Pulp Sellers 2 2

[Bookery]

On 2/23/2024 at 4:50 PM, waaaghboss said:

It is weird to try to criticize people who enjoy pulp art.  These covers appealed to people 100 years ago, which is why publishers produced them, so it can't be so shocking to realize that they'd also appeal to people today.  

If the covers didn't entice readers to buy the pulp, most of those authors wouldn't have had careers.  I suspect more time and sweat went into producing some of those paintings then was spent on cranking out some of the stories.  I'm also not sure how one goes about so easily dismissing the accomplishments of Norman Saunders, H.J. Ward, Rudolph Belarski, Allen Anderson, etc..  It's like saying "I'd have bought that original Frederick Remington painting, if only it had a decent caption".  

[Surfing Alien]

The Sack of Lombard: Slab collectors descend on the Windy City Pulp Convention

[Darwination]

There's definitely a disconnect between some of the different groups of pulp fans.  There's no doubt there is an old guard that has total disdain for cover collecting, but there's also a similar disregard for entire genres (romance, girlie pulps, weird menace, Spicy Detectives).  And I admit I there are genres I tend to avoid, too.  But you can't really toss the baby out with the bathwater.  It's similar to B-movies for me in that you might have to watch ten to find the one that really speaks to you.  The funny thing is that there are some of the most revered pulp authors I think are absolutely horrible (not gonna call out any names).  And then there are plenty of literary types that dismiss the entire area of pulp

That said, I've got a lot of respect for the old guard when it comes to their knowledge of authors and stories, and I've been steered towards some great reading by the some of the most crotchety

I love the new blood in the pulps -fresh eyes, different perspectives, etc. Still, it will be a cold day in hell when I put a pulp (or a comic) in a slab, but y'all do you

[Bookery]

On 2/23/2024 at 5:54 PM, Darwination said:

Still, it will be a cold day in hell when I put a pulp (or a comic) in a slab, but y'all do you

D'oh!  

[Robot Man]

On 2/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Darwination said:

There's definitely a disconnect between some of the different groups of pulp fans.  There's no doubt there is an old guard that has total disdain for cover collecting, but there's also a similar disregard for entire genres (romance, girlie pulps, weird menace, Spicy Detectives).  And I admit I there are genres I tend to avoid, too.  But you can't really toss the baby out with the bathwater.  It's similar to B-movies for me in that you might have to watch ten to find the one that really speaks to you.  The funny thing is that there are some of the most revered pulp authors I think are absolutely horrible (not gonna call out any names).  And then there are plenty of literary types that dismiss the entire area of pulp

That said, I've got a lot of respect for the old guard when it comes to their knowledge of authors and stories, and I've been steered towards some great reading by the some of the most crotchety

I love the new blood in the pulps -fresh eyes, different perspectives, etc. Still, it will be a cold day in hell when I put a pulp (or a comic) in a slab, but y'all do you

I’m generally not a slab guy. I crack most of them out anyway. The one exception I make is if I only want a book for its cover in the first place. Let’s face it, there are a lot of comics and pulps that are actually only as good as their covers.

I am actually contemplating sending in a few pulps for grading. Outstanding covers in high grade but nothing that otherwise interest me. Problem is it is just a lot of hassle and expense and sweating out their safe return. They wouldn’t be for sale anyway so I might not even bother. 

[GACollectibles]

Seems like a bit of the "What I collect rocks, what you collect sucks" mentality but with "why" instead of "what".  It probably happens across all categories of collecting.

No one has to justify why they collect something, there is no right or wrong.

[Upgrayedd2]

I'd love to see a new price guide, but once this information gets populated on Key Collector, etc will there be a need for a printed guide?

[jimjum12]

On 2/25/2024 at 6:03 PM, Upgrayedd2 said:

I'd love to see a new price guide, but once this information gets populated on Key Collector, etc will there be a need for a printed guide?

I think it will depend on each individual collector. If their focus is slab only and specifically in auction and internet sales, possibly there would be less need. Now if collecting and seeking raw from shops, yard sales, flea markets, and antique stores, the guide would still be handy. Good question. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Dr. Love]

On 2/24/2024 at 1:37 PM, GACollectibles said:

Seems like a bit of the "What I collect rocks, what you collect sucks" mentality but with "why" instead of "what".  It probably happens across all categories of collecting.

No one has to justify why they collect something, there is no right or wrong.

Not according to the self proclaimed Prince of Pulps.  He seemed pretty adamant you didn't have to justify... because there absolutely was no justification.

[adamstrange]

On 2/23/2024 at 9:50 AM, Bookery said:

Not entirely accurate.

There have been 3 editions under slightly different titles... 2001, 2005 and 2020.  

Depends on what you mean by accurate.  When word leaked out prior to the 2001 guide coming out, there was a general panic in the pulp-convention community.  I was some interloper they didn't know (despite having attended several PulpCons) and surely the guide was designed purely to drive up prices (how this was supposed to help me, I don't know, as I didn't have a large inventory at the time).  There were a lot of on-line attacks, and "guarantees" the guide would be over-priced.  When I premiered the book at the 2001 PulpCon I even arrived to find that my dealer's table has been stuck back in an exit alcove and turned to face the wall.  The show-runner thought this was amusing.  To my own fault, the advance word of the distrust in the book probably made me overly cautious and very conservative in my pricing (though to be fair... every price in the book was exactly how I priced my own stock).  So when the guide actually did premiere, the complaints then switched to how all of the prices were too low!

The 2005 guide prices were fairly accurate for awhile... the market had settled down after an initial spike due to an influx of eBay sales.

The 2020 guide came out just before CGC announced it would be slabbing pulps.  That drove prices up almost immediately.  Then the Covid collectibles spike drove everything up even further.  That guide was out-dated (price-wise) pretty much out of the gate, which is probably why Heritage didn't keep it in print.

However, though I generally don't complain about it, I always take some issue with the books being described simply as price guides.  I am a data completist... rather compulsive about it, actually.  The books were born of my own extensive note-taking and compilations for years just so I could be consistent with my own inventories.  I would have been thrilled if someone else had done it.  But no one did.  Pricing was always the last thing I worked on before publication.  All other information came first.  Save for a few errors corrected in each new edition, and the typical typos, the other information contained in them is quite accurate... authors, artists, title-changes, 1st appearances, publishers, format, scarcity indicators, etc.  To include all of this information and leave out pricing just to appease a few who preferred to keep that information to themselves, seemed a disservice to collectors, as well as my own desire to be comprehensive.  There are a number of different sources where such information can be cobbled together, especially now more than in 2001, but the Bookery guides remain the only sources where all of this is in one place.

Yes, pricing in them is dated, though may be useful in terms of relative pricing (issue x is worth twice as much as issue y, etc.), but the rest of the data is still useful, depending upon your collecting needs.  Ideally, an issue-by-issue guide would be best... but it would run 1500 pages.

Any Guide to the Pulp market is never going to be perfect, much less "complete".  It has to cover too many rarities across too many decades when things were far less documented than they are today. 

You did a world of service, and anyone who can't appreciate that should be ignored.