• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

How much of a premium are we talking for newsstand issues v/s direct editions?
10 10

1,113 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, paqart said:

I wouldn't care except for your need to pounce on tiny insignificant statements as errors of the greatest magnitude.

Says the guy who just completely dismissed my clear, direct response to the price(s) of ASM 606 because I mentioned something else in the post. meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

on that awful site.

Thanks for being true to form. For clarification, are you pointing out that CGC erroneously describes 650 as a price variant, or that Nobel got something wrong in the way he reported the list? As I see it, if CGC recognizes it, even if they are wrong, then Nobel's list is accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

Says the guy who just completely dismissed my clear, direct response to the price(s) of ASM 606 because I mentioned something else in the post. meh

Well, I didn't see your response until after I'd made the post you're talking about. Still, it's almost as if you don't realize you have a reputation for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, paqart said:

Thanks for being true to form. For clarification, are you pointing out that CGC erroneously describes 650 as a price variant, or that Nobel got something wrong in the way he reported the list? As I see it, if CGC recognizes it, even if they are wrong, then Nobel's list is accurate.

Lighten up! Lol

So I was trying to say that the newsstand price variations are the ones that I initially tried to collect, really JUST BECAUSE the label said "variant" . If it's true that is a misnomer because it doesn't further clarify or specify, then I may have missed my prize lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I was under the impression that price differences were "different" than other newsstands. 

Now I know that newsstands are newsstands, while some of those newsstands differ in price from direct, they're the only "Newsstand available"...

Still I like them because the look fancy :roflmao:

Edited by ADAMANTIUM
ClarityCo lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

Lighten up! Lol

So I was trying to say that the newsstand price variations are the ones that I initially tried to collect, really JUST BECAUSE the label said "variant" . If it's true that is a misnomer because it doesn't further clarify or specify, then I may have missed my prize lol

 

Sorry, thought I was responding to LazyBoy, who is becoming a bit of a burr under the saddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those issues I mentioned like Tec 880 and power girl 27 aren't so bad, but 

They don't  stand alone in the registry :(

which was my main concern...

Edited by ADAMANTIUM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, paqart said:

Thanks for being true to form. For clarification, are you pointing out that CGC erroneously describes 650 as a price variant, or that Nobel got something wrong in the way he reported the list? As I see it, if CGC recognizes it, even if they are wrong, then Nobel's list is accurate.

The point is that "CGC recognized" is inconsistent and irrelevant, despite Nobel's attempts to make it seem meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

For some reason I was under the impression that they were "different" than other newsstands. 

Now I know that newsstands are newsstands, while some of those newsstands differ in price from direct, they're the only "Newsstand available"...

Still I like them because the look fancy :roflmao:

There is a small group of newsstands that have different prices from each other. Those are very interesting. Personally, I'd like to get them all but have only been able to buy two. It happened in, I think, about 2000. Marvel tried three prices for the newsstands simulataneously on six titles, making a total of eighteen versions of those comics, twelve of which were variants. The prices to look for are $2.49 and $2.29. They did it on ASM 10, 11, 13, a group of Fantastic Fours, Cable, I think Hulk (not sure) and two others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

The point is that "CGC recognized" is inconsistent and irrelevant, despite Nobel's attempts to make it seem meaningful.

But if CGC recognizes it, then there are labels reflecting it, and Nobel's list is accurate. This is the kind of thing that makes me doubt almost everything you post. The way you wrote it, Nobel is at fault for the error. Now it looks like CGC is at fault and Nobel did not make a mistake.

Edited by paqart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

For some reason I was under the impression that price differences were "different" than other newsstands. 

Now I know that newsstands are newsstands, while some of those newsstands differ in price from direct, they're the only "Newsstand available"...

Still I like them because the look fancy :roflmao:

That's the thing: they're just regular newsstand editions (except for these).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paqart said:

There is a small group of newsstands that have different prices from each other. Those are very interesting. Personally, I'd like to get them all but have only been able to buy two. It happened in, I think, about 2000. Marvel tried three prices for the newsstands simulataneously on six titles, making a total of eighteen versions of those comics, twelve of which were variants. The prices to look for are $2.49 and $2.29. They did it on ASM 10, 11, 13, a group of Fantastic Fours, Cable, I think Hulk (not sure) and two others.

i think those are the ones that @Get Marwood & I started a thread for, if he'll post it, as i forget the name, you might find it interesting :foryou: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lazyboy said:

That's the thing: they're just regular newsstand editions (except for these).

 

Just now, Lazyboy said:

I never said his list was inaccurate, just irrelevant. In general, his lists are the best things on his site.

You certainly give a different impression. I would not have guessed that your disdain for all things Nobel translates into anything other than "he's full of baloney."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, paqart said:

 

You certainly give a different impression. I would not have guessed that your disdain for all things Nobel translates into anything other than "he's full of baloney."

well i tried to let him know i wasn't a "know it all" lol i'm a slow learner but open to suggestion...

plus all of this info has been in front of me since i've been here, but evidently i didn't grasp it yet :( i didn't want to come in guns blazin'

i should know better :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, paqart said:

I would not have guessed that your disdain for all things Nobel translates into anything other than "he's full of baloney."

He is, but I have said many times that there is some good information on his site that can be useful for those with the knowledge and intelligence to sift it out from the mountains of B.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

He is, but I have said many times that there is some good information on his site that can be useful for those with the knowledge and intelligence to sift it out from the mountains of B.S.

Maybe he has some baloney but I wouldn't say he is full of it. In your case, I feel the same way, you have some baloney, mainly connected to your curt way of writing things, which leaves your intent a mystery, but your posts aren't "all baloney" either. Frankly, without the attitude, they'd be more fun to read.

Edited by paqart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:
40 minutes ago, paqart said:

Thanks for being true to form. For clarification, are you pointing out that CGC erroneously describes 650 as a price variant, or that Nobel got something wrong in the way he reported the list? As I see it, if CGC recognizes it, even if they are wrong, then Nobel's list is accurate.

The point is that "CGC recognized" is inconsistent and irrelevant, despite Nobel's attempts to make it seem meaningful.

And this is the fundamental problem with Nobel's blog: it is filled with errors. Paqart asked in a previous post "so what?" And the answer to that is that, taken individually, the errors ARE insignificant. But, taken corporately, they render the information worse than useless, because people who "learned" from Nobel's blog...even if they think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, as paqart has said he does....have to UNlearn the errors, which is vastly more difficult than starting from a blank slate.

The issue isn't an single error, or even handful of errors. It's the ubiquity of the errors, in detail, in expression, in format, in logic combined with stubborn refusal to fix those errors that is the real problem.

It's one thing to get things wrong when you present yourself, as Nobel does, as an "authority" on the subject. It is quite another when those errors are pointed out to you and you stubbornly refuse to even acknolwedge those errors, much less work to fix them. 

I wish paqart and others could understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
10 10