 2010, they made over a BILLION Lincoln cents per year. How many Hulk #181's were printed? My guess is about 270,000 and I used to know the print runs for SA and some BA. About 40% of that Hulk 181's 270,000 were returned to the distributor. Sure, a few Lincoln cents got "lost" in sewage drains, wishing-well fountains all over the USA, kids putting them on the railroad tracks, etc. but they were never "returned" for lack of sales; coinage provides the means of commerce and has so for over 3,000 years. Back to the example: in fifty years from now, what will the dynamic be for your grandchildren, who we can assume you love with all your hearts and soul and care for their financial well-being. My money is going to be on the COINS. 

Comics may or may not hold the current values we see now. Back in the early 2000's, you could not get ANY, I mean ANY MINT CGC/PGX 10.0 for under $1,000, even a spin-off Dark Horse reprint mid-numbered issue. Now you can get the CGC/PGX 10.0 MINTs for $150 for the drek issues. I sell IMSM on a regular basis and have seen a drop in final pricings( grade dependant). But those Fifty cent pieces I sold earlier this year? Trending upward and I get at least one inquiry a week when I will return back to selling coins. I don't get that with the comics, what I am somewhat known for. 

A few parting examples with Comic Books: I see ASM 361 climbing and climbing, this 1992 Copper Age( bubble argument for the transitioning to the Modern Age, which actually DETRACTS imo) ASM has Carnage 1st appearance. But those non-key TOS I used to sell ( VF - NM 9.0ish) for $150 per pop are now less than $40.00 in most auctions. Bronze issue Battlestar Galactica was selling for $25 per crack, and he was a "guaranteed sale" if it was at least NM 9.4. Now you can get them for $5.00 or less. Iron Fist has done well per se, but I see prices falling. 

Closing paragraph: Beanie babies, cabbage patch dolls, Elvis stuff has gone bye-bye. Sports cards has been on life support, and I am ashamed to tell you guys how much I lost on the early 2000's "investing" in sports cards. I managed to sell a box of stuff we found when we closed out a storage unit last December, and yes, there was ONE Albert Pujols GEM I had a 15x bagger, but the rest I know I lost over 75% or more on, including that MINT Rickey Henderson Rookie. My wife and daughters insist that this is the path of pulp paper ephemera products; coins can last a thousand years or more, and has MELT value...

CAL the retired investor...

 

[NoMan]

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

... the first SDCC was attended by, what, about 500 people in 1970...?

....

If...and this is a gigantic if....there were 1,000 comic book collectors (that is, people who didn't just buy new comics, read them, and toss them. I mean people who actively saved and preserved them, and/or sought out back issues) in the entire country of 205 million in 1970, I'd be very, very surprised.

....

Do you have any proof of this "by 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" claim...?

 

Your first statement above evidences the opposite of what you are trying to prove. That the first SDCC, then called the Golden Gate Comic Book Convention, had an attendance of 500 people evidences the strength of comic collecting.  It was a LOCAL one-day even organized by Shel Dorf, who had moved to San Diego, "as a kind of 'dry run' for the larger convention he hoped to stage."   That a local San Diego gathering drew 500 collectors in 1970 pretty conclusively rebuts the notion that there were only "1,000 comic book collectors" nationwide in 1970. 

If you don't see the incongruity in your own statements, there is not much I can do to help you.  The evidence shows that comic fans were widely distributed throughout the country.  For example, also in 1970, the first comic book store was opened up in Oregon.  Do you think that store could have opened if there were no comic collectors in Oregon?  Or only a few?  No it opened because comic collecting had become a phenomena in the 1960s that could support specialty stores.  

The history of comic conventions is notable because it shows the distribution of comic fans across the nation.  In 1964, gatherings in New York, Michigan (several) and Illinois. The next year, there were more conventions, including multi-day conventions, and more attendees. The year after conventions were being initiated in places like Texas.  These convention attending fans were a fraction of the total of collectors, and rebuts the notion floated by you that there were only 1,000 collectors of comics nationwide in 1970 (twice the number that attended a local gathering in out of the way San Diego).

I personally know at least 10 guys who were collecting comics in Eugene, Oregon in the mid-1960s.  It's a small town.  I certainly don't know all the collectors active in that time period in that one small town.  You are focusing on prominent personalities when the history of comic collecting is very egalitarian and there are MANY important and forgotten figures.  

Which brings me to the ultimate point:  My contention is that there was a wide and developed comic fandom by 1964, by which I mean: (1) a lot of folks collecting and preserving comics, (2) dealers of comics, (3) scholars of comics, (4) advocates of comic collecting, and (5) buyers of comics such that comics were being recognized as something of value that should be preserved in a way that did not previously exist.  Which is why the conventional wisdom is that after 1964 comics are much less rare than before.  Part of this is also because as comic fandom hit the mainstream attention and blew up in the later 1960s those collectors (especially by actively acquiring comics from non-collectors) and ordinary people were conserving comics in a significant way which had not previously occurred.  This included saving comics that were only a few years old that otherwise would have been tossed.  You disagree.  The folks who lived through that time period in the 1960s that I know and respect (including significant posters on this board) agree with my recitation of the history.  

If you want to argue that there were less than 1,000 comic collectors in 1970, you are going to need evidence your extraordinary claim with something way more compelling than noting only 500 people attended the first local gathering called the Golden Gate Comic Convention in San Diego.  That you make that assertion just seem ignorant to me.

THERE WERE MORE THAN 1,000 COMIC COLLECTORS IN 1970!

But, I appreciate that you are researching the issue.  I really hope your research straightens you out.  Keep an open mind.

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by sfcityduck

[Broke as a Joke]

Wait, somebody is trying to say there was less than 1000 collectors prior to 1970?  .  Unreal.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, sfcityduck said:

Your first statement above evidences the opposite of what you are trying to prove. That the first SDCC, then called the Golden Gate Comic Book Convention, had an attendance of 500 people evidences the strength of comic collecting.  It was a LOCAL one-day even organized by Shel Dorf, who had moved to San Diego, "as a kind of 'dry run' for the larger convention he hoped to stage." 

You are confusing your conventions. What you are referring to is the Golden State Comic-Minicon, held on March 21, 1970. I do not know the number of attendees it had, but it was likely less than the 300 attendees that the Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") had later in August of 1970, which was a 3-day event. 

And 300 in 1970 is still a far cry from "way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" by 1966, as you claimed earlier.

5 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

That a local San Diego gathering drew 500 collectors in 1970 pretty conclusively rebuts the notion that there were only "1,000 comic book collectors" nationwide. 

Again, you're not paying attention. The first "SDCC" drew 300 attendees; 500 was a casual estimate, as evidenced by my quote here: "when the first SDCC was attended by, what, about 500 people in 1970...?" in response to your "droves of fans" comment in 1964.

As far as rebutting, I will heartily disagree, since 300 attendees to the THREE DAY Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") is about right for a nationwide estimate of about 1,000 collectors. Maybe 2,000, but I think it's pretty safe to say the number was NOT something like 10,000, or 100,000, or anywhere close to those numbers.

10 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

If you don't see the incongruity in your own statements, there is not much I can do to help you. 

The issue isn't the apparent incongruity, as you see it, but a mere difference of opinion as to what those numbers mean. 

12 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

The evidence shows that comic fans were widely distributed throughout the country.  For example, also in 1970, the first comic book store was opened up in Oregon.  Do you think that store could have opened if there were no comic collectors in Oregon?  Or only a few?  No it opened because comic collecting had become a phenomena in the 1960s that could support specialty stores.

Again: this is the result of a nascent (which means "just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential") comic fandom, not a "large and developed" one. Nobody said there were no comic collectors in Oregon, but you're ignoring factors that were important to the establishment of these early stores:

1. Many early stores, as retailers like Chuck Rozanski and the Schanes brothers have attested, were opened by comic book collectors themselves, not necessarily because the local collector base could support these stores financially (and, indeed, many of them went belly up in those early 70s); they were opened because those guys loved comics, and wanted to see if they could parlay that into a business opportunity.

2. These stores started to open up in the 70s...NOT the 60s. MUCH changed between 1965 and 1975, and even more to 1985. 

3. Comics specialty stores, then AS now, did not sell only to collectors; they were an alternative to the newsstand, where readers who were NOT collectors could come and buy their comics, too. 

4. By 1975 there were only a few dozen such stores around the nation. By 1980, that had ballooned to hundreds, and by 1993, that had grown to thousands.

But none of that supports the idea that there was a "large and developed comic fandom", as you claim, by 1964, which you STILL have not defined.

21 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

The history of comic conventions shows the distribution of comic fans across the nation.  In 1964, gatherings in New York, Michigan (several) and Illinois. The next year, there were more conventions, including multi-day conventions, and more attendees. The year after conventions were being initiated in places like Texas.  These convention attending fans were a fraction of the total of collectors, and rebuts the notion floated by you that there were only 1,000 collectors of comics nationwide in 1970 (twice the number that attended a local gathering in out of the way San Diego).

Not disputed, as I lengthily laid out in my previous post, except that you confused your one day event in "out of the way San Diego" with the actual 3-day Golden State Comicon, which had 300 attendees, as already mentioned numerous times.

Again: NY Comicon had 56 attendees in 1964. I don't doubt that represents a "fraction" of the total collectors, but 9/10s is also a fraction. What became the Detroit Triple Fan Fair had 70-80 attendees in 1964. 

Obviously, that thoroughly refutes your claim that "(b)y 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions."

Based on the actual number of attendees at the actual first "SDCC" (the 3-day event held in August, not the 1-day event held in March you are referring to), of 300, I'd say that the 1,000 number is a decent estimate of nationwide collectors. Maybe 2,000, but certainly not significantly more than that. 

29 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I personally know at least 10 guys who were collecting comics in Eugene, Oregon in the mid-1960s.  It's a small town.  You are focusing on prominent personalities when the history of comic collecting is very egalitarian and there are MANY important and forgotten figures.  

This statement makes no sense as a reply to what I've said, and is a bit contradictory. It's unusual that a figure can be both "important" AND "forgotten." You're going to have to explain why "focusing on prominent personalities" supports your contentions, because I didn't claim that comic collecting wasn't egalitarian. I mention Bails, the Thompsons, Roy Thomas, and the like, because they were there, they chronicled comics fandom as it began, and were thus in a position to know and understand comics fandom, far more than most. 

37 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Which brings me to the ultimate point:  My contend is that there was a wide and developed comic fandom by 1964, by which I mean: (1) a lot of folks 

As I mentioned before, you really ought to be putting, if not hard numbers, at least rough estimates, as I have done, to your claims. My estimates might be off...or they might not be...but I'm willing to put something down as to what I mean. "A lot" doesn't mean anything. 

40 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

(1) a lot of folks collecting and preserving comics, (2) dealers of comics, (3) scholars of comics, (4) advocates of comic collecting, and (5) buyers of comics such that comics were being recognized as something of value that should be preserved in a way that did not previously exist. 

None of that is disputed, nor has been disputed, EXCEPT what you mean by "a lot." There were certainly all of those types of people in the mid 60s. The contention isn't that they were...it's how MANY were.

41 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Which is why the conventional wisdom is that after 1964 comics are much less rare than before.  Part of this is also because as comic fandom hit the mainstream attention and blew up in the later 1960s those collectors (especially by actively acquiring comics from non-collectors) and ordinary people were conserving comics in a significant way which had not previously occurred.  You disagree.

Yes. And I disagree because it is (mostly) incorrect. The 1965-present hoarding of NEW comics had nothing to do with collectors collecting, and everything to do with speculators hoping to cash in.

It did not escape the attention of people that there were others willing to pay 25 cents, 50 cents, $1, even the unheard of $10 in 1965 for comics....like FF #1, and AF #15....that were just a few years old. There's a reason why 1968 Marvel #1s are so common, and that is it. But were those people buying those comics collectors? No, of course not. They were speculators, who had little interest in the artform, and were thus neither collectors, nor part of fandom.

There are people TODAY who buy comics by the tens of thousands who aren't collectors, and could not care less about the artform.

That was certainly true then, too.

But that aside...because, yes, comics fandom...collectors who were interested in the artform, for the sake of the artform....DID GROW during the 60s, without a doubt. But did it "blow up"...? 

Well, the TINY handful of articles in the non-comics press about comics and comic collecting that appeared in the 60s says otherwise. It remained the niche area that it was...and people were still throwing out comics by the bin...until well into the 70s. After all...Church's children almost certainly threw out a good chunk of Edgar's comics before Chuck showed up...and this was in 1977! 

51 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

The folks who lived through that time period in the 1960s that I know and respect (including significant posters on this board) side with me.  

This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy. This is a common one on this board. First, let's just go with the assumption that these so-called "significant posters" side with you. Since you are the only one who has posted thus far in this discussion, you can't really make such a claim. Second...what makes someone a "significant poster"? Post count? Age? Time on the boards? Size and/or value of collection? Third...you've made some claims that are erroneous, such as the aforementioned "1-day vs 3-day" and the number of attendees at the 1964 NY Comicon (56, not "about 100.")

What matters is what actually happened, the facts as they are. Something doesn't become more true (or less!) depending on the reputation of the person saying it. It's either true or it is not.

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

If you want to argue that there were less than 1,000 comic collectors in 1970, you are going to need evidence your extraordinary claim with something way more compelling than noting only 500 people attended the first local gathering called the Golden Gate Comic Convention in San Diego.  That you make that assertion just seem ignorant to me.

As stated before, you are confusing your conventions, and misstating my comments. Let's recap:

1. There were 300 attendees, per the SDCC 40th anniversary con souvenir book (2009), at the first ACTUAL Golden State Comicon, which happened in August of 1970...NOT the Golden State Comic Minicon which occurred in March of 1970, to which you refer as "the first local gathering."

2. My quote was "first SDCC was attended by, what, about 500 people in 1970...?"...which, all things considered, was not too far off the mark for a casual question, as the actual number is at or around 300. 

3. My second quote was ""If...and this is a gigantic if....there were 1,000 comic book collectors...I'd be very, very surprised." 

Now...there's one more piece of evidence I'd like to present, and that's this:

https://comics.ha.com/itm/memorabilia/overstreet-price-guide-1-second-print-cover-only-overstreet-1970-condition-nm-this-is-an-original-cover-for-the-blue/a/808-4780.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

That's a Heritage listing for an unused cover to the OPG #1 (2nd print) from 1970. The description contains this gem:

""This is one of the original covers of the run of 1,000 guides printed in 1970." is written by Bob Overstreet on the interior back cover, and it is signed by Mr. Overstreet below the inscription. "

Now...granted, there's a bit of confusion. What is Bob referring to? The first print? The second print? Both of them? 

Nevertheless, Bob states that the original press run was 1,000. 

That's a pretty compelling number. There are factors involved, sure...but arriving at that specific number says something about the state of comic fandom at the time.

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

But, I appreciate that you are researching the issue.  I really hope your research straightens you out.  Keep an open mind.

I've been pretty gracious to you in this discussion, all things considered. I don't think it's too much to ask that you return the courtesy. I'll consider this last statement as much of a concession as I'm likely to get. I, too, hope that this conversations provides information that is useful to you. 

Meanwhile, we've hijacked the thread a bit (or, perhaps, the thread finished its natural course, who knows?), so let's get back to the census being high, if still active.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, Broke as a Joke said:

Wait, somebody is trying to say there was less than 1000 collectors prior to 1970?  .  Unreal.

Wait, somebody is trying to say that by 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions?  Unreal.

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

THERE WERE MORE THAN 1,000 COMIC COLLECTORS IN 1970!

Didn't see your edit.

Proof?

[VintageComics]

20 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

THERE WERE MORE THAN 1,000 COMIC COLLECTORS IN 1970!

Didn't see your edit.

Proof?

By 1975 or 1976 I was collecting comics (as a 5 year old kid) and I wasn't influenced by conventions, fanzines or other collectors. I didn't know what those were. I just wanted copies for myself.

I know it was that time period because I remember running to my friend's house to trade comics and by 1977 we had moved out of that neighnorhood.

I have no problems believing there were 1000's of collectors in 1970 and not just 1000. Maybe even 10,000's.

I'm sure there are dozens if not more collectors on this very chat forum that were collecting in 1970 and before that.

[Gatsby77]

Greg - I have a bit of an issue with you're thread premise because you start with (arguably) two of the hottest books in the hobby -- Hulk 181 and ASM 300.

As a previous poster noted, "Hard to believe that Wolverine will ever become hotter than he is today."

So...this may be the apex of Hulk 181 pricing (or, more realistically, price acceleration).

Even moreso with ASM 300.

It was just 3 years ago when the Copper Age section had a thread on "best investment" - ASM 300, Batman Adventures 12 or NM 98. And if you read through that thread, NM 98 won (by a landslide) due to the impending movie news.

Today, we're less than 90 days out from a Venom movie and the book is hotter than it's been since the day after the we got the first glimpse of Venom in the last two seconds of the the trailer for Spider-Man 3.

The point?

I'm not disputing the long-term investment value of the top 10-20 comic keys from each era -- but we've seen the hobby shift over the last decade to a ridiculous emphasis on first appearances that is 90% driven by movie speculation.

I still want to know what will drive key comic appreciation once the major studios aren't pumping out 6-8 comic films per year.

- Is All Star Western 10 still a decent key? Is there _anything_ that will drive its value now that the turd of a movie is nearly 10 years old and his appearances on TV in Legends of Tomorrow have come and gone?

- What about Iron Fist 14? He's appeared in at least two movies already and I don't even know if he's still alive in the comics continuity?

These are just two examples of books that have cooled immensely since they've already had their movie appearances.

The same could (potentially) said of books like Hulk 181, New Mutants 98 and ASM 300 or Walking Dead 1 in a decade. Hell, even Vengeance of Bane has dropped off a clip since he's appeared in two movies and is likely done.

The hobby at this point is mad fickle based on movie speculation -- as a fan I love it, but I don't see the fundamentals for continued growth once civilian audiences tire of superhero films.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 hours ago, Calamerica said:

but they were never "returned" for lack of sales;

This is not really true.

One of the reasons for the general scarcity of Indian Head cents from the 1870s, particularly the legendary 1877, is that the US Mint had an exchange program, mandated by the Coinage Act of 1873, wherein people could exchange cents and other minor coins (3 and 5 cent nickel, 2 cent bronze) for silver coins in equal value. This bloated Treasury stocks of these minor coins, which resulted in very little need for more to be made, which is why 1877 is a "proof only" year for both the 3 cent and 5 cent nickel, and why the cent is the lowest mintage until 1909.

As well, many millions of "unsold" coins were melted, time and again, from lack of demand. In 1918, 270 million silver dollars in storage were melted down and most of the bullion sold to the UK, to prevent insolvency in India, via the Pittman act. And, of course, the great destruction of gold coinage, the result of Roosevelt's gold recall of 1934, resulted in a great many prohibitive rarities, including the eagles and double eagles of the 1930s. 

[VintageComics]

1 hour ago, VintageComics said:

I have no problems believing there were 1000's of collectors in 1970 and not just 1000. Maybe even 10,000's.

You just have to look at the letter pages to the editors to see how dedicated fans were. There were literally 1000's of letters printed during that period and these were loyal fans that followed story lines closely who took the time to write. Many didn't bother writing.

The seeds of collecting were planted early. Magazines and comics had incentives planted in the 1940's for readers to come back next issue. Whether it was a trading post for readers to connect in (I know Whiz Comics had those) to story continuity and crossovers to the advent of letter pages for readers to connect in.

When were the 1st letter pages, BTW?

That would be a great study in and of itself.

I posted a link to this discussion the GA forum. Would be cool to hear from some old timers.

Edited August 18, 2018 by VintageComics

[sfcityduck]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

I'm guessing you might be an ex-H.S. debater who came of age in the 80s based on the Falco reference and the desire to address posts point by point instead of conversationally.  I'm happy (I mean that sincerely) to play along.

Quote

You are confusing your conventions. What you are referring to is the Golden State Comic-Minicon, held on March 21, 1970. I do not know the number of attendees it had, but it was likely less than the 300 attendees that the Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") had later in August of 1970, which was a 3-day event. 

I'm not confusing anything.  I'm speculating on what you meant when you asserted the first SDCC had 500 attendees.  Apparently, my speculation is wrong.  We all make mistakes.  (See, it's easy.)

Quote

And 300 in 1970 is still a far cry from "way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" by 1966, as you claimed earlier.

Here, you appear confused.  My assertion is that more than 1,000 comic collectors attended conventions (note the plural) in 1966.  Not, 1,000 at any one convention, but 1,000 at all of the conventions.  This is based on anecdotal evidence from hearing the stories about those conventions -- which is the only source for that information.  You are intentionally reciting low end figures that are at odds with other figures people recall.  But, it's inexact, and I get you are trying to "win the argument."  I'd suggest you instead keep an open mind.  My estimate might be high, but the point is that the number of folks who attend comic conventions is a fraction of the total collectors.  

Quote

As far as rebutting, I will heartily disagree, since 300 attendees to the THREE DAY Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") is about right for a nationwide estimate of about 1,000 collectors.

I think that's laughable.  Your view of the drawing power of a comic convention in San Diego is grossly inflated.  San Diego is relatively out of the way for anyone South of Los Angeles (and even for them it's a pain).  I know many many many collectors in the Northwest who never went to a SDCC (to be accurate, I know one guy from the NW, who has collected since the 60s and has every big book, who went to SDCC -- and that was only one time).  The notion that the attendees at the first Golden Gate Comic Con represent 1/3rd of comic fans in 1970 is absurd, and you don't even attempt to offer a rationale to support this assertion.

Quote

Many early stores, as retailers like Chuck Rozanski and the Schanes brothers have attested, were opened by comic book collectors themselves, not necessarily because the local collector base could support these stores financially (and, indeed, many of them went belly up in those early 70s); they were opened because those guys loved comics, and wanted to see if they could parlay that into a business opportunity.

I'd say almost all.  But they were opened because these guys thought that they could make money.  And they had a very good reason for believing that.  Comic collecting was a real thing in the 1960s and the market was established.  Up thread you ignored the significance of an Action 1 sale for $250 being picked up and publicized by the AP in 1965.  What that shows is the demand was real and the social impact was broader than you think.  Read the letters pages of old 1960s comics, it's very interesting and will give you a sense that fandom was a bigger thing that you think.  

Quote

But none of that supports the idea that there was a "large and developed comic fandom", as you claim, by 1964, which you STILL have not defined.

Actually, I did.  Re-read my post.  I'm not quantifying the number of collectors because no one took a census.  But, the circumstantial evidence and oral histories make it clear that it was far more than 1000 collectors.  Which is the assertion by you I am rebutting.  That estimate is a joke.

Quote

The 1965-present hoarding of NEW comics had nothing to do with collectors collecting, and everything to do with speculators hoping to cash in.  It did not escape the attention of people that there were others willing to pay 25 cents, 50 cents, $1, even the unheard of $10 in 1965 for comics....like FF #1, and AF #15....that were just a few years old. There's a reason why 1968 Marvel #1s are so common, and that is it. But were those people buying those comics collectors? No, of course not. They were speculators, who had little interest in the artform, and were thus neither collectors, nor part of fandom.

And this is where I question the intellectual honesty of your argument.  Here, you are conceding that (1) the demand for back issue comics was such that prices of comics that were "only a few years old" and therefore still relatively plentiful were escalating to many multiples of cover price, (2) that the general public was aware of this, (3) that the market was sufficiently developed that speculators had entered it, but then argue that there were still less than 1,000 collectors because, wait for it, all those other people buying comics were "speculators."  

Sheesh.  That's a pretty blatant moving of the goal posts coupled with a lot of cognitive dissonance.

Quote

 This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy. This is a common one on this board. First, let's just go with the assumption that these so-called "significant posters" side with you. Since you are the only one who has posted thus far in this discussion, you can't really make such a claim. Second...what makes someone a "significant poster"? Post count? Age? Time on the boards? Size and/or value of collection? Third...you've made some claims that are erroneous, such as the aforementioned "1-day vs 3-day" and the number of attendees at the 1964 NY Comicon (56, not "about 100.") 

And this is where your argument shows a lack of wisdom.  My recollection is that Bangzoom state he was selling comics at the 1965 New York Comic Con and was buying by taking out ads in national publications.  Yellow Kid was selling comics by mail order in 1959. They have told a lot of stories that rebut your position.  Go read them.  They are "significant" because of their first hand knowledge of the era.  There are other old guys posting from the 1960s.  And there are many guys posting who were dealers in the 1970s.  I don't think any of them would support your position that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  Not even close.  This is not an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, this is citing to first hand witness acounts as evidence.

Quote

 

That's a Heritage listing for an unused cover to the OPG #1 (2nd print) from 1970. The description contains this gem:  ""This is one of the original covers of the run of 1,000 guides printed in 1970." is written by Bob Overstreet on the interior back cover, and it is signed by Mr. Overstreet below the inscription. "

Now...granted, there's a bit of confusion. What is Bob referring to? The first print? The second print? Both of them?  Nevertheless, Bob states that the original press run was 1,000.  That's a pretty compelling number. There are factors involved, sure...but arriving at that specific number says something about the state of comic fandom at the time.

 

LOL!  It does.  It says that Oversteet thought he could sell 1,000 price guides in 1970.  Which is a pretty compelling refutation of your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  I seriously doubt that Bob thought he get 100% of comic collectors to buy his guide.  He was probably aiming for a minority of the market.  

Oh ... and you do realize that Bob was not the first guy to publish a price guide, right?  

Quote

I've been pretty gracious to you in this discussion, all things considered. I don't think it's too much to ask that you return the courtesy. I'll consider this last statement as much of a concession as I'm likely to get. I, too, hope that this conversations provides information that is useful to you. 

I enjoy banter.  Being a former debater (and now attorney) and fan of Falco in the 80s I suspect I'd enjoy having this discussion over a beer.  I try to suppress my argumentative streaks on this board, but I'm clearly failing a bit here.  It's just that your assertions are, to me, wholly outrageous and revisionist history.  So my apologies for the tone of my posts.  Nothing personal.  I'm focused on your arguments, not you.

Edited August 18, 2018 by sfcityduck

[adamstrange]

On 8/17/2018 at 2:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

Comic books are not an "investment" in the same sense that business or real estate ownership is.  Why?  Became a comic book does not generate a stream of income.  Businesses can generate revenues and real estate can generate rents and crops.  Comic books generate no significant income.  

This is a narrow definition "investment" that is inconsistent with general usage.

Real estate may just be raw land that yields no revenue and, worse, is taxed annually.  Stocks are an investment but may yield no revenue stream if there are no dividends.

Comics can be investment but any comic investor should be aware of the liquidity risk, transaction costsand ephemeral nature of demand that may make it a risky investment.

[sfcityduck]

Just now, adamstrange said:

This is a narrow definition "investment" that is inconsistent with general usage.

Real estate may just be raw land that yields no revenue and, worse, is taxed annually.  Stocks are an investment but may yield no revenue stream if there are no dividends.

Comics can be investment but any comic investor should be aware of the liquidity risk, transaction costsand ephemeral nature of demand that may make it a risky investment.

My next sentence, which you do not quote, delved into the issue of "equity investments."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a purchaser of stock is not investing in the stock.  It is not a baseball card. They are investing in the business.  A stock share is a fractional ownership interest.  The value of the share is tied to the business and fluctuates based on the revenues generated by that business.  The business revenues are either plowed back into the business (raising the stock price) or paid out as a dividend (a profit distribution).  Comic books do not generate revenues that can be plowed back into the comic or paid as dividends.

[adamstrange]

33 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

39 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

This is a narrow definition "investment" that is inconsistent with general usage.

Real estate may just be raw land that yields no revenue and, worse, is taxed annually.  Stocks are an investment but may yield no revenue stream if there are no dividends.

Comics can be investment but any comic investor should be aware of the liquidity risk, transaction costsand ephemeral nature of demand that may make it a risky investment.

My next sentence, which you do not quote, delved into the issue of "equity investments."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a purchaser of stock is not investing in the stock.  It is not a baseball card. They are investing in the business.  A stock share is a fractional ownership interest.  The value of the share is tied to the business and fluctuates based on the revenues generated by that business.  The business revenues are either plowed back into the business (raising the stock price) or paid out as a dividend (a profit distribution).  Comic books do not generate revenues that can be plowed back into the comic or paid as dividends.

An investment is based on expectation of future revenue above and beyond the initial outlay and, hence, carries risk. 

Not all business that you own stock in will produce sufficient profit to enable them to continue to exist.  Just in the retail sector, for example:  https://www.businessinsider.com/retail-bankruptcies-expected-in-2018-2017-12

I did not quote your comments on "equity investment" because it wasn't relevant to my point that there is nothing wrong with someone saying they are a "comic investor" -- no qualification to the word investor is required.  You can buy stocks that yield a dividend and be an investor.  You can buy and sell stocks based on appreciation (Amazon) and be an investor.  You can buy rental properties for rental income and appreciation and be an investor.  You can buy and sell undeveloped land based on appreciation or speculation in mineral rights and be an investor.  You can buy and sell gold based on appreciation and be an investor.  Similarly, you can buy and sell comics based on appreciation and be an investor.

I know folks that have done very well in each of those investments.  I know folks that have done poorly in each of those investments.  Caveat emptor is an old saying but still applicable.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

I'm guessing you might be an ex-H.S. debater who came of age in the 80s based on the Falco reference and the desire to address posts point by point instead of conversationally.  I'm happy (I mean that sincerely) to play along.

Spoiler

 

What I am isn't relevant. What you are isn't, either. Discussions where there is a dispute over the details are always handled best point by point.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

You are confusing your conventions. What you are referring to is the Golden State Comic-Minicon, held on March 21, 1970. I do not know the number of attendees it had, but it was likely less than the 300 attendees that the Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") had later in August of 1970, which was a 3-day event. 

I'm not confusing anything.  I'm speculating on what you meant when you asserted the first SDCC had 500 attendees.  Apparently, my speculation is wrong.  We all make mistakes.  (See, it's easy.)

You've said things that are inaccurate and, when challenged on those points, you've been unwilling to admit those errors, and compound those errors by making more of them. Specifically:

1. I did not "assert" that the first SDCC had 500 attendees. Here...again...is my quote: "when the first SDCC was attended by, what, about 500 people in 1970...?" This is not an assertion. It is a casual, off-the-cuff estimate, that turned out to be not too far off the mark. The actual number is 300.

2. Your quote here:

Quote

That the first SDCC, then called the Golden Gate Comic Book Convention, had an attendance of 500 people evidences the strength of comic collecting.  It was a LOCAL one-day even organized by Shel Dorf, who had moved to San Diego, "as a kind of 'dry run' for the larger convention he hoped to stage." 

...has errors. The first error is that the first "SDCC" had an attendance of 500 people. It did not. It had an attendance of 300 people, which was corrected before you posted the quote above. The second error is that the first SDCC was a "LOCAL one-day even" (sic). It was not. That was a DIFFERENT CON, held in March. You even quote the wikipedia entry word for word with "as a kind of 'dry run' for the larger convention he hoped to stage." 

This isn't "speculation about what I meant." This is confusion on your part, because you didn't pay close enough attention to the details, and confused the Golden State Comic Minicon...held on March 21, 1970...with the Golden State Comicon (aka "SDCC #1)...held on August 1-3, 1970. 

If you won't concede anything, as I have conceded, in good faith, points to you, I can only conclude that, given the tenor of your responses, your sloppiness with information and data points, and your unwillingness to acknowledge corrections, that you have no interest in a good faith scholarly discussion on a reasonable understanding of what constitutes "large and developed" and only wish to make pronouncements and not have anyone challenge you on them, which is genuinely a waste of time.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to "be right"....but you have to have complete fidelity to the facts, making sure you are absolutely precise, and not begrudging data point corrections, if that's your goal. Otherwise, you're just grandstanding, hoping no one else is paying attention, either.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

And 300 in 1970 is still a far cry from "way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" by 1966, as you claimed earlier.

Here, you appear confused.  My assertion is that more than 1,000 comic collectors attended conventions (note the plural) in 1966.  Not, 1,000 at any one convention, but 1,000 at all of the conventions. 

It took you quite a few posts to address this. No confusion on my part; unclarity on yours. 

But, since you have clarified what you meant, I will respond with the same question: how do you know this? As mentioned before, the Detroit Triple Fan Fair did not occur in 1966. The pre-cursor to the DTFF, in 1964, had 70-80 attendees. The first NY Comicon had 56 attendees (not "about 100" as you asserted earlier.) How, then, do you arrive at the notion that all of these various comicons were attended by, and I quote "way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions", even in the aggregate...?

1. How many conventions were held in 1966?

2. How many people attended each of those conventions?

3. How many of those attendees were duplicate attendees (that is, the same person, attending multiple cons, a practice common then as now), and thus, are only counted once?

These are questions that must be answered for such an assertion...that there were "way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" by 1966...can even remotely be considered accurate.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

This is based on anecdotal evidence from hearing the stories about those conventions -- which is the only source for that information. 

That may be the only source you know of, but that's not the only source that might exist. Whose anecdotes? Which stories? 

If you're going to base an estimate of "(b)y 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions" off of nothing but anecdotal evidence, then you have to make a good faith effort to justify those numbers, which you have not done.

For example, I was at SDCC in 2017. I could say "I think there were about 50,000 people there." That's an anecdote. The actual number, however, is 130,000+. So, my "estimate", which is anecdotal, would be way off. Anecdotal evidence isn't useless...but it does tend to be exaggerated, one way or the other, and not purposely. 

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

You are intentionally reciting low end figures that are at odds with other figures people recall. 

1. You do not know what I intend, until I state it, and it's bad faith to make claims like that. I am reciting figures that are available.

2. What other people...? Thus far, you are the only other person in this discussion, and you haven't recited any other figures from any other people. You can't say "other people say otherwise", when you don't say who those people are, or what, precisely, they say otherwise.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

But, it's inexact, and I get you are trying to "win the argument."  I'd suggest you instead keep an open mind.  My estimate might be high, but the point is that the number of folks who attend comic conventions is a fraction of the total collectors. 

This is, again, bad faith. I have not accused you of trying to "win the argument." In fact, I even deleted similar language from my last post before submitting it, because I wished to remain gracious. Since you have chosen not to be, I'll simply say that I'm making a good faith effort to understand where you're coming from, and what you mean when you say there was a "large and developed comic fandom" in 1964. I have been diligent in presenting precise facts where they are available, and have mostly refrained from snarky replies to what I consider to be unnecessary jabs by you...which have been peppered throughout your responses.

Who, then, is "trying to win the argument"...?

Nevertheless, I will offer you, again, a concession, and state that "the number of folks who attend comic conventions is a fraction of the total collectors" is, indeed, true...but INEXACT language, like "a fraction", doesn't make your case. 

So, I'll ask again: if there were 56 attendees of the NY Comicon in 1964, and 70-80 attendees to the DTFF in 1964...what fraction of the collecting community did that represent?

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

As far as rebutting, I will heartily disagree, since 300 attendees to the THREE DAY Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") is about right for a nationwide estimate of about 1,000 collectors.

I think that's laughable.

I, obviously, do not.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Your view of the drawing power of a comic convention in San Diego is grossly inflated.  San Diego is relatively out of the way for anyone South of Los Angeles (and even for them it's a pain).  I know many many many collectors in the Northwest who never went to a SDCC (to be accurate, I know one guy from the NW, who has collected since the 60s and has every big book, who went to SDCC -- and that was only one time).  The notion that the attendees at the first Golden Gate Comic Con represent 1/3rd of comic fans in 1970 is absurd, and you don't even attempt to offer a rationale to support this assertion.

That isn't true. First, San Diego isn't "out of the way" in the era of air flight. Second, SDCC was started by Shel Dorf, among others...who, along with Jerry Bails, took over the Detroit Triple Fan Fair in 1965, and ran it from 1965 to 1968 (noting that it did not take place in 1966.) With those contacts in place, Shel Dorf was certainly not a nobody with no connections. His "dry run" Golden State Comic Minicon in San Diego in March of 1970 set the stage for the Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1") in August. 

As well, for those in the West and Midwest, conventions in New York and elsewhere would be just as "out of the way" as SDCC.

If you want to say that that's not a reasonable estimate based on other factors, show me those factors. I'm willing to consider them. But you haven't done that. Calling it "laughable" doesn't prove your point. Merely saying "you're wrong!" doesn't prove your contentions.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

Many early stores, as retailers like Chuck Rozanski and the Schanes brothers have attested, were opened by comic book collectors themselves, not necessarily because the local collector base could support these stores financially (and, indeed, many of them went belly up in those early 70s); they were opened because those guys loved comics, and wanted to see if they could parlay that into a business opportunity.

I'd say almost all.  But they were opened because these guys thought that they could make money.  And they had a very good reason for believing that.  Comic collecting was a real thing in the 1960s and the market was established. 

No doubt. It's not the reality of the thing that is in contention...it's the scope and breadth.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Up thread you ignored the significance of an Action 1 sale for $250 being picked up and publicized by the AP in 1965.  What that shows is the demand was real and the social impact was broader than you think. 

Incorrect. I acknowledged it with this quote:

10 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

15 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Heck, the AP was reporting in 1965 than an Action Comics 1 had sold for the unheard of price of $250!

They certainly did. And this demonstrates there were "many more than 1,000 collectors"...how?

...which question was ignored by you. Nobody disputes that the demand was real. But you're going to have to explain HOW a $250 sale being "picked up and publicized by the AP" demonstrates that the "social impact" was "broader than you think." How do you know what I think? I don't presume to know what you think. So the AP reported a story about a comic book selling for $250. And? How does that demonstrate a "large and developed comic fandom"? 

After all...didn't you report the fact that:

15 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

In the 1940s, before there was an EC Comics, there were national media reports about a kid with 5,000+ comics that he had collected! 

....? 

So, do those "national media reports" speak of a fandom, a fandom that didn't really exist in ANY organized form, when the number of comic collectors numbered perhaps in the dozens, if that...?

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

But none of that supports the idea that there was a "large and developed comic fandom", as you claim, by 1964, which you STILL have not defined.

Actually, I did.  Re-read my post.  I'm not quantifying the number of collectors because no one took a census

If you refuse to even make an estimate, then your contention has no meaning, because what is "large and developed" to you can mean anything you want it to mean, to suit your argument.

The reason we're even HAVING this unnecessarily lengthy discussion is because I had the courage to put a number to my estimate, which you refuse to do. Is it less than 1,000? Could be. Is it 2,000? Could be. They are ESTIMATES. But they aren't "out of thin air" estimates, and they are based on information that is available.

What there were NOT is "10,000" or "50,000" or "100,000" comic collectors in the US between 1964 and 1970. There were that many comic readers...easily....but not collectors, and certainly not people taking part in a "large and developed comics fandom."

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

But, the circumstantial evidence and oral histories make it clear that it was far more than 1000 collectors.  Which is the assertion by you I am rebutting.  That estimate is a joke.

...but it IS an estimate nonetheless. You have tried very hard to shift the discussion away from your undefined "large and developed fandom in 1964" to my 1,000 collectors in 1970 estimate. I'm happy to suggest, as I have a couple of times already, that that number could be 2,000. Less than 1,000, 2,000...somewhere around there. What you have NOT demonstrated is why you think that there was a "large and developed fandom in 1964."

Which circumstantial evidence? The presence of a comics specialty store in Eugene, OR in 1970?  Ok, that's A piece of circumstantial evidence. Whose oral histories? You don't say. You've only said "you're wrong" about a dozen times, but not provided much evidence for a valid counterargument.

Hell, what is billed as "the first comics specialty store in America", the San Francisco Comic Book Company by the late, great Gary Arlington, didn't open until 1968...and not only was the SF Bay Area hardly a "backwoods", low population density area, it had a massive underground comix presence. And yet, no one thought it worth opening a store that specialized in selling comics until 1968. And the area didn't even have its first convention until the Berkeley Con in 1973! 

...and THAT is circumstantial evidence that REBUTS yours.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

The 1965-present hoarding of NEW comics had nothing to do with collectors collecting, and everything to do with speculators hoping to cash in.  It did not escape the attention of people that there were others willing to pay 25 cents, 50 cents, $1, even the unheard of $10 in 1965 for comics....like FF #1, and AF #15....that were just a few years old. There's a reason why 1968 Marvel #1s are so common, and that is it. But were those people buying those comics collectors? No, of course not. They were speculators, who had little interest in the artform, and were thus neither collectors, nor part of fandom.

And this is where I question the intellectual honesty of your argument.  Here, you are conceding that (1) the demand for back issue comics was such that prices of comics that were "only a few years old" and therefore still relatively plentiful were escalating to many multiples of cover price, (2) that the general public was aware of this, (3) that the market was sufficiently developed that speculators had entered it, but then argue that there were still less than 1,000 collectors because, wait for it, all those other people buying comics were "speculators."  

Sheesh.  That's a pretty blatant moving of the goal posts coupled with a lot of cognitive dissonance.

No.

I didn't say "the general public" was aware of the speculation going on in the new comics market. 

You're a fan of circumstantial evidence...so let's consider some:

Let's go back to the Hulk #181 for a minute.

There are, as I write, the following copies in the following grades (all flavors):

Keeping in mind that this is from an era where "First Issue Collectors Item!" was KING, and very, very few people would have bought multiple copies of a "181st issue" when it was new.

Now, let's look at the heavily speculated (relative to the era, mind!) first issues of 1968:

....now...GRANTED...paper quality had improved between 1968 and 1974, so this WILL account for more copies of Hulk #181 surviving in better condition, to some degree.

But...look at the disparity in numbers. It's only 6.5 years that separates the 68s from Hulk #181. And yet...there are far more Hulk #181s in high grade than the 68s. Why?

Because while, yes, speculation was going on to a large degree in 1965 and beyond, it was only relative to the market that existed at the time.

Notice...there weren't THAT many more copies sold of Hulk #181 vs. Iron Man #1, or Subby #1, or Cap #100...and yet, there are far, far more copies in higher grade...and Hulk #181 wasn't even speculated on! 

Imagine if Hulk #181 got the Shazam #1 treatment, and came out as a #1 in 1974. Look at the Shazam numbers:

1/5th the total number of submissions, but look at the high grades. They blow Hulk #181 out of the water in 9.6, and aren't far off in the other grades...and this is SHAZAM #1!

If Hulk #181 had been a #1...and nothing else was different...I have zero doubt its census numbers would be 3-4 times what they are, especially in higher grades, because the collector market was so much bigger by 1974 than it was in 1965. 

And again....this was for a 181st issue of a throwaway character that didn't appear again in print for 9 months....and then wasn't recognized as anything special for another 2-3 YEARS.

And yet, because the COLLECTOR market wasn't very large in the 60s, neither was the SPECULATOR market, relative to what it would become later. As a result, the high grade examples of IM #1, Subby #1, Cap #100, etc, pale in comparison, despite being heavily speculated on relative to the size of the rest of the market at the time.

No "goal posts" moving. 

As to your "were still plentiful" contention...I disagree. I don't think FF #1 and AF #15 or ANY Marvel comic prior to 1964 was "still plentiful", relative to what happened after 1965. I think that FF #1 and AF #15 and Hulk #1 and JIM #83 and TTA #27 and Strange Tales #110 and TOS #39....all of these books went through the normal cycle of sales and returns, and their populations were set after that. Whatever was returned after those first couple of months was destroyed, and print runs weren't that high to begin with...certainly nowhere near Superman numbers. It's why those 1961-1963 books are so rare in very high grade, and so valuable: they didn't exist in any great numbers, and they didn't survive in any great numbers. Superman from 1962? Lois Lane? Batman? Challengers of the Unknown? In grades up to about VF? Common as dirt.

The early SA Marvels? Nowhere near so. 

And it doesn't take a lot of demand, from a SMALL but DEDICATED fandom, to drive prices up.

As to your contention that I'm stating that "all those other people buying comics were "speculators." No. All those other people buying comics were READERS, who then disposed of their copies when they were done...or their moms threw them out to get them out from under foot.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy. This is a common one on this board. First, let's just go with the assumption that these so-called "significant posters" side with you. Since you are the only one who has posted thus far in this discussion, you can't really make such a claim. Second...what makes someone a "significant poster"? Post count? Age? Time on the boards? Size and/or value of collection? Third...you've made some claims that are erroneous, such as the aforementioned "1-day vs 3-day" and the number of attendees at the 1964 NY Comicon (56, not "about 100.") 

And this is where your argument shows a lack of wisdom.  My recollection is that Bangzoom state he was selling comics at the 1965 New York Comic Con and was buying by taking out ads in national publications.  Yellow Kid was selling comics by mail order in 1959. They have told a lot of stories that rebut your position.  Go read them.  They are "significant" because of their first hand knowledge of the era.  There are other old guys posting from the 1960s.  And there are many guys posting who were dealers in the 1970s.  I don't think any of them would support your position that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  Not even close.  This is not an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, this is citing to first hand witness acounts as evidence.

I've read the Bangzoom thread, following it since its genesis. As I said before, it doesn't matter what someone's position or status is...all that matters is "are they saying what is accurate or not?" Invoking their status is an appeal to authority. 

And where your argument fails HERE is that you're attempting to speak for them. I didn't speak for Jerry Bails, or Don and Maggie Thompson, or Roy Thomas: I pointed out what they did, and where they did it, and how they did it. If you want to make a point about Bangzoom, don't say "Bangzoom rebuts you." That's not an argument. QUOTE Bangzoom. Tell me what BANGZOOM said, not what you think he said, without you being the filter. 

Like I said...I have an opportunity to interview a couple of founders of retailing in a while. I would love to see that opportunity pan out, and I think it will. I can't give details now, but I will be publishing the results of that/those interview(s) when they're completed, if they happen. You don't need me filtering what I think it is they said...I think you'd rather hear it from them, directly. 

Same situation here. And even then, it won't make their anecdotes fact...it just means that's their opinions about the matter.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

 

That's a Heritage listing for an unused cover to the OPG #1 (2nd print) from 1970. The description contains this gem:  ""This is one of the original covers of the run of 1,000 guides printed in 1970." is written by Bob Overstreet on the interior back cover, and it is signed by Mr. Overstreet below the inscription. "

Now...granted, there's a bit of confusion. What is Bob referring to? The first print? The second print? Both of them?  Nevertheless, Bob states that the original press run was 1,000.  That's a pretty compelling number. There are factors involved, sure...but arriving at that specific number says something about the state of comic fandom at the time.

 

LOL!  It does.  It says that Oversteet thought he could sell 1,000 price guides in 1970.  Which is a pretty compelling refutation of your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  I seriously doubt that Bob thought he get 100% of comic collectors to buy his guide.  He was probably aiming for a minority of the market.  

Oh ... and you do realize that Bob was not the first guy to publish a price guide, right?  

I don't dispute your contention. But I don't necessarily agree with it, either. It is one of the very few hard numbers we have from the era, from Bob himself, and even THAT number is a bit wiggly. Bob printed what he thought he could sell. Obviously, he sold out of the first print, which is why the second print exists. 

Again, you're still focusing on my "1,000" number, which was an ESTIMATE. The contention that started this...and which you refuse to define...is that there was a "large and developed comic fandom" in 1964. Without putting even estimates on what you mean, what you said can mean anything you want, as it suits you, and no one can say otherwise.

As far as Bob not being the first guy to publish a price guide, of course. Are you referring to this:

....? (Picture from our own pug productions)

Because yes, there were price guides...and price lists...quite a bit before the OPG, of course.

...did you think I wouldn't know that...? Probably.

3 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

I've been pretty gracious to you in this discussion, all things considered. I don't think it's too much to ask that you return the courtesy. I'll consider this last statement as much of a concession as I'm likely to get. I, too, hope that this conversations provides information that is useful to you. 

I enjoy banter.  Being a former debater (and now attorney) and fan of Falco in the 80s I suspect I'd enjoy having this discussion over a beer.  I try to suppress my argumentative streaks on this board, but I'm clearly failing a bit here.  It's just that your assertions are, to me, wholly outrageous and revisionist history.  So my apologies for the tone of my posts.  Nothing personal.  I'm focused on your arguments, not you.

If you're focused on my arguments, and not me, the "shows a lack of wisdom", "absurd", "shows your ignorance", comments say otherwise. I don't have any problem with a vigorous debate. Attack my ideas, not me. If you disagree, state where you disagree, and leave the personal commentary out of it.

And my "assertions" aren't assertions...they are estimates, which I've continued to state....and they have become your focus, rather than addressing the larger issue of the size and scope of comics fandom. Despite the claims of people who 1. don't like to read, 2. don't like to be challenged, 3. don't want to admit that there is no argument if they don't argue too, I operate in good faith. It's not unreasonable to ask that others do, too.

Otherwise, it's just one-ups-manship, which is stupid, foolish, and what children do...and a grand waste of time.

 

 

 

Spoilered so that those who don't want to read it, don't feel like they have to.

Edited August 18, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus