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

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

We need to know how many students were in each grade in your high school. Then use the U.S. population numbers to scale up.

 

The number of high schools isn't useful since some had 1,000 students, but some had 25.

And then, since it's anecdotal, toss that number out completely as a realistic estimate.

 

[valiantman]

11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

We need to know how many students were in each grade in your high school. Then use the U.S. population numbers to scale up.

 

The number of high schools isn't useful since some had 1,000 students, but some had 25.

And then, since it's anecdotal, toss that number out completely as a realistic estimate.

If we could get enough anecdotes, we'd have a different number that wouldn't mean much. 

For example, my father graduated from high school in 1968, and he told me that the only comic books he encountered growing up were from older brothers or the general pass-'em-around-the-community-pile which were already coverless... so he remembers having comics, reading comics, and being 100% sure that none of the books he read survived even the 1960s.  So, just a few more anecdotes and we'll know the full spectrum of what might have happened, and we'll be able to say for sure that there was at least one collector and that at most everyone was a collector.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If everyone is a comic collector, then no one is a comic collector.

 

[Logan510]

If someone’s basing their “facts” off of other people’s anecdotal evidence printed in back issues of CBM as opposed to living through any of it themselves, what does that mean?

[Aman619]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

We need to know how many students were in each grade in your high school. Then use the U.S. population numbers to scale up.

 

The number of high schools isn't useful since some had 1,000 students, but some had 25.

Looking for the number of high schools, I found a Govt study that quoted the number of elementary and secondary school students for years beginning in 1970.  It had lots of stats, including number of students, but not number of schools.  

You re good with stats, hers the link:

 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98018.pdf

[RockMyAmadeus]

My mom maintains a newspaper subscription to this day. When I'm at her house, I read the funnies. Every chance I get, I read them. I seek them out when I'm there.

I do not own a single example of those funnies, and once I've read them, into the recycling bin they go.

That makes me an avid reader...and definitely not a collector.

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

If someone’s basing their “facts” off of other people’s anecdotal evidence printed in back issues of CBM as opposed to living through any of it themselves, what does that mean?

 

[sfcityduck]

On 8/17/2018 at 2:13 PM, sfcityduck said:

 

It is pretty common knowledge that any books published after 1964 were actively collected by a large and developed comic fandom.  It's the pre-1964 books which are rare.  

 

That's the quote that derailed this otherwise fine thread.  Perhaps the below quote from a AP article issued on or about September 30, 1980 (appearing in some papers under the headline "Prices Of Old Comics Prove To Be No Laughing Matter") might bring some sanity back to the thread:

Quote

Overstreet says that 1964 was the turning point for comic collectors.  "That's about when it became widely known that comic books had value," he says.  "So everyone started saving them about then, but before 1964 a lot of people just threw them away." 

This is the conventional wisdom that caused me to state what I did in the first quote about the difference between pre and post 1964 comics.  I've been hearing this conventional wisdom since I started collecting in the later part of the 70s.   

[DavidTheDavid]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

That's the quote that derailed this otherwise fine thread.  Perhaps the below quote from a AP article issued on or about September 30, 1980 (appearing in some papers under the headline "Prices Of Old Comics Prove To Be No Laughing Matter") might bring some sanity back to the thread:

This is the conventional wisdom that caused me to state what I did in the first quote about the difference between pre and post 1964 comics.  I've been hearing this conventional wisdom since I started collecting in the later part of the 70s.   

Pfft. That’s nothing compared to two hours of feverish googling.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Pfft. That’s nothing compared to two hours of feverish googling.

That's a valuable insight. I agree completely. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

On 8/17/2018 at 2:13 PM, sfcityduck said:

 

It is pretty common knowledge that any books published after 1964 were actively collected by a large and developed comic fandom.  It's the pre-1964 books which are rare.  

 

That's the quote that derailed this otherwise fine thread.  Perhaps the below quote from a AP article issued on or about September 30, 1980 (appearing in some papers under the headline "Prices Of Old Comics Prove To Be No Laughing Matter") might bring some sanity back to the thread:

Quote

Overstreet says that 1964 was the turning point for comic collectors.  "That's about when it became widely known that comic books had value," he says.  "So everyone started saving them about then, but before 1964 a lot of people just threw them away." 

This is the conventional wisdom that caused me to state what I did in the first quote about the difference between pre and post 1964 comics.  I've been hearing this conventional wisdom since I started collecting in the later part of the 70s.   

I don't think what Overstreet says here has ever been disputed in this thread, by anyone. But it also doesn't say anything about the scope and breadth of comic fandom. In fact, that quote says the opposite of what you are contending: a "turning point" would mean something new, something different, something not yet developed. It would be interesting to ask Bob what he thought of "comic fandom" in 1964, and what comic books he was referring to. He probably would have been referring to Golden Age material, not material that was a couple of years old by 1964. 

By the way...both myself and Lazyboy asked you a question, which I assume you've seen, but haven't yet had a chance to answer, about what "success" meant to you with regard to the Rocket's Blast/Comic Collector...? If you could respond when you have a moment, it would be appreciated. 

Thanks!

 

[sfcityduck]

9 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Pfft. That’s nothing compared to two hours of feverish googling.

Well ... I have to admit that I did 15 minutes of googling myself, and came up with this excerpt from Bill Schelly's website (from his book on the founders of comic fandom):

Quote

Also in 1964, Jerry was responsible for two more publications. The first was the Who’s Who in Comic Fandom, with the first edition typed by Larry Lattanzi; a supplement a few months later added to the list of fandom addresses considerably. A staggering 1,683 addresses were listed, mainly drawn from Bails’ personal mailing list.

Those are just the fans for whom Jerry Bails had addresses.  I think it is obvious that those were just the collectors who were at the tip of the ice berg.  The ones who wanted to be comic scholars, and were on the deeper end of the collecting pool.  As I said, I know of guys in little old Eugene, Oregon who were just kids collecting massive amounts of comics far far far away from the structure of early fandom - but no one should deny they were collectors.

[sfcityduck]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

By the way...both myself and Lazyboy asked you a question, which I assume you've seen, but haven't yet had a chance to answer, about what "success" meant to you with regard to the Rocket's Blast/Comic Collector...? If you could respond when you have a moment, it would be appreciated. 

Thanks!

 

For a fanzine, staying in publication from 1961-1969 is a major indicia of success, especially when you look at the growth in size and sophistication of the publication (which is undoutably a reflection of its ability to increase prices and circulation).  But, since you love wikipedia, here's what it says: "Between issues #25 (published Dec. 1963) and #50 (1966), the zine's circulation grew from about 200 to over 1,100. By RBCC #75 (1968), the circulation was 2,000."

Again, those figures are but a part of the mountain of evidence which demonstrates your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic fans in 1970 is foolish.  The readers of RBCC were in all likelihood just the tip of the comic collecting mountain, the folks swimming in the deep end who were savy enough and motivated enough to subscribe to an adzine.  I know I collected for several years before I finally started subscribing to CBG, and I had the benefit of a lot more information than someone in my city would have had just 12 years earlier in 1968. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, sfcityduck said:

I think it is obvious that those were just the collectors who were at the tip of the ice berg. 

How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it's "obvious" that that was just the "tip of the ice berg (sic)"...? How do you know that didn't represent the entirety of comics fandom at the time?

As I noted before, the Academy of Comic Book Fans and Collectors (ACBFC) had a roster of 90 members in 1963, but 2,000 members in 1965. However...just 56 people attended the first NY Comicon, 70-80 the first Detroit comicon....and 300 people at the Golden State Comicon in August, 1970 (aka "SDCC #1.")

And...as asked before...we are talking about COLLECTORS...not just "fans." People who maintained a collection of comics, not just readers who then tossed them. We know there were hundreds of thousands of readers in the mid 60s...but how many of them were collectors? So, likewise...how many of those fans in Jerry's address book...1683, which sounds like the REAL number, as opposed to the "2,000" rounded off number...how many of those fans were collectors?

Fans? Oh yes, lots.

Readers? Lots and lots.

COLLECTORS....? People who maintained their comics, sought out the ones they missed, and connected with others who did the same? Probably not so much.

 

[sfcityduck]

11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I don't think what Overstreet says here has ever been disputed in this thread, by anyone. But it also doesn't say anything about the scope and breadth of comic fandom.

You disputed my comment, the import of which was the same as the Overstreet quote.  And, yes, Bob's quote says quite a lot about the scope and breadth of comic collecting pre and post 1964.  Many folks became comic readers because of their love of comics, but they became comic collectors after realizing comics had value.

Edited August 21, 2018 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, sfcityduck said:

11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I don't think what Overstreet says here has ever been disputed in this thread, by anyone. But it also doesn't say anything about the scope and breadth of comic fandom.

You disputed my comment, the import of which was the same as the Overstreet quote.  And, yes, Bob's quote says quite a lot about the scope and breadth of comic collecting pre and post 1964.

I think that what Bob said, and what you said, are two entirely and completely different ideas. Again: "turning point" signals a new BEGINNING....not "large and developed."

You're free to believe otherwise.

[sfcityduck]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it's "obvious" that that was just the "tip of the ice berg (sic)"...? How do you know that didn't represent the entirety of comics fandom at the time?

 

 

Based on my own experiences and many conversations with collectors active in the 1960s.  They weren't in Bails' Who's Who.  They were just young kids collecting massive amounts of comics at that time. 

[sfcityduck]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I think that what Bob said, and what you said, are two entirely and completely different ideas. Again: "turning point" signals a new BEGINNING....not "large and developed."

You're free to believe otherwise.

As I said earlier, you like to argue.  Not sure why you won't admit you're a frustrated former debater.  I'm more interested in the accurate history and learning from the experiences of others.  You are spending your time rejecting the opportunity to learn from other's experiences, and instead are attempting gotchas, wordplay, and semantic games.  It is a missed opportunity for you.

Edited August 21, 2018 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

13 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

By the way...both myself and Lazyboy asked you a question, which I assume you've seen, but haven't yet had a chance to answer, about what "success" meant to you with regard to the Rocket's Blast/Comic Collector...? If you could respond when you have a moment, it would be appreciated. 

Thanks!

 

For a fanzine, staying in publication from 1961-1969 is a major indicia of success,

In other words, "it was successful because it was successful." "Staying in publication" is an indication that it stayed in publication...nothing more. There are lots of things that stay in publication that aren't even remotely successful, merely because those that publish them want to publish them. Many comic books from the past and currently fit that bill. 

7 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

especially when you look at the growth in size and sophistication of the publication (which is undoutably a reflection of its ability to increase prices and circulation).

THAT is an actual indication of success. So, how specifically did RBCC's growth in size and sophistication indicate a "large and developed comics fandom" by 1964...?

8 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

But, since you love wikipedia,

This is a cheap shot, not true, and indicative of the tenor in which you've conducted yourself this entire conversation. It's unnecessary, and adds nothing but rancor to the discussion.

You'll find that, when I cited sources, I cited the WORKS and their AUTHORS...like Paul Lopes and Bill Schelly...from which the wikipedia articles got their sources.

Tell me...do you own "All In Color For A Dime"? I do. Do you own any other references to the early days of comics fandom? I do.

You'll also find...if you're honest...that you published a quote directly from Wikipedia, the quote regarding Shel Dorf and his 1-day (NOT 3-day) Golden State Comic Minicon: "as a kind of 'dry run' for the larger convention he hoped to stage."

13 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

"Between issues #25 (published Dec. 1963) and #50 (1966), the zine's circulation grew from about 200 to over 1,100. By RBCC #75 (1968), the circulation was 2,000."

Absolutely...indicative of a young and growing comics fandom, rather than a "large and developed one by 1964", as you contended.

14 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Again, those figures are but a part of the mountain of evidence which demonstrates your assertion that there were only 1,000 comic fans in 1970 is foolish. 

Again with the deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. Why does no one else call you out on this...? Dunno. Here, again, is my EXACT QUOTE:

Quote

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 1970, I'd be very, very surprised.

That's not an assertion. So why do you keep claiming it is?

Notice my qualifier? Comic COLLECTORS...not merely "fans", as you attempt to change it.

If you cannot maintain the integrity of the discussion, there's no point in having it.

17 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

The readers of RBCC were in all likelihood just the tip of the comic collecting mountain, the folks swimming in the deep end who were savy enough and motivated enough to subscribe to an adzine.

They also probably weren't all collectors.

But I digress.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Based on my own experiences and many conversations with collectors active in the 1960s.  They weren't in Bails' Who's Who.  They were just young kids collecting massive amounts of comics at that time. 

So, a total guess based on what some unspecified people said to you over the years...?

Seems legit!