Canadian Mark Jewelers Copy 3 3

[RockMyAmadeus]

55 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

"Should"?

Of course not all do... but I'm wondering how the opinion "should" comes about with cgc. I know some don't and some do, but cgc's stance on who made who and what is an error or variant isn't on paper to my knowledge.

I reflect that since it isn't on paper, then it isn't in stone either and can change  good or bad

 

Yes, should. Now, you can disagree about this particular issue, and it's a matter of opinion (mine, too), but I think we can all agree that they should be consistent.

Very little of CGC's policies are on paper, after all. I don't know that anyone wants things to change back and forth based on whim, right?

[ADAMANTIUM]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes, should. Now, you can disagree about this particular issue, and it's a matter of opinion (mine, too), but I think we can all agree that they should be consistent.

Very little of CGC's policies are on paper, after all. I don't know that anyone wants things to change back and forth based on whim, right?

I can agree for the most part and I take no personal offense at your feedback, but as I really don't know in print cgc's stance, I can't say with any knowledge to base an opinion of right or wrong....

While I don't necessarily disagree with you specifically, I do appreciate that cgc gives blue labels to some, but the not all gives me quandary...

If it was one way or the other, I'd understand, but to have some that is blue and some green label leaves me scratching my head that I can't know for certain what "should" be, if you follow...

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Do you have a stigma against green labels? It's ok if you do. I know some people do.

CBCS, for example, refuses to have a Qualified grade. I think it's an elegant solution, and have no problem with green labels, depending on the flaw.

CGC's position, whether on paper or not, can still be gleaned based on observable practice...and, in practice, errors are *supposed* to get green labels.

 But, hey, Venom #1 black and all, which is inconsistency that shouldn't happen.

Edited February 19, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[ADAMANTIUM]

12 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Do you have a stigma against green labels?

I know some people do. CBCS, for example, refuses to have a Qualified grade. I think it's an elegant solution, and have no problem with green labels, depending on the flaw.

CGC's position, whether on paper or not, can still be gleaned based on observable practice...and, in practice, errors are *supposed* to get green labels.

 But, hey, Venom #1 black and all, which is inconsistency that shouldn't happen.

I do when it comes to sigs, as yellow sigs were respected for the process, of course there is sometimes respect for qualified when the yellow process is well known for not being available.

I'm just, imo, thinking that this situation is not as iron clad as all that,  it's like there is a grey area, and as the song says, "nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

But no I don't mind and I do respect your opinion, I asked for feedback and I'm getting it  I'm just not for certain there is a right or wrong answer yet

for me anyway....

Edited February 19, 2019 by ADAMANTIUM
Clarity

[ADAMANTIUM]

Had to edit for clarity, but it was a long way to say im undecided, bot all opinions welcome

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by ADAMANTIUM

[ADAMANTIUM]

Lol  i guess it is kind of backwards to entertain opinions when what I want to know is cgc's stance or reasoning

I just didn't want to take the blue label blindly and run... 

[Bird]

 Their stance might be consistent we just don’t know where they draw the line - double covers never get green labels do they and they are clearly mistakes 

[Get Marwood & I]

20 hours ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

ahem, I guess you want me to report back about the email to Brittany  She clarified, but only to say:

Yes, a Canadian Mark Jeweler is interesting, due to the fact that no other Mark Jeweler is "broken out" in the census, this means it doesn't classify as a variant....  

So maybe someday Steve  and perhaps when there is more of a fervor for MJI's and the like, it will be classified as an "error" copy  

As of now, I'm thankful to get a universal label and not a qualified. I'll take what I can get! But I could follow up at a later date if, seemingly, things have changed.....

Thanks Mark

16 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Since you are referring to me and my comments, I will respond.

That is wonderful that you have had such a nice experience with them. Truly.

However, there are facts which are indisputable, and those facts should not be glossed over or brushed under the rug, just because your own personal dealings with them have been positive.

Jon McClure did not discover the 30/35 cent variants. Many collectors knew of these books, long before McClure's purported discovery. Overstreet printed examples of these books in the price guide, going back to about 1979.

Claiming credit for a discovery you did not make calls your integrity into question.

Irrespective of any other contribution someone may make to a field, claiming credit for a discovery you did not make taints the whole thing.

Ben Nobel, and I assume "Angelo" ("The_Investor") called CGC, said they were being "cyber bullied", and CGC suspended me for three weeks, without anything beyond a cursory investigation, did NOT even bother with "my side", and when I pursued the matter with higher ups at CGC, the only response I was given was that "multiple people made the accusation"...as if the number of accusers is proof of the crime.

As you, yourself, have vociferously complained, silencing people isn't the way to make your points.

As well, Mr. Nobel's blog continues to contain errors and falsehoods which were brought to his attention, which he has refused to fix. 

This article is one of them, filled with errors, and unprofessional, immoderate gushing:

https://rarecomics.wordpress.com/newsstand-vs-direct-edition-comics/

The Direct market started in 1973-1974...NOT 1979. He cites both Jim Shooter and Chuck Rozanski about it, who bother get critical details wrong, such as Rozanski's claim "only the most dedicated newsstands chose to keep comics available after 1987", which is not even remotely true. Comics could be found on newsstands and spinner racks throughout the country, well into the 90s. He cites Chuck's made up "Direct vs. newsstand sales" chart as gospel, when it is complete fabrication from a man who had nothing to do with the newsstand market past the mid 70s. He puts far, FAR too much emphasis on people's credentials..."the fallacy of the appeal to accomplishment or authority"...than whether what they're saying is true.

And that's just the surface. 

So, the question comes back to the same thing it always does: "are you interested in actual scholarship, wherever that may lead you, or are you only interested in advancing your own beliefs, ideas, and agendas?"

Until Mr. Nobel makes a serious effort to listen to (rather than attempt to silence) differing perspectives, he falls solidly into the latter camp.

There are, indeed, two sides...and more...to the story. Someone once complained to me that a person "ought not be judged based on one bad decision." And that's absolutely true, but there's a caveat: if the bad decision is never resolved, never fixed, never even admitted...then that bad decision is still in effect. You steal from someone, even one time, you're a thief. It doesn't matter the good you may otherwise do, if you never make restitution, if you never pay back that theft, if you never even acknowledge that you did it or attempt to fix it...you're still a thief. 

All the good deeds in the world won't change that. They want to change that? They can start by acknowledging these things, and working to make restitution. They can make a serious effort to question their conclusions and not be so proud as to be willing to admit, then discard, where they are in error. 

Respectfully, Rock, I think you're tearing the arse out of all this. I know you're upset at being moderated against as a result of your interaction with Ben last year but it's not the great social injustice you're making it out to be (to my eyes at least). I've been moderated nearly 20 times in my short time here. Most were fair as I was being silly, usually masking rude words for comic effect in jokey posts. Tourettes is a crime around here you know. Some were less than fair and a few were clearly unfair. But I took them all on the chin. Some poor soul has to moderate this place, probably alongside other forums, and it must be a tedious job. Be honest, your name must come up every week given your contentious posting style. The mods must be as sick of seeing your name as they were of mine until I bit the bullet and changed my ways - and you've been at it for many more years than me Rock! The real story is somewhat less dramatic than you seek to portray. You upset some people, they reported on you (ner ner de ner ner) and, surprise surprise, the mods / CGC backed them as you have a self confessed history of trouble making on this forum (you've said yourself many times remember that you were one infringement away from a total ban). You know it, we all know it and the mods know it. So please, don't try to portray a three week ban from a comic chat forum for being habitually arsey as anything more than it is.

Moving on to Ben, again, you're going way over the top here in my view. Ben is a passionate comic enthusiast. He's put a great blog together to share his passions. Many people like it and contribute to it. It has so much to commend it. He's made some mistakes on his blog, for sure. I'm confident that he would have willingly worked through them with you had you not rubbed him up the wrong way from the word go with that 'holier than thou / nothing less than 100% accuracy will suffice (to your rules) / you are disingenuous' ball breaking routine of yours, the one that gets you constant moderator attention and, on this forum, countless otherwise decent threads locked. But now he refuses to engage with you - rightly so some may think - and he is forced to rely of the testimony of Chuckles and others until someone with 'answers' can come forward and debate / clarify with basic human decency.

So Ben doesn't deserve to be lambasted by you at every turn I feel, just because he refused to engage with you because you spoke to him like he was a half wit. You can have all the factual right in the world on your side Rock but if you can't find away to get it across to people without upsetting them, your efforts will drown in a sea of self inflicted hostility. You know this.

As for John McClure, no, he did not discover the 30/35 cent variants. I like John (based on our email discussions) and have respect for the work he has done and tried to share. He is actually very humble, despite the claim appearing to prove otherwise. I agree that it was - is - unwise of him to say he 'discovered' them. I think the scenario is this. No one person or persons have been accurately credited with discovering them. It's not like they were some new country and he was the first to land on it. They were all over the place and many, many people will likely have 'discovered' them at some point. What John did was promote their existence to the fullest extent. He was the first to do that. I did not discover L Miller indicia variants. The board member ewanuk did, when he posted the first picture of one. But he did no more on it. I did not discover them, but I sure as hell would lay claim to be the first person who investigated and promoted their existence to the extent that they are now known. So I am a little kinder to John for his conceit here than you are Rock. He made the most noise about them, and no one person or persons (to my knowledge) had their own claim to fame cast aside because of it. My advice to him would be to drop, or at least amend the claim. But I'm not going to cast him as the Devil, or a thief as you put it, for his failure to do so thus far.

I like Ben and John, having had good dealings with them personally. The things you accuse them of, I have put an alternative view point on, that's all. Others can make up their own minds. You can come back at me all you like Rock with either the disdainful no comment, the 'unexpectedly' terse comment, or the full blown line by line dissection that you appear to take pride in delivering. I won't respond to one word of it as you are incapable of giving one scintilla of ground on anything. Ben and John can take up the bat from here if they choose, but I suspect they will keep their distance for the same reasons I now will, if indeed they are even aware we are talking about them (too busy having lives I would suspect).

Rock, I tried unsuccessfully to engage you on a number of fronts because I wanted your views on the things I was interested in. Your comic knowledge seems deep and wide reaching. But you have a tendency to turn everything into a confrontation, however well intentioned the party before you is, and, from that point, You. Can. Not. Be. Reasoned. With.

So you have had a go at Ben and John, I have put a different slant on it and then have had a go back at you as you - in my opinion - deserve to hear it. There's been a history on these boards of what others have called 'calling out the BS'. I've had it done to me, with some justification, looking back. Rock, I'm calling you out on your BS today.

To the reader - look at my 'about me' page, then look a Rocks. Decide who you think is just trying to share comic knowledge in a fun way here, and who is an obsessed conspiracy theorist who wants to lecture everyone. Then put yourself in Bens shoes, and try to see why things turned out as they did here 

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I know you're upset at being moderated against as a result of your interaction with Ben last year but it's not the great social injustice you're making it out to be (to my eyes at least).

Incorrect. He had zero interaction with Ben here. None.

It is a great social injustice for the mods to act on a false accusation of "cyber bullying" which was merely a reasonable (but repeated, because he wouldn't answer) inquiry about the promoter's connection to the site they were promoting.

Ben did willingly interact with me here. Others also pointed out problems in the threads in which he was participating. Guess how many corrections have since been made on his site. Hype! Hype! Hype! truth!

3 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Ben is a passionate comic enthusiast.

He sure is passionate about potential future price increases, which he mentions constantly.

[FlyingDonut]

On 2/15/2019 at 6:34 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Very much agreed.

I have the other one here - I am 100% sure this book was NOT manipulated, outside of having the stupid hand written price sticker on it (which I am thinking of figuring out a way to get off).

[RockMyAmadeus]

31 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

4 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

I know you're upset at being moderated against as a result of your interaction with Ben last year but it's not the great social injustice you're making it out to be (to my eyes at least).

Incorrect. He had zero interaction with Ben here. None.

It is a great social injustice for the mods to act on a false accusation of "cyber bullying" which was merely a reasonable (but repeated, because he wouldn't answer) inquiry about the promoter's connection to the site they were promoting.

Ben did willingly interact with me here. Others also pointed out problems in the threads in which he was participating. Guess how many corrections have since been made on his site. Hype! Hype! Hype! truth!

4 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Ben is a passionate comic enthusiast.

He sure is passionate about potential future price increases, which he mentions constantly.

Correct.

Defending people who unapologetically take credit for things they didn't discover, who make a big show of being "willing" to correct the record, and then fail to do so when those corrections are clearly pointed out, then coordinating an effort to silence people who speak up on two websites, is not something I'd want to do. You have a disagreement with someone? You hash it out. Multiple people point out your documentably false errors on your blog? You fix it. Ignoring those corrections...especially when it's in your interests to ignore those corrections...makes you nothing but a phony. Don't want to be a phony? Do the right thing and make the corrections.

I don't know Jon McClure. Never met him, never interacted with him in any way. But he claims to have "discovered" the 30 and 35 cent variants, which is documentably untrue. If ANYONE is the discoverer, it is the person who wrote to Sol Brodsky in '77/'78 about Star Wars #1.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Thanks Mark

Respectfully, Rock, I think you're tearing the arse out of all this. I know you're upset at being moderated against as a result of your interaction with Ben last year but it's not the great social injustice you're making it out to be (to my eyes at least). I've been moderated nearly 20 times in my short time here. Most were fair as I was being silly, usually masking rude words for comic effect in jokey posts. Tourettes is a crime around here you know. Some were less than fair and a few were clearly unfair. But I took them all on the chin. Some poor soul has to moderate this place, probably alongside other forums, and it must be a tedious job. Be honest, your name must come up every week given your contentious posting style. The mods must be as sick of seeing your name as they were of mine until I bit the bullet and changed my ways - and you've been at it for many more years than me Rock! The real story is somewhat less dramatic than you seek to portray. You upset some people, they reported on you (ner ner de ner ner) and, surprise surprise, the mods / CGC backed them as you have a self confessed history of trouble making on this forum (you've said yourself many times remember that you were one infringement away from a total ban). You know it, we all know it and the mods know it. So please, don't try to portray a three week ban from a comic chat forum for being habitually arsey as anything more than it is.

Moving on to Ben, again, you're going way over the top here in my view. Ben is a passionate comic enthusiast. He's put a great blog together to share his passions. Many people like it and contribute to it. It has so much to commend it. He's made some mistakes on his blog, for sure. I'm confident that he would have willingly worked through them with you had you not rubbed him up the wrong way from the word go with that 'holier than thou / nothing less than 100% accuracy will suffice (to your rules) / you are disingenuous' ball breaking routine of yours, the one that gets you constant moderator attention and, on this forum, countless otherwise decent threads locked. But now he refuses to engage with you - rightly so some may think - and he is forced to rely of the testimony of Chuckles and others until someone with 'answers' can come forward and debate / clarify with basic human decency.

So Ben doesn't deserve to be lambasted by you at every turn I feel, just because he refused to engage with you because you spoke to him like he was a half wit. You can have all the factual right in the world on your side Rock but if you can't find away to get it across to people without upsetting them, your efforts will drown in a sea of self inflicted hostility. You know this.

As for John McClure, no, he did not discover the 30/35 cent variants. I like John (based on our email discussions) and have respect for the work he has done and tried to share. He is actually very humble, despite the claim appearing to prove otherwise. I agree that it was - is - unwise of him to say he 'discovered' them. I think the scenario is this. No one person or persons have been accurately credited with discovering them. It's not like they were some new country and he was the first to land on it. They were all over the place and many, many people will likely have 'discovered' them at some point. What John did was promote their existence to the fullest extent. He was the first to do that. I did not discover L Miller indicia variants. The board member ewanuk did, when he posted the first picture of one. But he did no more on it. I did not discover them, but I sure as hell would lay claim to be the first person who investigated and promoted their existence to the extent that they are now known. So I am a little kinder to John for his conceit here than you are Rock. He made the most noise about them, and no one person or persons (to my knowledge) had their own claim to fame cast aside because of it. My advice to him would be to drop, or at least amend the claim. But I'm not going to cast him as the Devil, or a thief as you put it, for his failure to do so thus far.

I like Ben and John, having had good dealings with them personally. The things you accuse them of, I have put an alternative view point on, that's all. Others can make up their own minds. You can come back at me all you like Rock with either the disdainful no comment, the 'unexpectedly' terse comment, or the full blown line by line dissection that you appear to take pride in delivering. I won't respond to one word of it as you are incapable of giving one scintilla of ground on anything. Ben and John can take up the bat from here if they choose, but I suspect they will keep their distance for the same reasons I now will, if indeed they are even aware we are talking about them (too busy having lives I would suspect).

Rock, I tried unsuccessfully to engage you on a number of fronts because I wanted your views on the things I was interested in. Your comic knowledge seems deep and wide reaching. But you have a tendency to turn everything into a confrontation, however well intentioned the party before you is, and, from that point, You. Can. Not. Be. Reasoned. With.

So you have had a go at Ben and John, I have put a different slant on it and then have had a go back at you as you - in my opinion - deserve to hear it. There's been a history on these boards of what others have called 'calling out the BS'. I've had it done to me, with some justification, looking back. Rock, I'm calling you out on your BS today.

To the reader - look at my 'about me' page, then look a Rocks. Decide who you think is just trying to share comic knowledge in a fun way here, and who is an obsessed conspiracy theorist who wants to lecture everyone. Then put yourself in Bens shoes, and try to see why things turned out as they did here 

Your personal commentary is unwelcome, biased, disingenuous, inaccurate, inappropriate, and has no place here. I will refrain from making my observations about your multitude of personality and character flaws because, again, it is inappropriate and has no place here, and you have shown an even more stubborn tendency to refuse to consider anyone's perspectives but your own if they don't align with yours, as this multi-page screed demonstrates.

You want to defend frauds and phonies, that's your right. But you ought not be surprised when you are called out on it. I find it endlessly fascinating that those who accuse me of being "unable to be reasoned with" are so frequently incapable of being reasoned with themselves.

I've made genuine, good faith efforts to reason with you in the past. You would have none of it. Things work best when you and I don't interact. Let's keep that going.

[ADAMANTIUM]

2 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

I have the other one here - I am 100% sure this book was NOT manipulated, outside of having the stupid hand written price sticker on it (which I am thinking of figuring out a way to get off).

Any comments on the blue label I got back?

don't want to beat a horse, but I wanted to hear your expertise... as even RMA said your views could be trusted...

I got the other without the sticker, and it's a blue label 6.0...

 

[greggy]

@Buzzetta

[RCheli]

3 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

I have the other one here - I am 100% sure this book was NOT manipulated, outside of having the stupid hand written price sticker on it (which I am thinking of figuring out a way to get off).

That sticker says to me, and I may have mentioned this earlier, that these were distributed to PXs and they were repriced (poorly) to match the other US cover prices of the time. 

[ADAMANTIUM]

2 hours ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

4 hours ago, FlyingDonut said:

I have the other one here - I am 100% sure this book was NOT manipulated, outside of having the stupid hand written price sticker on it (which I am thinking of figuring out a way to get off).

Any comments on the blue label I got back?

don't want to beat a horse, but I wanted to hear your expertise... as even RMA said your views could be trusted...

I got the other without the sticker, and it's a blue label 6.0... 

LOL I guess that I really already have your answer though...

Just thought... well glad you got the other one flyingdonut

 @Buzzetta meta, fofetta, me my boba feta Buzzzzzz...eta!

 

[FlyingDonut]

7 hours ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

Any comments on the blue label I got back?

don't want to beat a horse, but I wanted to hear your expertise... as even RMA said your views could be trusted...

I got the other without the sticker, and it's a blue label 6.0...

 

100% sure it is accurate and unmanipulated. My thought is that it was a mistake somewhere that got out.

[FlyingDonut]

5 hours ago, RCheli said:

That sticker says to me, and I may have mentioned this earlier, that these were distributed to PXs and they were repriced (poorly) to match the other US cover prices of the time. 

This makes sense also.

[CBFox64]

I was in Dothan, Alabama this past weekend going though some long boxes at a local comic shop and found this book among a boat load  of other books with mark jeweler inserts. The 95 cent cover price is what got my attention. 

I spent 7 years in Germany and never ran across a jeweler like this. I started looking online for information on this book and found this thread. I've read most of this thread and have to ask if anyone has discovered anything new on this subject?

[CBFox64]

http://www.awe4one.com/NDS-MJ Inserts/Insert webpage.html I found this link earlier in this thread, it doesn't work says its forbidden. Can anyone help ? I'd really like to read it.