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

[Logan510]

[sfcityduck]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

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.

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:

...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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

I, obviously, do not.

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.

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

Incorrect. I acknowledged it with this quote:

...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:

....? 

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...?

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."

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dude, if you are not going to admit that you enjoy argument more than you enjoy finding the truth, there's not much point in me playing this game with you.  (I'm not shocked you side-stepped whether you were a H.S. debater.)

So let's cut to the chase.  You contend that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  You have not presented a compelling case.  You are not providing a simple succinct and compelling presentation of evidence to support your assertion.  Instead, you are nitpicking my statements and trying to derail the conversation so you can score "points."  But, no one is keeping score. 

Your burden is to prove your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  However, I believe your own facts refute your position:

* The attendance at the first Golden Gate Comic Con of 300 to 500 people does not support your position.  It seems improbable that 1/3rd to 1/2 of comic collectors in 1970 attended that Con.  Yet, that is your central piece of evidence;

* The 1,000 volume print run of the first Overstreet also does not support your position.  It runs counter to all I know of Overstreet to believe that in his brand new venture he thought he could sell one copy to every single comic collector in America.  IT is even more improbable that he did so;

* The inferences you are drawing from isolated, and sometimes incorrect, history of comic fandom are farfetched.  For example:  Collector's Bookstore opened in 1964 and the store now known as Golden Age Collectables traces it's history to 1961, yet you keep arguing the first comic book store opened in 1968.  Which also ignores places like Cherokee which sold comics and books.  There is no doubt that there were many outlets selling back issue comics in the 1960s.  Your counter is to focus on the creation of the "direct market" in the 1970s, which was a profound development which did indeed lead to an increase in NEW COMIC stores, but also led to a corresponding marginalization of NEW comic books as they disappeared from 7-11's, corner markets, grocery stores, and book stores;

* You are also misunderstanding what "evidence" is.  There is no certainty in life.  No one took a census of comic collectors in 1970.  So we have to rely upon eye witness recollections, contemporaneous articles, circumstantial evidence, etc., all of which is imprecise.  You take pride in floating an estimate, which is nothing to be proud of when it has no relation to reality.

In the end, I'm confident based on the knowledge I've gained about comic fandom since I first started collecting in the later part of the 1970s that there were FAR MORE than 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  That knowledge comes from first hand accounts, including my LCS owner who opened his shop in 1970.  I value that wisdom more than your spin, sophistry, and bald inferences.  So we'll just have to agree to disagree.  

I also believe what I've heard from the witnesses is supported by what I've learned of comic fandom.  I've seen ads in national magazines and newspapers seeking to buy old comic books and comic book original art that date to as early as 1949.  I've seen classifieds in SF fanzines from 1950 by a collector seeking a specific comic title (Fantastic Comics).  Those are hallmarks that should tell us that comic fandom didn't really begin in 1960 as we sometimes simplistically argue.  The guys who became prominent in 1960, were the tip of the iceberg - the most active fans, the ones with the urge to write and lead.  There were plenty of others whose names are relatively unknown.  Indeed, one of the hallmarks I've noticed about old time collectors, is they value their privacy more than showing off what they got. 

'nuff said.

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

3 hours ago, adamstrange said:

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.

 

I never stated you could not be a "comic investor."  (Although, I have seen financial advisers say that about comics, art, and other collectibles).  Otherwise, I don't think we are disagreeing here.

[Readcomix]

6 hours ago, VintageComics said:

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.

Roy, in describing yourself at 5, you've described me at that age as well. It's not bags, board and big bucks, but to my mind if we were pursuing back issues and amassing, we were collecting. 

I do wish we were all having this discussion live over beers as clarifying definitions for so many terms/ideas is a part of this. For those looking at bags, boards and bucks behavior as the standard definition, I guess that definition puts me around eighth grade.

[VintageComics]

18 minutes ago, Readcomix said:

Roy, in describing yourself at 5, you've described me at that age as well. It's not bags, board and big bucks, but to my mind if we were pursuing back issues and amassing, we were collecting. 

I do wish we were all having this discussion live over beers as clarifying definitions for so many terms/ideas is a part of this. For those looking at bags, boards and bucks behavior as the standard definition, I guess that definition puts me around eighth grade.

Right.

I can't remember exactly when I was getting into bags and boards but it would have been when I was mobile enough to go to the local comic book store, see them and realize that I needed them.

Grade 8 would have put me at about 14 or so, so I'd be able to take the bus around town, etc. I know I was actively hitting local stores by then.

But I was amassing books well before that going back into early grade school

I remember, because my parents kept THROWING THEM OUT because the doctor said they were giving me nightmares.

[RockMyAmadeus]

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Dude, if you are not going to admit that you enjoy argument more than you enjoy finding the truth, there's not much point in me playing this game with you.  (I'm not shocked you side-stepped whether you were a H.S. debater.)

Spoiler

 

Lots wrong with that entire quote.

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

So let's cut to the chase.  You contend that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  You have not presented a compelling case.  You are not providing a simple succinct and compelling presentation of evidence to support your assertion.  Instead, you are nitpicking my statements and trying to derail the conversation so you can score "points."  But, no one is keeping score. 

This is incorrect. My exact quote...again: "If...and this is a gigantic if....there were 1,000 comic book collectors...in 1970, I'd be very, very surprised."

That's not a "contention." It's an estimate. A guess. 

As to the rest....that's all just  your opinion, and you have consistently ignored the real issue, which is your actual contention that there was a "large and developed comic fandom" in 1964. You've become obsessed with an estimate, because you can't address that point.

And I would suggest that if you don't like people "nitpicking" your statements, you might want to employ a lot stricter methodology to details, rather than the sloppy manner in which you've dealt with them thus far.

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Your burden is to prove your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  However, I believe your own facts refute your position:

If I made such an assertion. I did not. YOUR burden is to prove your actual assertion that there was a "large and developed comic fandom in 1964"...which you have not done.

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

* The attendance at the first Golden Gate Comic Con of 500 people does not support your position.  It seems improbable that 1/3rd to 1/2 of comic collectors in 1970 attended that Con.  Yet, that is your central piece of evidence;

The convention's name was "Golden State Comic Con", not "Golden Gate Comic Con", and the attendance...as mentioned several times heretofore...was 300, not 500. 

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

* The 1,000 volume print run of the first Overstreet also does not support your position.  It runs counter to all I know of Overstreet to believe that in his brand new venture he thought he could sell one copy to every single comic collector in America.  IT is even more improbable that he did so;

That begs a question: what DO you know of Overstreet? Are you a personal friend? Did he explain his motives when he set his initial print run?

Remember: hard numbers are better than guesses.

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

* The inference you are drawing form isolated, and sometimes incorrect, history of comic fandom are farfetches. 

If you would please point out the specific details that about comics history that are incorrect, I would be very appreciative.

And I assume you mean "far-fetched."

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

For example:  Collector's Bookstore opened in 1964 and the store now known as Golden Age Collectables traces it's history to 1961, yet you keep arguing the first comic book store opened in 1968.

1. For one to "keep" arguing something, means to have done it more than once. My comment about the first comics specialty store in America was, up to now, a single comment in my last post. You have a habit of misrepresenting what was said.

2. My actual quote was this: "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." (emphasis added) I didn't "argue" that "the first comic book store opened in 1968" AT ALL. You have a habit of misrepresenting what was said.

3. Was "Collector's Bookstore" a COMICS SPECIALTY STORE? That is, only sold comics and comic book related merchandise? Or did it also sell REGULAR books, too? (like many question you've been posed and not answered, I don't expect an answer from you on this one, either.)

4. Same question about "Golden Age Collectables." 

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Which also ignores places like Cherokee which sold comics and books. 

That's correct...because a store that sells regular books is not...by definition...a comics specialty store.

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

There is no doubt that there were many outlets selling back issue comics in the 1960s.  Your counter is to focus on the creation of the "direct market" in the 1970s, which was a profound development which did indeed lead to an increase in NEW COMIC stores, but also led to a corresponding marginalization of NEW comic books as they disappeared from 7-11's, corner markets, grocery stores, and book stores;

You are correct; there is no doubt that there were many outlets selling back issue comics in the 1960s. Since I haven't mentioned the Direct market in several posts, I'm pretty sure my focus has been on trying to get you to define what you mean by "large and developed comic fandom" by 1964....which, undefined, can mean anything you want it to mean, and you don't have to explain exactly what you mean. All the rest of this has been window dressing.

As to your contention that it led to a "corresponding marginalization of NEW comic books....", that process took a couple of decades...mid 70s to mid 90s. Comic books had healthy sales on the newsstand all the way into the 90s.

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

* You are also misunderstanding what "evidence" is.  There is no certainty in life.  No one took a census of comic collectors in 1970.  So we have to rely upon eye witness recollections, contemporaneous articles, circumstantial evidence, etc., all of which is imprecise.  You take pride in floating an estimate, which is nothing to be proud of when it has no relation to reality.

And yet, oddly enough, we know how many attendees were at the 1964 NY Comic, the 1964 con that became the DTFF, and the actual (not the 1-day as you have mistakenly kept repeating) Golden State Comic Con (aka "SDCC #1".)

You are making the exact same argument I have been making since the start. Obviously, we have to rely upon circumstantial evidence. The rest is, again, merely your opinion and reaching supposition, and the sum total of the evidence you have offered is that there was a comic book store in Eugene, OR in 1970.

As I have already stated...and continue to state....my estimate could be less than 1,000...it could be 2,000. It's not 10,000, or 50,000, or 100,000, or more. If my estimate bears no relation to reality...it ought to be EASY to demonstrate that.

And yet...all you've produced is "there was a comic book store in Eugene, OR in 1970" and "other people say you're wrong."

Hardly the compelling counterargument, counselor.

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

In the end, I'm confident based on the knowledge I've gained about comic fandom since I first started collecting in the later part of the 1970s that there were FAR MORE than 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.  That knowledge comes from first hand accounts, including my LCS owner who opened his shop in 1970.  I value that wisdom more than your spin, sophistry, and bald inferences.  So we'll just have to agree to disagree.  

This is your response? A restatement of your opinion, with just that single data point, combined with more defamatory comments, which, of course, you go to no lengths to explain or demonstrate...? 

That's your idea of a fair and reasoned debate...?

If you're going to accuse someone of "sophistry", you had better be well prepared to explain precisely how, when, and what those "fallacious arguments, specifically with the intent to deceive" are. Otherwise, it's a hollow accusation. That is NOT debating in good faith.

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

I also believe what I've heard from the witnesses is supported by what I've learned of comic fandom.  I've seen ads in national magazines and newspapers seeking to buy old comic books and comic book original art that date to as early as 1949.  I've seen classifieds in SF fanzines from 1950 by a collector seeking a specific comic title (Fantastic Comics).  Those are hallmarks that should tell us that comic fandom didn't really begin in 1960 as we sometimes simplistically argue.  The guys who became prominent in 1960, were the tip of the iceberg - the most active fans, the ones with the urge to write and lead.  There were plenty of others whose names are relatively unknown.  Indeed, one of the hallmarks I've noticed about old time collectors, is they value their privacy more than showing off what they got. 

None of this is in dispute. It also does not, however, go to proving your vague and totally undefined contention.

Were there collectors as far back as the beginning of comics, in 1933/34? Probably. We know there were collectors at least as far back as 1937/38. 

Does the presence of those collectors indicate a "comics fandom"? If you define "comics fandom" as "the presence of people who collected comics", which is counter to this entire discussion, then sure....there was a "comic fandom" going back to the 30s.

If, however, we define "comics fandom" as what it actually is...that is, collectors seeking one another out and engaging each other socially, intellectually, and economically...then no, outside of a brief EC fandom, which died with EC, there wasn't a "large and developed fandom" until the 70s. There was a nascent fandom in the early 60s, that continued to grow and develop throughout the 60s....but there was no "large and developed fandom" in 1964, and there CERTAINLY wasn't "much more than 1,000 comic collectors attending conventions by 1966."

14 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

'nuff said.

I really hope so. I don't think this conversation has anything positive left to it, though I do think there was much value on the exposition of certain facts, details, and ideas relative to it. In the end, as always, the reader will determine who made the more compelling case.

I do hope you won't resort to the trope of "you think you're always right" and "you won't stop arguing", and recognize that I have answered you post for post....I don't have any problem with you arguing as long as you want, but the choice to do so is yours. No one is forcing you to respond, just like no one is forcing me. We both engage of our own free will, and as long as both parties choose to do so. So I hope I won't see the beyond dishonest "argument blaming" going on.

 

Here, let's spoil so people don't feel they have to read it if they don't want to.

Edited August 19, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Lazyboy]

25 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If, however, we define "comics fandom" as what it actually is...that is, collectors seeking one another out and engaging each another socially, intellectually, and economically...then no, outside of a brief EC fandom, which died with EC, there wasn't a "large and developed fandom" until the 70s. There was a nascent fandom in the early 60s, that continued to grow and develop throughout the 60s....but there was no "large and developed fandom" in 1964,

43 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

and there CERTAINLY wasn't "much more than 1,000 comic collectors attending conventions by 1966."

How many comic conventions took place in 1966?

 

I can easily believe there were 10,000(+) comic collectors in the mid 60s, which still leaves plenty of room for the number of collectors to grow significantly in the following decade (and beyond). But there is no way to confirm the actual number.

[sfcityduck]

12 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

I can easily believe there were 10,000(+) comic collectors in the mid 60s, which still leaves plenty of room for the number of collectors to grow significantly in the following decade (and beyond). But there is no way to confirm the actual number.

Most of us can believe 10,000+..  And I think you're right about the room to grow.  But only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970?  That's not plausible or consistent with the evidence, most notably the recollections of the old collectors.

[RockMyAmadeus]

29 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

and there CERTAINLY wasn't "much more than 1,000 comic collectors attending conventions by 1966."

How many comic conventions took place in 1966?

 

From what I can gather, there were three:

• July 23–24: New York Comicon (Park Sheraton Hotel, New York City) — produced by John Benson^[26] — guests include Jack Kirby, Jim Steranko, Otto Binder, Len Brown, Larry Ivie, Jack Binder, Roy Thomas, Gil Kane, Archie Goodwin, bhob Stewart, Klaus Nordling, Sal Trapani, Rocke Mastroserio and Ted White; keynote speech by Kirby, a discussion about censorship between Don Thompson and Comics Code Authority acting administrator Leonard Darvin, a panel about the Golden Age of Comics, and one on the "so-called 'Forgotten ’50s,' particularly EC Comics. Bhob Stewart, on a panel with Archie Goodwin and Ted White, predicts that there will soon be "underground comics" just as there are already "underground films."^[27]
• July 23–24: Southwestern Con (Hotel Southland, Dallas, Texas) — c. 70 attendees; organized by Larry Herndon; official guest is Academy of Comic-Book Fans and Collectors executive secretary/"Academy Con" promoter Dave Kaler^[28]
• August 12–14: Academy Con II (City Squire Inn, New York City)^[26] — produced by Dave Kaler; official guests include Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, Bill Everett, Carmine Infantino, Julius Schwartz, and Bill Finger^[26][29]

Yes, copied from Wikipedia.

If there were more, I can't find any mentions of them. If we extrapolate....and I know this is dangerous, but there's little else to go on....we know in 1964, the NY Comicon had 56 attendees. Theoretically, it grew each year, so maybe we can assume 100 by 1966? I have GOT to ask Roy Thomas in NY in Oct if I get a chance.

The Texas one said about 70...and I don't have any idea about the Academy Con, which was put on by Dave Kaler, Exec Sec of the Jerry Bails' founded Academy of Comic Book Fans and Collectors (ACBFC.)

In any event, if the Texas one had about 70, and the two NY cons had about 100...that's a total of 270 for the year...not "much more than 1,000."

Now, interestingly, according to Paul Lopes, in "Demanding Respect: The Evolution of the American Comic Book", he says the ACBFC had 2,000 members in 1965.

That suspiciously sounds like a rounded off number...or could be exaggerated...especially given that a mere two years earlier, in 1963, Lopes also says the membership was only 90. That's a tremendous swell in just two years, AND given the fact that the Academy went defunct by 1968. But...the nice thing about these numbers is that they aren't vague, undefined terms like "large and developed", but are hard numbers.

Hard numbers we can work with!

29 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

I can easily believe there were 10,000(+) comic collectors in the mid 60s, which still leaves plenty of room for the number of collectors to grow significantly in the following decade (and beyond). But there is no way to confirm the actual number.

I disagree, for the reasons stated above, but I'm certainly willing to consider evidence. I'm glad I found that info from Lopes. It's nice to have actual numbers to work with.

Edited August 19, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Most of us can believe 10,000+..  And I think you're right about the room to grow.  But only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970?  That's not plausible or consistent with the evidence, most notably the recollections of the old collectors.

 Who is "us"? You a spokesman of some people? I don't give much credence to "recollections of old collectors", since people misremember, forget, get fuzzy...I'd much rather have actual hard numbers, contemporaneous data or, barring that, consistent (rather than conflicting) information from multiple sources.

It didn't take much searching to find that information from Paul Lopes...why couldn't you find it...? That would have certainly bolstered your argument quite a bit.

[sfcityduck]

Quote

If, however, we define "comics fandom" as what it actually is...that is, collectors seeking one another out and engaging each another socially, intellectually, and economically...then no, outside of a brief EC fandom, which died with EC, there wasn't a "large and developed fandom" until the 70s.

Your assertion is just not consistent with the evidence.  Here's something for you to ponder:

RBCC was an adzine.  It's purpose was to put collector's in touch with each other - either to communicate, sell each other comics, etc.  How many issues of RBCC came out in the 1960s?  It was hitting issue 68 at least in 1969.  What does that tell you about the state of comic fandom in the 1960s? 

 

[Lazyboy]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

RBCC was an adzine.  It's purpose was to put collector's in touch with each other - either to communicate, sell each other comics, etc.  How many issues of RBCC came out in the 1960s?  It was hitting issue 68 at least in 1969.  What does that tell you about the state of comic fandom in the 1960s?

That it was growing.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, Lazyboy said:

2 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

RBCC was an adzine.  It's purpose was to put collector's in touch with each other - either to communicate, sell each other comics, etc.  How many issues of RBCC came out in the 1960s?  It was hitting issue 68 at least in 1969.  What does that tell you about the state of comic fandom in the 1960s?

That it was growing.

Quit stealing my lines.

 

[sfcityduck]

31 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It didn't take much searching to find that information from Paul Lopes...why couldn't you find it...? That would have certainly bolstered your argument quite a bit.

Because I'm largely doing this from memory.  A message board is not a legal brief or a scholarly article.  It is a conversation.  

I'm glad, however, that you are starting to educate yourself on the true history of 1960s comic fandom.  I am confident that soon you'll be comfortable in retracting your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.

Edited August 19, 2018 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

19 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

That it was growing.

Yep.  And more than that.  The success of RBCC tells you a lot about how established comic fandom had become.  A lot of zines started in 1961 with RBCC, and ones like the Comic Reader, Alter Ego, etc. just kept going and growing.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

Until the idea of a "large and developed comic fandom" is defined, it can mean anything to suit the argument, since it has no meaning itself. 

Things that refute that idea:

The FIRST comic convention wasn't until 1964. Sci Fi cons, on the other hand, had been conducted since the mid to late 30s.

The FIRST CLAIMED comics specialty store didn't open until 1968.

The FIRST company-wide letters of comment were published in the early 60s.

The FIRST continuing fanzines were published starting in the early 60s.

The FIRST comic book price guide, the Argosy, was published in 1965.

The FIRST comic book associations and clubs didn't exist until the early 60s.

All these FIRSTS speak not to a "large and developed comics fandom", but to a young and developing fandom.

[RockMyAmadeus]

39 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Because I'm largely doing this from memory.  A message board is not a legal brief or a scholarly article.  It is a conversation.  

That sounds like a perfect excuse to justify sloppy inattention to detail. Are you suggesting that this board is beneath your diligent effort...?

And "doing this from memory" doesn't justify the blatant misrepresentation of things I said that you've been doing throughout the discussion. What's your excuse for that...?

39 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I'm glad, however, that you are starting to educate yourself on the true history of 1960s comic fandom.  

Oh, on the contrary. I think the education has decidedly gone in your direction today, IF...and that's a gigantic if...you are willing to have an open mind.

39 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I am confident that soon you'll be comfortable in retracting your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970.

Just as soon as you feel comfortable in retracting your actual assertions that there was a "large and developed comic fandom by 1964"

...or "(b)y (look at me, even paying attention to that tiny detail!) 1966 there were way more than 1,000 comic collectors attending comic conventions."

...or that there were "500 attendees" at the first SDCC.

...or that that was the number of attendees at the 1-day Golden State Comic Minicon, in March of 1970, rather than the later 3-day Golden State Comic Con in August.

...or that I claimed, on multiple occasions no less, that the San Francisco Comic Book Company was the actual first comic book store in the US.

...or that I asserted that there were only 1,000 comic collectors in 1970, rather than the estimate, guess that it actually was.

Edited August 19, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

The success of RBCC tells you a lot about how established comic fandom had become.

I'll take "Questions that are never going to be answered for $1,000, Alex!"

....like.......? What does that success tell someone...? 

Be specific.

Edited August 19, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Lazyboy]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

27 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

That it was growing.

Yep.  And more than that.  The success of RBCC tells you a lot about how established comic fandom had become.  A lot of zines started in 1961 with RBCC, and ones like the Comic Reader, Alter Ego, etc. just kept going and growing. 

Define the "success" of RBCC (and the others). How many copies of each issue?

[lou_fine]

On 8/17/2018 at 5:25 PM, Readcomix said:

On 8/17/2018 at 1:02 PM, valiantman said:

No argument, but 20 years of CGC slabbing has only gotten us to 10,000.  How quickly will we get to 20,000?

We might never; there is the possibility the vast majority prefer raw. Since two decades in, the vast majority likely remain raw, we need to at least consider that. 

 

On 8/17/2018 at 9:01 PM, Broke as a Joke said:

There are many out there with high grade Hulk 181's in their closets that dont even know CGC exists.  

Although I am quite sure this statement is true to a large extent, there is also another large group out there.

This would be the ones who also have uber HG Hulks 181 in their closets and do know that CGC exists, but has absolutely no interest or reason in getting their copies slabbed until it comes time to sell them.