Prince Namor

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    22,752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Prince Namor

  • Boards Title
    TOTAL NEWBIE

Recent Profile Visitors

2,932 profile views
  1. How many more times do I have to agree? How many more ways do I have to agree with " 'if' he did this he is wrong"? The conversation was originally between me and 'shadroch'. He brought Stan Lee into it - there's a history there. I've been answering it. I've done over 1000 SS books in my life (where I got them face to face signed), been to over 50 major conventions, and been a part of the actual SS process in various stages for both CGC and CBCS - I think I've got some experience at it.
  2. I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law. I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law. I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law. I'll sum it up for you. I said: If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law. I'll repeat it in even simpler language: IF Jack committed fraud, he was WRONG. It's fraud. I guess I have to say it multiple times and get a signed affidavit for everyone. Show me the Stan Lee threads where his defenders make the same type of admissions. You want to see deflections, there's your go to. I've seen the movie, I'm familiar with the scene, I have no idea what you're trying to say with it.
  3. I answered his original question. Why does Kirby get a pass for pawning off expensive " autographs" to his fans? He turned it into something else. If someone wants to debate an unsubstantiated rumor, where the 'proof' revolves around an imperfect science using subjective opinion, they can have at it all day. That wasn't why I answered. None of what you speculate here is proven. I simply matched up speculation vs speculation, when he moved the goal posts. Once again, he asked Why does Kirby get a pass for pawning off expensive " autographs" to his fans? I gave my reason why I believe it's seen the way it is. If you want to debate right or wrong on the unsubstantiated rumor - Jack would be wrong in the black & white, truest sense and spirit of the law. You then open it up TO the law and secretarial/signature by proxy defense and from a moral standpoint, that Jack's INTENT wasn't to deceive but rather try and do what he could to give his fans a chance at his signature before he passed away, AND maybe most importantly for himself, try and provide for his family before his passing. People will see it or perceive how they want. And to go back to this: yes it DOES matter what others have done. For a reason, there are different degrees of fraud. How much, how often, why - these are all things that DO play a part in the process of it. In this case it isn't even a proven event, much less one that anyone has made a legal case against. If it IS true, no one seemed to think it was important enough to go after or to prosecute. There have been cases of signature fraud prosecuted since then. From a legal standpoint... That. means. something. From a moral standpoint... Dynamic Forces and the 'signature' market are an ugly, grotesque, shady, greed motivated niche of this and other hobbies - to point a finger at Jack, and single him out for an unsubstantiated, speculated single instance? Yeah, to me it DOES matter. It does make a difference. Proven fraud is fraud. Unsubstantiated rumors are not. I get that some people would like to knock Jack down, because Stan has so many... questionable situations that people throw flames at, but... my point in how they're perceived was that Jack did shows, a fair amount of shows, when he was alive and at all of them, he gave his signature away for free. I realize it was a different time, but...Stan DIDN'T. He rarely appeared at cons, but he DID do PAID speaking events. And of course, when the money WAS there eventually in doing the show signings, despite being a multi-Millionaire, he gladly took the money to do it - charging his fans $200 a pop. Personally, I don't knock anyone for doing this. He was a brand, and he sold it. That's the way it works. More power to anyone who can. But I see Jack in a different light because he SPECIFICALLY went out there to do those shows and meet his fans and signed for free. Yeah, maybe at the time he couldn't have charged for his autograph, but he didn't HAVE to go and do those shows either. Yet he did. And all of that is going to be perceived a certain way by some fans, regardless of what speculative rumors people want to throw around regarding anything else in their lives.
  4. You said: I replied: Jack never charged anyone for an autograph at a show. It was always free. THAT is why he gets a pass. Stan faked plenty of autographs AND charged his fans $200 an autograph to their face. If you met Jack Kirby. He signed your book for FREE. If you met Stan Lee. He charged you $200. You asked why Jack gets a pass. I answered. They BOTH faked autographs (supposedly, I don't have proof of either situation, other than I don't trust any of the companies they worked with) for shady autograph 'specialists' aimed at speculators, but at least when you met Jack Kirby face to face, he signed your book for FREE.
  5. Jack never charged anyone for an autograph at a show. It was always free.
  6. Comicconnect is slow in the first place - generally for me, at my east coast address - my last order, won and paid for on Dec 13, shipped on January 6 - now that's over the holiday's so I expect a delay - 24 days. But in general, I never considered them to be quick in their turn around. Good grading, good packaging, easy to navigate sight, etc, etc. But slow to ship. It is what it is. This isn't eBay. This isn't Amazon. If you're impatient, they maybe aren't the best choice. I only buy what I want and not to flip, so I don't much care - it'll get to me, I'll enjoy it, etc. NOW... I could've sworn I got an e-mail from them, seems a month ago or so talking about that due to the pandemic, their turn around times were slow... but even without that, I would just ASSUME, being in NY, it would be slower... If you won that on June 15, I wouldn't expect it until at least mid-July.
  7. Interesting. When was this? I ask because, I used to order books from them that I wanted to get signed and slabbed, specifically because of the way they bagged and boarded and shipped their books - usually in quantities of 3 to 5 and then have them shipped directly to my store (though using my actual name). This would've been 2015. I wonder if they cracked down on this from some specific purpose. As a retailer, I would've been happy to have customers order multiple quantities of silly modern comics.
  8. Well that just isn't true. They have and at this point... they are.
  9. I think the issue for Diamond is going to be, that the margins are so small for them on each item they sell, that losing someone like DC is going to hurt profitability in bad way. Large companies don't usually want to absorb those costs - it almost always gets pushed onto the customer. This is what the worry is. The bigger comic book stores will handle it - even if Diamond collapses. They'll order direct from everyone. Some of the smaller shops will NOT and for small publishers it could have a devastating effect as well. Is that really a good thing? If you live in, say, Dexter, Missouri, should you have to drive an hour away to go to a comic book store? They're going to start ordering online, and if the immediate need to read comics continues to be the priority, then why NOY digital for most people. Buy and read it instantaneously. Most growth of PRINTED comics over the last decade hasn't really been for superheroes. It's been for non-superheroes, and that leans toward more independent publishing. Something like this could force them to go all digital with their work as well. We're already seeing a lean toward this with artist/creators like Giselle Lagace, Brian K Vaughn and many others. These are the reasons people look at this and see it as leading to the eventual end of printed comics. If the only factor in all of this is the publishers profits (masqueraded as 'we need more retailer support!), then when they find a way to make it work, there will be no nostalgia involved for them in ending the printed floppy.
  10. Is that spin or fact? I suspect that's very much how DC is looking at it. Still, some will see it as DC's BS (pun intended), and some will see it as it is what it is. I don't know if it will actually help with their sagging sales - but DC Comics WILL benefit from DCBS's absolutely superb packaging and colorful and easy to use ordering system. One area that some SMALLER comic retailers are over looking, is that they can order various other publisher product through DCBS to spread their shipping costs out. Some of the discounts they get through Diamond for a small retailer, they can get the same as through DCBS because DCBS buys through Diamond at a higher quantity. And they should have less damages, less wrongly shipped product (if DCBS can handle the sudden jump in business), and just a better overall customer experience with DCBS. In all my years of using them, I never had a problem.
  11. Currently, their pricing is the same as it has been. Individual new release DC Comics for June 2020 order are 40% off, and they have bundle packs at 50% off (Get 1 of every DC Universe title - Limit 2 bundles per customer - $103.74 per bundle) and trade paperbacks are 50% off. It's the same as they usually sell Marvel Comics for - but so far there isn't a whole lot of Marvel new product on their June 2020 inventory... wonder what that's all about... Yeah, they are a HUGE customer. I can't see that they could afford to lose EACH OTHER. Might put both out of business.
  12. Steve Geppi has certainly maintained a wealthy living throughout his life, but Diamond Distribution as a business was always seen as being on shaky financial ground, and NOT the profitable landslide that most people assume a monopoly would be. They work on very small profit margins with large overheads in an expensive area of the country to operate. I miss that Geppi museum though.
  13. Chuckles makes a interesting point in today's newsletter: "...Suffice it to say, however, when you have a distribution company that has all of its costs pegged to a given level of volume, and then you lose (One Hundred Million) of that volume, changes have to be made. Either discounts have to go down, fees have to go up, or overhead costs and/or staff have to be reduced. Diamond may have to resort to some combination of all of the above. None of this bodes well for the embattled small retailers who form the core of the Direct Market." He also noted that this couldn't have come at a worse time for 2000+ retailers, many of whom were on already shaky ground leading up to be being shut down for two months...
  14. I'm not saying they don't but... I wonder how much that it's necessary. I really do believe that one of the things that hurt comic book sales was the disbanding of the newsstand, where kids would first see comics while their mom was grocery shopping, but... the world has changed dramatically since then. The Superhero movie is where kids first become aware of these heroes. And now, even little kids have smart phones. The internet/social media - THAT is where they first discover everything. Losing video stores didn't get rid of movies. Losing music stores didn't get rid of music. I'm not saying I LIKE it, I HATE the idea of it. And comics DO have a uniqueness in back issue collectibility, but... isn't even THAT becoming more of an online thing?
  15. Smaller profit margins made up through volume - without the overhead of a B&M.