CGC census is high, but there aren't enough keys 5 5

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

As I said earlier, you like to argue. 

Absolutely! I love a good debate. I never said otherwise. Where your error was was in claiming I liked to argue MORE THAN I liked to get to the truth.

And that is 1. not true, and 2. something you have no business claiming about people over the internet whom you have never met, do not know, and likely never will.

14 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Not sure why you won't admit you're a frustrated former debater.

I'm guessing the answer to that is "because it's not true."

Just a hunch.

15 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I'm more interested in the accurate history and learning from the experiences of others.

If you were interested in "the accurate history", you wouldn't have made the plethora of simple errors that you have...like "Golden Gate Comic Con"...along with the (deliberate?) misrepresentation of things I've said. After all...you did say "Because I'm largely doing this from memory.  A message board is not a legal brief or a scholarly article.  It is a conversation."

If you're interested in accurate history, I'd suggest a much stricter fidelity to the details. 

19 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

You are spending your time rejecting the opportunity to learn from other's experiences, and instead are attempting gotchas, wordplay, and semantic games.  It is a missed opportunity for you.

That is your opinion, your spin, and I obviously not only entirely disagree...but I don't think, in this particular conversation, that you've added much for anyone to learn from.

Like I said...if you don't own Bill Schelly's works on the beginnings of comics fandom, I HIGHLY recommend procuring yourself a copy of them. They are:

"The Golden Age of Comic Fandom" (revised edition published in 1998.)

"Fandom’s Finest Comics' Vol. 1 & 2

"Alter Ego: The Best of the Legendary Comics Fanzine" (with Roy Thomas)

"Giant Labors of Love"

"Comic Fandom Reader"

"The Best of Star-Studded Comics"

And "Founders of Comic Fandom "

...among others.

[sfcityduck]

Let me detail the flaw in your argumentative style:

I said: "I think it is obvious that those [folks listed Bails' Who's Who] were just the collectors who were at the tip of the ice berg."

You respond by asking a reasonable question: "How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it's 'obvious' that that was just the 'tip of the ice berg (sic)'...? How do you know that didn't represent the entirety of comics fandom at the time?"

I then provide you with a direct and clear answer by telling you: "Based on my own experiences and many conversations with collectors active in the 1960s.  They weren't in Bails' Who's Who.  They were just young kids collecting massive amounts of comics at that time."

You then reject my statement on the following grounds: "So, a total guess based on what some unspecified people said to you over the years...?"

Here's what's wrong with your response:

(1) My statement is testimonial evidence that conclusively establishes that the folks in the 1964 Who's Who were not the "entirety of comics fandom at that time" because I personally know people who were very active collectors in 1964 (one who go on to found my LCS) who I know were never in the Who's Who.  Consequently, it is beyond dispute that the list is not exhaustive.  My statement is not a "total guess."  I'm relaying a fact which unfortunately for you runs counter to your narrative.

(2) Your contrary assertion is entirely devoid of common sense or the benefit of any reference to experience.  Do you really think every comic collector in the country was on Jerry Bails' address list?  

(3) You are rejecting the experiences of others in your desire to not be "wrong."  What you don't realize that even argument can be a search for truth if you test a hypothesis and then change your view when it is obviously warranted.

In the end, you're not convincing or impressing anyone.  So why be so argumentative.  If you truly care about comic history, wouldn't it be better to try and elicit information than to try to shut down discussion?  

[sfcityduck]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Absolutely! I love a good debate. I never said otherwise. Where your error was was in claiming I liked to argue MORE THAN I liked to get to the truth.

And that is 1. not true, and 2. something you have no business claiming about people over the internet whom you have never met, do not know, and likely never will.

 

I am free to judge you based on your words and conduct on the internet.  Which is what I am doing.  On the internet, you are what you type.

[sfcityduck]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

If you were interested in "the accurate history", you wouldn't have made the plethora of simple errors that you have...like "Golden Gate Comic Con"...along with the (deliberate?) misrepresentation of things I've said. After all...you did say "Because I'm largely doing this from memory.  A message board is not a legal brief or a scholarly article.  It is a conversation."

 

In conversations, in contrast to legal briefs and scholarly articles, you speak off the cuff.  Which means sometimes details are wrong.  But, in a conversation, getting a detail wrong (Golden STATE Comic Con - I am in SF, I tend to type the worden "Gate" after "Golden" without thinking) is not a big deal. If that is pointed out, and admitted.  Which I have.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

6 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Absolutely! I love a good debate. I never said otherwise. Where your error was was in claiming I liked to argue MORE THAN I liked to get to the truth.

And that is 1. not true, and 2. something you have no business claiming about people over the internet whom you have never met, do not know, and likely never will.

 

I am free to judge you based on your words and conduct on the internet.  Which is what I am doing.  On the internet, you are what you type.

Likewise. Glad we could find agreement somewhere.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, sfcityduck said:

In conversations, in contrast to legal briefs and scholarly articles, you speak off the cuff.  Which means sometimes details are wrong.  But, in a conversation, getting a detail wrong (Golden STATE Comic Con - I am in SF, I tend to type the worden "Gate" after "Golden" without thinking) is not a big deal. If that is pointed out, and admitted.  Which I have.  

You have gotten multiple details wrong, even after being corrected on them more than once. I would ask you what mistakes you have "admitted", but that would be quite into the weeds, and ultimately pointless. You do not have a fidelity to the details. This is not a "conversation." This is a written format. Therefore, it's not difficult to edit your posts before you post them....unless, of course, your aim is to deliberately misrepresent what others have said. Just because it is a "message board" doesn't mean everyone here doesn't deserve your diligent effort, especially in a discussion where the details are critical.

[comicdonna]

This thread is cruzin for a bruisin!  

[musicmeta]

Look! Here it is...There were exactly 877 comic collectors in the US in 1964...No! make that 876...One just died at the ripe old age of 97 but he did manage to finish reading the first series of X-O Manowar. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

42 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Here's what's wrong with your response:

(1) My statement is testimonial evidence that conclusively establishes that the folks in the 1964 Who's Who were not the "entirety of comics fandom at that time" because I personally know people who were very active collectors in 1964 (one who go on to found my LCS) who I know were never in the Who's Who.  Consequently, it is beyond dispute that the list is not exhaustive.  My statement is not a "total guess."  I'm relaying a fact which unfortunately for you runs counter to your narrative.

And here's what's wrong with your response. The issue, as you claim it to be, isn't that there were NO people who weren't in "Who's Who", and thus your point is proven.  That is your misdirection, your lawyerly "sleight of hand", your attempt to deflect from the actual point, which is this: your claim was that it was "the tip of the ice berg (sic)" Nobody disputes that the list is not exhaustive...but that's not the point.

If the people in "Who's Who" were just "the tip of the ice berg (sic)" as you claim, then the mere existence of people not included in the "Who's Who" does nothing to illustrate the scope and breadth of how many of those other people there actually were...the "rest" of the iceberg. If the 1600+ people in Bails' address list were just a tiny fraction, a mere "tip of the ice berg"...then there ought to be mounds of documentary evidence that demonstrate that vast swaths of people who represent the rest of this so-called ice berg.

And yet...there isn't.

42 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

(2) Your contrary assertion is entirely devoid of common sense or the benefit of any reference to experience.  Do you really think every comic collector in the country was on Jerry Bails' address list?  

Which "contrary assertion"? You don't say. But to answer your question directly, which you have been unwilling to do for most of this conversation yourself, no, I don't think that, and no, I never suggested that.

I DO, however, think a good deal of them were. How many? No idea. Were all the people on Jerry's address list collectors? Almost certainly not. But does 1600+ names on his address list in 1965 indicate a "large and developed comics fandom" as you actually asserted...? 

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "large and developed."

42 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

(3) You are rejecting the experiences of others in your desire to not be "wrong."  What you don't realize that even argument can be a search for truth if you test a hypothesis and then change your view when it is obviously warranted.

You are absolutely hellbent on making this personal, aren't you...? That is the universal signal for "I can't argue the facts, can't admit I'm wrong, and therefore I'll just argue the person." If you keep doing that, you are going to get this thread locked...no question. 

I am not "rejecting the experiences of others" in the slightest. I have quoted from the experiences of people like Bails, the Thompsons, Schelly, etc, the people who were actually there, and actually wrote about their experiences. You can't even provide quotes that do anything but vaguely support your notions in some ill-defined manner. I am rejecting your assertions. Nothing more, and nothing less. 

That you have consistently and persistently made subtly aggressive and provocative comments throughout this entire discussion, from start to now, has been mostly ignored by me. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. One of us has made a more compelling argument than the other. Which of us is that? I'm fine with you believing you have. Others can decide for themselves. But I can guarantee you one thing: I don't care if you disagree with me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't think the same can be said for you.

Quote

In the end, you're not convincing or impressing anyone.  So why be so argumentative.  If you truly care about comic history, wouldn't it be better to try and elicit information than to try to shut down discussion?  

I say the exact same thing to you. Word for word. And I won't do you the disrespect of saying things to you like "your ignorance is showing" or "your knowledge of comics history is appalling", among others. Do you think those statements make your argument stronger? They don't. Who, then, is trying to convince and impress whom...?

Edited August 21, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[sfcityduck]

46 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If the 1600+ people in Bails' address list were just a tiny fraction, a mere "tip of the ice berg"...then there ought to be mounds of documentary evidence that demonstrate that vast swaths of people who represent the rest of this so-called ice berg.

 

Why would there be "documentary evidence" of the people who were not in Who's Who in Comic Fandom 1964 edition (and supplement)?  What would that "documentary evidence" look like?  It is illogical to think that there was a census of comic collectors in 1964 and one of the questions was "are you in Jerry Bails' Who's Who?"

Instead the evidence that we should expect to exist is oral testimony by and about comic collectors who were collecting in the 1960s, but were never in that clique or Who's Who.  Exactly, the evidence I've given you.  

From such testimonial evidence, you can then extrapolate conclusions.  This is what happens in a trial and in social science research.  I'm not sure where you developed your sense of "evidence" and "proof," but it has no application to the issues we are discussing.  You seem to view extrapolation as a flawed methodology.  It is not.  

Edited August 21, 2018 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

Which "contrary assertion"? You don't say. But to answer your question directly, which you have been unwilling to do for most of this conversation yourself, no, I don't think that, and no, I never suggested that.

You said this:  "How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it's 'obvious' that that was just the 'tip of the ice berg (sic)'...? How do you know that didn't represent the entirety of comics fandom at the time?"

[sfcityduck]

32 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But does 1600+ names on his address list in 1965 indicate a "large and developed comics fandom" as you actually asserted...? 

 

First, the list dates to 1964 according to Schelly.  

Second, what I actually asserted is this, which went to the actual topic of this thread by discussing the relevant issue of the comparative scarcity of pre-1964 comics versus IH 181 (your desire to argue is what derailed the thread):

Quote

It is pretty common knowledge that any books published after 1964 were actively collected by a large and developed comic fandom.  It's the pre-1964 books which are rare.

And, yes, I think Jerry Bails' list of 1,600+ comic fans in 1964 is an indicia of a large and developed comic fandom.  Another indicia is that fandom had grown to a point that publications like the NYT were running articles about comics and their value in 1964.  Which had a profound impact on comic collecting, which is why Bob Overstreet said:

Quote

Overstreet says that 1964 was the turning point for comic collectors.  "That's about when it became widely known that comic books had value," he says.  "So everyone started saving them about then, but before 1964 a lot of people just threw them away."

'nuff said.

[sfcityduck]

44 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Who, then, is trying to convince and impress whom...?

Neither one of is impressing anyone.  We killed this thread.  My apologies to the OP.

You're right.  I am wasting my time.  You can bring a horse to water ...

[Aman619]

This is ridiculous.  Duck get some rest and forget this thread. RMA does this all over the boards... argues incessantly if intelligently, but never budges an inch.  He’s our very own argument clinician, at lest he doesn’t charge nothing to argue —he literally does it in his spare time!  save your sanity as so many others have and call it a day... or a week.

this collectors vs fans thing is insane.  If you liked comics enough to buy them in stationary stores like I and many others did back in the 60s, you also piled them up... “collected them”. It was the same thing.  The other kids who read comics usually only read them at summer camp.  These were the non serious readers.  The rest of us kept them in piles by title.  An as the decade progressed we began to hear about and seek out ways to fill in the gaps in our runs by Rogofsky, other kids, barber shops! (I got my grandfather to take me once, but when he saw how they were filled with actual hair, he grabbed me and yanked me out of there!,)

the youth today just can’t fathom how the world worked back then. You didn’t fly to other cities to attend conventions... and most collectors in those cities weren’t clued in the the earliest organized fan network. The media was three network channels, ABC, NBC and CBS, plus local channels and there weren’t TV or radio ads for these small shows. Who had the funds for taking out ads? It was just word of mouth between an elite  few who were just finding each other. ...

but comics collecting and fandom and media awareness grew sharply thru the 60s due to the arrival of and interest in Marvel.  Marvel had fan clubs on college campuses across the country.  I taught a college credit course in comics in 1972 as an Indiction of how mainstream they had become less than ten years later. The adm8nistration approved our curriculum of guest lecturers like Elliot Maggin and a fellow from the Comics code! Sure it was a gut course, but the students got actual college credit for taking it.

the idea that there were only 1000 comic “collectors” in 1970 is insane and foolish. That’s only 20 COLLECTORS PER STATE!! People who argue that point are stubborn and way past the point of ever accepting the fact, no matter what you tell them.

[Zevgoli]

Amen.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, Aman619 said:

This is ridiculous.  Duck get some rest and forget this thread. RMA does this all over the boards... argues incessantly if intelligently, but never budges an inch.  He’s our very own argument clinician, at lest he doesn’t charge nothing to argue —he literally does it in his spare time!  save your sanity as so many others have and call it a day... or a week.

Yes, we never point out the fact that other people argue just as "incessantly", or discuss the actual merits of their positions...or even whether they're conducting themselves in an honorable fashion in the first place.

No, none of that matters. 

If you can't post without attacking someone personally...regardless of how right you think you are...then you are the problem, not the person you're attacking. There is an ignore function for a reason. I HIGHLY suggest you use it.

Pathetic. When you argue the person, you have lost...and so has everybody else.

Edited August 21, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

You said this:  "How do you arrive at that conclusion? That it's 'obvious' that that was just the 'tip of the ice berg (sic)'...? How do you know that didn't represent the entirety of comics fandom at the time?"

As anyone can obviously see from the context of this entire discussion, that is obviously a rhetorical question, meant to address the EQUALLY absurd contention that those people only represented "the tip of the ice berg (sic)."

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But does 1600+ names on his address list in 1965 indicate a "large and developed comics fandom" as you actually asserted...? 

 

First, the list dates to 1964 according to Schelly.  

Second, what I actually asserted is this, which went to the actual topic of this thread by discussing the relevant issue of the comparative scarcity of pre-1964 comics versus IH 181 (your desire to argue is what derailed the thread):

Thank you for the correction. 1964, not 1965.

And you are deluding yourself in your assertion that "my desire to argue is what derailed this thread." It was OUR...mine AND yours...desire to argue. You share as much of the "blame." 

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

It is pretty common knowledge that any books published after 1964 were actively collected by a large and developed comic fandom.  It's the pre-1964 books which are rare.

And, yes, I think Jerry Bails' list of 1,600+ comic fans in 1964 is an indicia of a large and developed comic fandom.  Another indicia is that fandom had grown to a point that publications like the NYT were running articles about comics and their value in 1964.  Which had a profound impact on comic collecting, which is why Bob Overstreet said:

And I respond the same way: what you see as indicating "large and developed", I think is pretty clear was "nascent and developing." You going to budge on that? No? Not give an inch? No?

Then here we are.

How many articles did the NYT publish about comics and their value in 1964? How about the entire 60s?

Quote

Instead the evidence that we should expect to exist is oral testimony by and about comic collectors who were collecting in the 1960s, but were never in that clique or Who's Who.  Exactly, the evidence I've given you.  

All you've done is say "some collectors agree with me" and "other people who were there have said what I'm saying" and "so and so who collected then says the same thing"...that's not "oral testimony."

It's hearsay.

And if it's hearsay, then it's not "testimonial evidence." And if those people can't be impeached, that hearsay has little to no value.

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

Quote

Overstreet says that 1964 was the turning point for comic collectors.  "That's about when it became widely known that comic books had value," he says.  "So everyone started saving them about then, but before 1964 a lot of people just threw them away."

'nuff said.

"Turning point" means a change of direction, something different from what had gone before, something NEW.

If it was NEW...it could hardly be called "large and developed", now could it...?

'nuff said.

Edited August 21, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

57 minutes ago, Aman619 said:

this collectors vs fans thing is insane.  If you liked comics enough to buy them in stationary stores like I and many others did back in the 60s, you also piled them up... “collected them”. It was the same thing.

No.

Not the "same thing."

58 minutes ago, Aman619 said:

The youth today just can’t fathom how the world worked back then. You didn’t fly to other cities to attend conventions... and most collectors in those cities weren’t clued in the the earliest organized fan network. The media was three network channels, ABC, NBC and CBS, plus local channels and there weren’t TV or radio ads for these small shows. Who had the funds for taking out ads? It was just word of mouth between an elite  few who were just finding each other. ...

Right...exactly!...which says..........?

Comics fandom was NOT "large and developed by 1964"!

'nuff said.

59 minutes ago, Aman619 said:

but comics collecting and fandom and media awareness grew sharply thru the 60s due to the arrival of and interest in Marvel.  Marvel had fan clubs on college campuses across the country.  I taught a college credit course in comics in 1972 as an Indiction of how mainstream they had become less than ten years later. The adm8nistration approved our curriculum of guest lecturers like Elliot Maggin and a fellow from the Comics code! Sure it was a gut course, but the students got actual college credit for taking it.

Right...comics fandom was growing and developing.

No mystery here.

1 hour ago, Aman619 said:

the idea that there were only 1000 comic “collectors” in 1970 is insane and foolish. That’s only 20 COLLECTORS PER STATE!! People who argue that point are stubborn and way past the point of ever accepting the fact, no matter what you tell them.

Well, sure, if we use your definition of what a "collector" is....anyone who piled them up in the closet...then sure, there were a lot more than that.

But if we go by the definition of an actual collector, rather than, say, an acquirer...someone who organizes them, seeks out what they're missing, cares for their condition, maintains them...then yes, perhaps that number is a tad bit smaller. 1,000? Ok, too small. Let's go with 2000, then. Still too small? Then let's go with 3000. 

I'm talking about collectors...not kids who rolled them up in their back pockets and then stuffed them under their beds so their moms wouldn't throw them out. 

If your "collection" is at risk of being thrown out by your mother....you're probably not a collector, and you certainly haven't convinced her that you're serious about your hobby....

[Prince Namor]

The first Comic-Con in San Diego ( a part of the most populous state in America) was a one day mini-con in March of 1970. It drew 100 people.

I guess comics weren't all THAT big in 1970.

In 1975, growing up in the midwest, I had a hard time finding anyone else that collected comics. I didn't even know that phrase yet. 

"I like comics." That's what I'd say. I had a stack of them. No bags. No boards. No boxes. I'd never even heard of such a thing.

"I like to read them." That's what I'd say.

"But I really like this Heavy Metal Magazine even better", I'm sure I said.

Maybe I'm not the best example.

None of these are DEFINITIVE examples. Just maybe the tip of the iceberg.

Without documented evidence its all just speculation based upon what LITTLE information I have to go on.

Sort of like that Elephant and three blind men story.