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

[Broke as a Joke]

[jimjum12]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm just messing with you...….. It has been a rather interesting afternoon. GOD BLESS....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Ultimately, RMA’s strict standard for defining a collector lacks the nuance to encompass the range of collecting habits people have experienced themselves or observed in others. Still, it’s a reasonable assertion that habits such as preservation, organization, and actively searching for comics, an interest in creators, and so on are signs of a “collector” in some more formal sense. We might call these people “serious collectors.”

I find my father’s coin collecting habits odd as he knows very little about coins, doesn’t seek out information, can’t speak to coin production, and so on. But he slowly expands his minor coin collection; he’s also a quasi-precious metals guy.

I was a comic reader, but I think I’d call myself a collector once I was bagging and boarding and seeking out back issues.

"Strict standard"...?

Please look at your last sentence. "I'd call myself a collector once I was bagging and boarding..."

Question: why were you bagging and boarding...?

Maintenance...preservation...is part of being a collector. Several of the people arguing against that...including Stu, who has been banned hundreds of times from these boards, hates CGC with a passion, and has an ax to grind the size of Texas....are ignoring/dismissing that fact of collecting that has been around longer than any of us has been alive. People have been collecting for centuries, and if you don't make an effort to preserve your collection, to prevent it from experiencing further damage, then you're not collecting. You're doing something else.

When people show off their collections, do they show them off in piles on the floor, or on their desks, the dog stomping on them, the kids throwing them back and forth to each other? Or do they show them in boxes, or showcases, or bookshelves, or framed on the wall...you know, in a manner that would prevent them, in the normal course of things, from being damaged?

But, hey, by all means, you folks should keep arguing about that all you feel is necessary. 

[porcupine48]

Well then,this thread sure has a lot of sassy!

To no one in particular-Good Grief!

I am a collector,a reader, a hoarder and a accumilator , an agitator, and most importantly,a Jimmers!Maybe an alligator too.

[Lazyboy]

4 hours ago, VintageComics said:

10 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

10 hours ago, VintageComics said:

My understanding of the entire discussion was about how many collectors there were in the early days. That is where the thread went off on a tangent.

No.

Sorry, so it's not how many collectors there were. It was how active fandom was.

Collecting is an individual pursuit. Fandom is collective and connected.

By no measure was fandom large and developed in the 60s. It eventually got there, of course.

As I previously posted, I disagree with RMA's estimate of the number of collectors by 1970. But there is no realistic way to get an accurate number.

[steveinthecity]

I collect and read.  I'd also say I'm a passive preservationist.  I bag, board, then hide the book for however long it takes before I want to read it again in whole or parts. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by steveinthecity
Language

[DavidTheDavid]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

"Strict standard"...?

Please look at your last sentence. "I'd call myself a collector once I was bagging and boarding..."

Question: why were you bagging and boarding...?

Maintenance...preservation...is part of being a collector. Several of the people arguing against that...including Stu, who has been banned hundreds of times from these boards, hates CGC with a passion, and has an ax to grind the size of Texas....are ignoring/dismissing that fact of collecting that has been around longer than any of us has been alive. People have been collecting for centuries, and if you don't make an effort to preserve your collection, to prevent it from experiencing further damage, then you're not collecting. You're doing something else.

When people show off their collections, do they show them off in piles on the floor, or on their desks, the dog stomping on them, the kids throwing them back and forth to each other? Or do they show them in boxes, or showcases, or bookshelves, or framed on the wall...you know, in a manner that would prevent them, in the normal course of things, from being damaged?

But, hey, by all means, you folks should keep arguing about that all you feel is necessary. 

Well, that point sailed past you. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Well, that point sailed past you. 

Nope. I just disagree with your classification of "collector" vs. "serious collector."

More to the point, I don't think you understood my point, so let me speak more plainly: you called yourself a collector when you...by your own admission...started bagging and boarding your books.

What does one bag and board books for....? To preserve them, right..? Is there any other reason for bags and boards, other than to keep them from getting damaged? So, if you call yourself a collector when you started...by your own admission...to preserve them, and seek out others....how does that differ from the definition I gave...?

[sfcityduck]

Redbeard over on the GA forums just floated this definition for "collector":  "someone that reads comic books and then saves them versus one that reads and discards comic books."  

That's even broader than my definition, as I think "why" you save them matters.  But, it is far different from the notion you must maintain their condition in the same state as when you got them.

If you don't accept reading comics, over and over, despite the damage this does to the comic, as a legitimate collecting goal, then you are really just an investor, not a collector.

Edited August 25, 2018 by sfcityduck

[RockMyAmadeus]

31 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

If you don't accept reading comics, over and over, despite the damage this does to the comic, as a legitimate collecting goal, then you are really just an investor, not a collector.

This is inaccurate, for multiple reasons.

[DavidTheDavid]

7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Nope. I just disagree with your classification of "collector" vs. "serious collector."

More to the point, I don't think you understood my point, so let me speak more plainly: you called yourself a collector when you...by your own admission...started bagging and boarding your books.

What does one bag and board books for....? To preserve them, right..? Is there any other reason for bags and boards, other than to keep them from getting damaged? So, if you call yourself a collector when you started...by your own admission...to preserve them, and seek out others....how does that differ from the definition I gave...?

You're still missing my point. When I get to my keyboard and find the will to wade back into this muddle, I'll write a plainer explanation for you. You might just append an "As for myself," to the front of my statement if that clears it up for you.

Edited August 25, 2018 by DavidTheDavid

[NoMan]

When I was a kid I used to have those blue books that you put pennies in, like each year had a slot for a penny.

I guess that's run collecting in the coin world. 

What was up with those ads in comics that said, "If you have this penny it's worth $100,000." ?  And they had catalouges you write for. I know it's off topic but I just got up and I've only had two cups of coffee and the dog mess the floor. 

EDIT: just looked it up. they were called "Whitman Albums." Did they make the Whitman variant comics, too? 

Edited August 25, 2018 by NoMan

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

6 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

You're still missing my point. When I get to my keyboard and find the will to wade back into this muddle, I'll write a plainer explanation for you. You might just append an "As for myself," to the front of my statement if that clears it up for you.

I don't think he is, I interpret that there is simply a difference in nuance.

I may be misinterpreting your point, because I interpreted your example concerning coin collecting as a bit odd to you, because of lack of focus.....the assumed nuances of a hobby that a person would normally exhibit..... knowing a bit (or a lot) about the subject of the collecting interest, at a level that imparts to others an assumption of the person as a collector as opposed to being an accumulator (or, an investor). However, one would expect an investor to have at least researched to some level, in order to be able to decide what to acquire for investment purposes.

If the position is that a person that accumulates and continues to accumulate does not exhibit any knowledge of the accumulation and therefore is not a collector, I would not agree. Did the person in your example place the coins in an album, or holder of some sort? Did the person exhibit the coins in some fashion or refer to the coins in a conversation with others that indicated he thought of himself as a collector? What we individually define as a collector, based on our own standards, rightly or wrongly, does not necessarily exclude others with a different  definition. In your coin example, does the person throw all the pieces into the same container, such that it is impossible to identify such things as date, type, varieties, etc., with a sole purpose of "saving" the pieces? To me, that is an accumulator

A person buys comics, reads them (certainly this exhibits some level of interest), puts the comics on a shelf to either read again later, or to keep (save), or to keep for trading, etc., in lieu of throwing the comics in the trash, is taking minimum steps to preserve for the future. The simple act of putting the comics on a shelf, as opposed to randomly throwing the comics on the closet floor, with no intent to do anything but throw them on the floor, denotes at the very least a budding collecting interest. I think that may be the overall position of RMA..... some action that externally reflects an attempt to protect (preserve if you will) is probably the separation point for a definition of a collector. That is just me, though.

Are there then ever higher levels of knowledge that can be achieved in collecting? Of course. But (there is always a "but") the lack of  not achieving... or not attempting to achieve a higher level of knowledge, does not negate the person as a collector.

[DavidTheDavid]

In short, I agree with sfcityduck that a broad definition is needed to qualify what makes one a collector. I provided two examples of collectors, including myself. sfcityduck provided others. RMA is taking my example of myself, one of many types, as the only type, and then comically trying to claim, “See! You agree with me!” But he tends to misread statements that don’t comport with his own thinking, something anyone can see should they take a moment to scan the pablum he produces. But now I’m sliding into his habit of arguing about an argument instead of arguing about a topic, so I’ll return to Roy’s interesting point.

What slice of comic fandom is being discussed here? Just collectors? Also readers? It’s an important distinction that would swing numbers quite a bit.

As a note, it’d be interesting to see the accounting books of some meticulous mail order dealer from this early period. That would give one lens on the number of unique buyers

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

32 minutes ago, GrumpyGus said:

The problem we have here is that a Coinee is trying to define comic collecting. RMA's first love is coins, and IIRC he didn't read a comic until he was almost 20 years old. So his views are rooted in the ridiculously  obsessive nature of coin collectors while lacking the perspective of a life-long comic collector.

And $$$. He runs a pressing service, after all.

This makes me wonder how coin collectors define coin collecting. If you've ever spent a coin in your life are you not a collector?

Stu, that is a non-analogy analogy, without any focus or awareness of the subject....and doing so purposefully...... and uses language designed to obfuscate and re-direct and intentionally separate by class.

Examples: Coinee/First Love/Didn't read a comic until/So his views/Ridiculously/Obsessive Nature/Lacking perspective/Life-Long Comic Collector/ And $$$ (note 3X emphasis of $)/He runs a pressing service?After all/Makes me wonder how coin collectors define coin collecting (targeted separation meant to denote superiority of collecting choice)/If you've spent a coin in your life....not a collector? (An attempt to "win" by using an absurd standard that is ridiculous).

 

[Get Marwood & I]

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

2 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

In short, I agree with sfcityduck that a broad definition is needed to qualify what makes one a collector. I provided two examples of collectors, including myself. sfcityduck provided others. RMA is taking my example of myself, one of many types, as the only type, and then comically trying to claim, “See! You agree with me!” But he tends to misread statements that don’t comport with his own thinking, something anyone can see should they take a moment to scan the pablum he produces. But now I’m sliding into his habit of arguing about an argument instead of arguing about a topic, so I’ll return to Roy’s interesting point.

What slice of comic fandom is being discussed here? Just collectors? Also readers? It’s an important distinction that would swing numbers quite a bit.

As a note, it’d be interesting to see the accounting books of some meticulous mail order dealer from this early period. That would give one lens on the number of unique buyers

I think you may have missed my point, or maybe decided to not read it...no harm no foul BTW.....but (and again knowing I cause exasperation.....there is always a "but"), you have not interpreted what the RMA position is and no matter how many times he has expanded on the position and explained it, you choose to do exactly what you incorrectly accuse him of doing....narrowly interpreting and defining (to fit your personal position) the  RMA position. You are excluding the total in favor of the partial. That is selective interpretation of the whole and ignores the position RMA states.

I am giving the benefit of the doubt that your present post is not the plainer explanation you intended and stated you would provide in a previous post, for the simple reason that it is not. 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just now, GrumpyGus said:

And....?

Then, you agree with my position and my conclusion that your post is meaningless (and any logical person would agree) since you don't offer an alternative position or explanation of your words, and don't even offer by way of explanation that it was an attempt at humor or belittlement, which would at the very least be understandable, and a believable reason for the convoluted gibberish you posted. Words mean something. Your words don't. 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

1 minute ago, GrumpyGus said:

You misunderstand. I don't consider your words at all because you're simply a Water Cooler troll. Your opinion means nothing.

I see. No harm no foul.

[DavidTheDavid]

14 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I think you may have missed my point, or maybe decided to not read it...no harm no foul BTW.....but (and again knowing I cause exasperation.....there is always a "but"), you have not interpreted what the RMA position is and no matter how many times he has expanded on the position and explained it, you choose to do exactly what you incorrectly accuse him of doing....narrowly interpreting and defining (to fit your personal position) the  RMA position. You are excluding the total in favor of the partial. That is selective interpretation of the whole and ignores the position RMA states.

I am giving the benefit of the doubt that your present post is not the plainer explanation you intended and stated you would provide in a previous post, for the simple reason that it is not. 

If your point is that "I think that may be the overall position of RMA..... some action that externally reflects an attempt to protect (preserve if you will) is probably the separation point for a definition of a collector. That is just me, though," then it sounds like you're uncertain of it as well. The uncertainty in your language--"I think that may be"--either points to your own confusion over what he's saying, or his poor communication about a point.