• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About slpfi27

  • Boards Title
  • Birthday 03/15/1977

Personal Information

  • Comic Collecting Interests
    Golden Age
    Silver Age
    Bronze Age
    Copper Age
    Modern Age
    Signature Series
  • Occupation
    General Manager (Retail Chain)
  • Hobbies
    Cars, and Comicbooks
  • Location
    Washington State (Pacific Northwest)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A little late-night strolling on the forums I find this thread. You folks are scaring me, submitted my Spectacular Spider-Man 9.8 Stan Lee's off for some addition signatures. Unfortunately, I added the quick press simply hoping they maintain the grade not looking for a bump. Sounds like I should not have added the quick press. I sure hope I do not get "struck by lightning". Spectacular Spider-Man #9, 10. Signed by Stan Lee, and Sal Buscema. Submitted them for George Perez. One of these books my Spectacular Spider-Man #1 the “Whale” signed by Stan Lee, Mike Esposito, John Romita, and Sal Buscema. I could not resist the opportunity to add the final signature from Gerry Conway. It is away now…. Pray it holds the coveted 9.8 my friends. Once complete the “Spectacular Spider-Man Nuff Said!” set is complete! Now to upgrade the final few issues to CGC 9.8. Thanks for the post…
  2. Thank you Brittany! I am grateful for your assistance. Brian W. <slpfi27>
  3. Okay, now we are at the point of this whole post. What do we call them? I agree with the reason to not call them Diamonds or Whitmans, and simply Direct Editions. How about as a boardie previously mentioned, "Early Direct Editions" ? I am about to submit the best of the best issues I have from my Spectacular set with the Diamond Logo in the top left. They will get classified with all the other issues I have, but I feel these are a bit special and more rare. It is ashame they do not have their own distinct reference on the Census. Thank you again for the added information.
  4. My friends, I am truly grateful for all the comments and wonderful information. I have spent the past months finishing up my set of Spectacular Spider-Man #01 - #263 (Nuff Said!). My goal is to complete the set in the most “Spectacular” fashion possible. I suppose I found it surprising to notice CGC has never classified a difference between Direct Editions, and Newsstand Editions. I have read every post I could find regarding Diamond Issues, Whitman’s, Western, Big Diamond, Skinny Diamond, Bar-Code, No-Barcode, and clearly only the BRAVE attempted to discuss this topic. Me personally, I know a rare book when I see it. CGC Slabbed or Un-Slabbed collectors and enthusiasts will KNOW when they see something rare. I never intended to come off as a “huckster” or somebody that was solely interested in profit and financial prospect. However, like most of you I appreciate the value of my books and have made profit and lost money. This collection that I have put together is about my passion and love for Comics in general. The Census is an incredible tool, and I feel that is one of the reasons why CGC is so much more collectable than CBCS, and PGX. (my opinion.) When I see that Spectacular Spider-Man #3 has 139 CGC graded 9.8’s on the Census. I sure would love to know how many of those are Diamonds. That is how the whole thing got started. What do we call them? If CGC were to BEGIN to call them “___________” and classify as many variants moving forward. We would begin to capture them properly. If CGC were to offer a Re-Slab (as they already do) with new classified labels, they would see a HUGE spike in their re-submissions and thus generate more revenue for this already awesome company. The Census would be updated, and we would have more solid information. As collectors we would have the benefit of enhancing our Slabbed collections. It is debatable but I feel this would generate added book sales for the industry in general. People like rare things plain and simple. To say it is rare does not make it rare, proving it is rare creates perception of value, and that is what it is all about. Post an early Diamond on eBay in raw condition, its worth few bucks. Post a 9.8 Early Diamond, and I bet it sells for a lot of money. If CGC recognized them in CENUS data, we could see definitively what we already know. THEY ARE SUPER RARE, in GREAT CONDITION. The Census is a POWERFUL tool for ALL of us. I have read a MOUNTAIN of information on this subject it is clear that “Direct Market Edition” is correct as that is what they are. Or is it? The Debate continues. Marwood was right, this subject is so brutal. I have learned a lot and I really cannot stress how appreciative I am of your comments. (on ALL posts regarding the books with the Diamond Box in the Corner.) Somewhere in one of the posts RMA said something like, “it was 40 years ago.” He is right, we all have many pieces of a massive puzzle, but there is no picture to fully be assembled. Anyway folks, I submit to your greatness. Since nobody can simply call them “Direct Editions”, “Early Market Editions” or “Whitman’s” I guess the experts in the room will know what they are and that is enough. Sincerely, Brian W <slpfi27>
  5. Lazy Boy, I appreciate your kindness! You are a shining star of the CGC message boards. I have no doubt everyone here will agree your intellect is on display and your knowledge on this subject is supreme. I know you did not intend to offend anyone. So again, thank you! As for the rest of us “know nothing” folks… Review this and tell me if I am off base on anything…. (again) FACTS: (Yes or No, and please no opinions. Let’s try and base it on fact.) 1. Not all Diamonds are Whitman’s (previous pictures prove this. So again, why call them “Whitman’s?”) 2. Some Diamonds came with UPC Codes, and some did not 3. Some were bagged with other comics, and some were not 4. The Large Diamonds stopped in 1979 (not the small Diamond) 5. The whole reason for marking the books was to prevent fraud and lost profits. This established a reason for Direct, and Newsstand. 6. The Diamonds could be re-prints; they did not share the monthly cycle as the Bar-Coded Versions. Some Diamonds could be with a blank box, or a UPC box, and so some appear to be Newsstand versions, while others appear to be bagged and boarded. So, they can’t be called Newsstand issues. Questions: 1. If Direct Market Editions were purchased in MASSIVE quantities by Whitman and other publishers, why are these books not more common than their newsstands counterparts? 2. Why wouldn’t they be more common, and easier to find? Clearly the Diamond wouldn’t even be worth marking if the quantity of these books were low print distribution or re-prints? See my point? Why bother? 3. If Diamond Box books are “Direct Market Editions” why are ALL of them destroyed? Anyone have 9.8 NM/M Candidates? Some should have survived. Not TONS but some. I haven’t found any. They look well-handled and cracked all over. This seems to indicate NEWSSTAND handling to me. Where are the pristine Diamond Spectacular Spider-Man’s out there? 4. Back to when this started…. Why not call them “Diamond Editions” (Or something different). Because, they were not ALL DIRECT, and they weren’t ALL NEWSSTAND editions? Thanks again folks! Brian W. <slpfi27> Registry set: Spectacular Spider-Man 1-263 + Annuals (NUFF SAID!)
  6. This is an interesting comment, and I can see that point of view. Infact this is the most compelling thought I have heard on this subject. I will need to reflect on this one. However, as I think about this. If there were not many distributors to need "Direct Market Editions" then why would they need to have a reason to stop the returns in the first place? Just thinking about it. I agree though, there were certainly not that many shops as exploded in the 80's. Great comment Bellrules!
  7. I do not understand why we cannot have a polite conversation. Statements like "you don't know jack" is rude. It discourages people from commenting and gaining knowledge. I am tired of people who think in absolutes without facts to back it up. Without facts, we are just stating a bunch of opinions. Please have respect when you comment to people on these forums. We all have different levels of knowledge regarding comics. I am sure all of us have careers and degrees and can respect that we share one thing in common. A passion and love for comic books. I am trying to picture the various people who have commented on these forums laying the verbal “smackdown” on somebody you disagree with. Do you post the smack, then stand up fluff your chest and say, “I really showed that guy!” Does this really make you feel monovalent or superior to your fellow boardie’s? I’m just saying if that is your intent I am not impressed. Let’s have a good conversation and stop "mad typing" like you’re ticked off and have something to prove. We are having a discussion let’s keep it respectful. Back to the discussion… I would consider myself an expert on collecting “Spectacular Spider-Man #1-263 1st Series” so let’s use this set specifically for timeline and discussion. This will keep context and focus on a single title in the discussion for now. Feel free to look at the high resolutions scans on my set to reference scans of each book to reference. (Still working on it) set name "Nuff Said" Here is my open thoughts, and I am curious what you think? Spectacular Spider-Man Issues with a Diamond are as follows. #03 (Feb 1977), #04 (Mar 1977), #06 (May 1977) , #07 (June 1977), #08 (July 1977), #09 (August 1977), #10 (Sept 1977), #11 (Oct 1977), #12 (Nov, 1977), #13 (Dec 1977) #18 (May 1978), #21 (Aug 1978), #22 (Sep 1978), #24 (Nov 1978), #25 (Dec 1978), #26 (Jan 1979), #27 (Feb 1979), #30 (May 1979), | #31 - #36 will have a Diamond WITH a UPC Slash, or a UPC. (continue reading before you get stuck here.) 1. NOT all Diamond Issues are "Whitman’s" clearly, we have seen another boardie prove this. Diamonds came in bags from other distributors. So we KNOW that calling them Whitman’s is inaccurate. Even if it is popular. 2. ALL Newsstand Copies have barcodes. 3. Definition of Direct Editions: Direct Edition comics are comics which are sold exclusively through the Direct Sales market, which is now the dominant way of distributing comic books in the United States. It means the comics won't be found in places like convenience stores and Walmart. 4. We know about the distribution problems and shenanigans that caused a reason for needing a difference between Direct and Newsstand. As of 1979 we start calling Diamonds “Direct Market Editions” EVEN THOUGH, we know Barcode versions were sold to direct distributors and Whitman’s or Diamond Marked Bagged issues could be found in spinning racks at Grocery stores. So, things are all messed up starting off. (We agree? It was an imperfect process at first.) 5. As a collector of books (me personally). I want as many variants and rare stories as I can find. To collect them I need to establish a difference between common and rare. What do I call the various different variants of each book? How will I know if it is rare or not? How will I search for them? How will I create a standard of variants now and in the future? Calling these books Direct Market Editions is not fair and doesn’t classify them for what they are “SPECIAL”. After issue #31 Direct Versions are a dime a dozen, and 9.8 Galore! Newsstands are rare, and Early Diamonds and 35 Cent Variants near impossible! 6. Again, Newsstand Copies have UPC and Direct Editions have Marking that makes them direct (UPC Slash, and Character head box). That is GREAT! I am fine calling marked books (without UPC) Direct Editions starting at Spectacular Spider-Man #31. After #31 Books with a UPC Newsstand Editions. (forgive me if I repeat myself. I am trying to make a point.) 7. For #04, #06, #07, #08, #09, #10, #11, #12, #13, #18, #21, #22, #24, #25, #26, #27, #30 these books need to be called “Diamonds Editions” (or something different) in my opinion. The intent behind what they should be was not an EXACT science and certainly was not executed perfectly. These books are RARE, hard to find,and darn near impossible to locate in perfect/near perfect quality. Does this sound like any Direct Edition you know of? Clearly something was different about their safety. If these books are Direct to Distributors then why are they uncommon? Why are they severely damaged? Where are the pristine survivors? If these are DIRECT to the Distributors, why don’t we see hundreds of CGC 9.8’s of these books? These books were destroyed! Pre-Issue #31 you will find it near impossible to locate one. Marvel must have got their act together after issue #31. Because, we can clearly see the understood definition of Direct vs Newsstand. Before then, it was something CLEARLY different! 8. We know these books are not all 100% Whitman’s, and they are not 100% Direct Editions by the afore mentioned reasons. I think we all agree that there is solid debate on what is and what is not. Why not just call the early Diamonds, “Diamond Editions” it’s a split down the middle? 9. There are many titles and the Story of the Diamonds will continue. There is something CERTAINLY different about the difficulty of how well these books survived the years. Final comment, I am willing to bet if everyone gets off the Soap box and really thinks about this, you will blow my mind with your intellect and change my opinion, OR you will see it my way. I look forward to less chicken chest comments and more intellectual and respectful debate. Thoughts? Brian W. <slpfi27>
  8. I am not sure if this is the proper place to ask this... if not please let me know. As always CGC thank you for the help! So in the Spectacular Spider-Man #01-263 (1976 1st Series) there is a duplicate slot for #213 Game Pro Magazine Edition. Can you please remove one. Thank you! Brian W. <slpfi27>
  9. I understand what everyone has said. What should they be called? 1. If they are called Whitmans seems highly contestable. 2. If they are refered to as "Direct Market Issues" then that seems to conflict with the "Newsstand UPC / Direct Edition Logo" versions that pop up later. That seems confusing to me. Most certainly will be confusing to upstart collectors and people trying to get into this hobby. 3. Can we just agree to call them "Diamond Editions"? It would appear that they are indeed books with a Diamond logo in the top left? Anyone have a problem with that moving forward? I realize people are already calling them what they call them but it seems like a few good reasons in this post reflect a need for clarity? Thanks again, Brian W <slpfi27>
  10. Is it okay to use your e.mail on a post or registry set? I don't want to get introuble so I thought i'd ask. Thanks folks! Sincerely, Brian W <slpfi27>
  11. I understand there is a debate of what to call these books, Whitman or Direct? I knew that it was a debate LONG before I started the thread. I probably chose the incorrect designations for these books. Which kicked us off on this debate once again all these years later. However, can't we call them "Diamond Editions" They have a Diamond on the cover, and this seperates them from the others does it not? It is my understanding there is variants of each Diamond as well? Some with month's and some without? We clearly have two sets of people that call them Direct Editions, and Whitman Editions. Is it possible that we can agree they have Diamonds on the Cover, and more informed Comic collectors could write a long and well thought out book on the subject? The Book would be titled, "Understanding Diamond Variants?" Just a thought. Keep it coming!
  12. Well... I appreciate you all! I just wanted to throw that out there. I am interested in this debate/discussion. I just hope everyone keeps it friendly. I am sure we'd all have a Beer together if we met up. Text and type is so hard to evaluate sometimes. So I'll presume you are all my friends and if not friends at lease we respect each other for our many differences. I am honored to be part of this Community. Thanks again folks for your awesome knowledge! Sincerely Brian W <slpfi27> P.S. CGC "Call them what they are." Please!
  13. Need this for my set. I'm willing to pay any reasonable price. Thank you! Brian W <slpfi27>
  14. I love the flexing of comic knowledge. The Whitman, Not Whitman, or Direct edition? We get it, you guys are comic smart. We can debate that on another post. Perhaps the intention of the post got lost in the title of it. My fault?! Let me clarify again.... Like I said at the start. I just want them to get classified to improve census data and give people the opportunity to expand collections and grow knowledge. I think people tripping over is/isn't is really irrelevant. Correct Book Classification is 100% a benefit to the CGC comic collecting community. As well as the "hucksters" out there. Who cares what your high and mighty opinion is. (not you specifically). Honestly, it's for the love of the sport! If I happen to make a few bucks on my hobby. So be it! Cry about your entitled morals elsewhere. (Not you specifically) Example: (for the slow ones) Amazing Spider-Man #XXX is out there Census Data says there is 661 Graded. Wouldn't it be cool? If the Census said, thus far CGC has recorded 100 Newsstand Variants, 500 Direct Editions, 1 Double Cover, 50 Mark Jewlers inserts, 10 Errors? Bet your Chicken Farm, if I'm a serious fan of Spider-Man I will be wanting that Double Cover! Please dont explain how all the grading that has already been done makes this impossible. It is very simple how this would work. Once CGC acknowledges the need to "Classify" the different examples. They would Charge a Re-slab Fee for already graded books, and correctly capture new books going forward. All the while updating the Census as they go. N if you dont care, then keep your "Debbie Downer" opinions to yourself. (Not you specifically) Call a book what it is.... Label it Properly! If it's a "Direct Edition" "Whitman" "Newsstand" "Error" or whatever. Just make it right, and record it. Use your higher intellect to solve the situation. Clearly there is some kind of benefit to correctly label a book. Let the games continue! Brian W <slpfi27> P.S you better be paying attention CGC! Let's put correct classification and Census Data on these books. I am just fine if you make more money doing it. That's my two cents. *COURT ADJOURNED*
  15. I still believe making classifications for variations of books is a solid benefit to everyone. Including CGC. I still think they should do it moving forward. As for the "Huckster" Comment.. So because I have collected comics my whole life, and want to make a financial benefit on one set I have collected. That makes me a "Huckster"? If that is so I guess it was ment as a compliment. I'll take it. I'm not sure what you consider yourself?