RockMyAmadeus

Idiot! That was a newsstand copy of Catwoman #83! Argggh!!! Why couldn't he have done it to a garbage book like Rai #9???

You know well...the quality of the materials used for these books was just garbage. Barely a step above Charltons. You look at them sideways, and the ink flakes. And it does not help that nearly every Marvel from Nov 1971 to Dec 1972 had a solid color border/picture frame that cannot hide a color breaking spine tic to save your life.

Please show me on the doll...er, I mean, on this book where it indicates it was made for Western:

I don't have any problem with this idea, and have said it before. The problem, however, is that when they were made, they weren't made just for Western, and there's no indication whatsoever that they were. The cover markings exist to prevent distributors from returning the books to Marvel for credit, which they weren't allowed to do because they'd bought them as non-returnable for a better discount. And what is that method of distribution called....? The Direct market.

You mean the end of the Direct market experimental program and the company-wide direct market program...

Are you suggesting that some distributors of non-returnable comics were receiving newsstand copies while at the same time some distributors of non-returnable comics were receiving the black diamond copies in 1977? Maybe, which I think I said in the other thread. This was fundamentally a 2 year experiment to see how it would work. I think what's more likely is that everyone in the Direct market distribution channel received a mixture of books. The cover markings wouldn't have made any difference to the retailers that were selling them; as far as they were concerned, they were the sa

I'd put 'Tec #400 in there above Avengers #93, too. But the GLs are classics, and as you can see from subs...quite a bit more popular. Supes #233...ehhh...I dunno, I have a hard enough time with Bats #227. But the lunatics have driven it up, so there you go. Frankly, Avengers #93 suffers from being a weirdo Nov '71 book, and the cover is so-so.

Let me rephrase what I was asking to make my point. If an early / mid bronze age book becomes Hot that wasn't before in the past would you expect to see a lot of new 9.8's get graded? For pre-1975, no. They don't exist, which was the point being made in subsequent posts. For 1975-up books, sure.

Bats 232 Bats 234 Bats 227 (insane, I know) Bats 251 GL 76 GL 85 GL 86 GL 87 X-Men 58 Avengers 93

You're not alone in thinking that. There was a time, when Neal Adams was the hottest of the hot, that Avengers #93 was the most popular Adams book there was. It used to be THE key Bronze book to get, and went toe-to-toe with Green Lantern #76 in terms of value and demand. Maybe it's because it's 40 pages of Adams at the very top of his game...and every single page is a masterpiece, a feast for the eyes...but it was THE book to own, and it's sad that it's fallen so far. It's hard to even put it in the top 10 Adams books now.

There is a tremendous difference between early to mid bronze (1970-1975) and late bronze (1975-1980) in 9.8. Mostly it's due to the development of collecting in the 70s. Some of it is due to the poorer quality of paper and other products (ink, sizing) that went into production in the early 70s. Post 1975 9.8s are easy. Pre 1975...? Much, much harder. You will not see a doubling (or more) in the numbers of books like ASM #129, Defenders #1, FF #112, etc. in 9.8. They just don't exist. For example...I've submitted maybe 1000-1500 Bronze Age books. From 1975-up, I've gotten maybe

I'd go with NSA surveillance. Those guys know everything.

By the way...a good way for retailers to not have to keep an obsessive pulse on the industry is to limit purchase of all books to 1 copy per person until the book is no longer new...say, after a week or a month...no matter what it is. Book comes out this week? You can buy 1. You want to buy more than one? You'll have to wait until next week/month/whatever, and whatever is left, you can buy.

To add to the above, I understand your point: Creator: "what you intend to do with that after I sign it matters to me, and affects my willingness to sign it for you." Retailer: "what you intend to do with that after I sell it to you matters to me, and affects my willingness to sell it to you." And on the surface, sure, that may seem to be parallel...but they're not...at least, not really. The item being signed already belongs to the person seeking the signature. They're buying something that isn't (technically) tangible, to add to the item they already own. And signatures a

The issue is not parallel. Why? Because what I do with something I already own is different from what I may potentially do with something that does not (yet) belong to me. Not to ME...but to the retailer who sells to me. Allow me to explain: the issue ultimately isn't what the buyer intends to do with the item he's bought. You're not going to see me argue that people can't do whatever they want with their property. Let me repeat that, so that everyone is completely clear about where I stand: you're not going to see me argue that people can't do whatever they want with their property.